New Smith DA triggers better?

[halfmoonclip]

A buddy just got a 32 H&R Mag Centennial, loves shooting it, but was finding it expensive to feed.
He brought it over, while I explained the basics of reloading.
I rolled it through a couple times, and was absolutely dazzled; the trigger was very smooth, and relatively light.
Have a bunch of Centennials, and routinely tune/respring them. Mine are better, but not much better.
Has something changed in Smith's J-frame triggers, or was this a one-off lucky bunch of parts?
Liked the gun, but really don't want to start another caliber.
Moon

 

[walkin' trails]

The only real frame of reference I have is the differences between my .38 Special J manufactured in 1987, 1989, and 1994. I also have a new 43c. My Model 36 was made in 1987 and has a stock but acceptable trigger pull, then there there's the 89 or 90 Model 60 that's DAO. It's not terribly smooth compared to the 36. I have a 640 from 94 that I got it trade. It's been thru a couple of owners. It is smooth and I've never changed any springs. All three have triggers I can live with, however. Dry practice makes a significant difference. My new 43c came surprisingly smooth. The trigger pull is not among its problems. S&W included nice features such as radiused triggers that make them more pleasant to the finger.

 

[No Quarter]

I was pleasantly surprised by my Model 69 trigger, and not so surprised by my 686+ Snubby. It feels very heavy to me. Many of my old ones are wonderful, but that is probably due to a lot of trigger pulls over the last 20+ years. I had a 66-2 that was horrific. I did have a new model 638 that was also very nice. So, I guess it all just depends.

 

[armorer951]

In my experience, the occasional "very smooth" action is still hit and miss. Advancements in CNC machining and the quality of current MIM castings have brought the assembly of most of the frame components to "drop in" status.

Experience of the final assemblers still plays an important roll in the production process too. Some assemblers are happy with a finished product that they can call "good enough", while others take a bit more time. The early Performance Center guns are a prime example of this pride in craftsmanship and excellence.

The good news is that while spring rates still have to be set to levels that insure function in worst case scenarios, good examples that exhibit very smooth actions still sneak through from time to time.


Carter

 

[halfmoonclip]

My new 43c came surprisingly smooth.

It's been my experience that the rimfire guns have stronger mainsprings, and hence worse triggers. If your is good to go, great. I have an older 317 that has been contrary to slick, but it's now pretty decent.
Moon

 

[Sgt. Buzzard]

Have a 442 and a 317 with some nice triggers they both have been shot a lot, no spring replacement or parts polishing. Have a 351C with a heavy trigger but OK. Then there's a new 340PD. Very heavy, gritty and poor. Shooting and dry firing it to be better. It's working but a work in progress. First blister on a trigger finger in 53 years. I would have sent it in for service but I didn't want to lose it in the black hole of S&W for the next few months.

Considering all the DAO shooting I do this was remarkably bad. I don't consider the heavy springs in the two rimfire guns to be "worse" it is what is needed for reliability. But the difference in parts assembly and fitting between the 442 and the 340PD is exceedingly poor. Twice the price for half the quality. I have a DAO Kimber 3" K6s. That's what a trigger should feel like. There I said it. This coming from a Smith revolver guy of over half a century.

 

[BrBa]

Wish I could say the same about my 432 UC trigger. Smooth it ain't, heavy it is. But it'll go back to S&W for a trigger job here soon. I have no doubt it will clean up.

 

[Beju]

My 442UC and 642UC came with pretty good triggers, and they're now both broken in at ~9 lbs. That being said, the 642UC was an early model that came pretty dry inside, with a dead night sight, and an out-of-spec yoke that needed replacing.

A co-worker got a 638 back in 2022, and I was surprised at how smooth the trigger was when brand-new. It was definitely nicer than some of the J-frames I'd handled in the preceding few years.

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

A buddy just got a 32 H&R Mag Centennial, loves shooting it, but was finding it expensive to feed.
He brought it over, while I explained the basics of reloading.
I rolled it through a couple times, and was absolutely dazzled; the trigger was very smooth, and relatively light.

Many variables, good hands, great trigger finger so individual dexterity. The revolver needs to be cleaned and properly lubricated.

My most recent S&W revolver 686 Plus is current production and it is as good or better than my first 686 in 1981.

Most new gun owners should put a lot of rounds down range and then determine if they need a Gunsmith or more live fire practice.

 

[SLT223]

In my experience, the occasional "very smooth" action is still hit and miss. Advancements in CNC machining and the quality of current MIM castings have brought the assembly of most of the frame components to "drop in" status.

Experience of the final assemblers still plays an important roll in the production process too. Some assemblers are happy with a finished product that they can call "good enough", while others take a bit more time. The early Performance Center guns are a prime example of this pride in craftsmanship and excellence.

The good news is that while spring rates still have to be set to levels that insure function in worst case scenarios, good examples that exhibit very smooth actions still sneak through from time to time.


Carter

Completely agree. I have a few new ones that are shockingly smooth. Best in my collection is a 5" 629-6. Bought it used, unfired in the box, for $475! I have several early to late P&R guns. Nonetheless, the new guns done have the watch-like gentle clicks of an S-prefix when you draw the hammer. I appreciate those subtle details.

I also have some newer Smiths that stage badly before let off. They don't do it with the cylinder removed, which tells me hand to ratchet fit has left something to be desired.

 

[walkin' trails]

It's been my experience that the rimfire guns have stronger mainsprings, and hence worse triggers. If your is good to go, great. I have an older 317 that has been contrary to slick, but it's now pretty decent.
Moon

Rimfire Js come with stiffer springs. I acquired a slightly used 34 years ago that was pretty stiff and had a shop take a look at it. They ended up polishing the mating surfaces, but left the springs alone. Since realized it needed those stiff springs to bust primers. S&W has been "hit or miss" on various production runs. But actions also tend to smooth out after repeated cycling. Also with mentioning that Es McGivern, who set records not broken until Jerry Miculek, preferred a heavier DA trigger. I'm making a point to work with my DA revolvers again and yesterday's range session suggested I have a long road ahead. Sort of regretting the light "duty tune" action on my Model 19-5. Easy to pull thru and more difficult to stage because I haven't put in the time with it for over 30 years.

 

[Yendor357]

I bought it brand new this morning. dry fired it 30 of the 40 minutes it took me to get home.

I took it apart. Not my first time. I plugged it. Lubed it. I polished the rebound slide, and put in a 12 pound Wilson Combar trigger return spring. I don't dare touch any critical sear surface

DA is now sub 10 pounds, and reasonably smooth. It's definitely a lot better than it was out of the box.

Single Action is sub 3 pounds per my Lyman digital trigger pull gauge.

Cocking for single action is a lot nicer now as well. It'll light CCI primers DA every time.

 

[686PC]

I've owned 4 current production S&W revolvers and 2 of them came with a great trigger from the factory.

The other 2 had imperfections (ridges) at the bottom of the rebound slide, which impacted trigger pull weight because the ridges were rubbing against the frame. I easily fixed the issue on both revolvers by doing some light stoning on the bottom of the rebound slide to remove the imperfections.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Easy to pull thru and more difficult to stage because I haven't put in the time with it for over 30 years.

Generally preferred, by better shots than me, is to roll the double action through, rather than stage it. I learned to shoot double action with a Smith 43 'kit gun', and a little metal man steel target (same size as a half scale B29 target). Hammered his midsection so often with the little .22 that he ended up bowing over.

I easily fixed the issue on both revolvers by doing some light stoning on the bottom of the rebound slide to remove the imperfections.

That's the standard drill. It's still not clear to me if MIM parts are equally hard all the way through. Current production rebound slides appear to be Teflon coated, to reduce friction from the factory. In terms of 'feel', it seems to me that older, forged parts slick up better than current MIM, but that is subjective.

BTW, understand the benefits and pitfall of lightening the rebound slide spring. Lighter eases the pull, but also displays other rough spots in the trigger stroke. Too light, and your finger can outrun the trigger, even if you're not as fast as Jerry Mickulek.
Or even fail to return the trigger at all.
Moon

 

[Lt.Donn]

In my experience, the occasional "very smooth" action is still hit and miss. Advancements in CNC machining and the quality of current MIM castings have brought the assembly of most of the frame components to "drop in" status.

Experience of the final assemblers still plays an important roll in the production process too. Some assemblers are happy with a finished product that they can call "good enough", while others take a bit more time. The early Performance Center guns are a prime example of this pride in craftsmanship and excellence.

The good news is that while spring rates still have to be set to levels that insure function in worst case scenarios, good examples that exhibit very smooth actions still sneak through from time to time.


Carter

Exactly

 

[Yendor357]

These things aren't all that hard to take apart and put back together. I can do it. And I guarantee, I'm nothing special. lol

Your revolver's trigger is a bit rough and heavy? Do something about it. Watch some videos. Gets a good set of screwdrivers. The screwdriver set that I bought even has a little tool that helps you get the rebound slide and spring out.

Plug that hil-ho while you're in there.

 

[Beju]

Generally preferred, by better shots than me, is to roll the double action through, rather than stage it. I learned to shoot double action with a Smith 43 'kit gun', and a little metal man steel target (same size as a half scale B29 target). Hammered his midsection so often with the little .22 that he ended up bowing over.

That's the standard drill. It's still not clear to me if MIM parts are equally hard all the way through. Current production rebound slides appear to be Teflon coated, to reduce friction from the factory. In terms of 'feel', it seems to me that older, forged parts slick up better than current MIM, but that is subjective.

BTW, understand the benefits and pitfall of lightening the rebound slide spring. Lighter eases the pull, but also displays other rough spots in the trigger stroke. Too light, and your finger can outrun the trigger, even if you're not as fast as Jerry Mickulek.
Or even fail to return the trigger at all.
Moon

The MIM parts aren't through-hardened like some of the MIM parts on the new Colt revolvers, but the hardened layer is thicker than it was on the swaged, case hardened parts that they replaced.

Those parts swaged/punched out of low carbon sheet steel may have technically been 'forged,' but most people think of forged internals as the through-hardened parts that S&W largely stopped using in the late 1950s.

That being said, I don't like going below 15 lbs on rebound springs. The reset gets a bit mushy for my liking below that.