Any passive safeties on Centennials?

[Doug M.]

Okay, so if in representing the safe nature of the Centennial series to a noob or a prospective buyer, would anyone disagree with the following statement:

"This gun is totally drop-safe. There's no way it will discharge unless the trigger is PULLED (or _________) fully to the rear". (i am having trouble coming up with the best descriptive word).

Later: "As far as firearms are concerned, this gun is safe. There's no way it will discharge unless the trigger goes all the way to its most rearward position".

*
Frankly, if I had a potential buyer who needed that representation, I would not sell to them. That's the kind of representation that some unscrupulous person might use against you when they do something dumb. There is no obligation to sell it to anyone, so why sell to anyone who is so uncomfortable or unaware?

It's a firearm. It does what it is supposed to, and it is dangerous in a positive manner (safe to the shooter, dangerous to the target) when used properly, and really dangerous in a negative manner if one is a fool.

 

[PALADIN85020]

The j-frame, as well as all other Smith revolvers, have a hammer block that will not let the firing-pin come into contact with the face of the hammer unless the trigger is pulled. The hammer block is mechanically tied to the trigger lock-work and unless some idiot has removed it....you can drop or throw the gun against anything you want to and it will not fire. Except for the modern guns with the ILS...that's the only safety mechanism in a Smith. I have never heard of or had one that did not have the hammer block.

Hate to disagree here, but a couple of facts:

The Centennials have no "hammer block" in the sense of a sliding bar for which larger guns' sideplates have a cut.

Let me illustrate. The first picture is of a 642 Centennial's innards. You will note that there is no hammer block.

Compare this to a K-frame's hammer block here:

The hammer block on MOST Smith revolvers was placed on them because they have hammers which could be brought to full cock, and if the gun is dropped or otherwise jarred and the hammer falls while the trigger is not pulled, then the hammer block does its job. It's there for single-action safety, primarily.

The Centennials have no cockable hammer. The long trigger pull is a sufficient safety device for these DA only guns, and no hammer block is necessary.

John

 

[snubbiefan]

PALADIN....you have just answered a question for me that I have asked on this forum before....got no response. I asked if anyone besides me could "feel" the long-pull in their 640. It is an excellent trigger for staging, which I know Smith warns about, but you can take up a heap of slack in a 640 trigger and stage it safely.

OP....don't worry about embarrassing me....I take care of that 3 to 4 times a day.

I do have a neighbor that I sometimes shoot with, but not when he had his 686. Somebody had convinced this guy that it really improves trigger-pull. I would not get near him with his loaded 686. The ridiculous thing is, he never tried (or knew how) to simply re-spring the gun. I say this in the past-tense, because that gun was stolen in a house burglary a couple of years ago. The one he has now....I convinced him that we needed to just re-spring it and he's a happy camper now....me too.

 

[shawn mccarver]

There is no hammer block in the Centennial revolvers. The Centennials do not need the hammer block as the hammer is completely protected from an external blow. That said, all S&Ws have other safety features.

In no particular order, the revolver cannot be cocked while the cylinder is open, the cylinder cannot be opened while the action is cocked, the hump on the rebound interacts with the hammer to prevent the hammer going forward upon inertia. In addition, in the modern S&W, the frame mounted firing pin is held back by a comparatively strong spring (when compared to the negligible weight of the firing pin) which also prevents the little firing pin from developing the inertia necessary to hit a primer hard enough to cause a discharge in the event of a drop from almost any reasonable height. Finally, on the Centennial, the long double action pull of the trigger required to fire the weapon is almost always 12 pounds or more, and even a drop from the space shuttle would probably not cause enough inertia for the action to cycle by itself.

The Centennials are quite safe. If they weren't they would not have been approved for carry by the NYPD, who goes out of its way to make sure all of the firearms carried by its officers are safe from almost anything that any non-gun person can do to a gun.

 

[wrangler5]

From what I've read over the years, the "rebound slide" - the square bar of steel that sits behind the trigger and under the hammer - is the original hammer drop safety and has been part of the S&W double action design from its inception in the late 19th century. Its purpose was to allow carrying the revolver with all chambers loaded with no risk that it would go off if dropped in a way that the hammer got hit - an advertising plus over the Colt Single Action which required an empty chamber under the hammer to be drop safe.

As for the second, sliding bar safety found on exposed hammer guns, the story I've seen is that during WWII some sailor dropped a S&W revolver which hit the deck in a way that smacked the hammer, which was at rest, not cocked. But the impact broke off the little nose at the bottom of the hammer which rested on the rebound slide, and normally kept the firing pin away from a primer. The broken hammer was then free to continue forward and fire the round in the chamber, killing the sailor.

To prevent this type of accident, the second hammer block was added. Like the rebound slide, it is moved out of its blocking position by the rearward movement of the trigger, and moves back into blocking position shortly after the trigger starts to move forward from its rearmost position. But the rebound slide moves forward as well. Either, and both, will block the firing pin from reaching a primer if the hammer moves forward without the trigger being held fully back.

Neither of these hammer blocks is related to whether the revolver is cocked in single action or not. The second, newer block was simply added to address a specific hazard which revealed itself after about 50 years of use of the original design. But since the hazard was limited to guns with exposed hammers (that might be struck hard enough to break the hammer and thus bypass the original, rebound slide block) there was no need to add the second blocking device to guns with fully concealed hammers. (I note that my humpback 38s DO have the second hammer block, even though their hammers are so shrouded I can't imagine what they could fall on that would put much pressure directly on the hammer.)