DA triggers, why not more innovation ?


PDA






oldfool
September 16, 2011, 08:10 AM
I find myself just a little frustrated by the lack of innovation in DA revolver triggers amongst "all" DA revolver manufacturers, especially notable in small frame revolvers.

Many folks will acknowledge that the S&W DAO Js leave something to be desired. The best conventional small frame triggers I myself have handled are on an old model J-frame 60 and a Taurus 85 (both DA/SA of course).. but "everybody" seems to admire the LCR trigger.

Got to give Ruger credit for bringing out a lot of new models lately, but I don't understand why they do not better leverage their position with the new/different and well liked LCR trigger design. I sure would like to see more of that in more/different revolvers, especially so in something steel.

I myself thought all riflemen ought have sent a thank you note to Savage for their Accu-trigger design, whether they actually liked it or not. Seems to me that was the 1st time in decades that somebody started putting new & improved trigger design into off-the-shelf bolt action rifles, and the rest of the rifle makers finally woke up, each coming out with some version or other of "new & improved" as a delayed reaction to that.

Why not more of that ?
Seems like the makers are willing enough to trial most anything else, some of it bordering on different solely for the sake of different.
You could say "don't fix it if it ain't broke", but it is pert near 'broke' on a lot of small frame revolvers

If you enjoyed reading about "DA triggers, why not more innovation ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
madcratebuilder
September 16, 2011, 09:41 AM
I agree that modern J frame triggers can leave something to be desired. To keep the 100% reliability that a SD revolver has to have you can only do much with lighter springs, and polishing-stoning. My three coil spring J frames are not bad but not near what a leaf spring action is capable of.

I recently picked up a older I frame .32 hand ejector and was very pleased with the DA trigger when I was finished. Too bad the new coil spring guns can't be as nice as the older leaf spring guns.

.32 Hand Ejector Model of 1903 5th Change.
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/SW/5thchange05.jpg

MrBorland
September 16, 2011, 10:17 AM
Why not more of that ?

You could say "don't fix it if it ain't broke", but it is pert near 'broke' on a lot of small frame revolvers

Well, J-frame triggers may be "near broke", but they remain good sellers for S&W, so I suspect there's little motivation to make the investment. And since J-frames, more so than any of their other revos, are most likely to be used soley for SD, there's a liability issue while the bugs get worked out of any new design.

To keep the 100% reliability that a SD revolver has to have you can only do much with lighter springs, and polishing-stoning.

I'm thinking one can have their cake and eat it to with a redesigned DAO and radically lightened hammer. Since it's lighter, it still gets up to speed with a lighter spring, so it doesn't give up kinetic energy, which is what lights off the primer.

Also, if the leverage of the current J-frame hammer is based on that of it's larger kin, one gives up leverage because everything's smaller. A re-designed hammer could incorporate re-positioned pivot points to increase leverage. Randy Lee (https://apextactical.com/store/product-list.php?pg1-cid4.html) has already done this for K/L- and N-frame hammers, and, AFAIK, they work exceedingly well, and a so-equipped J-frame would likely work well, too.

Old Fuff
September 16, 2011, 11:47 AM
In small-frame revolvers it's mostly a matter of leverage, and the location of the hammer and trigger pivot points. It also gets more complicated when you have a single-action and double-action option in a particular revolver. To accomplish both, S&W hasn't changed the pivots in they're J-frame since 1903 when they introduced the I-frame that eventually evolved into the J. The same is true in inclosed hammer models so that they can use a common trigger and other parts.

With the LCR, Ruger started with a clean piece of paper, and dropped consideration of a single-action option. By doing this they came up with the best possible double-action pull that was also unquestionably reliable. However in a small platform you can only move the location of the pivots so far.

The arc the hammer rotates in is also important, as can be seen by measuring the distance from the hammer's pivot to the nose where it hits the firing pin. Obviously an N- frame has an advantage over the J in this regard.

I have always been interested in the fact the "polish the parts and change the springs" school of action tuners never take these things into consideration, while the best professional 'smiths do.

rcmodel
September 16, 2011, 02:37 PM
S&W's new composit Bodyguard .38 revolver also has a new, different, and supposedly better DA trigger design then any other S&W in the past.
It doesn't even have a hand to rotate the cylinder anymore!

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_766382_-1_757893_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

rc

harmon rabb
September 16, 2011, 05:50 PM
In small-frame revolvers it's mostly a matter of leverage, and the location of the hammer and trigger pivot points. It also gets more complicated when you have a single-action and double-action option in a particular revolver. To accomplish both, S&W hasn't changed the pivots in they're J-frame since 1903 when they introduced the I-frame that eventually evolved into the J. The same is true in inclosed hammer models so that they can use a common trigger and other parts.

With the LCR, Ruger started with a clean piece of paper, and dropped consideration of a single-action option. By doing this they came up with the best possible double-action pull that was also unquestionably reliable. However in a small platform you can only move the location of the pivots so far.

The arc the hammer rotates in is also important, as can be seen by measuring the distance from the hammer's pivot to the nose where it hits the firing pin. Obviously an N- frame has an advantage over the J in this regard.

I have always been interested in the fact the "polish the parts and change the springs" school of action tuners never take these things into consideration, while the best professional 'smiths do.
the LCR trigger is truly outstanding. it's so much better than that of a j-frame that it's not even funny.

oldfool
September 16, 2011, 06:32 PM
"the LCR trigger is truly outstanding. it's so much better than that of a j-frame that it's not even funny."

yep, that's where I am coming from, harmon
(small gun geometry & springs, both understood limitations, but too many have just been too complacent for too long methinks... nothing much else out there better in the marketplace to nudge 'em in pursuit of starting from a clean sheet of paper)

weblink presently times-out on connection for that S&W Bodyguard, but I will have a look
(I know 'steel' costs more, but some of us would pay more for it)
thanks, rc

nice I-frame there, mcb, that's one you don't just see every day

If you enjoyed reading about "DA triggers, why not more innovation ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!