Double-action trigger pull weight on new-make S&W Model 63?

[WeedWhacker]

In my quest for the perfect (or closest I can get) starter .22LR double-action revolver, I've been looking closely at the newly made S&W Model 63s. I like fact that they're stainless steel, but still only 28-29 ounces, and come with adjustable sights.

The only thing I can't find any data on is some factory double-action trigger pull weights. The S&W 317 turned me off by its stiff trigger (saw a figure thrown out of around 12 pounds for a very lightweight .22 revo, and whatever the weight, I was *not* impressed by the one I actually laid my mitts on), so I'm interested in what other S&W models have to offer in that area.

Thanks in advance...

 

[steveno]

in this day and age that is about what I would expect them to be. I have an old M-63 but I can't tell you what the pull weight however it has had several thousand rounds through it so it is pretty smooth

 

[WeedWhacker]

Personally, I expect MUCH better. If Ruger can manage a lighter trigger on a GP-100, surely Smith and Wesson can manage better on a .22LR wheelgun...

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

S & W rimfire revolvers have to have a heavier hammer spring than center fire to set off the primer. My advice is to have a good gunsmith do an action job which in these times is just about mandatory on a new revolver. I think the .22's are the worst though.

 

[def4pos8]

S&W suffers from severe "anti-lawyer" phobia in their current offerings. The, as new, trigger pull of my Model 66-6 was HORRIBLE! As a certified Old Fart, I was able to massage a few of the lockwork bits and work with the springs to slowly turn this 66 into one of my favorite revolvers.

Talk to LOTS of folks in your area. Someone will likely know who can do good work with your Smith's action. The work isn't particularly tough -- if you know what to do.

 

[tom327]

I've had one about a month now, and really enjoy it. I have no way to measure the pull weight, but it feels very comparable to my model 67.

Here's what Gunblast has to say: (http://www.gunblast.com/SW-63.htm)

"The single action trigger pull is typical Smith & Wesson; a crisp two pounds, thirteen ounces. The double action is very smooth, and measures just under eleven pounds. The round-butt finger groove hard rubber grip is very comfortable, and offers good purchase in my large hand."

He must have measured, but it doesn't sound right to me.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I should pick up a scale just to satisfy my curiosity. I did some dry-firing on a GP-100, and I wouldn't be terribly suprised if its DA trigger was in the 10-12lb range, though it is a nice, sweet DA trigger in my amateur opinion.

The 317's trigger was not up to par with the GP-100's, though.

Thanks for the link to the gunblast review. I'll look through their site to see how closely we agree on other firearms.

 

[WeedWhacker]

To finalize this thread, I recently acquired a S&W Model 63.

Its double-action trigger weight isn't as bad as the 317's, although it still is fairly stout. While I doubt I'll be using up bricks of .22 using just the double-action trigger any time soon, the trigger pull is manageable and fun to use for shorter shooting sessions.

The single-action trigger is absolutely wonderful.

The standard grips feel a bit odd in my hand, so I will be looking to replace those. I also intend to remove that damned internal lock, as well.

Its stainless steel frame isn't too heavy (nor excessively light), both for myself and for one of the new shooters I invited along with me to the range for a break-in. Combined with the fact that the Model 63 didn't skip a beat, even with the cheapest Federal .22 ammo, I'm very pleased with the S&W Model 63.

 

[BlindJustice]

S &W Double Action Revolvers
K/Medium frame - 1899 S&W has sold more on that
frame than all the other frame/model types and has been in
continuous production
N/Large frame - 1908 same design but beef up
Both the K and N frame have a leaf main spring and it
is more tuneable than what is in the
J frame came about post WWII, S&W beefed up the
I-frame of their pocket pistols which date back to pre-1900
and replaced the leaf spring in the I-frame with
a Coil spring. The coil spring doesn't lend it self to
much lightening but it can be smoothed out for DA
work.

I have S&W revolvers in every frame size except t
the new X & I think my 617 6" Bbl. 10 shooter has
the smoothest DA pull out of the box. FWIW My
model 60 3" Bbl. isn't that light of a DA pull but it does
invite DA shooting - for a range session I'd guess I shoot
it over 80% DA with the ocaissional SA shots It's
all stainless steel frame & cylinder at 24 oz The 63 is
the same all ss and I'd love to see S&W come out
with a 63 with a 3" Bbl. to match my 60 The 63
also appeals since the 617 is 45 oz with a 6" Bbl.
and the 4" Bbl. 617 must be 41-42 oz.

My first handgun I got as a teen was a Model 18
Combat Masterpiece blued carbon steel. and magna
rips & they're pushing $450+ on the used market
but it's something to consider since it does have the
K-frame leaf main spring and trigger work is an option.

my .02

 

[BlindJustice]

Another thing, I think if you had a 317 & a 63 and shot them
at a range session if the DA trigger pull was the same
weight for each I would bet most people would perceive
the DA pull on the heavier steel 63 to be lighter because it
would be more controllable due to the weight.

FYI - my 625 has the S&W Perf. Center Master Revolver
action job... and it's worth it. Everyone who has shot it
pretty much praise it - it's a smooooothie

Problem with getting that Action job is now my
L-frame seems a bit in need of one also. it just
isn't a high priority.

 

[Rover 'n Rugers]

Some above have hit on part of the problem. The J frame is a small frame so all things being equal does not have the leverage in the trigger/hammer works the larger frames do thus dictating a heavier trigger to get enough impulse for ignition. This also affects other manufacturers small vs. medium frame offerings. The coil spring design might affect this, too, although I would think it would impact more the smoothness or lack thereof.

Being a rimfire the trigger will be heavier than a centerfire as it is harder to ignite reliably. I suspect if you had the gun tuned by a decent gunsmith the double action on the 63 could be brought down to maybe 9.5 - 10 pounds. A lot of the S&W gunsmiths don't like to work on the coil spring guns for some reason. I have a tuned Model 18 K frame that runs reliably at 8 pounds. Over at the Enos Forum some have mentioned lightening the hammers, also, and getting down to the high 6's with a K frame. What this would be on a J frame I don't know.

 

[ClemY]

The Model 63 has a very light hammer and requires a pretty good impact to reliably set off the .22s with pretty firm cases, like Aquilla. I lightened the trigger by smoothing the appropriate contact surfaces and replacing springs with a spring kit from Brownell’s. It now has a very nice trigger.

The best factory trigger from S&W I have is an N frame, the 627PC. I try to get the others as close to that as I can.

 

[Master Blaster]

All J frame size.22 revolvers have a heavy trigger pull due to a strong coil spring needed to reliably fire a rimfire cartridge using a small light hammer.
I have a 43 which is the old airweight kit gun, have fired a 34 its steel brother, and I also have a Taurus 94. The Taurus is 9 shots so the trigger while still heavy is much better than on the 43 six shooter. I shoot my k frame 17, 617, and K22 and the trigger feels lighter in DA than on jframe guns.
I think folks with larger hands find the trigger on a j frame feels much heavier to them, than it does to somone with medium size hands.

BTW both my children ages 9 and 11 shoot the taurus 94, and really like it, they like the fact that its 9 shots too!! They would tell you tht the trigger is harder to pull on the k-frames.