[hkcavalier]

Underlying situation and cause well outlined above (long documented and noted dozens of times on this forum and multiple other places on the internet).
However, if your looking for advice on possible remediation solutions. Several come to mind:
1. If you feel the revolver isn't worth the investment, won't be hard to find a willing buyer. They are still selling like hotcakes such that vast majority still selling at premium to MSRP.
2. Shoot and/or dryfiring the heck out of it as noted above, very well may smooth and lighten the SA trigger out some.
3. DON"T recommend this one but it's an option - As noted at start of this post, you could personally go under the plate and do some gunsmithing yourself. Strongly discourage this option for multitude of excellent reasons.
4. Invest a modest additional sum and send it into highly skilled Gunsmith. Dozens and dozens of posts on this forum detailing the work of Heffron Precision in Iowa & Glenn Custom in Arizona.

Good luck!

I guess my ask was a little too open ended and slightly rhetorical. I'm not a rookie collector, though by your advice you seem to assume that.

I have sent pistols off to gunsmiths for work, including Frank Glenn. And sure, for $100,000 one could send off the rusty hulk in their garage to a top tier restorer and get back a show car. Money solves many problems.

Was looking more for "take a fine flat file to X and remove a few microns, then reassemble and test" type advice.

 

[Rojo27]

I guess my ask was a little too open ended and slightly rhetorical. I'm not a rookie collector, though by your advice you seem to assume that.

I have sent pistols off to gunsmiths for work, including Frank Glenn. And sure, for $100,000 one could send off the rusty hulk in their garage to a top tier restorer and get back a show car. Money solves many problems.

Was looking more for "take a fine flat file to X and remove a few microns, then reassemble and test" type advice.

No experience or acumen assumption. Question asked & answered.
Analogy is comical but no worries.
Fare-thee-well diving under the hood. ✌

 

[hkcavalier]

I did a little Googling and found this blog post: A TJ Trigger for My New Python

In the pictures, the blogger's Python has a small, rough ledge on the hammer that the trigger engages and it causes that not-so-great SA pull. So he sent it off to a gunsmith to remove, and it solved all of his problems.

I have a nice shop and some decent tools, so I figured I could at least duplicate the work. I took apart mine and, well, my hammer doesn't have that rough line in the steel. It's nice and smooth. I'm not brave enough to start messing with the geometry of otherwise smooth, well-machined (or molded) parts.

 

[dfariswheel]

Heffron gunsmithing is well known for doing trigger work on the new Python and giving actions as good if not better then the original Python.

Apparently the heavier single action trigger in the new Python is caused by the hammer camming backward when the trigger is pulled. This was due to the revolver having to pass the California drop test.
Heffron eliminates that and produces a SA trigger that gets rave reviews.........

Heffron Precision Home Page

 

[SerHammerless]

Heffron eliminates that and produces a SA trigger that gets rave reviews.........

I've got a place in line with Mr. Heffron for the second week in September. VERY MUCH looking forward to it.

 

[RevolverGuy38]

This is Mike Heffron of Heffron Precision©, There are a few details I would like to share concerning this "drop testing". There are other states that do it, primarily to "educate" themselves. There are several independent firms conducting this testing is the bottom line. The state of California actually does it themselves. Then there are the Canadian and European markets, both of which require drop testing AND both of those markets are larger than you may think. I know that I was surprised.

In a nutshell, the revolver is NOT dropped on its hammer as commonly thought. It's dropped onto the rear portion of the butt with the barrel aiming upwards. Many have wondered how Smith & Wesson revolvers pass. Many have wondered how the 21st Century Colt Cobra and King Cobra pass as these all have crisp AND lighter single-action triggers. The answer can be found with "stored kinetic energy". When the revolver is cocked and then dropped (from a height of 3 meters, which is pretty much 10 feet!) onto the butt, the revolver does come to a sudden stop, however, those free-moving mechanism parts want to keep moving! If the trigger has enough physical mass below the pivot point, it will move enough to drop the hammer. Since Smith & Wesson began using MIM parts, have you noticed how the rear of the trigger is hollow? Many have accused Smith & Wesson of hollowing the rear of the trigger as a cost-saving tactic. That isn't why they did it. That small amount of steel they removed from the rear of the trigger was enough to reduce the "downward inertia" that would have otherwise dropped the hammer. Colt's 21st Century Cobra and King Cobra? Those triggers are shorter and more narrow than the triggers found on the 21st Century Python and Anaconda, hence, they weigh less. They weigh so much less that they don't move enough to drop the hammer during a 10-foot fall. The "newer" Rugers feature hollowed-out triggers as well.

When Colt reintroduced the Python and Anaconda, they were faced with: A) Sell premium double-action revolvers such as the Python and Anaconda with hollow triggers, or B) Design a single action sear that between depth of engagement and angle would overcome the drop test, and maybe, a company or companies would come out with tuning to address the crappy single-action trigger that resulted from such measures.

I've thought about it quite a bit and I think they made the right choice. A hollow trigger on a Python? Nah. No thank you. We can give a new Python and Anaconda a crisp zero-creep single-action trigger as light as 2.50 lbs though. In addition, the entire action receives extensive polishing. Without going into extensive detail, we will deliver you a NEW Colt double-action revolver with (and I'm mentioning this for a reason):

A crisp and light single-action pull.
A revolver that's still timed properly.
A revolver that does NOT have light primer strikes.
Your cylinder will turn properly.
The double-action trigger will be lighter and slicker as well with a swift and smooth trigger return.
The entire action will feel as if it "glides" during operation.

We also guarantee the mechanism for 1 year after tuning. Have a great day everyone!
-Mike

 

[hkcavalier]

Thanks for the explanation Mike! I'll likely be in touch after an October vacation that may or may not eat away all of my folding money. I did look at your site and the pricing is very reasonable for the work done.

 

[bikerdup]

My new Python also had visible (~1/64") drawback before release in single action mode. Colt told me this was done to address several blue state requirements regarding discharge should the revolver be dropped. This answer bothered me and it took a bit for that to crystalize. It's BS. The Python employs a transfer bar firing system. Drop is all day long and have the single action sear release. The hammer will never engage the firing pin. The safety solution is build into the design. Colt's "reasoning" is BS.

 

[bikerdup]

No it's NOT........I was a pro gunsmith/watchmaker and I KNOW.

Here's something I wrote for another site on "Fluffing and buffing" guns.....

"Often people ask about packing a gun with an abrasive like valve grinding compound or even toothpaste.

NEVER DO THIS.

Using an abrasive paste of any kind is not controllable.
You need to work on specific surfaces and leave all other areas as-is. Abrasive pastes attack all surfaces and will round off parts that need to be kept sharp, like sears and hammer notches.
Using an abrasive paste in a gun can destroy the gun or abrade away metal that would take many years of normal use to do. People will tell you that it worked fine for them, and it may seem like it until you look at critical surfaces under magnification and see the damage".

I've looked at a number of guns under magnification people did this to and the damage was obvious.
If you want to do this, that's your decision, but you're doing years of wear and damage to the gun.
This is akin to dumping a handful of valve grinding compound it the oil of your car to "smooth it up".

I've dealt with this sort of advice for years.
My response is this.....

If I tell you NOT to do something like this and I'm wrong, you lose NOTHING.
If you follow the advice to do something and THEY'RE wrong, you've damaged or ruined an expensive gun.
The people advising you to do it will not be standing by to pay for the repairs or buy you a new gun.
They will be nowhere to be found.

I am a retired gunsmith as well. Everything posted above is spot on.

 

[RevolverGuy38]

Please read below.

 

[RevolverGuy38]

My new Python also had visible (~1/64") drawback before release in single action mode. Colt told me this was done to address several blue state requirements regarding discharge should the revolver be dropped. This answer bothered me and it took a bit for that to crystalize. It's BS. The Python employs a transfer bar firing system. Drop is all day long and have the single action sear release. The hammer will never engage the firing pin. The safety solution is build into the design. Colt's "reasoning" is BS.

There is far more to this than you realize. The standardized "drop test" was devised to see if the hammer halls upon landing, period. We have duplicated the test ourselves, DUE TO THE TRANSFER BAR, when the hammer fell due to a drop, the gun did NOT go off (we were using primed cases). That, however, does not matter. Their reasoning is related to the hammer dropping, or the hammer not dropping. That's all. The sear angle is an effective means of preventing hammer fall in case of a drop, but it's also an effective means of creating a heavy and creepy SA trigger pull. We achieve crisp, clean, and perfectly functional single-action trigger pulls down to 2 lbs without reducing the weight of a single spring anywhere. This is due to the calculated angles and depths involved with the tuning. Our guns ignite stubborn magnum primers. This is because Heffron Precision© uses an Engineer. The crew that designed the "Standardized Drop Test" apparently did not.

Colt did what they had to do in order to pass the test. So, WHAT LEADS TO A REVOLVER FAILING THE TEST? Simple. The physical mass of the trigger. During testing, the barrel is pointed up and held in place (regarding position) by a fixture, the revolver is then cocked, then dropped onto the butt at a height of 3 meters (which is + or - a whisker within 10 feet). They are also dropped onto their barrels. If the trigger has the kinetic energy present (physical mass and movement) it can move, causing the hammer to drop. This is why Colt's own new King Cobra and new Cobra often have better trigger pulls than the Python and Anaconda. The Cobra/King Cobra triggers are thin and much shorter. There's not enough energy present upon landing to move these triggers. Many have wondered about Smith & Wesson's MIM triggers with hollow backs. If you've never noticed, look at one sometime. Many have labeled this as a "cost cutting measure". It is not. It reduces the trigger's physical mass! the New Python and New Anaconda do not use trigger that are skinny and short like the new Cobra/King Cobra. The triggers are not MIM, they are not cast, but rather machined from stock.

There is nothing wrong with Colt's "reasoning". Certainly, the presence of a transfer bar does prevent the gun from firing upon impact because the trigger is not being pinned back throughout the hammer cycle. That is not what the Standardized Testing calls for though. The hammer cannot fall. The gun must remain cocked. That's the only thing that matters regarding this testing. Is it a test that basically tells us nothing? Yup. Pretty much. Blame the lawmakers, blame the courts, blame the ambulance chasing attorneys. The gun makers are the innocent party among all of this chaos. -Mike

 

[bikerdup]

There is far more to this than you realize. The standardized "drop test" was devised to see if the hammer halls upon landing, period. We have duplicated the test ourselves, DUE TO THE TRANSFER BAR, when the hammer fell due to a drop, the gun did NOT go off (we were using primed cases). That, however, does not matter. Their reasoning is related to the hammer dropping, or the hammer not dropping. That's all. The sear angle is an effective means of preventing hammer fall in case of a drop, but it's also an effective means of creating a heavy and creepy SA trigger pull. We achieve crisp, clean, and perfectly functional single-action trigger pulls down to 2 lbs without reducing the weight of a single spring anywhere. This is due to the calculated angles and depths involved with the tuning. Our guns ignite stubborn magnum primers. This is because Heffron Precision© uses an Engineer. The crew that designed the "Standardized Drop Test" apparently did not.

Colt did what they had to do in order to pass the test. So, WHAT LEADS TO A REVOLVER FAILING THE TEST? Simple. The physical mass of the trigger. During testing, the barrel is pointed up and held in place (regarding position) by a fixture, the revolver is then cocked, then dropped onto the butt at a height of 3 meters (which is + or - a whisker within 10 feet). They are also dropped onto their barrels. If the trigger has the kinetic energy present (physical mass and movement) it can move, causing the hammer to drop. This is why Colt's own new King Cobra and new Cobra often have better trigger pulls than the Python and Anaconda. The Cobra/King Cobra triggers are thin and much shorter. There's not enough energy present upon landing to move these triggers. Many have wondered about Smith & Wesson's MIM triggers with hollow backs. If you've never noticed, look at one sometime. Many have labeled this as a "cost cutting measure". It is not. It reduces the trigger's physical mass! the New Python and New Anaconda do not use trigger that are skinny and short like the new Cobra/King Cobra. The triggers are not MIM, they are not cast, but rather machined from stock.

There is nothing wrong with Colt's "reasoning". Certainly, the presence of a transfer bar does prevent the gun from firing upon impact because the trigger is not being pinned back throughout the hammer cycle. That is not what the Standardized Testing calls for though. The hammer cannot fall. The gun must remain cocked. That's the only thing that matters regarding this testing. Is it a test that basically tells us nothing? Yup. Pretty much. Blame the lawmakers, blame the courts, blame the ambulance chasing attorneys. The gun makers are the innocent party among all of this chaos. -Mike

You signed your reply "Mike". Are you Mike Heffron? If so, I've been looking at your $230 trigger tune (BTW, I am a retired gunsmith. I know what needs to be done and how to do it, but I do not the needed jigs and fixtures to perform the work. NO WAY would I try this free-hand.) Assuming your Heffron Gun Works, what does your turn around time look like if I send my revolver in this week? My email is bikerdup@gmail.com in case you would like to communicate off line.

Stay well,

Mike Dupuis
(908) 727-6800

 

[RevolverGuy38]

You signed your reply "Mike". Are you Mike Heffron? If so, I've been looking at your $230 trigger tune (BTW, I am a retired gunsmith. I know what needs to be done and how to do it, but I do not the needed jigs and fixtures to perform the work. NO WAY would I try this free-hand.) Assuming your Heffron Gun Works, what does your turn around time look like if I send my revolver in this week? My email is bikerdup@gmail.com in case you would like to communicate off line.

Stay well,

Mike Dupuis
(908) 727-6800

This is Mike Heffron. I will contact you via email. I will tell you that we are booked solid through September of next year. -MH

 

[dfariswheel]

As above by a real professional expert, drop tests like the California test rate a gun as unsafe it the hammer drops during the test.
Whether the gun fires or not is not an issue.....if it drops it fails and can't be sold in a drop test state.

This sounds counterintuitive.
You'd think that the intent is to determine whether a gun will not fire if dropped to insure a safe gun, but you're dealing with bureaucrats who have little to no knowledge about firearms, and who's actual intent appears to be to prohibit as much gun sales as they can.

 

[RevolverGuy38]

As above by a real professional expert, drop tests like the California test rate a gun as unsafe it the hammer drops during the test.
Whether the gun fires or not is not an issue.....if it drops it fails and can't be sold in a drop test state.

This sounds counterintuitive.
You'd think that the intent is to determine whether a gun will not fire if dropped to insure a safe gun, but you're dealing with bureaucrats who have little to no knowledge about firearms, and who's actual intent appears to be to prohibit as much gun sales as they can.

This testing was undoubtedly "designed" by people who lack working firearm knowledge. Their criteria isn't "If the hammer falls from a drop will it be safe from firing?" Rather, it's "Will the hammer stay cocked no matter what?". This "standardized" test has found its way to Europe, (which is a far larger market than one may think it is) so they will be plagued by the same issues. Several years ago, there was a lawsuit where a construction worker dropped a pneumatic air nailer. Upon landing it went off, propelling a nail nearly 4 feet striking him in the eye and blinding him. There was a lawsuit against Bostitch concerning this and he lost. Basically, the court's explanation was "You are using a pneumatic air nailer. You need to pay attention while you're using such things. The safety features weren't designed for careless people who drop them. If that nail had struck someone else you would have been liable, so Bostitch owes you nothing for your personal injury". We all know that guns powered by POWDER are not treated as fairly.