460V - Removal of Single-Action Feature

[DrDoctor]

I was perusing another topic herein pertaining to "trigger jobs". I didn't want to appear to be hijacking the originator's topic, but I had a similar question, and tho't it best to ask it outside of his.
I've fired a 460V (but not mine – mine's never been fired, other than the factory test shots), and I found the 460V rounds to be brutal. However, the .45 Colt rounds were quite manageable – the heavy gun with the light (comparatively speaking) loads were comparable to a .38 revolver that I was allowed to test-fire. I've dry-fired my gun many times. The single-action pull is light, but the double-action pull is anything but. I read in the other topic a comment, from W R Moore, something to the effect of having the single-action notch on the hammer removed. He also recommended that such a modification be performed by Smith & Wesson, rather than an independent gunsmith (for liability concerns).
I have a 460V magnum revolver, 5" barrel with the shorter compensator in place. I don't know what single-action, or the double-action, pulls should be in weight. I'm now considering having the single-action feature removed, and the remaining action (double-action) set at something in between the original single-action and double-action pull weights.
QUESTION – is that feasible/reasonable, and if so – is it a good idea??? Any and all constructive suggestions/comments are appreciated, and Thank You in advance to those who choose to participate in this.

 

[fredj338]

It is certainly feasible. Whether it is a good idea or not will depend on your gunsmith. Reliability with any SD weapon needs to be 100%. Many will say do nothing to a gun used for SD purposes, but you would be making the gun less likely to go off under a stressful situation by making it a DA only. I have the hammer bobbed off my M625. I use it for competition but would certainly not hesitate to use it as a defensive tool if needed. Removing the hammer spur still allows a SA pull if one wanted it, but much harder to achieve. It is possible either way to get a better DA trigger pull. You do not want light you want smooth & predictable.

 

[texmex]

I don't really see any reason to remove the single action function. It doesn't have anything to do with the double action pull weight or smoothness. You certainly don't have to use it if you want to shoot double action. Why eliminate the option? On a revolver designed for hunting, I would think you would want all the accuracy you could get which would certainly be shooting it single action at common handgun hunting distances. It would also lower the resale value. As Jeff Cooper would say, it is a solution for a non-existent problem.

 

[WR Moore]

OK, I don't know what the X frame single action trigger spec is, some of the armorers can chip on on the exact spec for the K,L & N frames. IIRC, it's somewhere around 4-4 1/2 lbs. There is no exact (SFAIK) spec for the double action pull.

Now, back in the mid 1980's it was standard procedure for major PDs with revolvers to specify double action only (no single action notch on the hammer) for all service firearms. This avoided several problems: people inappropriately cocking their service firearms, negligent/unintentional discharge of said firearm as a result and tort attorney's claiming the events happened even if the didn't. The attorney's are, of course, claiming it creates a "hair trigger"/unsafe condition/violation of policy/avoidable injury; and this is with all stock parts. It's not a solution to a non-existent problem. Lawsuits are what drove the DAO systems in places like LA, Miami, NYPD etc.

With that in mind, virtually any work that reduces the double action trigger pull will reduce the single action trigger pull. If it drops below factory spec, you have created a condition that may be deemed unsafe as it does not meet factory spec.

The size/weight of the operating parts of an X frame are going to affect what can be safely done. I'd go with the factory Performance Center as anything they turn out is, de facto, within factory spec. However, that still leaves you open to some scum sucker claiming you cocked the revolver when you didn't. If you want to be able to retain single action capability for resale, have another, unaltered hammer fitted while it's back at the factory.

I had to learn to live with issued, stock revolvers. You can learn to be effective, but it takes work.

BTW, removing the hammer spur doesn't eliminate double action capability. It does make it virtually impossible to rapidly clear several relatively common malfunctions where the trigger doesn't fully return or the cylinder binds.

 

[Wise_A]

(1) I don't see the point of a DAO 460, unless you accidentally shoot somebody. Which is a software problem.

(2) I think you'd be wasting money better-spent on acquiring a more suitable defensive revolver. There are a number of fine .38 K-frames that I'd prefer to use, and a great many automatics. Frankly, I think you'd be better-armed with a 5-shot 640 Pro than a 5-shot X-frame.

(3) If you absolutely must do this (ugh), then a hammer swap, as Moore suggests, is the correct answer. The double-action pull, if you find it objectionable, cannot be made much lighter without compromising reliability.

(prepare for rageposts)

There's a reason Glock-alikes are popular--they're inexpensive, easy for post people to use, and very capable. Just sayin'.

 

[Black Sunshine]

For reference, the SA trigger pull on my unmodified 500 is 3lbs 4oz on a 10 pull average. I would expect the 460 to be similar since they're both x-frames. I can measure the DA pull if you're interested.

 

[ken158]

Terrible idea on a 460 and doubt S&W would do that for you anyway. Making the SA a harder pull is easy for an armorer. If you don't want SA, then don't cock the gun.

 

[DrDoctor]

The reason I'm inquiring about deleting the single-action feature on this gun is for the liability issues in the event it's used in a self-defense/home defense situation. Without that feature, no lawyer can claim that it was used in single-action mode (which is typically with a lighter trigger pull). The resale value of the gun with that modification is unimportant, as I'm not interested in selling it. and, I'm not at all interested in purchasing any auto-loader.
ASSUMPTION –the single-action trigger pull's approximately 4 lbs, and the double-action pull's 10 lbs, then I'm probably looking at NO single-action function whatsoever, and a double-action pull in the 6-7 lb range.

Black Sunshine,
Yes, I'd be very interested in the double-action pull weight of the X-Frame revolver, if it wouldn't be too much trouble. Thank you in advance.

 

[reddog81]

Deleting the single action capabilities will not change the double action pull. A 6 lbs double action pull is not going to work. That's just not feasible.

I have no idea why you'd want to eliminate the single action because of some once in a million liability concern, but then severely alter the double action pull. If you're worried about liability keep the gun stock!

If you want to knock the double action pull down a couple pounds and drop the single action pull down a couple ounces go with a 12 lbs trigger rebound spring.

 

[Imissedagain]

Based on post #8..... get a stock Colt Python.

... and the lawyer shouts..... so you modified the gun to slick up the trigger and make it easy for you to kill faster?

 

[WR Moore]

Doc, for reliability, you're probably looking at 8 ish lbs double action, might be more. 6 lbs is often problematical for K frames except as a item to play games with. You get alibis for misfires/malfunctions in many gun games.

And the defendant/expert witness points out that it's still a 7-8 lb pull over 7/8 (+/-) of an inch. That's a very favorable comparison to 4-7 lbs over less (sometimes much less) than 1/4 inch on a semi. The trigger return is actually slower than with a stock action, so the rate of fire is down and it minimizes the probabilities of hitting an innocent. Yes, it may or may not fly. OTOH, the choice of such a monster firearm might well get cited as an aggravating factor.

Guys, there'a a mega thread where several of us suggested that perhaps the X frame isn't the optimal choice as a self defense firearm-absent large bears as a threat. Borrowing a quote from a noted trainer: Everyone has to find their own salvation.

 

[DrDoctor]

Secondary question posed to those who know more than I do re: the inner workings of revolvers (which is most everyone on this site . . .) – is it possible/feasible to have the inner workings "massaged" so that the single-action and the double-action function at/near the same pull weight?
Thx . . .

 

[Black Sunshine]

I measured the DA trigger pull on my 500 using a Lyman digital gauge.

1st 10-pull average: 11lbs 10 oz
2nd 10-pull average: 11lbs 14 oz

 

[reddog81]

Secondary question posed to those who know more than I do re: the inner workings of revolvers (which is most everyone on this site . . .) – is it possible/feasible to have the inner workings "massaged" so that the single-action and the double-action function at/near the same pull weight?
Thx . . .

Absent some major modifications to the internals there's no way to increase the SA pull that much and there's no way to get the DA pull that low.

Keep in mind that S&W manufactures close to a quarter million revolvers every year and the vast majority of then have SA and DA capabilities. The few guns sold as double action only are done so because the hammer is seen as a nuisance for people who pocket carry, or something similar, where the hammer can get snagged.

You state in post #1 that you haven't even shot the gun... Go shoot it and stop worrying about the fact that it has a single action capabilities. After putting a couple boxes of ammo down range any normal person will be grateful it has both SA and DA capabilities. Each mode has it's benefits.

 

[DrDoctor]

Black Sunshine,
Thank You Very Much!!! That's precisely what I need.

 

[delcrossv]

The reason I'm inquiring about deleting the single-action feature on this gun is for the liability issues in the event it's used in a self-defense/home defense situation. Without that feature, no lawyer can claim that it was used in single-action mode (which is typically with a lighter trigger pull). The resale value of the gun with that modification is unimportant, as I'm not interested in selling it. and, I'm not at all interested in purchasing any auto-loader.
ASSUMPTION –the single-action trigger pull's approximately 4 lbs, and the double-action pull's 10 lbs, then I'm probably looking at NO single-action function whatsoever, and a double-action pull in the 6-7 lb range.

that's a much lower probability scenario than a lawyer complaining that you reduced the DA trigger pull. I don't recall a single self defense case where SA trigger pull came up.

You may want to read this thread:
Facts About "Light Trigger Pull Liability"

 

[Wise_A]

Secondary question posed to those who know more than I do re: the inner workings of revolvers (which is most everyone on this site . . .) – is it possible/feasible to have the inner workings "massaged" so that the single-action and the double-action function at/near the same pull weight?
Thx . . .

No. Single action simply releases the hammer. Double action must compress the mainspring. About the lightest double-action revolvers commonly seen are PPC .38s, which have DA pulls in the 5#-6# range. And it's not uncommon for them to be finicky to the point that they're only reliable with one or two brands of primer.

Shoot this thing a whole bunch, then return to the idea of whether you really want a 460 for self-defense. If you want an easy to shoot gun in the same vein and refuse to try a Glock-alike, they make this thing called the 1911, and they make it in 9mm.

 

[DrDoctor]

I've fired an "ol' slab sides" while in the Navy. I didn't like it. That's why I purchased revolvers, as I'm not a fan of auto-loaders. I've had other negative experiences with auto-loaders – stove-pipes, failure to eject, failure to feed . . . I don't want a piece of equipment with a significant (in my mind – 1 out of 200 is too high) failure rate. With a revolver, if there's a failure, just pull the trigger again. The main advantage (again, in my mind) is ammunition capacity, and speed of reloading. But, that's not enough for me to want one. I want something I can rely on, and for me, and my wife, it's not an auto-loader.
As for the single-action not being an issue in court, to quote Mr. Ayoob, "[sic] Florida v Alvarez, NY v Magliato, Michigan v Chase, Georgia v Crumbley, and Crown v Gossett, among others". The legal precedent for such an argument's already established.
I'll follow-up with S&W, and see where that leads . . . Thx . . .

 

[hardluk1]

First off using a revolver as large as the s&w 460 as a home defense weapon is not practical even with light 45colt loads . I would never remove the sa notch on the hammer ether . You have seen or had 1 out of 200 failure rate ?? Really . That's seems sort of funny . I have pistols with thousands of rounds fired that run 100% reliable and IF YOU ever have a primer back out on your revolver it will be nothing more that a rock . You are not simply going to pull the trigger again . Your revolver will be locked up . I know I have experienced just that .

I carried a da sa snubby for 13 years and never fired it as a single action until I retired it .

Think about how many SA only 1911 there are out there being used daily as home defense , concealed carry and by law enforcement . Or da/sa pistol that once you fire that first round your single action only !!

You should use the same handgun or at least the same design for home defense as you would carry daily some thing you know well so being woke up in your sleep your not fumbling around for a 4.4lb lard butt revolver assuming you shoot 6 rounds well enough .

Maybe you can work your way up to shooting 460 ammo buy stepping up to 45colt ruger only loads over the slow SA colt loads . Buy & use a proper handgun or shotgun for home defensive needs and if you think you need to keep a handgun never to live up to its design then buy a more practical use weapon maybe a s&w 625 45acp JM model and a 1000 rounds of ammo since you feel a pistol not reliable , hehehehe .

 

[WR Moore]

. With a revolver, if there's a failure, just pull the trigger again. . . .

I've seen that spiel for decades. However, as someone who had to tote the issue revolver and train with it a lot, it ain't necessarily so. Pull the trigger works if the round fails to fire. Whatcha gonna do if the trigger won't move?

Possible causes: operator error, trigger not returned fully; material caught between trigger & frame, preventing full trigger return; cylinder binding; debris under the extractor, high primer (not fully seated); crated primer extruded into firing pin hole, burrs on the breech catching in the firing pin indent are just a few.

Immediate action drill: give hammer spur a hearty yank and hope the cylinder rotates.