Can a GP100 trigger job equal Smith trigger?

Pretty sure you can make a GP trigger great, I performed the gp100 ibok on mine and it feels great to me. However, I doubt it will feel the same as a SW as they are designed differently. I started with a GP, so to me the SW trigger doesn't do anything special. So if you are already used to SW revolver triggers, than no it won't be the same.

I have always heard that a S&W revolver with an expert trigger job will always be better than a Ruger with an expert trigger job but I'm not sure how true that is in reality. I doubt, all but a few people would be able to tell the difference in single action.

I could be convinced that after an expert trigger job a S&W's double action trigger might be better than a Ruger. I think this is in part why S&W revolvers dominate the action shooting sports like ICORE across all divisions, and IDPA, and USPSA Revolver divisions.

My FiL has a GP100 that had a very nice trigger right out of the box. It's not as good as my K22 Masterpiece, but it's comparable to lesser S&W's I've shot. Maybe he just got lucky.

You can make a gp100 trigger good enough to get the job done. If you like staging your trigger pull, you might prefer the GP out of the box when compared to a Smith. My 6 inch GP had a better trigger than my 686, in my opinion, but neither had been worked on.

When comparing a GP with trigger work to a Smith and Wesson with trigger work, the Smith is going to feel better to most, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the GP. Obviously this is all pretty subjective, but that's my take.

Read this: I'm a huge Ruger fan, my safe has both S&W & Ruger, but the Ruger's are on the order of 10 to 1 against the Smiths. I've been smithing on both for over 20yrs, and as an instructor, I recommend the Ruger in front of the S&W most of the time. Put your flame throwers away, I'm not hearing it... Below are all of the realities I had to learn to overcome to try to get GP's and other Ruger's up to the standards of discerning S&W fanboys.

If you compare the S&W and the GP, you're looking at a double coil spring action vs. a coil + leaf spring action. This is typically why most S&W fanboys claim the S&W can be made to have a trigger feel which can't be met by the Ruger design. Whether it is correct or not, and in my experience doing action work on both, I'm more prone to say this is less true than true. Generally, if the strut is polished and the spring burnished, the shooter will not feel stacking of the Ruger mainspring, and the stacking felt is really more of the moving parts than the springs themselves.

Another advantageous feature of the S&W design compared to the Ruger is the strain screw, which gives the shooter the ability to tune the mainspring load slightly without even disassembling the revolver. There's no parallel to be had for this feature in the Ruger design, as the only ways to manipulate the spring tension are to replace the spring or remove coils (destructive, irreversible process without replacement parts).

The sear depth and angle of the Ruger is the next "weak link" in the good trigger chain. Ruger's have an absurdly safe sear engagement depth and angle, which adds to the trigger creep, and increases the pull weight. This can only be rectified by an action job by a skilled smith.

The hammer mounted firing pin of the S&W compared to the frame mounted firing pin of the Ruger, coupled with the Ruger's transfer bar, is another design aspect where the Ruger can't be made to run as efficiently as the S&W. It simply takes more spring force to overcome all of the moving parts, all of the momentum transfers, of the Ruger design, plus the firing pin rebound spring power. This really can't be overcome, but it can be minimized, which is especially more simple these days with the rear-entry firing pin design upgrade.

The Ruger does have a bit longer geometry, which offers a bit extra leverage, but also means extra travel. In this, the Ruger has a slight advantage if the sear is modified as described above, as the longer geometry gives a smoother, lighter feel to the break, even if it might have a slightly longer perceptible creep in SA.

The Ruger also has a disadvantage in its locking bolt & trigger interaction design, which unless properly addressed by a skilled smith, requires extra trigger spring power to overcome. The S&W has a fixed tip on the trigger which trips the locking bolt to free the cylinder, then cams over the bolt again upon reset, in which case the angle is extreme, but the rebound slide spring is only fighting the locking bolt spring to reset. In the Ruger, this system is much more "squishy," as the trigger plunger (not the part most people think) is sprung against the pawl, and these parts are all free to move, and the trigger plunger has a habit of canting on its axis, which defeats the mechanical advantage. A skilled and knowledgeable smith can eliminate that deflection and tune the interaction, but out of the box, the Ruger requires greater trigger reset spring power than the S&W.

Once tuned, the difference between the two still favors the S&W, but only slightly, as the minimum weight for both has to stop long before they'd functionally fail, simply to keep the triggers safe and appropriate for field use. A guy really can make either SA trigger too light to be useful. Generally, out of the box Ruger's will have better triggers these days than non-PC S&W's, but more importantly, an appropriately reworked specimen from either brand will be leaps and bounds better than either were from factory, or with simple spring replacements.

The greatest liability of the Ruger DA is a dearth of "skilled and knowledgeable smiths."
And a lot of people who think a set of weak springs is an "action job."

Back in the bygone era of the Security Six, I handled two full house PPC guns out of the same shop. One was excellent, maybe not up to the very best Smith, but it contained no excuses for a low score. The other was sad, I wondered if it had skipped the action work and just got Douglas and Bomar.

I have a few stock S&W revolver that all feel excellent except for a rough 10-5 with some kinks in the action. The best is probably my 617-1 with a nod to my 67-1. None of my Rugers come close to the Smiths and the usual fluff and buff only and brings them to where they ought to have been when they leave the factory. Particularly upsetting is the wobbly action and heavy trigger on my fixed sight 3" gp100. That one is nearly worth a professional action job. I have tried swapping springs on them but it just doesn't satisfy. However, my early low back security six has an excellent trigger, completely untouched, and with a very low round count. Beautiful gun. It rivals my Smiths and is clearly superior in action and manufacture to the later Rugers.

Better for what? If you're chasing Jerry Mickulek, you'll find that no other revolver's trigger resets as quickly as the S&W. If your purposes are less competition oriented, the Ruger trigger is typically fairly decent out of the box but can be very impressive when worked over by a gunsmith who knows how. If you're just looking for a nice single action let-off, you may be pleasantly surprised. I've got three GP's and two SRH's and they average around 4lbs, except the .480 with Wolff springs is right at 3lbs. All are crisp with little creep and completely serviceable. Obviously, they're not as slick as my professionally tuned guns but they do the job.

I assume since you reference hunting it's SA you are primarily concerned with. My new GP100 had an absurdly perfect SA break as delivered - and it's so light I can't even guess just how light it is. I've never had anything this light; I surely wouldn't want it any lighter. Zero creep whatsoever.

The DA wasn't as impressive, smooth but fairly heavy. But large improvements are coming easily enough. I installed hammer and hammer dog shims and that really helped. I had previously tried lightening the mainspring but the feel worsened noticeably with the lighter spring. Between a few weeks of dry-firing and the hammer shims I was able to lighten the mainspring and the pull remain smooth. Ruger installs heavy springs but as the gun wears or you clean up the surfaces you can drop the mainspring weight significantly, and you can lighten the trigger return spring at any point to taste, which I did.

The hammer dog has surfaces rough enough that a little stone work may happen at some point, but SA out of the box was unreal and DA is already good enough that I could just shoot the thing and wear will resolve the minor frictional issues. My recommendation is find some Rugers in a gun shop and dry-fire them. You may be surprised. I'm pretty sure if you go to the trouble to have one looked at professionally you'll be satisfied in the worst-case scenario.

I don't know about the GP100, but I have a Speed-Six that is every bit as good as any S&W that I have. Not sure if the GP100 and Speed-Six share the same trigger geometry.

YouTube videos are not the place to learn how to do anything.
Real difference is the material the parts are made from. Ruger's are SS. Smith's are carbon steel. Only Colt I own is a Series 70 1911A1, so it doesn't count, but its parts are steel. Only other Colt I've played with was an old junker Police Positive that was a nightmare of wee tiny parts and flat springs. Smith's require one special $20(if you don't have access to a lathe) tool the GP does not. A GP's trigger can be done exactly how a 1911A1's trigger is done.
"...hammer spring (lightening)..." Not if it's done right. Fiddling with a Smith's strain screw can do that though. Easily fixed by putting it back the way it was.
"...comparison to a striker fired..." Apples and oranges.
SS is a bit softer than steel. Doesn't polish as well. However, my GP(had it since they first came to Canada over 35 years ago) works just fine for bullseye shooting. A target trigger is a different requirement than a hunting trigger though. Smooth is always better than too light for hunting.

I'm an admitted (DA) trigger snob, and have only shot S&Ws in competition, but about the best DA revolver trigger I've ever felt was a GP100 tuned by an excellent revolver shooter who loves Rugers and knows how to tune them.

SA? I rarely shoot SA, so they both feel fine to me - both seemed to break cleanly and lightly. I'm not sure what else I could want.

Ru4real said:

I've also heard in videos that any work to the hammer spring (lightening) results in light primer strikes or mis-fires.

Click to expand...

Howdy

I have a bazillion Smiths, but only one Ruger double action revolver, so I am unqualified to speak about which is better.

However, your statement about hammer springs and light primer strikes is an over generalization. There are degrees to lightening the hammer spring in almost any firearm.

Straight from the factory, any double action revolver is a marvelous mechanism that utilizes cams, levers, sliding parts and carefully balanced springs to perform its job. As Varminterror alluded, there is inherent amount of friction generated between the moving parts. The main spring (hammer spring) in any firearm must deliver enough energy to reliably fire a primer every time. Not all brands of primers require the same amount of 'punch' to fire them, some require more than others. Most firearm manufacturers put in a main spring strong enough to overcome the inherent friction in the mechanism to reliably fire all brands of primers.

As was stated, simply replacing or changing the strength of the main spring is not an action job. A good action job will remove as much of the inherent friction in the action as possible, so a lighter mainspring can reliably fire all brands of primers. Some shooters like a revolver tuned to the nth degree so that it will only set off certain brands of primers. Others like one tuned and with a lighter mainspring that will still reliably fire all brands of primers. As stated, S&W revolvers have a strain screw that can be backed out slightly to reduce main spring pressure, although this practice is sometimes frowned on.

But the bottom line is, messing with the hammer spring alone will not invariably result in misfires.

I own both the Wiley Clapp GP100 and the Match Champion. The triggers are every bit as good, right out of the box, as my 686SSR and the old nickel S&W19 I gave to my son.

If your talking about smooth double action, and smooth light crisp single action,, you bet it will. If it don't your using the wrong gunsmith! I do my own, I don't believe in slow lock time and reduced hammer springs, depending on the gun I may increase the hammer spring. But I do own several I hunt with that are below 3#, and as reliable as they get. Now on a single action revolver,, smith don't have a chance!

wildcatter109 said:

I don't believe in slow lock time and reduced hammer springs, depending on the gun I may increase the hammer spring.

Click to expand...

The sear correction I've discussed is complementary to extra power springs. This action work can result in shortened lock time AND reduced SA trigger pull weight (DA remains heavier as it cycles the hammer, naturally). Kinda the best of both worlds for the DA revolver.

exactly, unless you understand the work yourself.

My introduction to good DA triggers was the chance purchase of a used Model 15-3 cheap during the great police revolver sell off.
Since then, I’ve also owned a Model 19, a Model 10, and a 686.
When I decided to get a GP100, I did a lot of reading while I waited for a deal. All these complaints about the trigger, and how to do a home trigger job.
When I got my GP, a 3” fixed sight version I got instead of the WC I was looking for, I was surprised by the trigger.
Nice smooth DA and crisp light SA. Right out of the box, I did nothing but lube it and shoot it, and it is very comparable to the well used trigger of my Model 15.
I shoot this 3” GP very well, with excellent accuracy. The fixed sights shoot to POA (a concern for me, as I had owned 3” SP101 which emphatically did not), and basically, if I can see it, I can hit it out to long range.
Very happy with this GP, and it is my usual HD gun and occasional carry gun in a Galco Summer Comfort.

Like a whole lot of other things (like how Harley gets judged by the AMF days, Japanese cars are infinitely more reliable than American cars and Uberti's are garbage compared to Colt's), I think the popular notion that Rugers are very rough and that S&W's are infinitely smoother out of the box is very outdated. New S&W's are not that smooth and new Rugers are not that rough. Most factory revolvers, SA and DA, are significantly oversprung. Virtually all benefit from an action job and lighter springs.

Owning a dozen S&W's, a Kimber K6s, and an SP101 that was reworked by the previous owner, rating overall smoothness of DA pull,
SP101 first place
Kimber K6s second place
All other S&W's including a half dozen PC guns third place

With respect to adjusting mainspring tension with the screw on the S&W - at one time some firm offered a strut for Rugers (I believe Sixes) that had a NUT on it that allowed adjusting tension on the mainspring. I have not seen these in years but it would not be difficult to manufacture. The ones I saw appeared to be bronze.

Now that S&W uses a frame mounted firing pin I see one other advantage of theirs disappearing. I might note that there are gunsmiths and there are gunsmiths but not all tune a S&W as well, ask me how I know. Also, if one looks thoroughly there are gunsmiths that can tune a Ruger quite well. They are more plentiful then trying to find a Colt master gunsmith. At one time I had both a highly tuned S&W 686 Mtn. Gun and a GP100. The latter still remains. The former has a new home. The larger hammer arc
sort of reminds me of a tuned Python I once had.

The S&W does enjoy the advantage of a lesser hammer arc.

RugRev said:

The S&W does enjoy the advantage of a lesser hammer arc.

Click to expand...

Advantage for lock time, disadvantage for trigger leverage and ignition reliability.

I don't know what you can do with a Ruger, but simply by installing a wolf spring kit in my 686 has a hair trigger. No creep, no take up,maybe 1.5 lbs.

My security 6 was nowhere that good, even after my Smith worked on it.