(Quote from a previous thread.)

The big advantage of the J frame over most or all autos is the handling safety. I seldom load or unload guns in the house, but when I do, I would certainly rather do it with a revolver than with an auto. Same goes for holstering. Striker-fired autos and enclosed-hammer revolvers (new Centennials) are particularly dangerous.



This was from another thread. I asked the question why an enclosed hammer revolver is unsafe. I don't know what the logic behind the idea. Are Centennials any more dangerous than a revolver with a hammer?

None of my revolvers fire until the trigger is pulled. Just sayin'

__________________
Some collect art; I shoot it!

The quote is WRONG.

Guns are inanimate objects. It's what people do with them that makes them dangerous.

__________________
Isaiah 41:10

The poster may have been referring to 'feeling' uneasy about not seeing an exposed hammer on a handgun, or semi-autos in general.

As long as everything (fingers, holster straps, jacket strings) are kept outside the trigger guard, no particular type of gun is less safe than another. A Centennial's long/relatively heavy pull may even be safer than a trigger with a short/light pull and the little lever.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Absolutely nothing wrong with the Centennial style J frames, they're as safe or safer than anything else on the market. I carried a 640-1 for quite some time with nary an issue.

__________________
SFC, US Army, Retired

Actually, centennials could be considered "safer" because they can't be brought to full cock which would reduce the trigger pull. The long, heavy trigger is considered by many to be a safety device.

Exactly!!!!!!!

__________________
SFC, US Army, Retired

One might argue that a revolver with a exposed hammer converted to DAO or with spurless exposed hammer is "safer" than one with an enclosed hammer simply due to the fact you can put your thumb on the back of the hammer while holstering. With that being said, I wouldn't consider a centennial revolver unsafe.

Lol wut? Some people need to have only guns or only ammo to FEEL truly safe

May as well link the thread or specific post so it can be read in context...

That said, I see exactly zero logic to the notion that Centennials are more, less, sideways or upside down dangerous compared to their exposed hammer siblings.

And grouping enclosed hammer revolvers with striker fired pistols together appears nonsensical.

Others pretty well covered it, but the idea that the Centennial type S&W revolvers are any more dangerous than those with exposed hammers is the most ridiculous pile of "stuff" imaginable! The thought of an A.D. with one of these is laughable, although there are no doubt some people that could figure out how!!!

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

I can't imagine what muddled thinking produced that quote.

There were a number of carefully thought-out and researched reasons I chose the 640 that has been my EDC for years. Safety, the extreme unlikelihood of an AD or ND, was on the list, though not at the top.

The Centennials are wonderfully safe little guns.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

Same thing here, except my research led me to the 442.

__________________
Keep on Chooglin'

Centennial revolvers could well be safer if you need to bring them into play fast in a serious social encounter. There is zero chance the hammer spur might hang up on clothing if there isn't one.
My two carry guns are both J frame Centennials, a 442 and a 640 Pro.
I suspect that if law enforcement hadn't transitioned to semi's, S&W would have started making medium frame Centennials. Then, there would be no need to bob the hammers on service revolvers, as was done by some dept's.
And, if you think that internal locks could be dangerous if they lock up when you badly need the gun, well, my two Centennials are both lockless, and they are of recent manufacture.

Best,
Rick

So us striker-fired guys have been sold a bill of goods. I had no idea they are so unsafe.
I guess I should have a chat with Mr. Miculek.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

Centenials with ILS are more dangerous than hammer J frames with the lock. Simply because the flag that says it is locked or unlocked is hidden. Thinking a gun is locked that isn't, or vise versa could be very dangerous.

A DA only pistol or M40 type are safer then any striker pistol I think.
I CC a M49, only difference is I can use it SA if I want.

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

I did this by accident with a loaded 44, that's a bad moment, having to drop the hammer back down in the house on a loaded 44. Thankfully I try this a few times per range visit to get practice just in case, and it went okay.

Yep, I would take that 12 pound dao centennial pull over doing that again.

I'll reiterate what I stated in that other thread: It takes a very deliberate pull of a Centennial's trigger to ND one. I don't see the logic in claiming a totally enclosed hammer is "unsafe." Not unless you're mishandling the revolver in the first place, but then you're already violating "Rule 4" anyway.

That being said, I don't really care for the Centennial much. I'm a Bodyguard kind of guy.

One more data point.

When I got my 649 and Galco pocket holster I thought it would be a good idea to practice
drawing & holstering the little jewel. ( unloaded, of course )

During the course of my practice a few days in, while holstering the revolver in my pocket
I heard the thing go "CLICK".

I still can't quite figure out exactly what I did that time, but I'm sure glad I did it on an empty cylinder...

I'm guessing out of control finger, but I really am not sure...

I"m fairly certain it wasn't the revolver that was unsafe...

Since the Centennial models "won't cock", move along, there's nothing to see here..

__________________
Loyalty Above All.. but Honor

How do you cock a revolver "by accident"?

I keep coming back to this thread because I just cant believe how utterly silly it is.

I'm glad you said it. I sat at my computer reading that post over, and over again. I finally had to get off the forum before I got myself in trouble responding to it. The post you have is much kinder then the one I wanted to respond with.

Any gun is only as safe as the person handling it. Period.

__________________
Rick
SWCA #2727 , SWHF #435

I was horrified when I heard that. Here I was carrying my Glock daily for the last 6 years and as it turns out every second of all those days I was just a breath away from being shot!

To completely rip off C.S. Lewis - Of course they're not safe, but they are good.

Could the "CLICK" have been caused by the cylinder release snapping back into place after having been moved while you were seating the weapon in your pocket holster?

Could the "CLICK" have been made when the cylinder lock latched into the cylinder that was out of battery when you reholstered?

You stated that you were using a pocket holster... if the holster was not defective and was empty of any foreign objects which could have pushed the trigger back toward the frame... I cannot imaging your revolver having raised and dropped the 10-12 lb. hammer from simply reholstering the weapon?

Loose dentures?

__________________
60-10,640-1,G30,G41MOS,1911

You beat me to it.

Why should they be unsafe? They will shoot if you either a) pull the trigger, or b) heat them to the point the ammo in the chamber cooks off. If you do stupid stuff with a gun, they will hurt people and damage property. If you don't, they don't, (unless you intend them to).

The enclosed hammer type is actually safer. It does not allow anything to get into the action. Especially during pocket carry. I have had J frames freeze up on me when carried as a backup. Trust me, that is scary.

I remember years ago reading a Story about a Texas Ranger who was Carrying a Cocked and Locked 1911. Someone pointed to it and asked the Ranger "Isn't that Dangerous", to which the Ranger replied "Son if it wasn't Dangerous I wouldn't be Carrying it".

I had to click on this thread when I saw the title. I've pocket carried many different J frames and never had a problem w/them freezing up. Even the humpback Model 38 that was carried for years in my uniform pocket, got very dirty, but always functioned. I'm not doubting ironhead7544 but am curious about what caused the gun(s) to get tied up. Please understand I mean no disrespect, I just want to learn (never too old). Thanks.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

We had a sergeant in my former agency accidently cock his Model 15 when reholstering. The holster was a bit too small for the Model 15 and when he pushed the gun down it cocked the hammer. Another officer pointed it out to him and the guy actually put his finger in the trigger guard and pulled w/o taking the weapon out of the holster. It shot him in the right leg and he retired shortly thereafter.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

Old Cop, I too am retired LEO. I have seen many interesting permutations of every conceivable combination of unsafe firearms situations. None of them, however, have ever been created by a firearm. Always, they are the result of an action by a human being. We can lay a loaded, concealed hammer gun, (or any other firearm, for that matter) on a table for a hundred years, and it will never go off by itself. It will always take an action by someone to cause a discharge. It really is that simple. Those who always follow basic safety rules will never have an accidental discharge. We all know this!!!

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

yeah, LOL with everyone else. That guy "knowest not what he speaks". I have both a Centennial Airweight (442) and a Glock 19. I would say the my 442 is the safer of the two.

Actually, I'm surprised that this thread has run this long without an answer being offered. Not one I personally ascribe to, but a reason I can understand none the less....

Popular and current training on reholstering is to place your thumb on/behind the hammer, holding it in the forward position. If a sloppy holster, finger placement, etc. forces the trigger rearward, your thumb limits/stops this rearward movement. This same thumb/hammer interaction is experienced with an autoloader having an exposed hammer, when the slide is held (by holster friction, rear sight hanging up, etc.) stationary as the frame is pushed forward into the holster.

Faithful believers of this reholstering practice feel the internal/shrouded-hammer revolvers and striker-fired pistols are unsafe, because trigger control cannot be compensated for by 'hammer management'.

__________________
Virtute et armis

I have never once even tried the lock on my 642. No interest in seeing how it worked or if I wanted to use it. I was taught how to handle a gun at an early age, and am VERY conscious of where the barrel points, and if it is loaded or empty. If I am not using it it is locked up in a cabinet away from anyone who shouldn't have access to it.That's my answer to having the IL on any of my guns.

__________________
1st smiles,lies.Last,gunfire.

F75gunslinger, I have avoided the potential problems, not to mention the esthetic considerations of the IL by getting rid of the only two Smiths that I ever owned which had them. In one instance it was a M&P 340 that I otherwise thought was a very good pocket revolver, but I just couldn't abide that keyhole and the little curved arrow above it, and I finally found the same exact gun without the lock. Sold the first one and bought the no lock version. I guess I'm a little extreme, but the peace of mind that I have, never having to wonder whether that lock might malfunction, or I might lose the key, or whatever, was worth the effort. I mostly go for the older Smiths, and have a 42 no dash, and am acquiring a pre 40, so I really feel that the internal hammer J frames are very good choices for EDC, and that the potential for accidental discharge is minuscule.

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

Well, I have to say this (hopefully without being disrespectful to the poster who heard the click) ... if you do not remove your finger from the trigger when you shove the gun down in the holster, there is a real chance the action of a Centenial might cycle. Of course, so will the action with a Glock (or any other of a multitude of handguns!). It's also possible (likely) for a part of the pocket holster or something in the pocket, including some of the pocket material, to have entered the trigger guard before the trigger was covered by the holster.

Personally, I NEVER, EVER reholster any gun in a pocket holster while the holster is in my pocket. I remove the holster from the pocket, holster the gun (with my finger OFF the trigger!), and then place the holstered gun back in my pocket. I can say I've never had a problem doing that!

__________________
So long ... Ken

Ditto for IWB/AIWB with my Centennials, all my others have exposed hammers and I keep a thumb on it when re-holstering.

__________________
SWCA #2817

I think it would be easier to make the case that a traditional DA revolver is more unsafe. I am NOT referring to passive safety, which is the danger of the revolver firing from being dropped. Both the exposed hammer and the enclosed hammer J frames have passive safety devices and, if in proper condition, are safe if dropped.

What I refer to here is the question of what to do with the traditional DA revolver once it is cocked. It is amazing how many people do not know the proper way to properly lower the hammer to eliminate (not merely minimize) the possibility of a negligent discharge.

Thus, it could be argued that a revolver which cannot be put into a position requiring decocking is safer than one that cannot.

Proper decocking is a simple matter, but I would venture that at least half of the people I have seen do it simply do not do so in the proper way so as to allow the hammer block to move back into position so that the hammer will be blocked if it slips.

Enjoy your Centennial and understand it is safe as long as it is in proper working order, and as long as the trigger is not pulled or otherwise operated by something other than your finger.

I bought my first Centennial a couple of years ago and carry it frequently as an off duty back up to a larger belt gun. The only beef I have with a hammerless or spurless revolver is checking cylinder rotation after loading with new carry rounds. I was taught years ago to pull the hammer back just enough to free the cylinder and rotate it just enough to ensure that the rounds are not binding on the recoil shield. I have considered getting a old style Bodyguard for this reason alone.

You didn't mention if you figured a way around that, but in case you didn't or if anybody else is interested, this is what I do to check for potential drag on the recoil shield with my 642. It may be a little involved, but it works for me.

Obviously, the first thing is safety. I make sure my finger is straight along the frame outside the trigger guard and the muzzle is pointed at a safe backstop the entire time I do this check.

First, I cut about a 1" strip off an index card (just eyeball it...it doesn't need to be exact).

Then I open the cylinder and slide the strip up under the cylinder into the frame window and over the cylinder stop.

Close the cylinder. The index card is thin enough to fit while being stiff enough to keep the stop from engaging the cylinder, allowing you to rotate it and check for drag.

Remove the strip in the reverse order.

I do this every time I change out my self-defense ammo.

And yes, having a revolver with an exposed hammer makes this check easier.

As you suspected, I had not figured this out. Thanks for the tip!

I'm in the camp that was trained to holster while keeping my thumb on the hammer. Even now whenever I holster my 642 my thumb goes right where the hammer would be.

I can understand those who feel safer holstering an exposed hammer gun but there is nothing more or less safe holstering a Centennial than any other gun. It may add a little extra margin for safety, but if you don't pay attention when holstering you might have a bad day regardless of whether your thumb's on the hammer or not. I practice drawing quickly but I always take my time holstering. It's one of the reasons I like holsters with reinforced mouths; it's not for speed reholstering like some people seem to think, but to make reholstering as fumble-free as possible, especially when doing a lot of practice.

As for pocket holsters, even though I rarely pocket carry I always remove the holster from the pocket before holstering the gun. I do the same with my fanny pack holster when I go out for a jog.

Neither do any of my autos, rifles, shotguns....etc.


We must have that special kind of "gun control".

__________________
They made a 3.5'' PC 500!

If a DAO Smith revolver dangerous then carrying my cocked and locked 1911 is pure insanity!