So, I got a spring kit and rebound slide spring tool in the mail yesterday, courtesy of my dad. I put a 13 pound trigger return spring in my 638, and my wife's model 60 got a lighter hammer spring and a 14 pound trigger return spring. Her gun has a bobbed hammer, so I wanted her to have the lighter hammer spring, so that it was a all-around smoother pull for her. My 638 got the 13 pound trigger spring, and while not earth-shattering, there is a noticeable difference in the smoothness of the double action trigger. The rebound slide spring tool worked like gangbusters on the model 60, but the little post on the 638 that holds the spring in place is beefier than on the steel-frame gun. As ubiquitous as the airweights are in the pockets of CCW-ers across the US, I think it may be time for Brownell's ro re-examine the demensions of their tool a bit. If the widened the notch a fraction, it would have worked with both guns with ease. As it stands, I had to go back to the old Miculek pen-trick to get the spring back in place on my 638.
Ah, well. Thems the breaks!
3 comments:
Great! Glad it worked out for everyone. And, good review on the little tool. Sounds like a few minutes with a needle file and it would work well on any of them.
Glad it worked out! Improving a trigger makes both accuracy AND ease of use go up!
Pawpaw- yeah, it worked out! And you're right- a few minutes with a needle file would make that tool perfect. I just wish Brownells would realism that issue, and fix it from the start!
NFO- yeah, the trigger is definitely better, now!
Post a Comment