Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 105

Thread: For 3rd Gen S&W lovers

  1. #91
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by jd950 View Post
    I have wondered from time to time about seeing if I could DAK convert a stainless gun but have not gotten around to checking the frames. I have a few conversion kits and a few stainless guns. Are you pretty confident that they are not DAK compatible?
    It is possible to convert a stainless frame to DAK, but it takes some ‘smithing. Bruce Gray converted at least one. This was gleaned from the SIG forum hosted on the “Eve” network. The relevant posts would be ‘way, ‘way back in the archives, by now. If anything has changed, since then, I am not aware of it.

    Keep in mind that DAK is not a simple DAO conversion. Frames made before a specific date are not convertible. There are simpler DAO SIGs, but I their trigger pulls are notably quite heavy.

    http://sigforum.com/eve/forums
    Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.

    Don’t tread on volcanos!

  2. #92
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by MattyD380 View Post
    I had the Wilson Combat spring that was, like, the poundage-equivalent of the D spring. Or maybe even less?

    Didn't seem like an issue of pull weight, per se. It just felt like it hung up on something... then overtraveled the __ck out of all that energy. And I'd miss.

    If that makes any sense...

    It does.

    I really want to try a 92 compact, hopefully that’s not a common issue.

  3. #93
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Cincitucky
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewbie View Post
    It does.

    I really want to try a 92 compact, hopefully that’s not a common issue.
    I had one of the recent Italian-made, non-railed compacts (2015-2016-ish) with the more "crinkly" frame finish. So I don't know if the Tennessee/Maryland produced ones would be the same? Or Italian ones from other time periods...

    Either way...

    I think Ernest's improved trigger bar would fix the issue, 100%. I liked the compact, other than that. In SA, it was a pleasure to shoot and gave me tight little groups. 100% reliable.

  4. #94
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    In the flyover zone
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex G View Post
    It is possible to convert a stainless frame to DAK, but it takes some ‘smithing. Bruce Gray converted at least one. This was gleaned from the SIG forum hosted on the “Eve” network. The relevant posts would be ‘way, ‘way back in the archives, by now. If anything has changed, since then, I am not aware of it.

    Keep in mind that DAK is not a simple DAO conversion. Frames made before a specific date are not convertible. There are simpler DAO SIGs, but I their trigger pulls are notably quite heavy.

    http://sigforum.com/eve/forums
    Right, I understand that only more recent frames will accept a DAK conversion and I am definitely not interested in the DAO. I thought from your post you had investigated the issue and learned that none of the stainless frames were convertible. I know that the non-convertible frames can be modified but frankly I would not do that. I might send it to Bruce Gray if he is still doing the modification, but wold likely leave the gun as it came rather than modify it. Simply swapping parts is different.

    I will just check the frames and see if any are compatible. Alternatively, I believe I can call Sig and tell them a serial number and they will confirm if it can be converted, but I think it would be faster to just check it myself.

  5. #95
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by MattyD380 View Post
    So is the DA pull on a 92D different from the DA pull on a DA/SA 92? Or is it just me?
    The 92D introduced the eponymous 'D' spring which lowered the DA pull weight. Today the 'D' spring is common across much of the Beretta lineup (92X, Brigadier Tactical, LTT Elite, M9A3, etc.), but when introduced the 92D definitely offered a better DA trigger.

    I do think a tuned 92D has the potential to reliably use lighter hammer springs than the TDA 92s due to the one piece firing pin.
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  6. #96
    Four String Fumbler Joe in PNG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Papua New Guinea; formerly Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by JSGlock34 View Post
    The 92D introduced the eponymous 'D' spring which lowered the DA pull weight. Today the 'D' spring is common across much of the Beretta lineup (92X, Brigadier Tactical, LTT Elite, M9A3, etc.), but when introduced the 92D definitely offered a better DA trigger.

    I do think a tuned 92D has the potential to reliably use lighter hammer springs than the TDA 92s due to the one piece firing pin.
    I put a Wilson trigger bar and their 12# spring in mine, and it still works. That 4# under the 16# factory D spring.
    "You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
    "I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI

  7. #97
    I bought a California Highway Patrol 4006TSW early last year for $399, it was in Very Good condition, but had been fitted with Hogue rubber grips as replacements for the presumably destroyed factory grips. Still, I'm thrilled to have it, because it was essentially my "Grail Gun" as they say, and shortly after I purchased mine the prices online shot up to $450.

    It's a unique variant of the 4006TSW made specifically for the California Highway Patrol with an integral rail, bobbed hammer, and its own Serial Number range which supposedly goes from 1 to 10000.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by farscott View Post
    I have also heard that about the 5946, and I frankly wonder why. The 5946 is a lot heavier than the Glock 19, so I figured that incoming NYPD officers would opt for the lighter guns. Is the 5946 less expensive that the SIG option? I like the steel-framed 3rd Generation 9x19 guns, but I am strange that way. The first version of the DAO guns has a great trigger due to a unique frame and slide for the DAO models. Later S&W modified the design so that the DAO and TDA guns shared the same frames and slides. The bad side effect is less leverage for the trigger on the DAO hammer compared to the original models, making the trigger force to fire the gun higher.

    Of course, being NYPD I assume they all have rather stout trigger pulls.
    Having shot an NYPD G19, I’d probably opt for one of the other options. It should be noted that in factory configuration, I’d pick the G19 out of the 3 by a long shot. What they do to those triggers is an abomination, at least with the sample I tried.

  9. #99
    Could be wrong but I think the NYPD dropped them as an option for new officers a few years back. Now the choices are glock 17 gen 4 (with asinine 15 rnd mags because reasons), glock 19 or P226 DAO.

  10. #100
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by VT1032 View Post
    Could be wrong but I think the NYPD dropped them as an option for new officers a few years back. Now the choices are glock 17 gen 4 (with asinine 15 rnd mags because reasons), glock 19 or P226 DAO.
    The 5946 was very popular with those transitioning from S&W revolvers. The Glocks subsequently gained ground with new hires. The heavier 5946 was also a bit easier to shoot with the 10-12lb trigger pulls mandated by NYPD.

    NYPD dropped the 5946 for the G17 because S&W finally stopped making them. NYPD and RCMP were the last two significant users.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •