Hammer-mounted firing pin - better or worse?

aimedfire

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
190
Reaction score
298
Location
Katy, TX
Here is a pic showing the hammer-mounted firing pin on my S&W 686+. Is this less safe than the new hammers on the S&W revolvers without the pin (with all rounds loaded in the cylinder)?






Another gratuitous shot of the 686+:

 
Here is a pic showing the hammer-mounted firing pin on my S&W 686+. Is this less safe than the new hammers on the S&W revolvers without the pin (with all rounds loaded in the cylinder)?



No, hammer mounted firing pins are not less safe than transfer bar arrangements in and of themselves.

The idea that they aren't is the product of imaginative lawyers and settlement agreements authored by insurance companies.

Firearms are deadly weapons.

No safety feature can guard agains fools.
 
Try a drop test and you will find out. BANG!

All guns are female...be carefull !
 
Last edited:
Great question . . . I've wondered too in the past 7 mos since I took up shooting.

R
 
I know the hammer-mounted are more subject to peening, if one dry-fires without snap-caps.

I heard the main reason for the change is that the frame-mounted system handles pressures better.
 
Just as safe. No issues.

Sure is easier to change the firing pin in the frame-mounted ones.
 
My understanding is that S&W switched to frame mounted firing pins in order to pass drop tests. If that is correct, then it would seem that the frame mounted system is to some extent a safer system. Don
 
Besides the spring and low mass what stops the frame mounted firing pin from striking the primer? The hammer mounted pin is stopped by the hammer block. Is there a firing pin block/lock on the frame mounted firing pin? (haven't had one of them apart)
 
Because of the hammer block, the S&W revolver with the hammer mounted firing pin (FP) is safe if dropped even if all charge holes are loaded.

In theory, the new frame mounted firing pin (FMFP) could be argued to be less safe from a drop on the muzzle than the hammer mounted firing pin for the same reason the inertia firing pin on a Pre-Series 80 1911 is less safe.

The FMFP is, in its simplest terms, an inertia firing pin held from the primer by only a spring. The cross pin and slot built into the FP allow enough forward travel so that the FP can strike the primer, so the slot and cross pin are not really holding the FP from striking the primer, in the sense of preventing a discharge. The hammer mounted FP, on the other hand, being attached to the hammer, is held from the primer by the hammer block. This makes the hammer mounted FP safer, in theory.

The FMFP is, however, so light in comparison with the comparatively huge FP on the 1911 that it would take a drop from a considerable height to cause an inertial discharge. This same method of using a very light firing pin spring (titanium) in combination with a strong firing pin spring is used to good effect to prevent inertia firing on Series 70 Colts made today and in the new E-Series S&W 1911s.

So, to answer your question and the comments of a couple of other posters in this thread, NOTHING stops the FMFP from striking the primer except the FP spring. In the FMFP design, the internal hammer block really does block ONLY the hammer, not the FMFP.

In my mind, this is not a big worry as Ruger, Charter and others have used this type of FP for decades without incident. Certainly in today's litigious society, if there were a problem, news would spread like fire. :)
 
Last edited:
I know the hammer-mounted are more subject to peening, if one dry-fires without snap-caps.

I heard the main reason for the change is that the frame-mounted system handles pressures better.

My understanding is that S&W switched to frame mounted firing pins in order to pass drop tests. If that is correct, then it would seem that the frame mounted system is to some extent a safer system. Don

Smith changed to the frame mounted pins as a manufacturing move. Was easier to do. Has nothing to do with handling pressure or to pass drop tests.
 
One thing you've left out of this discussion is the definition of "safe". I tend to agree that if you want safe as in drop tests, there is no real difference for the reasons stated. If you want to call safe as in always firing when you want it to, I don't think they're the same. From my own experience, hammer mounted pins will fire when dirty. Frame mounted pins will tend to malfunction more on a seriously dirty or gritty gun. Dirt around the frame mounted pin can cushion the hammer blow.

All of us who have explored the lighter and smoother trigger pulls discovered early on you can't do much with the frame mounted pins. It just seems it requires a couple to a few more pounds of pull to get reliable ignition. At first it was a shock and something didn't seem right. Then we realized it was the frame mounted pins that just seem to require more hammer fall to work right. If you don't believe me, try to do a comparison between the two. With an older gun, you can usually get both light and smooth. With the new ones, smooth isn't hard to get, but light will just result in the gun not always firing. Your choice.
 
Thanks for the info.

Okay, which is preferred - hammer-mounted or frame-mounted firing pin?
 
Try a drop test and you will find out. BANG!

All guns are female...be carefull !

Well, I guess I fell for the urban legend internet BS on that one. My bad...I spoke with my gunsmith this morning regarding this issue. He's been at it for over 40 years so I trust his knowledge. He said a hammer mounted is as safe as any. The primary safety is the rebound slide behind the trigger and the secondary would be the hammer block. There is a 3rd but I did not write it down. He said it is a damn safe design, so no worries. Hope that helps and I just proved again don't believe everything you read or hear unless it is from a trusted source.
 
Thanks for the info.

Okay, which is preferred - hammer-mounted or frame-mounted firing pin?

For competition, the hammer mounted pin allows just a bit lighter trigger with 100% reliability than does the frame mounted pin. But the frame mounted is easier to manufacture, so there is no going back in current manufacture. Live with it. :rolleyes:
I use an old Model 66 for IDPA/SSP and ICORE Classic.
 
A frame mounted firing pin does a better job protecting the shooter from hot gas in the event the primer blows or is perforated. My Colt .357 Trooper and S&W .22 Kit Gun (34-1) from the late 60's have enclosed firing pins.
 
I agree with Dick that it takes more to make the FMFP reliable than the hammer mounted. I still prefer hammer mounted for that reason, and the fact that is what was on the guns for a lot of my experience.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top