Trigger pull weight on Beretta 1934, Beretta 70S, etc?

jmstr · December 18, 2020, 03:29 AM

Hello All,

I have a Beretta 70S and another .380 that was based on the Beretta 1934 design [but with slide safety and side extractor- Tanfoglio GT380].

They are reasonably fun- for a .380 blowback. However, I am a bit of a trigger snob.

I realize there is no way these pistols can be as crisp/light as a quality 1911.

However, I'd like to get the trigger pull down to a safe, crisp and lighter pull- hopefully near 4-4.5lbs.

My thought is that, with the .380blowback design on these, I am not going to have any luck with this.

My reasons for this thought are that the hammer spring has to be heavy-duty to slow the slide properly, or it will move too fast, and that the sear spring has to be stronger than the average as a blowback design feels more 'violent' than those that use something like the 1911 link, or the BHP cam/barrel channel designs.

Do you think I am right?

Or, do you know someone who is a superb Beretta gunsmith and can bring these down to that range I described?

I got both down there on my own, but found the hammer would follow when I dropped the slide on a snap cap [only 1 out of 10 times, but that is too many].

I had to stiffen the sear spring, and now if feels smooth/crisp, and around 5.8-6.8lbs.

Any suggestions?

Oh, I DO have other .380s, but I want each one I own to work at its optimal level.

I am in California, so I don't have as many options as many of you.

Interestingly, the ones I mentioned in this thread are 2 of my 3 newest 380s, and they were made between 1981 and 1995.

My others are from between 1937 and 1957- and I've been able to fine-tune them by doing trigger/action jobs.

I am pretty skilled, but I am still a 'shade-tree' mechanic.

Fishbed77 · December 18, 2020, 08:26 AM

My suggestion is to leave these pistols as they are. If you would like a Beretta 70 variant that has a very nice trigger feel, grab a Model 76 (.22LR target pistol) while surplus examples are still available for sale.

.

T. O'Heir · December 18, 2020, 01:31 PM

No .380 is a target pistol. They're made for 'pockets'. I'd be thinking leave an old pistol alone too.
"...smooth/crisp..." That's far more important.
Wolff Springs has a reasonably priced(less than $15) "Service Pack" for the 1934 but it's with original weight springs.

Fishbed77 · December 21, 2020, 09:45 AM

Quote:

No .380 is a target pistol.

This is not true.

The Browning 10/71 immediately comes to mind as a target pistol chambered in .380ACP. I’m sure there are others.

That said, the Beretta 1934 and 70S were certainly not designed as target pistols. Hence my recommendation for the Model 76 if the OP is interested in a similar pistol with a very good trigger feel. Of course, it’s not in .380ACP.

Bill DeShivs · December 21, 2020, 02:35 PM

Spring weight has little to do with trigger pull on a single action pistol.
Sear engagement is much more important. Most of these guns have trigger linkages that must be smoothed also.
Any pistol can be a target pistol-some more easily and better than others.

jmstr · December 22, 2020, 12:29 AM

Thanks all,

In the past, I have detail stripped both my Beretta 70s and my EA380 [guts are like a 1934, except the slide safety- but the sear/trigger/hammer system are also very similar to the Beretta 70S].

In doing so, I used first an india stone, and then an Arkansas stone, to dress down the trigger bar, the surface that engages the sear, the sear 'leg' that is pressed by the sear bar, and the frame where the trigger bar slides over it.

I also cleaned up, but didn't recontour, the sear and hammer faces.

I don't want to reduce the main spring weight, as that is linked to the recoil spring to control the rate of slide motion, and the rate of feeding from a new magazine.

I fiddled with the EA and Beretta sear springs a tad. The Beretta 70s took the mild tweak without issue, and this dropped the trigger pull weight to around 5lbs.

The EA380 went closer to 4lbs, but got hammer follow. I bumped it back up and now it is closer to 6.5lbs.

I realize they are 'point and shoot' pistols, as neither has sights that can be adjusted for height- just windage. Well, not for height more than once- by filing the front sight down.

I don't know if I am already at the limit of safe trigger with the factory hammer spring weight, or if it can be safely reduced to 4lbs. If so, I'd prefer it to be so- for consistency.

However, I'll take clean/crisp break at moderate pressure over muddled break at lighter pressure [esp if the latter included hammer follow.]

Thanks all

RickB · December 23, 2020, 10:29 AM

Since springs are holding the gun in battery, and influencing the timing to a greater extent than a locked-breech design, I wouldn't experiment much with lighter springs; blowbacks have stiff springs with good reason.
The trigger on my 1934 is not especially heavy, compared to the likes of a Colt '08 or Savage '07, so some are better than others.

jmstr · December 23, 2020, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Since springs are holding the gun in battery, and influencing the timing to a greater extent than a locked-breech design, I wouldn't experiment much with lighter springs; blowbacks have stiff springs with good reason.
The trigger on my 1934 is not especially heavy, compared to the likes of a Colt '08 or Savage '07, so some are better than others.

Good points.

Is the Colt '08 like the '03 hammerless, but in .380?

I ask as I have the Husqvarna '07, which is a licensed FN '03, which is a .380 caliber Colt '03 with a longer barrel.

I also have the Femaru 37, which was pretty bad.

The worst triggers I've ever felt were in Makarov pistols. I have read great things about those pistols, but have dry fired 3 of them [with snap caps] and the trigger pull as on a par with the 1895 Nagant revolver.

RickB · December 23, 2020, 05:30 PM

Yes, the '08 Pocket Hammerless is the .380 version of the '03, smaller version of the FN/Husky '07.
A lot of '07s in the U.S. have been converted to .380, but were originally in 9mm Browning Long.

jmstr · December 23, 2020, 06:50 PM

Yep- my Husqvarna 1907 was converted- but that is just a barrel change [and recoil spring?].

I sourced an unaltered 9x20mm barrel and some ammo for THAT caliber also.

I will say that the 1907 in .380 is VERY pleasant to shoot- very mild.

But, back to my original topic- ok, I'll just stick to angles and smoothness, and leave springs alone.

Thanks all!

December 18, 2020, 03:29 AM	#1
jmstr Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2001 Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA Posts: 1,281	Trigger pull weight on Beretta 1934, Beretta 70S, etc? Hello All, I have a Beretta 70S and another .380 that was based on the Beretta 1934 design [but with slide safety and side extractor- Tanfoglio GT380]. They are reasonably fun- for a .380 blowback. However, I am a bit of a trigger snob. I realize there is no way these pistols can be as crisp/light as a quality 1911. However, I'd like to get the trigger pull down to a safe, crisp and lighter pull- hopefully near 4-4.5lbs. My thought is that, with the .380blowback design on these, I am not going to have any luck with this. My reasons for this thought are that the hammer spring has to be heavy-duty to slow the slide properly, or it will move too fast, and that the sear spring has to be stronger than the average as a blowback design feels more 'violent' than those that use something like the 1911 link, or the BHP cam/barrel channel designs. Do you think I am right? Or, do you know someone who is a superb Beretta gunsmith and can bring these down to that range I described? I got both down there on my own, but found the hammer would follow when I dropped the slide on a snap cap [only 1 out of 10 times, but that is too many]. I had to stiffen the sear spring, and now if feels smooth/crisp, and around 5.8-6.8lbs. Any suggestions? Oh, I DO have other .380s, but I want each one I own to work at its optimal level. I am in California, so I don't have as many options as many of you. Interestingly, the ones I mentioned in this thread are 2 of my 3 newest 380s, and they were made between 1981 and 1995. My others are from between 1937 and 1957- and I've been able to fine-tune them by doing trigger/action jobs. I am pretty skilled, but I am still a 'shade-tree' mechanic.

December 18, 2020, 08:26 AM	#2
Fishbed77 Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2010 Posts: 4,862	My suggestion is to leave these pistols as they are. If you would like a Beretta 70 variant that has a very nice trigger feel, grab a Model 76 (.22LR target pistol) while surplus examples are still available for sale. . Last edited by Fishbed77; December 21, 2020 at 09:38 AM.

December 18, 2020, 01:31 PM	#3
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	No .380 is a target pistol. They're made for 'pockets'. I'd be thinking leave an old pistol alone too. "...smooth/crisp..." That's far more important. Wolff Springs has a reasonably priced(less than $15) "Service Pack" for the 1934 but it's with original weight springs. __________________ Spelling and grammar count!

December 21, 2020, 02:35 PM	#5
Bill DeShivs Senior Member Join Date: April 7, 2006 Posts: 10,985	Spring weight has little to do with trigger pull on a single action pistol. Sear engagement is much more important. Most of these guns have trigger linkages that must be smoothed also. Any pistol can be a target pistol-some more easily and better than others. __________________ Bill DeShivs, Master Cutler www.billdeshivs.com

December 23, 2020, 10:29 AM	#7
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	Since springs are holding the gun in battery, and influencing the timing to a greater extent than a locked-breech design, I wouldn't experiment much with lighter springs; blowbacks have stiff springs with good reason. The trigger on my 1934 is not especially heavy, compared to the likes of a Colt '08 or Savage '07, so some are better than others. __________________ Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong.

December 22, 2020, 12:29 AM	#6
jmstr Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2001 Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA Posts: 1,281	Thanks all, In the past, I have detail stripped both my Beretta 70s and my EA380 [guts are like a 1934, except the slide safety- but the sear/trigger/hammer system are also very similar to the Beretta 70S]. In doing so, I used first an india stone, and then an Arkansas stone, to dress down the trigger bar, the surface that engages the sear, the sear 'leg' that is pressed by the sear bar, and the frame where the trigger bar slides over it. I also cleaned up, but didn't recontour, the sear and hammer faces. I don't want to reduce the main spring weight, as that is linked to the recoil spring to control the rate of slide motion, and the rate of feeding from a new magazine. I fiddled with the EA and Beretta sear springs a tad. The Beretta 70s took the mild tweak without issue, and this dropped the trigger pull weight to around 5lbs. The EA380 went closer to 4lbs, but got hammer follow. I bumped it back up and now it is closer to 6.5lbs. I realize they are 'point and shoot' pistols, as neither has sights that can be adjusted for height- just windage. Well, not for height more than once- by filing the front sight down. I don't know if I am already at the limit of safe trigger with the factory hammer spring weight, or if it can be safely reduced to 4lbs. If so, I'd prefer it to be so- for consistency. However, I'll take clean/crisp break at moderate pressure over muddled break at lighter pressure [esp if the latter included hammer follow.] Thanks all

December 23, 2020, 05:30 PM	#9
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	Yes, the '08 Pocket Hammerless is the .380 version of the '03, smaller version of the FN/Husky '07. A lot of '07s in the U.S. have been converted to .380, but were originally in 9mm Browning Long. __________________ Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong.

December 23, 2020, 06:50 PM	#10
jmstr Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2001 Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA Posts: 1,281	Yep- my Husqvarna 1907 was converted- but that is just a barrel change [and recoil spring?]. I sourced an unaltered 9x20mm barrel and some ammo for THAT caliber also. I will say that the 1907 in .380 is VERY pleasant to shoot- very mild. But, back to my original topic- ok, I'll just stick to angles and smoothness, and leave springs alone. Thanks all!