Especially on a revolver (Looking at you original Manchurian Candidate)!

Let's not forget those cool 64 shot single action revolvers in all of the old westerns.

Man, My hands still hurt when I think of brass prep.
no tumble for my match ammo..
ultrasonic, which made em ugly
then hand polish..

Can't get better without shooting a lot
and shooting a lot means lot's of prep work

it's a viscious circle

I never knew about the set trigger gear, that was very interesting.

it's still found one some higher end hunting rifles so they can walk around with the gun at the ready, but not to sensitive for it to go off.

Personally I don't think it's all that important, a good sear and a finger that is trained is al that you need to shoot well

I do prefer a good, crisp, light single stage trigger. Some of the older designs just didn't lend themselves to that, however. The set trigger served as somewhat of a crutch on those rifles. Their use on more modern designs is merely a traditional throwback than anything else.

Get a Remi 700 they said, it has great aftermarket they said,
can put in timney triggers and all that !

Or just buy a Winchester mod 70 with moa trigger and then you don't have to spend money go have a rifle with a decent and safe trigger :D

I used to put Timneys in many of my firearms for which they were available, especially the old military actions ('03-A3, M98, M96, etc.). Wonderful triggers. Match triggers, though, and certainly not hunting triggers. Same thing goes for the M700 trigger and the new M70 trigger - great match triggers, but rather poor hunting triggers. At least for a rifle that sees true wilderness use under adverse conditions. Give me the original M70 trigger for that. It is far more rugged, and it's not trapped in one of those infernal little boxes with far too many tiny moving parts. Those enclosed triggers simply trap too much dust, dirt, and debris. That, and if you are hunting in freezing weather, they can well and truly freeze up, rendering the rifle non-functional until they can be cleaned out and dried.

It occurs to me that many may not be familiar with the differences between these triggers. Here are a couple of photos to help illustrate. The M70 is on top, followed by the M700:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1559236670.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1559236670.jpg

The original M70 trigger is a study in rugged simplicity. There is no way for it to trap any crud, hold water and freeze up, or anything like that. It can still be adjusted to a relatively good pull, for use on a hunting rifle.

The M700 (and Timney, and others like them) are housed in that little box. There are lots of moving parts in there. On top of being relatively fragile, the box tends to hold crud around them, and retain water. If they get full enough of dust and dirt, like when hunting under arid, blowing conditions, they quit functioning - especially if over oiled, so the oil retains the dust. If water freezes in them, they quit functioning.

Their trigger pulls can be adjusted to be absolutely fantastic. That is their attraction. They are great for match rifles. Or for what I have come to call "range rifles" - rifles that do not qualify for any sort of match use, and are too cumbersome to hunt with (and usually have far too much glass), but will shoot those tiny little "bragging groups" all day long in front of one's adoring fans. At the range...

I can't argue for hunting purposes, never did any of that so never looked at it from that perspective.

And other than sighting in at a range, hunting is all I used my rifles for. Remington in .257 Roberts for deer. Ruger in 7mm Rem. Mag for elk. Both did the job...

I've spent far more time hunting than I have match shooting. Most of my rifles are hunting rifles. Granted, very few bolt guns, mostly single shots followed by lever guns, but all of my bolt action hunting rifles are Model 70's, save for one M98 Mauser in .375 H&H. M98's have suitably rugged hunting triggers as well, just not quite as good as the M70, in my opinion anyway.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zeJ-eoM-Ry4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dam..this is making me itch to go out and get one...maybe a Gremmer?

I just spoke with Lucinda the other day. I'm trying to use a Marble's "Game Getter" tang mounted peep sight on my Shilo 1874 Hartford Model in .45-2.4" (aka ".45-90"). The darn staff on the sight won't go low enough to work with the front sight currently on the rifle. I had her send me their tallest blank - "I have a file, and I'm not afraid to use it...".

It's the one on the bottom:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1682271697.jpg

Actually, Russkies had a Moison Nagant revolver where the cylinder and ammunition were such that it provided a seal that lent them to use with suppressors. It may even have been they were designed with that intent

Didn't the cylinder actually move forward via some sort of a camming mechanism, forcing the front of it into (or over) some sort of a cone shaped breach end on the barrel? I seem to recall reading about these somewhere, but I just cannot recall any of the details. I know there was more than one manufacturer that tried different methods to close that barrel-cylinder gap.

Interestingly, as long as we kind of veered off into suppressors, I always though that black powder fouling would play hell with them. Lo and behold, just the other day, a club member had a suppressed .50 caliber muzzle loader at our range. It was a pure hunting rifle, modern in every way - glass stock, stainless barrel, fiber optic sights, etc. And boy howdy was he shooting a stiff charge in that thing, a full 150 grains worth of some black powder substitute behind a big heavy conical. Granted, it wasn't real black powder, and maybe that was the difference. Seemed to work, though.

But I promise you, it was not a quiet "patuut" sound that Hollywood sound effects put in. It might make it quiet enough to to fire without ear plugs or headphones on, but far from silent.

No, but it was a revolver. I think the brass was extra long, so that it gave the seal when it locked up.

Yes, there were a couple out there that tried to seal that gap.