There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions about the functionality of the hammer block. I think that before you say anything about it, you should learn a few facts. When people talk about an "alleged incident" in which a sailor was killed, it only convinces me that there are a lot of folks who think opinion is the only thing that counts, and theirs is as good as anybody's. The only thing that counts is data, and some of these opinions could get people killed.

Appendix F in Charlie Pate's book (U.S. Handguns of World War II, the Secondary Pistols and Revolvers) is entitled "S&W Hammer Block Documentation" and covers everything that happened. Don't believe me - get a copy and read it. In summary, the early hammer block was found defective, and 31 of the 32 guns that were tested discharged when the hammer was struck a blow equivalent to a one deck fall (20 feet). The rebound slide did not prevent the gun from firing, and the hammer did not break in most of these tests. Subsequent testing on the new hammer block showed increased drop resistance from 98-139 feet with some breakage of the hammer. This was considered by the Navy to be adequate to prevent firing if the gun was dropped any place on ship. It took 2-4X more force to fire with the new hammer block than it did with two Colt revolvers that were tested.

Here's my take on all this:

• The rebound slide alone is not effective in preventing a dropped revolver from firing.
• The current S&W hammer block should prevent firing if the gun is dropped on its hammer from any reasonable distance.
• Any mechanical safety device can be defeated by the application of sufficient force. One has to judge for oneself what constitutes acceptable risk.
• Anybody, no matter how famous or well known, that tells you that removing the hammer block does not increase the risk of a dropped gun discharge is both negligent and full of ****.

Buck