Has anyone taken a recent S&W (ie, less than 5 years old, but pre-sellout ) and dry-fired the h*ll out of it, in order to smooth the trigger pull?
I have a three year old 686, and for the past few days I have been double-action dry-firing it every evening (while watching TV), until I can't stand it anymore. But I'm not noticing any change in the trigger pull at all
Sooo.... then I thought, maybe the old advice about dry-firing to improve the trigger is bogus?
IIRC, the logic is that old (20, 30 years) revolvers, even cheap ones, tend to have a very nice trigger pull. And the reason for that is (the theory goes...) because they have been fired so many times, which has worn the trigger mating surfaces to a nice buttery consistency (or something like that )
Well... maybe there's a different explanation. Maybe it's simply that the S&W assembly line workers of 20 years ago were much better than the S&W assembly line workers of recent years, and used to take more pride in their craft. And therefore the reason the old revolvers have such nice trigger pulls is simply because they were nice to start with. And not because they've been shot a lot.
It kinda makes sense, because in the 90's the gun industry was under lots of pressure to minimize costs, and was also under constant attack in the media. This does not make for happy gun-maker worker bees.
At any rate, I'm not noticing any improvement in the trigger pull, and my wife is about ready to ban me to the garage (that loud SNAP of the hammer dropping is really getting on her nerves). And since the garage is Very Cold in the winter and I'm not noticing any improvement, I'm about to give up.
Unless... you guys really believe that dry-firing will smooth the trigger pull on a modern S&W. In which case, I have a few stupid questions:
Q#1: is it supposed to improve the SA pull, or the DA, or both?
Q#2: is the breaking-in dry-firing supposed to be done DA? I assume Yes, because I don't see how firing SA could improve the DA pull..., but then again, maybe it's only the SA pull that's supposed to get better? Which would mean that I only have to dry-fire SA.
Q#3: has anyone improved the trigger pull of a modern (< 5 years old) S&W via extensive dry-firing? (or live firing?)
Q#4: has anyone ever rigged up a Rube Goldberg machine to do this dry-firing for them? (eg, a drill connected to an offcenter cam, which would repeatedly dry-fire the gun -- accomplishing in minutes what would otherwise take weeks, if done by hand)?
Thanks in advance!
Navaho
P.S. I've seen the AGI S&W video, and was horrified at all the subtle mechanical parts hiding behind my 686's side plate. Horrified in the sense that there's no way I'm going to voluntarily open that puppy up, in order to do a bit of kitchen table gunsmithing in order to smooth out the trigger pull faster than via this dry-firing technique. A man's gotta know his limitations
On a related note, I see now why "they" say that revolvers aren't really mass-produced. That is, each one has to be assembled by hand, due to the subtle and delicate relationship of all the tiny curved parts behind the side plate.
I have a three year old 686, and for the past few days I have been double-action dry-firing it every evening (while watching TV), until I can't stand it anymore. But I'm not noticing any change in the trigger pull at all
Sooo.... then I thought, maybe the old advice about dry-firing to improve the trigger is bogus?
IIRC, the logic is that old (20, 30 years) revolvers, even cheap ones, tend to have a very nice trigger pull. And the reason for that is (the theory goes...) because they have been fired so many times, which has worn the trigger mating surfaces to a nice buttery consistency (or something like that )
Well... maybe there's a different explanation. Maybe it's simply that the S&W assembly line workers of 20 years ago were much better than the S&W assembly line workers of recent years, and used to take more pride in their craft. And therefore the reason the old revolvers have such nice trigger pulls is simply because they were nice to start with. And not because they've been shot a lot.
It kinda makes sense, because in the 90's the gun industry was under lots of pressure to minimize costs, and was also under constant attack in the media. This does not make for happy gun-maker worker bees.
At any rate, I'm not noticing any improvement in the trigger pull, and my wife is about ready to ban me to the garage (that loud SNAP of the hammer dropping is really getting on her nerves). And since the garage is Very Cold in the winter and I'm not noticing any improvement, I'm about to give up.
Unless... you guys really believe that dry-firing will smooth the trigger pull on a modern S&W. In which case, I have a few stupid questions:
Q#1: is it supposed to improve the SA pull, or the DA, or both?
Q#2: is the breaking-in dry-firing supposed to be done DA? I assume Yes, because I don't see how firing SA could improve the DA pull..., but then again, maybe it's only the SA pull that's supposed to get better? Which would mean that I only have to dry-fire SA.
Q#3: has anyone improved the trigger pull of a modern (< 5 years old) S&W via extensive dry-firing? (or live firing?)
Q#4: has anyone ever rigged up a Rube Goldberg machine to do this dry-firing for them? (eg, a drill connected to an offcenter cam, which would repeatedly dry-fire the gun -- accomplishing in minutes what would otherwise take weeks, if done by hand)?
Thanks in advance!
Navaho
P.S. I've seen the AGI S&W video, and was horrified at all the subtle mechanical parts hiding behind my 686's side plate. Horrified in the sense that there's no way I'm going to voluntarily open that puppy up, in order to do a bit of kitchen table gunsmithing in order to smooth out the trigger pull faster than via this dry-firing technique. A man's gotta know his limitations
On a related note, I see now why "they" say that revolvers aren't really mass-produced. That is, each one has to be assembled by hand, due to the subtle and delicate relationship of all the tiny curved parts behind the side plate.