S&W 317 22lr-easy trigger pull

[bill111444]

I've been reading several posts on "how stiff the trigger is" on these air weight 22s; I bought the snub, the trigger was STIFF, I'll tell you what I did to mine.... I took the gun apart, I wiped off each piece, I cleaned the inside of the frame also, I polished the bottom and left side of the trigger return block with 1000 grit sand paper, I polished inside the frame where the trigger return block rides also, I cut 3 loops off the spring that goes inside the trigger return block. Now here is what makes everything work. I used a Q-tip and lightly re-lubed the inside of the frame with Mobil One Synthetic grease, I lubed each piece with the Q-tip as I reassembled the gun. WOW what a difference, the trigger pull is just as easy and smooth as my Smith 360 M&P. Don't use your oil, use Mobil One Synthetic Grease, there is a difference. The reason the trigger still returns back strongly is because the Mobil One Synthetic Grease has "O" drag. I guaraentee you will see a noticeable difference in any revolver you use this stuff on. I lube the slides on my autos too. I believe you will be quite happy with the results.

 

[Sox]

Did the trigger job as outlined by "yodaG" on youtube. Lotsa good info. Trigger was great with an old 8lbs. hammerspring I had in the drawer, but alas it didn't ignite the primers. Sooo, back to the monster hammer spring and I was poppin' caps. I am gonna try your trimmin' the mainspring thing bill. How do you come upon "3" coils as the magic number? Trial and error or S.W.A.G? Thanks.

Just a quick note: I encountered cylinder binding issues when the gun got hot with CCI mini mags. I switched to Fiocchi ammo and the binding issue went away! I guess the CCI has a tad thicker primer rim is the only thing I can think of or thinner brass in the case wall? Anyway, hope that tidbit helps others, I was starting to get frustrated.

 

[oldfool]

a caution there, Sox
he did not say "mainspring", he referred to trigger return spring

Lighter mainspring (hammer spring) will alleviate "stiffness", but at risk of causing light strike FTFs, it can be very touchy, as you have already seen. Lighter trigger return spring can yield a better feel, but increases risk of trigger reset issues, likewise pretty touchy. Always keep your original springs (or a spare set) on hand, just in case.

Cleaning and polishing and lubing tends to do more for "smooth" than it does for "stiff", but it does help. How much good can be done depends a lot on whether or not your gun was put together at factory with parts that fit well, or with parts that don't fit well.
(but be careful who you say that too, because some folks swear that clean/polish/lube is so magic that poorly fit sloppy factory parts just don't matter)

Cylinder binding can be caused by a lot of different things, but the CCI is a little bit hotter load than the typical Fiocchi. Fiocchi has worked real well for me in all mine; I especially like it because it's cheaper. Sounds like you found your ammo fit.

 

[bill111444]

Sox, I trimmed off 2 loops, reassembled, the trigger returned just as strong as if I didn't cut any loops; I went back and trimmed one more loop 0ff. What makes this work is the Mobil One Synthetic Grease..... I think your cylinder swelled a little from using those hot loads...remember it's aloo-min-num. The first time I shot my 317, I shot 12 rounds of Federal bulk and the cylinder locked up, it swelled and rubbed against the barrel, when it cooled down it opened up. I sent it back to Smith (on their dime) and they replaced the cylinder, ejection rod and spring. This gun shoots up a storm now!! I put 300 rounds through it and it said, "I'm still hungry, daddy. Oldfool, Your right about parts fitting well, I remember the Bangor-Punta days; their fix was....."put stronger strings in, then it will work."

 

[oldfool]

ah yes, "the dreaded Bangor Punta era", pretty much a crap shoot, it was
luck of the draw and all that
now don't be telling the TOA guys (Taurus-Only-Allowed) about that, or those of us who own both will never hear the end of it, you know

I don't have a 317 myself, but that aluminum cylinder side comment caught my eye -
I understand "all" the non-plastic airweights/ULs have lightweight alloy frames, but for some reason or other I thought steel cylinders.. maybe aluminum cylinders only in rimfires ??
aluminum cylinder plus a tight/minimalist BC gap, yeah that would bind it up

enjoy

 

[Sox]

Old fool, thanks for that, I did misread it! Ha that would have been interesting. I couldn't imagine a .38 with an alum cylinder, though according to the supica, nahas book there were a couple prototypes 442's with alum cylinders that came in about 9oz!! Wow, and I thought the 342 PD was painful to shoot. There's a pic of it in their book, doesn't have a front sight.

Thanks,

DAve

 

[bill111444]

Oldfool, yes, that's what intrigued me about the M317, the whole gun is aluminum, like 9.7 oz. I chose the 1 7/8 in. barrel because I always liked the old M34. The M317 being an air weight and an eight shot, it's a "step up." I only shoot this gun between 20 and 30 feet, at paper or a can. I was suprised at the recoil when I first shot it...cool, you adjust for it and it's fine. I thought for a while, maybe the 3in. model but I couldn't get over that big goober front sight. If someone wanted to shoot semi-serious targets they are better off with the 3 in. model. Then there is the M63 Hmmmmmm.

 

[oldfool]

indeed, the notion of a quality airweight revolver (with steel cylinder) chambered in WMR is what tickles my fancy, but with at least 3" preferably 4" barrel, maybe with adjustable sights

The flash-n-boom factor would be a fun factor plus, as would some kick out of the tiny beast; 22WMR out of handguns is a hoot to shoot, but the NAA micros just don't appeal to me. If ever S&W puts some more barrel on their 351PD, I would have to at least look hard at it, though I cannot help but suppose too pricey for my budget. You have to feed the woobie bear every now and then, but you can feed him just every so often.

if you enjoy your 317, yeah, a model 63 would surely make you smile. My old model 4" 63 is one of the few "crown jewels" of my modest rimfire collection (and it wants a 651 cousin for companionship)

good stuff

 

[tubeshooter]

My 317 (3" model) does great at short range. I don't consider myself that good of a shooter.

No problems so far. I have gotten the occasional ammo-related dud; usually Golden Bullet. Springs are all stock.

I'd love to have a model 63, new or old. I'm sure it's easier to shoot. But I don't know if my wallet can take it... :banghead:


Won't be selling the 317 anytime soon, though. Everyone marvels at how light it is. Different grips might help accuracy a little; might try that one day. Might not.