What I meant by "simplified-for-production" is just that,......the later DAO series did away with the unique lengthened slide by doing away with the short action, half-cocked hammer.
Respectfully, kaveman. No they did not.
I applaud the Smith & Wesson engineers and designers for converting their excellent TDA fire control system to the "imitation Glock" trigger in the DOA models.
S&W retained the "imitation Glock" trigger in the TSW models by using the very same "pre-staged", "short-action", "half-cock" design from the early "imitation Glock trigger" DAO models.
They just "half-cocked" the hammer by a few less degrees by changing the notches a very small amount on the trigger and hammer on the TSW models. And that allowed them to eliminate that unsightly slide and frame extension to hide the "half-cock" hammer.
I won't argue TDA vs. DAO but I can certainly understand the proponents, especially those who appreciate the simpler manual-of-arms, but I have been fortunate to have been able to pull the triggers on a lot of pistols in the last 40 years.
And that includes the early DAO pistols.
Like I said before, the designers and engineers found a way to make their pistol simpler to operate by modifying it into a really bad single action.
Others may like them, but the worst true single action trigger release on any S&W pistol I've tried was still much better than the very best DAO.
One day I may get my hands on an older DAO trigger and hammer and install it.
And if I can, maybe I can find one of the original light-weight mainsprings that S&W installed in the early models to give them that great trigger pull the DAO guys talk about.
But I'll need to find it in the aftermarket because S&W now only catalogs the full strength mainspring for all DAO and TDA models.
Light primer strikes, maybe?
John
