[Atticus]

Why do some triggers 'stage' so much better than others? I have some that stage like clockwork and let off like a SA, while others won't stage a'tall.

[rockstar.esq]

Coil vs leaf springs. Polished mating surfaces. Better camming relationships. I have seen situations where the mechanism had very few parts and was smooth as well as situations where a veritable swiss watchwork of parts moved as though they were fluid. I think the most likely source of discontent remains design.

[Atticus]

Thanks. What I don't understand (and should have made more clear) is why two revolvers of the same make and model are vastly different in that respect. I've had a few J frames that staged consistantly, like clockwork, as long as the trigger pull was consistant. Other J frames just won't.

[Standing Wolf]

I've had a few J frames that staged consistantly, like clockwork, as long as the trigger pull was consistant. Other J frames just won't.

Even highly skilled, seasoned gunsmiths sometimes have trouble making two revolvers handle the same way. Differences of a ten thousandth of an inch in the parts can make a perceptible difference.

[Old Fuff]

Actually, actions are rarely fitted by skilled workers anymore. They are simply assembled, and the faster the better - labor is expensive you know.

Smith & Wesson assemblers in times past "fitted lockwork" by exchanging hammers or triggers to get the fit they wanted, because case-hardened parts shouldn't be ground, and they are too hard to file. Colt's on the other hand had tool-steel parts that an assembler might modify by filing. How well things came out depended on the skill of the particular assembler. Again, labor costs eliminated this practice in all but the most expensive revolvers, such as the Python.

A revolver's design and style of mainspring - leaf, "V" or coil makes a difference. As a rule of thumb, coil springs are the least desireable in the context of a "best" double action.

Also another rule of thumb - the bigger the revolver the greater likelyhood of a good double action. The pivot points between the hammer and trigger are further apart, which gives the trigger more leverage on the hammer, and the parts themselves are more massive.

When these things are considered, a current-day S&W J-frame has everything running against the probablity of having a good double-action trigger pull - especially when compared to a larger K, L or N frame. Dry firing will burinsh the contact points and help make the pull feel smoother. Many owners change out the springs for lighter ones, but this can cause serious reliability problems. If you find a J-frame that has a smooth and RELIABLE trigger pull jump on it.

[Jim K]

Hammerless (concealed hammer) S&W revolvers have always had slightly different mechanisms than hammer guns so that they can be staged easily. AFAIK, that has not changed, and my new 642 stages very easily, as does an older 340, whereas my Model 36 and Model 60 have "straight through" pulls. Colt and Ruger never made concealed hammer revolvers (Colt's shroud was an add-on) so they never changed the trigger pulls.

Jim

[BigG]

I have noted almost the opposite from your experience; the j-frames stage very well out of the box. Although I don't have many "hammer" j-frames (don't see the utility) they work just like their big brothers (K,L, M-size) in my experience.

[Atticus]

I think Jim Keenan hit the nail on the head. The M37 I currently carry has a "straight through" pull while my 642, and a couple other shrouded or bobbed types, staged perfectly. As for other brands and models, my GP100 (DA only, bobbed hammer) stages perfectly, while my S&W 625 does not.