637-2 with a 642-1 hammer experiment UPDATE PICS ADDED

I know this is an older thread, but i just bought a like new 642 hammer and trigger on ebay for $20 shipped. It was a drop in fit and now allows me to shoot DAO which is best with a revolver like the 637. Using hbwc from Georgia Arms I can keep them all in the space of a playing card at 7 yards shooting POA. No +P for me, too much recoil and different POA. I polished the cylinder flutes for a little pazazz.
That’s awesome. About a year ago one of my son’s friends had just bought a house out in the country and with two kids and single income could not afford a handgun to carry around his property. He always liked shooting the 637 when he came for a visit plus he liked the idea of the lock. So I put the spur hammer back on and gave it to him as part of a smoking deal - literally - he had to smoke a brisket for the missus and me while we visited with his kids. I still have the hammer and can find a replacement much easier than he can. I carry a 442 now but miss that little belly gun.

Also who knew 2 years later someone else would give it a try. Neat!
 
How much of a problem is snagging?
I've been pocket carrying a J-frame for over 60 years and haven't had a hammer snag yet.
Should I start worrying about the possibility ?
 
I once saw at a gun show a Model 60 with a Model 38 hammer. Low snag but still cockable, easier than the Bodyguard. Claimed to be NYPD policewoman configuration.
Served as a sgt and lt at the NYPD Firearms and Tactics Unit. I was one of several officers who specified the model 60 NY-1 design (I specified stainless steel construction and a full width front sight; i.e, same width as the model 10 heavy barrel model). There was never an issued Model 60 with 38 hammer. "Police-womans" handguns went away sometime in the 1970s.

Mine is serial #RPR0001 (my initials).

RPR let ver 1.JPG

RPR let ver 2.JPG

Here's the whole story behind the development of that revolver and stainless revolvers at the NYPD specifically:

The Story of How the NYPD Switched to Stainless Steel Handguns as well as Why All S&W Two-Inch Barrel J-Frame Revolvers Now Have Full Width Front and Rear Sights

I served in the NYPD from October 24, 1969 to the end of April 1990 (from January 1990 until April 1990 I was on various leaves officers received upon retirement), retiring as a lieutenant, and become chief of police in Wellfleet MA (January 15, 1990~October 1, 2010). While in the NYPD one of my commands, serving as a sergeant and lieutenant, was in the Firearms & Tactics Section (FTS). I served under Commanding Officers Frank McGee, Tom McTernan and John Cerar, in that order.

All handguns used by the NYPD when I was with the FTS were of blued (ferrous) metal. From memory, my first stint with the unit started around 1981. My assignments were:
  • Conduct the NYPD Police Firearms Instructors School
  • Run the Heavy Weapons Training Unit
  • Oversee Research and Testing
By 1981 it was clear to everyone in the police world that blued handguns (made of ferrous metals), which had a propensity to rust if not properly maintained, should have been replaced with stainless steel model revolvers some years earlier. The first stainless steel handgun which came out was in 1965, the S&W model 60. By the 1970s it was clear that this was the preferred material for service use handguns.

Yet, the NYPD stuck with their blued metal sidearms. Why?

On April 3, 1972, Detective William Capers, while on duty and attempting to arrest a robbery suspect, was killed by “friendly fire.” The Detective was carrying a nickel-plated revolver at the time of his unfortunate death.

At the Grand Jury the officer who fired the fatal shot made a statement to the effect that he thought all NYPD officers carried blue-metal handguns, thus he thought that the Detective was an armed criminal.

The Grand Jury, among its recommendations, stated that the NYPD should only permit blued metal handguns for its officers use, to prevent such a tragic mistake as took place with the Caper’s shooting from happening again.

So, when I first came to the FTS as a sergeant, the Commanding Officer, lieutenant Frank McGee, would not consider any handgun color other than “blued.” Frank was an extremely bright, well educated and highly knowledgeable individual, particularly in the field of police firearms training. But he could be rather ridged and that Grand Jury recommendation that all police handguns in the NYPD were to be blued would not change under his command.

I initially, as a sergeant, contacted Ruger and S&W, and had both companies send me stainless steel handguns, but dyed (?) a dark color (kind of an ugly gray). I still no luck in convincing the Commanding Officer into making the switch to stainless.

I left the FTS to fly helicopters for the department, having been made an offer by the Aviation Unit I could not turn down (they would train me to fly helicopters!).

When promoted to lieutenant, as is the custom in the NYPD, I was required to be transferred to another command. That was at the 46 precinct (Bronx NY). Sometime after this new assignment I was contacted by the Commanding Officer of the FTS, then Captain John Cerar, who asked if I’d like to return to the training unit. Captain Cerar was an administrator but was shy on the intricacies of police firearms training and was looking for someone knowledgeable in the field he could rely on.

Once back at the FTS as a lieutenant, I had better luck with the stainless steel matter. The unit had a recent problem with their newest batch of S&W heavy-barrel model 10 revolvers (so-called “C” models). These handguns must have had some manufacturing issue with their finishes, as the amount of rusting seen on them was wholly unacceptable. S&W blamed the issue on poor maintenance on the part of officers (nonsense) and I was given the responsibility to try and fix the problem.

We were running large recruit classes at this time. I ordered several Ruger and S&W revolvers, in stainless steel, and put them out on the range for use by the recruits. I deliberately did not permit these handguns to be cleaned between firings. Each revolver had many hundreds of rounds went through each handgun.

I made a pitch at a committee meeting on this issue at 1 Police Plaza for stainless and prevailed!

Prior to the guns being shipped I was called in to the Gunsmith shop. S&W asked what other modifications I wished them to place on the new stainless guns. I specified full-width front sights. Since that order ALL S&W 2” J-frames come with the wider sights!
Richard Rosenthal

Chief of Police, Wellfleet MA PD, retired
Lieutenant NYPD, retired

IMG_4532_S&W 60-1 NYPD_07-09-11.JPG
 
Interesting...I would have liked a photo of that setup

It looked like a handy outfit, the front sight painted orange, the rear sight painted green.

There was never an issued Model 60 with 38 hammer. "Police-womans" handguns went away sometime in the 1970s.
Hey, it was at a gun show... in the 1970s or early 1980s. Claims get made to sell stuff.
 
How timely, these last two posts (#19 and #20)!
The other day I was at my LGS/Pawn and saw in a case (in a hurry so didn't ask about it) a J- frame (likely a 637) that had an open front trigger guard. I called yesterday and asked. The story goes...The previous owner, they sold it to, dropped it and bent the trigger guard. When trying to straighten it, it broke. They said they could try to weld it, but found the alloy used (Scandium or Alum.?) could not be welded. So, they 'salvaged' the gun by cutting the guard. The owner traded it in. I got to thinking that if I could get it at the right price (I already have a 637-2 Airweight), it could be a fun project gun to convert to a 'mini Fitz Special', similar to post #19 above. I could either bob the hammer or replace it with one of the options being discussed here, Several of the Altamont grips could fit the bill on the conversion...wood or 'aged ivory' would look 'neat'. Any opinions?
BTW, I have many other options for 'safe carry' if that is a 'thought negative' for the conversion, I just thought it as a fun project to see how I could make it look....if 'The Price Is Right'!
 
Last edited:
Its an ugly duckling Fitz, pitted and parked but it has a really great trigger and double action.
Are you using the term 'Fitz' generically, or is it a 'true Fitz'? If the real thing, ugly or not, that is a very valuable piece of history. Also, the S&W versions are much fewer (rare) than the Colts.
I'm sure you already know the history, but others may not. Safety was not the same consideration for it's purposes back then as it is in todays world. See This and This
 
To me, snagging while carrying isn't the issue. With the right holster, any gun will never catch on your clothing. The real problem is snagging during the draw. That can stop the draw dead in it's tracks right when you need your gun the most. Once the gun comes out of the holster, there is no end of things it can catch on.

There are those who say "Just put your thumb over the hammer spur when you draw. That's something I don't want to have to remember and execute under high stress. It's the KISS principle. Everyone else is free to have their opinion, and do as they please. This is just one person's thoughts on the subject.

I carried concealed and in pockets as an investigator and officer for decades, J frames and K frames. Long term undercover and personal carry about 50 years now and I have no problem with snagging. It is 100% mental. Many people cannot walk and chew gun at the same time, maybe they need and internal hammer.

I swapped to bobbed hammer on the model 36 and I bought a model 640 that I carried for years, the 640 was a bad choice. Every real deal requires only one hand on the gun at least part of the time, if you come under fire and need to respond to a 50 yard shot, that 640 in your hand is worthless, you cannot fire a DA only 357 with one hand very fast. With a SA action, you can make long shots with the one hand, manually recocking as needed.

I had the same problem with the bobbed hammer model36, took that thing off and have it in a parts box. If you knew you would bener need to shoot more that say 10 feet, the bobbed and internal hammer works fine, but if you need your fine motor stills to shoot at distance, you need that single action capability. Try one hand fire both DA and SA, the SA is more accurate, if your life depends on it....go with having both on the gun.

As to the hammer slowing the draw, show me one documented case of a citizen who lost a gunfight type attack because the hammer on his gun got caught on clothing. Does not happen because people are too unaware anyway, or they are aware they are in a risk zone and already have the gun out.
 
That is what Chic Gaylord said about 65 years ago about bobbed hammers and sawn barrels, "They are preparing for an affair of honor in a telephone booth." His recommendation for CCW was a Police Positive Special .38 with 3" barrel and rounded butt; a 3" Chiefs Special if you just must Smith.
 
My perspective could be all wrong, but it seems two totally different 'requirements' are being discussed that puts the 'apple and oranges' in play. One is for LEO the other for the armed citizen.
Not arguing any of the points made, but while a LEO may 'need' to make accurate 50 yards shots occasionally, an armed citizen doing so with the claim of 'self defense' had better have a pretty darn good lawyer on retainer or 'speed dial'....and remember 50% of the 'Dream Team' lawyers are dead and the other 50% are too old to make it to the court house!
 
Last edited:
My perspective could be all wrong, but it seems two totally different 'requirements' are being discussed that puts the 'apple and oranges' in play. One is for LEO the other for the armed citizen.
Not arguing any of the points made, but while a LEO may 'need' to make accurate 50 yards shots occasionally, an armed citezen doing so with the claim of 'self defense' had better have a pretty darn good lawyer on retainer or 'speed dial'....and remember 50% of the 'Dream Team' lawyers are dead and the other 50% are too old to make it to the court house!
Yes. law enforcement and civilian concealed carry are very different with different requirements. While there are a few similarities, there are far more dissimilarities. The civilian concealed carry hobbyist, fueled by Internet/You Dupe gunfighters and wholly consumed with make-believe "what if" situations, has a propensity for meandering into matters that are almost exclusively law enforcement.

As for fifty yard shooting, there is no critical distance measurement and limitation for self-defense, contrary to the the beliefs of many. Law enforcement and civilians have something in common on this one.
 
Yes. law enforcement and civilian concealed carry are very different with different requirements. While there are a few similarities, there are far more dissimilarities. The civilian concealed carry hobbyist, fueled by Internet/You Dupe gunfighters and wholly consumed with make-believe "what if" situations, has a propensity for meandering into matters that are almost exclusively law enforcement.

As for fifty yard shooting, there is no critical distance measurement and limitation for self-defense, contrary to the the beliefs of many. Law enforcement and civilians have something in common on this one.
Well, I try to 'weigh' things I see online with care, and tend to ask for a liittle salt before consuming. That said, I'm not so sure most prosecutors and the 12 sitting in the chairs on the side of the room would readily buy into 150 feet presenting an immediate threat(?), but I could be wrong...don't 'plan' to put myself in such a position of 'explaining. See This
 

Latest posts

Back
Top