S&W 640 trigger-pull, pre and post Lock?

[Will B. Droopy]

My old S&W pre-Lock .38 +P 640 "hammerless" snubby was just replaced with a brand new post-Lock .357Mag model (marked as "640-3").

My question: Have the triggers been changed in any way on these models due to the presence of the lock? For instance, my original 640 had a smooth trigger pull from front to back (called a single stage trigger pull, I believe).

The new 640, however, has what I might call a two-stage trigger, with a noticeable "feel" just before the trigger breaks. (In fact, a few times this fooled me: I had thought I had a hang-fire after pulling the trigger on this new gun, because I had expected -- and had thought -- that the hammer had dropped on the round, but I had actually not pulled the trigger far enough back to drop the hammer due to that odd (for me anyway) second stage feel. I guess I'll get use to this with practice…).

Anyone have any knowledge of this change in trigger pulls on these Smiths?

-Bill

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[razor02097]

I don't know much about old J frames yet but if they are like the old K frame then yes there would be a very big difference.


Newer J frames don't have a transfer bar for one thing, They also have a coil spring not a leaf.


The trigger lock consists of the lock drum, cam, spring and lock bar. The hammer has a notch cut to where when its locked the lock goes into the notch and the cam holds it in place. I can't see the lock affecting the trigger pull.

[rmeron]

I thought all J frames had coil springs. My 640-1 (1995 vintage) has the smoothest trigger on any revolver I've ever owned.

[frankmako]

i got an old model 36 pin barrel j-frame that has a coil spring. my 1988 model 60 has a coil spring.

[sabre03]

+1 on the 640-1; the trigger on mine is as good as my Python.

[earlthegoat2]

Your Python needs to be brought back to stock specs then.

[Gideon]

I have an old 640-1; great trigger, smooth, buttery, etc., but I suspect it had a gunsmith work it over when it was young.

I've had several newer Airweights; their triggers take 50lbs of pull, can be indexed and fired SA if you practice and are generally horrible.

From my reading stainless guns tend to have the smoother (not necessarily lighter) triggers.

It also seems new S&W's have lousy triggers compared to the older ones. The new airweights can certainly benefit from a professional trigger job. It just ought not to be so

God Bless
Gideon

[Will B. Droopy]

Yes, as the OP, my original stainless 1994 (or so) 640 had a very smooth trigger, with a surprise break; but my new stainless 640-3 could be fired "single action" via the trigger, if I so wanted to (which I don't), due to that different feel it gets just before break (I think it may be called "indexing", as Gideon mentions). I like the new 640-3 due to the .357 capability (which I'll never use), but I don't like the lock "feature", nor the trigger indexing (which is a lack of "consistency" throughout the entire trigger pull).

BTW, I have a Python too, and the trigger on my old 640 and the Python are very similar, but then again I'm happy with almost any smooth, non-gritty trigger; one with a medium pull, not too much stacking, no initial slack, short (but not zero) over-travel, a good return, a wide-ish trigger, and a smooth trigger face (that's one bad feature the Python has: those darn, painful trigger serrations).

Even my Taurus 990 .22LR makes me happy, and the trigger pull on that is HEAVY (but smooth).

-Bill

[sabre03]

I am singling out the 640-1; no other S&W that I have now or have had even came close to the trigger on my Python's. I did however buy the 640-1 used so no telling if it is stock.