Pond James Pond
New member
Today, I handled two separate revolvers from the same manufacturer and in the same chambering.
One was a potential purchase: an Astra NC-6 in .38Spl.
The other was my existing Astra 680 in .38Spl.
I was very impressed by the build of the NC-6.
Whilst handling it, I loaded up with snap caps to see how the trigger felt. What I often do with my 680, to practice trigger finger control, is to squeeze until the cylinder turns and locks, then release the trigger then repeat, making full revolutions without the hammer falling.
I could not do this with the NC-6: I could not feel when it reached that set point after the cylinder had turned. No matter how slowly I squeezed, the hammer would fall.
I also noticed that the 680 has a way heavier trigger; like get-finger-cramp heavy if I dry fire a lot.
So what do these two comparative points tell me about the nature of the NC-6?
I mean, does it suggest the NC-6 was built for something more like target shooting etc, rather than SD?
One was a potential purchase: an Astra NC-6 in .38Spl.
The other was my existing Astra 680 in .38Spl.
I was very impressed by the build of the NC-6.
Whilst handling it, I loaded up with snap caps to see how the trigger felt. What I often do with my 680, to practice trigger finger control, is to squeeze until the cylinder turns and locks, then release the trigger then repeat, making full revolutions without the hammer falling.
I could not do this with the NC-6: I could not feel when it reached that set point after the cylinder had turned. No matter how slowly I squeezed, the hammer would fall.
I also noticed that the 680 has a way heavier trigger; like get-finger-cramp heavy if I dry fire a lot.
So what do these two comparative points tell me about the nature of the NC-6?
I mean, does it suggest the NC-6 was built for something more like target shooting etc, rather than SD?