Horseapple
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2019
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 53
Has anyone tested the safety of a transfer bar?
Tested a transfer bar.
- Thread starter Horseapple
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Sure! Always a good idea to confirm the safety system is working.
Protocall_Design
Vendor
Is this for a Ruger? S&W only has hammer block. They work in opposite ways.
Modern internal S&W revolver safety mechanisms are very reliable. The primary safety is not the hammer block, but is the hammer seat/rebound seat interface.
This interface prevents the hammer nose or firing pin, depending on the design age of the particular model revolver, from reaching the primer of the ammunition, unless the trigger is fully rearward......and does so whether the hammer block is in place or not. (please don't remove your hammer block)
The hammer block prevents discharge in case of a catastrophic failure of the hammer stud (breakage), which might allow the hammer to move forward.
This interface prevents the hammer nose or firing pin, depending on the design age of the particular model revolver, from reaching the primer of the ammunition, unless the trigger is fully rearward......and does so whether the hammer block is in place or not. (please don't remove your hammer block)
The hammer block prevents discharge in case of a catastrophic failure of the hammer stud (breakage), which might allow the hammer to move forward.
Last edited:
Beemer-mark
Member
I guess I could load up one of my S&W revolvers, put in a vise, and whack the snot out of the hammer to see if it fires. Then again if you have no faith in S&W you could rely on a number of states that require all guns to undergo a safety impact test. Or do as I do with my Colt SAA, load 5 and place the empty chamber under the hammer.
Let's try this. Has anyone ever heard of a transfer bar safety on a quality firearm failing?
You can "test" the safety mechanism yourself.
After careful verification that the revolver is empty..... cock the gun single action, drop a pencil or dowel down the barrel. With the barrel in the vertical position, strike the trigger with a pen or pencil. The hammer will fall, and the would be "projectile" will stay in the barrel.
After careful verification that the revolver is empty..... cock the gun single action, drop a pencil or dowel down the barrel. With the barrel in the vertical position, strike the trigger with a pen or pencil. The hammer will fall, and the would be "projectile" will stay in the barrel.
Last edited:
951,
Unfortunately (at least on S&W revolvers) many models are still in use without a hammer drop safety. Extensive testing by S&W and the US War Dept. found that a dropped revolver from as little as 3 feet (striking the hammer) can sufficiently crush the return slide to allow setting off the primer of a round.
S&W began to equip revolvers with the side-swing hammer block early in the 1920s, but it isn't possible to give an exact year when all production had such device fitted. The side-swing block (activated by a spring in the side plate) worked well enough unless the spring was over-powered due to accumulated grease/dirt. Some failures led to the change to the current up-down hammer block acting off of a pin on the return slide.
I always check the free action of either type of hammer block before trusting it. On the old revolvers (1917, Triple-lock, etc) I happily carry them, but with an empty chamber in front of the hammer.
Best of luck,
Joe
Unfortunately (at least on S&W revolvers) many models are still in use without a hammer drop safety. Extensive testing by S&W and the US War Dept. found that a dropped revolver from as little as 3 feet (striking the hammer) can sufficiently crush the return slide to allow setting off the primer of a round.
S&W began to equip revolvers with the side-swing hammer block early in the 1920s, but it isn't possible to give an exact year when all production had such device fitted. The side-swing block (activated by a spring in the side plate) worked well enough unless the spring was over-powered due to accumulated grease/dirt. Some failures led to the change to the current up-down hammer block acting off of a pin on the return slide.
I always check the free action of either type of hammer block before trusting it. On the old revolvers (1917, Triple-lock, etc) I happily carry them, but with an empty chamber in front of the hammer.
Best of luck,
Joe
There were two different side plate mounted hammer blocks with the same inadequacies on the K frames.
Type 1 left, Type 2 right - side plate hammer block safeties:
Photo credit: gordonrick
Basic outline for chronology of applications by model:
1st style: The patent date of Dec 29, '14 shown on barrels after 1915, refers to the first style hammer block, operated by the hand via a pin in the side plate. It's operated off the back of the hand, and also provides hand spring tension (no spring in trigger), and is visible in top right side of hammer channel. Not used on N frames.
1915 - I frame .32 and .38/32 1st style hammer block safety was mounted in the side plate. It was not used in the .22/32 Kit Gun or Heavy Frame Target. Matt's from mid 1920s is like this.
1915 – K frame service revolver (only) 1st style Hammer block safety was mounted in the sideplate as of April 20th. Other models later until all K frames had it by Dec 1926.
2nd style (leaf spring in side plate - uses early style hand spring in trigger):
1925 – I frame 2nd style hammer block (leaf spring) safety was ordered Nov 6th 1925 to improve the action. It was not used in the .22/32 Kit Gun or Heavy Frame Target. There is no new patent date for this style.
1926 – All K frame models had received the 2nd style 'New hammer' block leaf spring safety by December. There is no new patent date for this style. It was not included in the K22 when introduced in 1931.
N frames:
Introduced on the 2nd and 3rd model 44 Hand Ejectors c.1927 at about #29000.
1917 Army: applied in 1933 at about # 185,000.
Type 1 left, Type 2 right - side plate hammer block safeties:
Photo credit: gordonrick
Basic outline for chronology of applications by model:
1st style: The patent date of Dec 29, '14 shown on barrels after 1915, refers to the first style hammer block, operated by the hand via a pin in the side plate. It's operated off the back of the hand, and also provides hand spring tension (no spring in trigger), and is visible in top right side of hammer channel. Not used on N frames.
1915 - I frame .32 and .38/32 1st style hammer block safety was mounted in the side plate. It was not used in the .22/32 Kit Gun or Heavy Frame Target. Matt's from mid 1920s is like this.
1915 – K frame service revolver (only) 1st style Hammer block safety was mounted in the sideplate as of April 20th. Other models later until all K frames had it by Dec 1926.
2nd style (leaf spring in side plate - uses early style hand spring in trigger):
1925 – I frame 2nd style hammer block (leaf spring) safety was ordered Nov 6th 1925 to improve the action. It was not used in the .22/32 Kit Gun or Heavy Frame Target. There is no new patent date for this style.
1926 – All K frame models had received the 2nd style 'New hammer' block leaf spring safety by December. There is no new patent date for this style. It was not included in the K22 when introduced in 1931.
N frames:
Introduced on the 2nd and 3rd model 44 Hand Ejectors c.1927 at about #29000.
1917 Army: applied in 1933 at about # 185,000.
Last edited:
