Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present
Forum Register Expert Commentary Members List


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-30-2010, 01:51 AM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,321
Likes: 4
Liked 265 Times in 137 Posts
Default

There have been reports of the cast HB's breaking in some J-frames. Apparently S&W has gone back to the forged and twisted HB's now.

I am going to have to pop the plate off one of my older Taurus boat anchors, and also one I have from the 90's to see what kind of hammer block they have......IIRC the new Taurus guns have transfer bars.

The HB is one of those parts some people may think is "extra ****" that they don't need inside the action, but one brain fart and a gun dropped on the hammer and you'll be glad you left it in there! If you drop it and someone at the range gets shot, you won't have a leg to stand on in court when it's found out you disabled a safety feature.

Last edited by stantheman86; 11-30-2010 at 01:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Peach State! GA!!!
Posts: 3,676
Likes: 2,897
Liked 1,695 Times in 832 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky4968 View Post
When I get ahold of a smith & wesson with the strain screw backed out a half turn or two, the next thing I check for is the hammer block. Very common with the lethal "do-it-yourselfers" mentioned above.
Often the two go together.
??? Is there a problem with backing off the strain screw? I have done this to obtain a less hard double-action on the revolvers I frequently use. Nothing else in any of the revolvers has been altered. Does this pose a problem/risk? Sincerely. bruce.
__________________
<><
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-30-2010, 10:26 AM
wheelgun28's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SW CT
Posts: 1,614
Likes: 533
Liked 845 Times in 349 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucev View Post
??? Is there a problem with backing off the strain screw? I have done this to obtain a less hard double-action on the revolvers I frequently use. Nothing else in any of the revolvers has been altered. Does this pose a problem/risk? Sincerely. bruce.
If your not getting light primer strikes (ftf) your ok mostly. However if you use the gun for other than target shooting. It may not function when you need it most!!!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-30-2010, 10:32 AM
wheelgun28's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SW CT
Posts: 1,614
Likes: 533
Liked 845 Times in 349 Posts
Default

Removing safetys, never a good idea. Manufactures dont waste money adding unneeded things because its fun. Yes they can be forced into buy other forces...

Its funny I had my car at the mechanic the other day, he told me that the seat belts and air bags arent needed. So he removed them for me. He said that cars didnt have them years ago and they worked just fine. Also that the likely hood of having an accident is quite high. So all that extra stuff was just in the way and made the car more cumbersome to use....

each to their own I suppose...
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-30-2010, 02:33 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Liked 73 Times in 40 Posts
Default

The strain screw was intended to be snugged down tight & LEFT there. It is not a trigger pull lightener. Backing it out can & does reduce the amount of energy transmitted to the primer by the hammer, resulting in light primer hits.

One common problem with potential for disaster in backing it out is that it can continue to back itself out farther under continual shooting, and may fail to fire just when you need it to.

Don't back it out! Snug it & leave it.
Denis
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-30-2010, 02:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 7
Liked 164 Times in 55 Posts
Default

I've seen several 1911's with the grip safety removed. There have been a few magazine articles over the past couple years centering on this issue. I am not advocating one way or the other, but I have always liked the grip safey. It just doesnt feel like a 1911 without it. No doubt that a lawyer would have a field day with it. In fact, novaks, produces a product called "The Answer" with eliminates the beavertail. You can see at their website.
__________________
Dyin ain't much of a livin
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-30-2010, 03:37 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Liked 18 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucev View Post
??? Is there a problem with backing off the strain screw? I have done this to obtain a less hard double-action on the revolvers I frequently use. Nothing else in any of the revolvers has been altered. Does this pose a problem/risk? Sincerely. bruce.
It's not recommended, but common enough that several grip makers relieve the area in front of the strain screw to allow it.

If you only plan on using the revolver for target practice or competition, I suggest finding the amount of back-off that works reliably for your needs, measure this amount by the number of screw turns divided by the thread pitch and remove this amount from the tip of the screw. Then tighten the screw down so it sets tight on the shoulder. YMMV
__________________
NRA - All Day
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #58  
Old 11-30-2010, 04:45 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chp View Post
Not without the trigger fully pressed, however. Right?
The rebound slide bump keeps the hammer from coming forward unless the trigger is pulled. However, it's remotely possible to drop the gun on the hammer spur on concreete from a sufficient height to break the hammer in such a way that the RB slide safety won't stop it anymore. hence, the other safety bar is there.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-30-2010, 04:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucev View Post
??? Is there a problem with backing off the strain screw? I have done this to obtain a less hard double-action on the revolvers I frequently use. Nothing else in any of the revolvers has been altered. Does this pose a problem/risk? Sincerely. bruce.
Be sure to use blue loctite on the screw if you do this or it will walk out over time and you will get misfires.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-30-2010, 08:06 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: TN
Posts: 601
Likes: 5
Liked 19 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Just out of curiosity, I have been on this forum over 2 years and still am not quite sure what "YMMV" means....can someone enlighten me please? Sorry, not up on all this computer lingo.....ha ha
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-30-2010, 08:08 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RightWinger View Post
Just out of curiosity, I have been on this forum over 2 years and still am not quite sure what "YMMV" means....can someone enlighten me please? Sorry, not up on all this computer lingo.....ha ha
"Your Mileage May Vary"
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-30-2010, 08:51 PM
Bullseye Smith's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mountain State
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 26
Liked 175 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chp View Post
Not without the trigger fully pressed, however. Right?
You are 150% WRONG on that, If it is dropped on the hammer it will go bang without a hammer block inplace. It won't fire with a hammer block if dropped on the hammer.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:03 PM
Bullseye Smith's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mountain State
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 26
Liked 175 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TacticalReload View Post
Seriously. Look closely at the first pic posted by 500 Magnum Nut. in order to get a gun to go off, it needs to be dropped HARD... hard enough to snap off the part of the hammer with the single action sear (the whole part resting on the rebound slide)... and even then, chances are that the hammer won't move forward because the double action sear rests on the top of the trigger. This kind of "perfect storm" of events probably would only occur on a gun with some defective imperfections in just the wrong spots in the metal of the hammer, trigger, etc.

You know what else might happen? Maybe you get a piece of debris that finds its way between the hammer and the firing pin and the tap on the back of the hammer is enough to set the gun off even if the hammer block is in there. Is that likely? Hells no. Could it happen? Maybe. Maybe another piece of debris makes it behind the primer on a live round and there is enough endshake in your cylinder that a round gets set off if you drop the gun. Likely? No way. But I suppose it's *possible*.

As has been mentioned, back in ye-oldie-time days, the SAA would just have firing pins resting on live primers if you weren't careful. Because of this, the myth persists that modern revolvers have similar issues.

Would I stand in front of one while you dropped it from holster height onto its hammer over a loaded chamber? No. Would I bet a sizeable sum of money that it wouldn't go off? Most definitely.

Leave the block in there if you want. You'll probably never notice it other than a rattle in the gun at times. However, the SKY IS NOT FALLING. Sheesh.

And for God's sake... stop dropping your guns on their hammers. What's wrong with you!
Remove it and you can be DEAD and wrong!!!!!!!!! The part that the hammer is setting on is spring loaded, when dropped on the hammer the spring in the return will compress and let the hammer mover forward. Then "BANG" you or a friend is dead. If you can't put it back together right, you don't need to own it. You become a hazzard to the ones around you.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:37 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Solution is simple and over a century old: carry with one cylinder empty.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:46 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelgun610 View Post
If the hammer block was deemed unnecessary, trust me - it wouldn't be there.

Mark
The internal lock is really unnecessary, but it's still there despite angry customers.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #66  
Old 11-30-2010, 09:48 PM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,321
Likes: 4
Liked 265 Times in 137 Posts
Default

There is NO need to carry a modern DA revolver like a S&W with an empty chamber below the firing pin That's what the hammer block is for.

I can't believe that pistolsmiths "back in the day" would remove the hammer block......this would never happen today, with all the liability out there.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-30-2010, 10:25 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I've asked two shooters of whom I'm familiar with about this, and they both said they toss the hammer block away after trigger job but these were range gun, not carry weapons. Chances of dropping a loaded range gun on its hammer is almost nil.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-30-2010, 10:46 PM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,321
Likes: 4
Liked 265 Times in 137 Posts
Default

I am interested in the hammer blocks of other brands, like Charter Arms, etc. They may use a transfer bar, I don't have one so I don't know.

What really is to gain from removing the block? Right now due to a fitting issue I have a 10-5 with no block in it, and the trigger feels no different than my other Smiths that have it in.

I in no way advocate removing the hammer block in a S&W in any way but people carry Charter revolvers every day, just curious what kind of drop safeties they have. I also checked out my older Taurus .38 and without taking the plate off there was no hammer block I could see, although it may look different.

That's part of the dreaded CA laws is the guns have to pass a "drop test".
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-30-2010, 10:46 PM
Janitor's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 231
Likes: 162
Liked 96 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RightWinger View Post
Just out of curiosity, I have been on this forum over 2 years and still am not quite sure what "YMMV" means....can someone enlighten me please? Sorry, not up on all this computer lingo.....ha ha
Finally - something I can answer!

YMMV = Your Millage May Vary

ETA: ... too late.

*sigh*

Last edited by Janitor; 11-30-2010 at 10:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-01-2010, 02:38 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullseye Smith View Post
Remove it and you can be DEAD and wrong!!!!!!!!! The part that the hammer is setting on is spring loaded, when dropped on the hammer the spring in the return will compress and let the hammer mover forward. Then "BANG" you or a friend is dead. If you can't put it back together right, you don't need to own it. You become a hazzard to the ones around you.
But, to be fair, that can only happen if the hammer fractures somewhere midsection separating the top half from the bottom. The bump on the RB slide will absolutely block the hammer from moving forward if the hammer is intact because it blocks it at the bottom of the hammer.

I suppose it's possible the boss pin the hammer is mounted on might break and let the entire hammer move forward (?)

Last edited by bountyhunter; 12-01-2010 at 02:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-01-2010, 02:40 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaTerminat'r View Post
I've asked two shooters of whom I'm familiar with about this, and they both said they toss the hammer block away after trigger job but these were range gun, not carry weapons. Chances of dropping a loaded range gun on its hammer is almost nil.
The reason no smith would remove it on a carry gun is liability. No gunsmith I know would defeat any safety on any gun (other than his own) because the risk of lawsuit is too great. I don't use them on my comp guns, but they are in both of my defense guns as well as full power stock springs. No modifications means no lawyer can claim the gun was made "unsafe".
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-01-2010, 02:45 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaTerminat'r View Post
The internal lock is really unnecessary, but it's still there despite angry customers.
It's there because there (allegedly) was a documented case where somebody dropped one on the hammer and it went off. That being the case, the gun maker is on notice and liable to make a modification..... no matter how rare the incident may be.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-01-2010, 02:49 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stantheman86 View Post

That's part of the dreaded CA laws is the guns have to pass a "drop test".
I don't think it needs that bar to pass a drop test since they drop them on the muzzle. They only fire that way if the inertia of the firing pin is sufficient to pop the primer. That's why many kali guns go to lower mass titanium firing pins to pass a drop test.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-01-2010, 02:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Liked 73 Times in 40 Posts
Default

The original reason for the hammer block introduction was a Navy sailor who died when he dropped a Smith .38 on a steel deck and it discharged on impact.
NOT on the muzzle, since the bullet that killed him didn't hit the deck before he did.

Denis
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-01-2010, 03:51 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,377
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpris View Post
The original reason for the hammer block introduction was a Navy sailor who died when he dropped a Smith .38 on a steel deck and it discharged on impact.
NOT on the muzzle, since the bullet that killed him didn't hit the deck before he did.

Denis
Right, it would have to land on the spur of the hammer and break something inside to be able to strike the primer.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-01-2010, 06:59 PM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 336
Likes: 497
Liked 150 Times in 78 Posts
Default Don't mess with the hammer block - leave it in there

There is absolutely no reason whatsover to take the hammer block out of a Smith and Wesson revolver.

It won't make the trigger pull any better. It will make the gun unsafe.

DON'T DO IT!

DON'T DO IT!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-19-2010, 09:06 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stantheman86 View Post
I am interested in the hammer blocks of other brands, like Charter Arms, etc. They may use a transfer bar, I don't have one so I don't know.

but people carry Charter revolvers every day, just curious what kind of drop safeties they have. I also checked out my older Taurus .38 and without taking the plate off there was no hammer block I could see, although it may look different.

.
Charters have a transfer bar. Not going to fire unless the trigger is all the way back.

Double action Colts have a positive hammer block as well from well before WWII. Sometime around 1905 ish.

Some Iver Johnson's had transfer bars as well I believe back as far as the 19th century.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-19-2010, 10:45 PM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,321
Likes: 4
Liked 265 Times in 137 Posts
Default

Oh yeah, the old Iver Johnson "Hammer the hammer" advertisement where they have a guy hitting an Iver Johnson with a hammer
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-20-2010, 12:38 AM
bmcgilvray's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,231
Likes: 1,160
Liked 754 Times in 240 Posts
Default

That's a good thing to do with an Iver Johnson.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #80  
Old 12-20-2010, 01:31 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Aiken, SC
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 12
Liked 112 Times in 49 Posts
Default

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
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #81  
Old 12-20-2010, 01:47 AM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,321
Likes: 4
Liked 265 Times in 137 Posts
Default

Good thing I put mine back in my 10-14 It was out for a total of maybe 2 weeks and I managed to not shoot myself

The 10-14 still shoots like a laser, the extra ounce or two on the trigger pull hasn't affected it in any real way.

So, in other words, if you have a pre-1943 S&W and shoot it, be careful!
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-24-2011, 04:23 PM
aryfrosty's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 30
Likes: 4
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Centennials

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdV8 View Post
I have had my 640-1 apart and the centennials do not have a hammer block. This is simply because, the hammer is not accessible from the outside of the fire arm to put any pressure on it to make it impact the frame mounted firing pin.
Unsure how old your revolver is because ALL contemporary S&W revolvers have the same design hammer block. The only way yours wouldn't is for someone to have phyhsically taken it out. I have 3 M-442s and they all have it. Any modern S&W revolver would never be safe without the block unless you did carry with the hammer over an empty charge hole. That's why they are designed as they are.
Regards; Al
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-25-2011, 02:45 AM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,321
Likes: 4
Liked 265 Times in 137 Posts
Default

I have read that the newer Centennials do not have a hammer block, or any of the shrouded hammer snubs.

I have an M&P from about 1912 and it does not have a hammer block, I think the spring loaded sideplate block was added in 1915. I don't know if the Triple Lock had one, I don't own one. I'm sure a few people were shot by dropped S&W's before 1915,but back then all this added "safety" stuff wasn't as big an issue, like many things in production, safety measures aren't added until a few people die in accidents...... like with the famous ill-fated sailor in 1942....

I'm not a big "snub" enthusiast and do not own a Bodyguard or Centennial but I was told none of these have hammer blocks. I probably will never own a shrouded snub, since my M60 fills my need for a J-frame, but it would be a new piece of info to me to hear that the new shrouded hammer snubs have a hammer block now.

The hammer block only comes into play if the hammer receives a hard blow and the rebound slide safety is defeated or the hammer is broken somehow allowing the firing pin to be impacted. When the hammer is uncocked and "at rest" it doesn't touch the hammer block.There would be no need to keep the chamber empty under the hammer in a Centennial with no hammer block. I don't know why S&W would be adding blocks to these, just to be overcautious? In case the revolver is dropped from 200 stories up, the hammer shroud is destroyed, and the hammer is pushed into the firing pin?

I'm sure there are more than a few exposed hammer S&W's being used and carried every day with the hammer blocks removed.......probably by the same people who don't wear seatbelts. A guy was killed on the highway near me yesterday morning, he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and was ejected and killed......his passenger, a woman, was wearing a seatbelt and survived with minor injuries. The guy probably had the "I won't get in an accident" mentality and he's dead now. If there's a safety device in place, it's probably there for a reason, might as well use it if it's there.Lots and lots of people died in car wrecks before the advent of seatbelts and airbags, if you got 'em, why not use 'em......I knew a guy who took the airbags out of his car and sold them. I hope he doesn't ever miss them, if he hits a guardrail at 80 mph.Don't be a part of the "I'll never drop my loaded revolver on the hammer" crowd.

Last edited by stantheman86; 03-25-2011 at 02:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-25-2011, 02:04 PM
aryfrosty's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 30
Likes: 4
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Hammer blocks

To repeat: All contemporary S&W revolvers have a hammer block. Your older Smith is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the guns which are more recent. Also, all S&W revolvers which are of modern make have a hammer block. It is the slim metal piece with an angled hole in the bottom and the 90 degeree angle at the top. It exists. Maybe some don't understand what it is but it is there, guys. Really. All of my modern Smiths, including my Centennials and my lone Bodyguard have it. Now that it part of a S&W revolver I wouldn't carry one in CC if it didn't have it.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:01 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Aiken, SC
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 12
Liked 112 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aryfrosty View Post
To repeat: All contemporary S&W revolvers have a hammer block.
Meaning no disrespect, but you're wrong about this. I've been inside several 642's (taking out the flag) and none of them have (or have had) a hammer block. I just went out to the shop and took the sideplate off my 642 which I've had since it was new, and there is no hammer block. More than that, there is no pin on the rebound slide to actuate a hammer block. Nor is there a hole for a pin. Therefore, your all-inclusive "all contemporary S&W revolvers have a hammer block" is incorrect.

I don't know about your personal revolvers, having not seen them, but unless they were part of some special run that added hammer blocks, I can neither understand where they came from or why they are necessary. The function of the hammer block is to prevent a heavy blow to the hammer from breaking it and causing it to strike the firing pin or primer. An enclosed hammer can't be struck by an external object, hence the gun can't be fired in that fashion, and thus a hammer block is unnecessary on an enclosed hammer revolver. The rebound slide controls the hammer's movement perfectly well in that case.

Buck
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:03 PM
aryfrosty's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 30
Likes: 4
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default Okey

My 342s do have them. But I stand corrected regarding my statement that they have them on all of them. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 03-25-2011, 06:14 PM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,321
Likes: 4
Liked 265 Times in 137 Posts
Default

If someone's got a pic of a Centennial with a hammer block I would like to see it.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-31-2011, 06:21 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SW MN
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Just an interesting note...if they are a "necessary safety item" why has S&W discontinued them as parts?

Andre'
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-31-2011, 06:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southeast Missouri, USA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Cholla View Post
Any Gunsmith that specialized in pistols and was therefore a "Pistol smith" knows full well the liability one assumes just working on other peoples' guns let alone removing safety devices from them. Big Cholla


Mike Carmoney is one top pistolsmith and revolver competitor that pitches them when doing an action job. Guess he never considered the product liability, likely due to spending all his time as a Product Liabiity Lawyer when he's not competing or gunsmithing

EDIT: Now one thing he also does to most his revolvers is also to take off the hammer spur, which means it would take an odd (but not impossible) blow to impact it. May be something he takes into account.

Last edited by Blueduck; 07-31-2011 at 06:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-31-2011, 09:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Aiken, SC
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 12
Liked 112 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Well, Mike's a forum member, and he hasn't yet contributed to this thread. Perhaps he will join in and give us his reasoning.

Buck
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 08-01-2011, 11:34 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Southern Mississippi
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 22
Liked 268 Times in 173 Posts
Default

I have a neighbor that removes them to "keep everything out of the way of the trigger-pull" he says.

I don't hang around him much when he has his loaded 686 in his hand. I don't want him to drop it and shoot ME.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-12-2014, 09:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I dropped my 1899 yesterday and it added a new hole in the wall. Wish it had a hammerblock or I had treated it like I was taught i the Army and had an empty cylinder. Could have been worse.....
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-13-2014, 09:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Liked 54 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apotter11 View Post
I dropped my 1899 yesterday and it added a new hole in the wall. Wish it had a hammerblock or I had treated it like I was taught i the Army and had an empty cylinder. Could have been worse.....
What did you carry in the Army?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-13-2014, 11:34 AM
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Inman, SC USA
Posts: 573
Likes: 54
Liked 162 Times in 103 Posts
Default

The first hammer block was patented by S&W in 1914, and the prewar revolvers had the patent date stamped on the barrels-Dec 29 '14, but not all revolvers got them at the same time. 1917 Army's didn't get them until around 1919 or so, and some of the target guns didn't get them until the mid 1920's. The revolver that was dropped and killed the sailor during WWII did have a hammer block. but it was not functioning properly. The original hammer block was moved out of the blocking position by the hand, and returned to the blocking position by spring action, so if rust or grease jammed the hammer block, the gun would operate, but the hammer block wouldn't function. The current style hammer block operates in a positive manner in both directions, and will jam the gun if it gets rusted in place. I don't know about all the modern hammerless S&W revolvers, but my 940 doesn't have a hammer block, and the rbound slide doesn't have the actuating pin, nor does the sideplate have the milled recess for the hammer block.
__________________
Tom
1560
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-13-2014, 01:12 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Redwood City, Ca. USA
Posts: 287
Likes: 48
Liked 206 Times in 52 Posts
Default

One of the challenges with threads that are dug up from the grave, as this 2010 thread has been, is that the questions and answers written in this year and month were answered in this thread when it started over 3 years ago. However folks resist the toil of reading through a page or two so they re-ask and re-answer, address and re-address the same issues over and over.

I encourage you to start reading from the beginning and the questions are answered. If you need to might be best to begin a new thread.

tipoc
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-13-2014, 02:06 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 114
Likes: 4
Liked 22 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Seems like a reasonable place to ask something that has me scratching my head. New to Smith's.

What is the rationale for the locking bar to hammer safety for the cylinder being open? The only thing I can rationalize would be a cylinder not fully closed, but would the mechanisms all work (hand/ratchets etc.) to even allow firing? Does this safety predate all the others?

Craig
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-13-2014, 04:40 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 402
Likes: 383
Liked 182 Times in 83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TacticalReload View Post

I'm assuming that everyone here is smart enough NOT to walk around with the revolver cocked-and-unlocked. :-)
A cocked and unlocked revolver? I've heard of cocked and locked 1911s, but never a cocked and locked revolver. Are you referring to the IL S&W revolvers? My 5 S&W revolvers all happen to be pre-IL so I can't check if you can cock the hammer into SA and then lock the IL. But, even if you could, wouldn't it be much simpler and more efficient to just carry the revolver in DA mode?
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-13-2014, 06:51 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Redwood City, Ca. USA
Posts: 287
Likes: 48
Liked 206 Times in 52 Posts
Default

"A cocked and unlocked revolver? I've heard of cocked and locked 1911s, but never a cocked and locked revolver. Are you referring to the IL S&W revolvers? My 5 S&W revolvers all happen to be pre-IL so I can't check if you can cock the hammer into SA and then lock the IL. But, even if you could, wouldn't it be much simpler and more efficient to just carry the revolver in DA mode?"

I believe the fella was referring to walking or running around with a cocked revolver ready for a sa trigger pull. There was no reference to the il meant. Well unless he did mean that then everyone is confused.

tipoc
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #99  
Old 02-13-2014, 07:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Redwood City, Ca. USA
Posts: 287
Likes: 48
Liked 206 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearbait in NM View Post
Seems like a reasonable place to ask something that has me scratching my head. New to Smith's.

What is the rationale for the locking bar to hammer safety for the cylinder being open? The only thing I can rationalize would be a cylinder not fully closed, but would the mechanisms all work (hand/ratchets etc.) to even allow firing? Does this safety predate all the others?

Craig
The gun will not fire unless the cylinder is fully closed. This is not so much a "safety" device as a result of how the guns are built. In the same way that under normal circumstances a motor won't turn over unless the ignition switch is activated. It's not a safety as much as a design feature.

The hammer will not cock if the cylinder is open. The hand, ratchet, etc. work together and are timed to do so. This requires that the cylinder be closed.

tipoc
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #100  
Old 02-13-2014, 08:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 114
Likes: 4
Liked 22 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Tipoc,

Thanks and yes I understand how it functions. It is always listed as a safety, and was just trying to understand how the gun would be unsafe if the hammer could drop with the cylinder open. Perhaps as you noted, it is only safer for the gun.

Thanks, Craig
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
Reply

Tags
1911, 642, behlert, bullseye, centennial, chronograph, colt, endshake, gunsmith, hi-power, kimber, lock, model 19, model 27, model 28, primer, saa, sideplate, smith and wesson, tactical, taurus, titanium, victory, wwii

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present Thread, Do you need a hammer block in a modern S&W? in Smith & Wesson Revolvers; There have been reports of the cast HB's breaking in some J-frames. Apparently S&W has gone back to the forged ...
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/142698-do-you-need-hammer-block-modern-s-w.html
Posted By For Type Date
S&W Model 36 Snub Nose Mis Fire help - The Firing Line Forums This thread Refback 03-27-2013 04:51 PM
Safe to carry revolvers w all cylinders loaded? - 24hourcampfire This thread Refback 04-01-2012 05:46 PM
Thread Do you need a hammer block in a modern S&W? | S-W Forum | BoardReader This thread Refback 03-18-2012 11:34 PM
S&W Model 36 Snub Nose Mis Fire help - TheFiringLine Forums This thread Refback 03-03-2012 04:47 AM

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No hammer block- Blind Boy S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 1 01-11-2012 01:12 PM
Help! S&W 500 Hammer Block Magnumdood S&W-Smithing 5 12-16-2011 07:59 PM
Hammer block for 586 Shafe S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 1 08-03-2011 11:27 PM
65-3 hammer block? kng S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 2 10-24-2010 10:42 AM
help with 686-6 hammer block bigtubby S&W-Smithing 3 05-15-2010 08:20 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:45 AM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)