I have a model 60-9 and it is designed with a frame mounted firing pin. Was it the mid 1990's when this feature became standard? And why switch? Something to do with moving to MIM hammers? Just wondering.

I believe the change from the hammer nose to the frame mounted firing pin occurred in 1997 for most models.

As to the reason, I'm not sure, although it probably has to do with money, that is, saving money on cost of production.

__________________
Ret. LE, FA Instr, S&W Armorer

From the past.

Why was the firing pin moved to the frame?

Having replaced both, I'll vote for the frame mounted pin as being simpler and less expensive to service/replace.

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

Some people think the straight line movement of the frame mounted firing pin gives more reliable, consistent ignition.
It is definitely easier to mass produce the hammer this way (and probably the frame as well.)
Of all of the "modern improvements" from S&W that people complain about, this one is probably the least worthy of concern (if worthy at all!)
JMHO, YMMV.

froggie

I don't understand the complaints about them. It eliminates the problem of the hammer nose breaking off.

Perhaps because the change occurred along with other less desirable changes, and people figure there is 'guilt by association'?

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

The frame mounted firing pin is easy to change in case of breakage or the need to adjust the length when a misfire or primer piercing issue exists. S&W Rimfire revolvers have used frame mounted firing pins forever.

__________________
Virtue,Liberty & Independence

When about everybody of gun-buying age grew up, revolvers had pins mounted on the nose of the hammer so a revolver ain't right if it has the pin mounted on the frame. If the frame mounted pin is better in anyway at all and not inferior in any way, it should be considered an 'improvement'.

But I know that Ben Cartwright, Wyatt Earp and the 'Man With No Name' had firing pins on the hammers. Those were 'real' guns.

UPDATE I straightened out some of the wording to make more sense.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I believe the switch was around 1997. I'm sure the change was because it was cheaper\easier to produce. I had a hammer mounted firing pin break on a well used model 64. I didn't have the tools to repair it so I bought a used hammer which then had to be fitted to run correctly. A frame mounted firing pin can be changed by anybody who can remove the side plate. I don't know why some people hate them so bad.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

The only thing I can say about the FMFP is that it seemed like a good idea at the time since everyone else (Colt, Ruger, etc.) already used FMFPs.

The execution, however, clearly leaves something to be desired. I have read more about misfires since the change over to FMFP than ever before.

The length of travel of the FMFP can be adjusted, yes, but I never needed this with the HMFP. Supposedly, S&W decreased the length of travel on the FMFP because the initial ones that were reliable would not pass some drop test or another. I am not sure that is accurate, but I have read it.

What is without doubt is that the length of travel has decreased, and we read of brand new revolvers on here all the time that will not ignite the primers of factory ammo.

All one has to do is to look at the amount of protrusion of the tip of the pin through the bolster face to see that the amount of protrusion is minimal compared to the old HMFP. For that matter, feel free to compare the amount that the S&W FMFP protrudes through the bolster face to the amount of protrusion in a Colt or in a Ruger. There is a visible and clear difference, and neither of those brands seem to have issues with light strikes.

There are those who insist that the new FMFP relies to some extent on inertia, but I for one thought the old system worked very well - certainly better than the current system.

As may be discerned from this post, my personal opinion is that S&W took a step backward with its EXECUTION of the idea of a FMFP. I wish to stress that I am not opposed to a FMFP - if it works every time - as do those of Ruger, Colt, and Charter Arms. If memory serves, it was Charter who made a big deal of its "unbreakable" beryllium copper frame mounted firing pins.

Score one for Charter; bad show by S&W.

I don't hate them. I'm just old school.

If I want to buy a new gun that is mainly for protection, I don't care where the firing pin is. Or about the lock. Or about anything as long as it works.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I've had 3 with FMFP, 2 centerfire and one rimfire. Never a problem with ignition. What kind of primers have folks had trouble with? East bloc made primers spec'd for open bolt full auto weapons?

I have to agree with Shawn on this one. I had an 627-2 that I had to replace the firing pin with a Cylinder & Slide longer firing pin to make it run. No problems since. Strangely, I had a second 627-2 just 42 serial numbers later that never had a problem.

Although it makes little difference to me how the primer is ignited, we still have too many reports here that a gun has to go back to the factory for non firing strikes, even nearly 20 years after implementation. I never heard of that problem with hammer mounted pins.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

True. But on the other I've hand heard of many HMFPs being broken or beating out the hole in the bushing. Never heard of either of those problems with FMFPs.

Maybe it is fair to say that both have their advantages and disadvantages?

Like alot of features seen in modern firearms, like the Glock "safe action" trigger safety mechanism; the frame mounted firing pin was first seen in the 1800s. There were some pre-cartridge era revolvers with frame mounted firing pins.
I have some revolvers with and some without it. I can't detect any superiority in operation of one type over the other.

The frame mounted firing pin is a classic example of a soulution in search of a problem. There was never a problem with the hammer mounted pins, or more correctly, hammer noses. I have a couple of model 10s that I have used for decades as training guns, and they have had hundreds of thousands of rounds fired through them, and many more dry fires, and they look and work just as they did when I first bought them.

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

Does having the firing pin mounted on the frame make revolvers 'striker fired'?

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

True enough. But, I have only seen broken firing pins on guns that have been used a lot and maybe abused. Not new from the factory.

You are right that each has it advantages and disadvantages. Once I got mine fixed it has shot thousands of rounds without problems. Bottom line is that they both work fine when set up right.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

I may have been the reason they changed it. I was shooting my 686 no dash with the M improvement with moderate .357 loads when the hammer nose bushing came out the back, broke the hammer, went through my upper lip and broke a tooth. I sent them the gun and they said they had never seen that before.

I think it was a good strength upgrade. It is definitely easier to change firing pins now with the frame mounted system.

They were pre internet. No way to advertise every flaw to the world without spending money.

Holy Cow!! Glad that it was not worse!!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

My older 29 has the hammer nose, I just got an extra from Midway since my buddy recently purchased a 27 in .45LC that wouldn't fire due to the nose being worn down. I replaced it for him and can tell you that's not fun! There's a tiny spring that goes behind it and you have to drift the roll pin out and flare the new one. (maybe cause I'm getting old!)

The switch had little to do with hammer nose firing pins breaking, it had little to do with "easier" to use, it had little to do with reliability, it had a lot to do with standardizing on one size hammer, a cost reduction step, pure and simple.

Look at the pitiful hammer on the X frames, they look like midget hammers on that big frame. Yes, there are efficiencies, with the L frames 6 shot versus 7 shot geometry, N frame 6 shot versus 8 shot geometries, etc.....

The factory makes what, two sized hammers now, the J frames and the rest....

Less parts to make and keep track of is a cost reduction, period.

They look hideous, but they reduce the costs for the factory. Reason enough.

The S&W company is less a gun company and more a manufacturing company, sorry to say for us collectors and enthusiasts it's a trend in the wrong direction, but they are making money so that's good enough for the shareholders and company executives.

Nothing to like about the new guns unless you are only interested in making something go boom.....

There, had to get that off my chest, sorry to all who might be offended.

__________________
.............SmithNut

One more spring, one more moving part, one more part that needs to be lubed . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .