Reduced Power Hammer Springs

Has anyone used reduced power springs 16, 17, or 18 lbs with reliable results (no light primer strikes)? I am thinking about trying it on my 459 to improve the double action trigger pull.

The lowest I've used is a 17# hammer/main spring & none of the ones (target/range guns) I've used it in has ever had a FTF issue related to that spring.

99.9% of everything I shoot are handloads using CCI primers, which are reported to be the hardest primer, though you couldn't prove that by me.

I only use full power hammer/main springs in my SD carry pistol though, just to be safe though.

.

Thank you guys for the info. I think I will try a 18 lb spring

easymoney72 said:

Thank you guys for the info. I think I will try a 18 lb spring

Click to expand...

Start with the lightest one (16lbs) and work up.

If you get light strikes with the 16-pounder, or if the DA/SA pull just seems too light to suit you, move up to the next heavier spring.

Not a specific answer to your question, but some information that could be helpful.

Across the 1st and 2nd and 3rd Gen lineup of guns, the 2nd Gen pistols have almost always the worst single action and double action trigger pull, weight, feel, all across the board.

The best double action pull for non-Performance Center Smith & Wesson 1-2-3rd Gens would be the MIM-equipped later built 3rd Gens.

I'm not sure if anyone does this or if there are any roadblocks to doing so... but sourcing MIM 3rd Gen hammer/trigger/draw bar and parts might be the finest route to a better double action pull on a 459.

Obviously, that's involved. Many report that a plastic mainspring cup makes for a slightly smoother double action on a 2nd Gen pistol, and that is a very low cost and super easy upgrade.

The biggest problem with changing the mainspring to enhance the feel of the trigger is that it's great UNTIL you get the dreaded fail to fire.

If you aren't talking about a gun that will be used in a defensive role, every range trip is yet another "test day."

Sevens said:

Not a specific answer to your question, but some information that could be helpful.

Across the 1st and 2nd and 3rd Gen lineup of guns, the 2nd Gen pistols have almost always the worst single action and double action trigger pull, weight, feel, all across the board.

The best double action pull for non-Performance Center Smith & Wesson 1-2-3rd Gens would be the MIM-equipped later built 3rd Gens.

I'm not sure if anyone does this or if there are any roadblocks to doing so... but sourcing MIM 3rd Gen hammer/trigger/draw bar and parts might be the finest route to a better double action pull on a 459.

Obviously, that's involved. Many report that a plastic mainspring cup makes for a slightly smoother double action on a 2nd Gen pistol, and that is a very low cost and super easy upgrade.

The biggest problem with changing the mainspring to enhance the feel of the trigger is that it's great UNTIL you get the dreaded fail to fire.

If you aren't talking about a gun that will be used in a defensive role, every range trip is yet another "test day."

Click to expand...

That totally makes sense because I have a CS9, 39-2, and 459. The CS9 has the best trigger, 459 has the worst trigger. The 39-2 has a trigger almost as good as the CS9 but my dad told me that in the 80's he had a gun smith work on the trigger to improve it, and I have done some work on the CS9 trigger. I just recently got the 459 and it feels terrible compared to the other two. Thanks for the advice, I will look into putting some 3rd gen parts into it. That is the kind of info I am looking for.

I would reverse some of the above advice… start stock and only go as lighter as you have to to make yourself happy. Test with CCI primers. Be happy your gun has restrike!

Listen to Sevens, for he speaks the truth.

You can lighten a trigger pull with a lighter main spring, but you also reduce the resistance of the slide's rearward motion at the point of firing. The hammer helps to delay the unlocking of the breech and a lighter main spring can allow the breech to unlock faster, the result being the slide slams rearward with more velocity. That can peen the impact points on the receiver.

Oh, you say you can counter that with a heavy recoil spring. Well, sort of, but the heavy recoil spring sends the slide forward with more velocity and that extra energy is absorbed by the slide stop pin. That extra energy can slowly wallow out the slide stop pin hole in the receiver.

easymoney72 said:

That totally makes sense because I have a CS9, 39-2, and 459. The CS9 has the best trigger, 459 has the worst trigger. The 39-2 has a trigger almost as good as the CS9 but my dad told me that in the 80's he had a gun smith work on the trigger to improve it, and I have done some work on the CS9 trigger. I just recently got the 459 and it feels terrible compared to the other two.

Click to expand...

I have an unsubstantiated theory as to why these rank the way they do.

The 1st Generation pistols all had parts that required some level of fitting and the folks who did this work were trained and well practiced and if they didn't get it right, the gun was returned to them before it was made ready to be shipped. All of these guns were pre-1983.

The 2nd Gen pistols had parts that were a closer fit and didn't require as much hand work to get them to play well. Sometimes if a part didn't fit right or fit well, they simply grabbed another from the box of parts and went with that one. And this was the time when S&W massively expanded the semiauto pistol lineup. What was formerly three models (39, 59 and 52) was now 469, 669, 459, 559, 659 and shortly after, 645 and 745.

The 3rd Gen pistols with MIM parts (early 3rd Gens did not have the MIM) were now using parts that had no fitting at all. When MIM is done properly (and S&W MIM is amongst the finest in the gun industry), the dimensions are exacting and the parts play extremely well together and they don't require the magic touch of a skilled craftsmen to fit and work well with each other.

It's easy to see how much better the MIM 3rd Gen double action feel is compared to nearly any 2nd Gen double action.

BLUEDOT37 said:

99.9% of everything I shoot are handloads using CCI primers, which are reported to be the hardest primer, though you couldn't prove that by me.

.

Click to expand...

Try those CCIs in a Sigma and report back.

I only use Federals in the striker fired guns.

Rosewood

Sevens said:

I have an unsubstantiated theory as to why these rank the way they do.

The 1st Generation pistols all had parts that required some level of fitting and the folks who did this work were trained and well practiced and if they didn't get it right, the gun was returned to them before it was made ready to be shipped. All of these guns were pre-1983.

The 2nd Gen pistols had parts that were a closer fit and didn't require as much hand work to get them to play well. Sometimes if a part didn't fit right or fit well, they simply grabbed another from the box of parts and went with that one. And this was the time when S&W massively expanded the semiauto pistol lineup. What was formerly three models (39, 59 and 52) was now 469, 669, 459, 559, 659 and shortly after, 645 and 745.

The 3rd Gen pistols with MIM parts (early 3rd Gens did not have the MIM) were now using parts that had no fitting at all. When MIM is done properly (and S&W MIM is amongst the finest in the gun industry), the dimensions are exacting and the parts play extremely well together and they don't require the magic touch of a skilled craftsmen to fit and work well with each other.

It's easy to see how much better the MIM 3rd Gen double action feel is compared to nearly any 2nd Gen double action.

Click to expand...

2nd gen pistols also incorporated a firing pin safety system, so another lever in the receiver, and another plunger and spring in the slide, all can contribute to roughness and a heavier pull.

How could I forget that?!

Sevens said:

I have an unsubstantiated theory as to why these rank the way they do.

The 1st Generation pistols all had parts that required some level of fitting and the folks who did this work were trained and well practiced and if they didn't get it right, the gun was returned to them before it was made ready to be shipped. All of these guns were pre-1983.

The 2nd Gen pistols had parts that were a closer fit and didn't require as much hand work to get them to play well. Sometimes if a part didn't fit right or fit well, they simply grabbed another from the box of parts and went with that one. And this was the time when S&W massively expanded the semiauto pistol lineup. What was formerly three models (39, 59 and 52) was now 469, 669, 459, 559, 659 and shortly after, 645 and 745.

The 3rd Gen pistols with MIM parts (early 3rd Gens did not have the MIM) were now using parts that had no fitting at all. When MIM is done properly (and S&W MIM is amongst the finest in the gun industry), the dimensions are exacting and the parts play extremely well together and they don't require the magic touch of a skilled craftsmen to fit and work well with each other.

It's easy to see how much better the MIM 3rd Gen double action feel is compared to nearly any 2nd Gen double action.

Click to expand...

I was already thinking about replacing the hammer for one without a half cock. One of the things that make the double action pull on this 459, is when the sear drags over that half cock position. At first I thought something was wrong with the gun. I think I will look for a mim hammer, plastic main spring plunger, 18 lb spring, and polish some internal parts. I also have a 3rd gen decocker, i will put in it. That weird phillips screw has always bothered me.

easymoney72 said:

. I also have a 3rd gen decocker, i will put in it. That weird phillips screw has always bothered me.

Click to expand...

Always looked rigged to me.

rosewood said:

Try those CCIs in a Sigma and report back.
I only use Federals in the striker fired guns.

Click to expand...

Easy fix since I don't own even one striker fired gun.

Plus I wouldn't own any gun for long that couldn't shoot the ammo/components I fed it. That's just foolish.

.

stansdds said:

2nd gen pistols also incorporated a firing pin safety system, so another lever in the receiver, and another plunger and spring in the slide, all can contribute to roughness and a heavier pull.

Click to expand...

So is the firing pin safety of a 2nd Gen materially different than that of a 3rd Gen's?

.

BLUEDOT37 said:

So is the firing pin safety of a 2nd Gen materially different than that of a 3rd Gen's?

.

Click to expand...

No, but it is widely reported to have been a contributing factor to the difference in trigger pull quality between the 1st and 2nd gen pistols.

Sevens said:

Not a specific answer to your question, but some information that could be helpful.

Across the 1st and 2nd and 3rd Gen lineup of guns, the 2nd Gen pistols have almost always the worst single action and double action trigger pull, weight, feel, all across the board.

The best double action pull for non-Performance Center Smith & Wesson 1-2-3rd Gens would be the MIM-equipped later built 3rd Gens.

I'm not sure if anyone does this or if there are any roadblocks to doing so... but sourcing MIM 3rd Gen hammer/trigger/draw bar and parts might be the finest route to a better double action pull on a 459.

Obviously, that's involved. Many report that a plastic mainspring cup makes for a slightly smoother double action on a 2nd Gen pistol, and that is a very low cost and super easy upgrade.

The biggest problem with changing the mainspring to enhance the feel of the trigger is that it's great UNTIL you get the dreaded fail to fire.

If you aren't talking about a gun that will be used in a defensive role, every range trip is yet another "test day."

Click to expand...

I like your idea about using mim parts to improve the trigger pull, but maybe not a mim hammer. I think the mim hammer weighs less than the hammer I have now(not sure though). It seem that little bit of extra hammer weight would help prevent light primer strikes if I use a reduced power main spring. That being said, it's a gun for home defense so I am not going to use anything less than 18 lb spring. My question is, are there any specific parts that make the 2 gen triggers worse than the 3 gen, or is it a combination of all of them. I'm not sure it's just the mim parts that make it better, because it seems that non mim 3 gen guns have much better triggers than 2 gen also. Yesterday I polished the inside of the main spring plunger and took the sharp edges off the stirup. The trigger feels much better. Really the biggest problem I have with it now, is it's not a consistant weight through the double action pull. Theres like a "hump" if that makes sense. Feels like pulling back a compound bow, it gets heavy and then lighter. I am just wondering why 3rd gen guns do not have that. Your therory seems legit. If I was to put all 3rd gen fire control parts in it, seems like it would feel like a 3rd gen trigger. I am just wondering if anyone knows if there is a specific part/parts that causes that "hump"(what parts would I start with replacing). Seems like a lighter main spring would just lighten the weight of the pull, but that hump would still be there. I know someone will say, just buy a 3rd gen and problem solved. I like this gun and I enjoy working on guns. If you read this far, thanks.

Yes and no. A lighter weight hammer can impart the same momentum to the firing pin because the lighter weight hammer will accelerate faster than a heavy hammer. A lighter weight hammer, due to its faster acceleration, also reduces the amount of time between the trigger tripping the sear and the hammer hitting the firing pin. Theoretically, this reduction in lock time improves practical accuracy. I have also read that S&W specifically used light weight MIM hammers in the pistols chambered in 40 S&W to help prevent the hammer bouncing on the sear and potentially following the slide due to the 40 S&W's higher slide velocity.
The hump you feel with the first and second gen trigger pulls is likely due to the half-cock notch on those hammers. Third gen pistol hammers do not have a half-cock position.

Yes to all of that, but I think this discussion has a lot to gain if JohnHL would magically appear and add his three cents to it. This kind of stuff is as up his alley as a Kawasaki triple!