My 629 Classic with a hammer mounted pin has the sweetest trigger pull I have ever felt on a revolver. This was obtained by simply installing a reduced power mainspring and trigger return spring. I have never had a light strike with this revelover in this configuration. It is my only S&W wheelgun with a hammer mounted firing pin. On all of my other S&Ws the pin is frame mounted and it seems any time I install a reduced power mainspring I start having light strikes and misfires. Does the frame mounted firing pin require more power to make it reliable or is there some other sort of alchemy going on in my 629? I guess there is a firing pin return spring that needs to be overcome and maybe that requires more power?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Frame mounted firing pins require more mainspring power?
- Thread starter AndABeer
- Start date
I know just what you mean. On my pre agree 627 with the frame mounted pin I too had light hits and misfires after altering the trigger pull. According to pistolsmith Jack Weigand these guns need up to 25 perccent more power to ignite the primers than the hammer mounted firing pins.I recently sold the 627 and picked up an old model 28 in new condition.The older guns were alot better made which I'm sure you already know.I'm going to have the 28 slicked up by my smith and then shoot it in some IDPA matches in revolver class.ShooterJD
I WISH it was as simple as being JUST the frame-mounted firing pin...I believe the lighter MIM parts enter into it, as does a slightly-altered mainspring geometry...or, at least, the way the mainspring "seats" in the frame...thought it was my imagination 'til I read something about it on another "'board"...seems the combination of all these factors--and not JUST the frame-mounted firing pin--HAVE made it necessary to have more mainspring tension...AND a heavier DA pull...IF you want 100% reliability from a "new-style" S&W revo...remember, a slicked-up Colt Python, ala Reeves Jungkind, et. al., will have a DA triggerpull of only 6 to 7 lbs., and STILL be 100% reliable...and the Python has a frame-mounted firing pin, too! So the firing pin isn't the WHOLE PROBLEM, I don't think....mikey357
VictorLouis
New member
Well, I just finished some study on MIM parts.
They assert such parts yield 95% or better of the density of wrought parts, and no part is truly 100%. So the thought of them having lighter mass doesn't seem to account for it. As to internal geometry, maybe that has changed somehow? The Python's pin spring may not be as strong(resistant) as that used in the new Smiths. I do know that my MIM K-frame has a heavier pull than both my old K-frame, and an early L-frame.(All mainspring screws are fully tightened.) Most of the smith's in-the-know seem to agree that it is the firing-pin spring, and the extra mainspring inertia needed to overcome it.
They assert such parts yield 95% or better of the density of wrought parts, and no part is truly 100%. So the thought of them having lighter mass doesn't seem to account for it. As to internal geometry, maybe that has changed somehow? The Python's pin spring may not be as strong(resistant) as that used in the new Smiths. I do know that my MIM K-frame has a heavier pull than both my old K-frame, and an early L-frame.(All mainspring screws are fully tightened.) Most of the smith's in-the-know seem to agree that it is the firing-pin spring, and the extra mainspring inertia needed to overcome it.