7 shot Smiths

[Brasso]

Has anyone noticed that the 7 shot S&W's don't have as nice a trigger as the 6 shooters? The timing is not as "timed" with the sear release. The cylinder stops and then there is a bit of stacking before the hammer falls, making a poor trigger on par with a Ruger. The quality at S&W just seems to keep getting worse.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The quality at S&W just seems to keep getting worse.

Smith & Wesson quality has been on the decline since the 1970s, and hasn't taken any turns for the better since it became an American company again.

I have a hunch the lockworks for the seven-shooters was only tweaked instead of being redesigned for the firearms. Simply shortening the hand might get the job done, but not very well.

 

[antediluvianist]

I have a 686+ and the trigger is just fine. You might have a lemon.

 

[115grfmj]

I Also have to disagree. My 686+, has a trigger as smooth as melted butter.
The best out of any stock hand gun I've ever tried (I tried quite a few).
Don't know about quality either, mine is recent vintage 686-6 (new owners)
on par with my dads extremely fine, late 60's N frame.
Alots been made about Smiths sliding quality and I sorry I just dont see it.

 

[surfinUSA]

I think S&W quality has been going up the last two I purchased were outstanding. Easily as good or better than older Smiths I have, and those are excellent.

 

[Brasso]

I looked at 3 different barrel length 686's and they all felt the same. The cylinder locked up way before the sear released and the trigger stacked badly just before release causing the gun to jerk. They were all -6 models. I bought one anyway, but the trigger is not as good as 6 shot 686 I had.

 

[1goodshot]

There is a differace on the ones I have. The 6 shot is better but the 7 shot is not that bad.

 

[pwrtool45]

The trigger throw is probably just shorter as the hand doesn't have to rotate the cylinder as far between shots. Try a Dan Wesson sometime. DWs have a short trigger throw as well. (At least, the DW M15 I played with did.) Other than maybe shortening the hand or repositioning where it attaches to the trigger I see no reason for changes to the lockwork.

Edited to add: I seem to recall this was an issue with the 10-shot 617s when the came out. I think they dramatically repositioned the hand to simulate a more traditional (re: S&W) DA pull. I could be wrong, though.

 

[Heraclitus]

I traded a 6" 686-4 for a 4" 686-6, both 7-shot. Didn't notice any difference in the trigger. New one's as good as it's ever been. What I did notice was that the cylinder holds up a lot better than it used to with heavier loads (no spalling whatsoever on the face).

 

[IndianaDean]

The trigger action on my 686 is very very smooth.

 

[christophera]

Depends on each gun. My 7 shot has a better trigger than my 6. YMM(and will)V.

 

[MR.G]

I have had five model 686 plus seven shot revolvers. They all had nice triggers, after a little polishing and Wolf springs.

 

[L-Frame]

I have to step in line with those in support of the 7 shooters. I have 2 and find their triggers every bit as good (with the same work done) as the 6-shooters of the past that I've owned, and superior, in my opinion, to any GP100 I've ever owned (even though I love GP's). I don't think that there has been any time in history where people didn't moan about how much better things were back whenever. And I also don't think that there has ever been a time of change where a large number of people didn't complain that "that's just not how it's supposed to be". Just human nature. I think that the S&W 686+s I've seen have been as good as I've ever seen (I do hate those locks though) and I think that stuffing 7 where you used to stuff only 6 is a great idea. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Border]

The 686 I bought was a bit smoother than the one in the store that I didn't but I didn't notice any huge difference than those of the 6. I bought new too though there was a used one there.

 

[Surefire]

My 686+ has an excellent trigger (smooth as butter AND feels light), better than any 6-shot S&W I've shot. Methinks some of you got lemons, or I got lucky....

 

[Krag]

I have a 686 and 686+ I use for bowling pin and steel matches. Both have excellent triggers and I can't tell the difference between them.

I have recently test fired the new S&W 619 and 620 revolvers and found their trigger pulls to be very good. As with my 686s, they would benefit from the minstrations of a good 'smith, but what revolver doesn't.

All I can say is thank god they're not like Colt triggers!!! :banghead:

 

[spalit]

I'd have the chime in as well, to say that my 686+ and the 617 both had excellent triggers and very smooth lockwork. The 617 had a slightly grittier trigger, which a trip to the smith and a wolf spring kit turned it into instant melted butter -

However, the 617, which was manufactured in 2005, came with a busted strain screw. I did buy this gun NIB. The busted screw led to some locking issues and misfires when I first took it to the range. :banghead: The smith replaced the strain screw with the action and trigger job, and I've had no issues since. So there may be some truth to some manufacturing issues @ Smith after all.

 

[71Commander]

My 386PD takes all the energy I can muster to pull the trigger. It's going in the shop this week for a T-job.

 

[JNewell]

Apart from whether individual examples are good/bad or better/worse, the geometry on the 7-short revolvers is a little different and therefore the trigger stroke is a little different. It isn't necessarily any worse (or better) than the s6-shot guns, however.

 

[Checkman]

I have to go with the majority of voters here. My 686+ 4" has a very nice trigger pull. One of my favorites.