Any passive safeties on Centennials?

[tedburns3]

I was searching around the internet and here and was unable to find anything directly addressing the issue. I know that my S&W 442 has passed drop-safety testing in my State, but was wondering if there's any internal 'passive' type of safety that renders the gun 'drop-safe' where pulling of trigger is non-existent.

Please be as specific as possible in stating such a passive safety or safeties.

For instance, is there some type of firing pin safety or other?

I do know from the Miculek Trigger Job video that K and other frames have a hammer block part that slips out of the way only when trigger is fully pulled to the rear, but I don't believe such a part exists in my 442. I have no desire to even put a screwdriver to the face place to mess with the gun. I did have another 442 and a 49 in the past, worked on them, regretted the idiot marks I had placed on the frame, and particularly by the screws, etc., and I just want to leave the gun I have alone as it is nearly pristine in exterior appearance.

Thanks in advance!

 

[snubbiefan]

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.

 

[armorer951]

Revover "safeties"

"Safeties" in the revolver include the hammer block as mentioned above, the rebound seat(on the bottom of the hammer)- the hammer seat (on the top of the rebound slide) and rebound spring (uncut)....and their working relationship.....and, the factory SA pull weight at or above 3lbs.
My instructor also talked about the tension provided by the center pin spring (resistance to recoil), and the passive block on the bolt that prevents the thumbpiece from being pushed forward when the gun is cocked SA.
A gun that is otherwise unaltered will not discharge when cocked and dropped, even without the hammer block. It is foolish however to remove this safety, since by doing so you bring added civil liability to yourself, and probably void the warranty. It would be impossible to justify such a modification in civil court IMHO.

 

[tedburns3]

I don't recall there being a hammer block in a 442, if you are describing what is depicted in this photo I culled from Google images:

If it exists in a 442/642 etc. can anyone describe it or provide a photo?

 

[armorer951]

I've only worked on three or four of these in the last 40 years.....none of the ones I opened had the hammer block shown in your photograph. Since they have no exposed hammer or hammer spur, I assume they don't need one.

 

[tedburns3]

"Safeties" in the revolver include the hammer block as mentioned above, the rebound seat(on the bottom of the hammer)- the hammer seat (on the top of the rebound slide) and rebound spring (uncut)....and their working relationship.....and, the factory SA pull weight at or above 3lbs.
My instructor also talked about the tension provided by the center pin spring (resistance to recoil), and the passive block on the bolt that prevents the thumbpiece from being pushed forward when the gun is cocked SA.
A gun that is otherwise unaltered will not discharge when cocked and dropped, even without the hammer block. It is foolish however to remove this safety, since by doing so you bring added civil liability to yourself, and probably void the warranty. It would be impossible to justify such a modification in civil court IMHO.

Very informative. Thank you.

Of course, there is no SA pull or cocked position on my DAO 442.

 

[tedburns3]

I've only worked on three or four of these in the last 40 years.....none of the ones I opened had the hammer block shown in your photograph. Since they have no exposed hammer or hammer spur, I assume they don't need one.

So, where does that leave us concerning the existence of a 'hammer block' with the 442/642?

Is there some other mechanism or part S&W calls a hammer block applicable to the Centennials? I define Centennials hopefully correctly-J-frames with no exposed hammer or hammer spur.

 

[snubbiefan]

I'll honestly admit that I have never had a 442 or 642 apart. Maybe they don't and the other safeties in the lock-work as mentioned above are all there is in a "hammerless" version. Must have been two years since I pulled the side-plate on my 640....so I honestly don't remember. I will say....you learn something everyday and there is no hammer-block listed in the parts list for a hammer-block in the 442, 642 or 640.

So...with egg all over my face...I stand corrected.

 

[Hapworth]

Centennials with enclosed hammers, like OP's 442, do not have hammer blocks. The absence of a hammer spur renders a hammer block irrelevant.

It's passive safety, like all other modern S&W revolvers with or without hammer spurs, is correctly described by armorer951: when the trigger is in the forward position, the rebound and hammer seats rest firmly against one another, entirely preventing the hammer from moving forward toward the firing pin unless and until the trigger is pulled.

 

[tedburns3]

I'll honestly admit that I have never had a 442 or 642 apart. Maybe they don't and the other safeties in the lock-work as mentioned above are all there is in a "hammerless" version. Must have been two years since I pulled the side-plate on my 640....so I honestly don't remember. I will say....you learn something everyday and there is no hammer-block listed in the parts list for a hammer-block in the 442, 642 or 640.

So...with egg all over my face...I stand corrected.

This is why I brought the thread in the first place-and not to embarass anyone.

I did two trigger jobs on my K and L frames and got to be somewhat knowledgable about the internal parts (I sold those guns, sold my prior 442 and 49) and I am not about to open my current 442 unnecessarily. I also vaguely recall reading some years ago and also noticing in first 442 there was no 'hammer block' as depicted in the photo.

Since the 442/642 and other Centennials can not be SA and only the trigger must be pulled, and, further I don't recall seeing such hammer block in mine, having same (I guess) would be redundant.

I am just going to believe what armorer said yet never say there is a 'hammer block' on the Centennials. It's just the internal lockwork that prevents discharge under any and all circumstances provide the trigger is not fully pulled to the rear?

So, what would be the chances of a discharge of the 442 if dropped from a height of 10 feet HARD or slammed angrily against a street curb assuming trigger remains stationary throughout or at least is not FULLY pulled to the rear?

I am hoping that is a rhetorical question.

 

[armorer951]

In order for the gun to discharge, the hammer stud would have to be compromised, allowing the hammer to move forward fully into battery. I would say the chance of this happening would be zero under the circumstances you describe.

 

[tedburns3]

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".

 

[armorer951]

safety

That statement would be true of any unmodified S&W revolver.

 

[fungunnin]

Don't pull the trigger and the 442 won't fire.

Sent from my Motorola Flip phone.

 

[tedburns3]

Don't pull the trigger and the 442 won't fire.

Sent from my Motorola Flip phone.

That is assuming a voluntary action is necessary and I want to cover involuntary as well.

See the amendment to my post above, in red.

 

[tedburns3]

That statement would be true of any unmodified S&W revolver.

Right, but what about the guy who modifies by removing the hammer block from a K or L frame, either voluntarily or forgets it?

See, I'm thinking back at least 3 years or more when I did those trigger jobs. And NO, I made sure those were back in place.

But I remember hearing/reading that some guys voluntarily toss them because it interfered with smoothness of trigger pull, etc. Is my recollection correct? I am also thinking back to the Miculek video, which, again, I haven't reviewed for at least 3-5 years. He may even have made some type of comment about it, but I am not implying that if he did, he advocated anything about removing it or not.

 

[armorer951]

safety

Any unauthorized modification of the lock-work, mechanism, or internal/external safeties of a firearm is a bad idea. The result will surely be an increase of liability on your part.....or on the person who made the modification.....not to mention the possibility of injury or death of a loved one, subsequent owner, or bystander. Even modifications that are "permitted" by authorized, trained armorers and gunsmiths can be questioned if the condition of the firearm is called into question during litigation.....and it probably will be.
A properly fitted hammer block does not affect the "feel" or "smoothness" of the action to any extent.......and there would be no way to justify it's removal. (opinion)

 

[tedburns3]

For the benefit of noobs to firearms, your comments in #17 are welcome, helpful, and perhaps mandated.

Thank you for your direct response to my inquiry as contained in your last sentence of the post. It is appreciated.

 

[fungunnin]

The purpose of a hammer block is to block the hammer if it happened yo be locked back and then slammed forward by dome great force. On a 442 you can not lock the hammer back therefore there is nothing to block and no need for the safety.
To fire a DAO revolver you need to overcome a very heavy mainspring in order to give the hammer enough force to fire a round. They are probably the safest gun you can carry loaded and ready to fire.
If you wish to make it even harder to fire just install a heavier main string.

To make it still harder to fire leave it unloaded.

Sent from my Motorola Flip phone.

 

[tedburns3]

Beretta 92 series pretty darn safe too, after decock and even disengaging safety.