Do you need a hammer block in a modern S&W?

[rjjj]

Just out of curiosity, I have been on this forum over 2 years and still am not quite sure what "YMMV" means....can someone enlighten me please? Sorry, not up on all this computer lingo.....ha ha

"Your Mileage May Vary"

 

[Bullseye Smith]

Not without the trigger fully pressed, however. Right?

You are 150% WRONG on that, If it is dropped on the hammer it will go bang without a hammer block inplace. It won't fire with a hammer block if dropped on the hammer.

 

[Bullseye Smith]

Seriously. Look closely at the first pic posted by 500 Magnum Nut. in order to get a gun to go off, it needs to be dropped HARD... hard enough to snap off the part of the hammer with the single action sear (the whole part resting on the rebound slide)... and even then, chances are that the hammer won't move forward because the double action sear rests on the top of the trigger. This kind of "perfect storm" of events probably would only occur on a gun with some defective imperfections in just the wrong spots in the metal of the hammer, trigger, etc.

You know what else might happen? Maybe you get a piece of debris that finds its way between the hammer and the firing pin and the tap on the back of the hammer is enough to set the gun off even if the hammer block is in there. Is that likely? Hells no. Could it happen? Maybe. Maybe another piece of debris makes it behind the primer on a live round and there is enough endshake in your cylinder that a round gets set off if you drop the gun. Likely? No way. But I suppose it's *possible*.

As has been mentioned, back in ye-oldie-time days, the SAA would just have firing pins resting on live primers if you weren't careful. Because of this, the myth persists that modern revolvers have similar issues.

Would I stand in front of one while you dropped it from holster height onto its hammer over a loaded chamber? No. Would I bet a sizeable sum of money that it wouldn't go off? Most definitely.

Leave the block in there if you want. You'll probably never notice it other than a rattle in the gun at times. However, the SKY IS NOT FALLING. Sheesh.

And for God's sake... stop dropping your guns on their hammers. What's wrong with you!

Remove it and you can be DEAD and wrong!!!!!!!!! The part that the hammer is setting on is spring loaded, when dropped on the hammer the spring in the return will compress and let the hammer mover forward. Then "BANG" you or a friend is dead. If you can't put it back together right, you don't need to own it. You become a hazzard to the ones around you.

 

[DaTerminat'r]

Solution is simple and over a century old: carry with one cylinder empty.

 

[DaTerminat'r]

If the hammer block was deemed unnecessary, trust me - it wouldn't be there.

Mark

The internal lock is really unnecessary, but it's still there despite angry customers.

 

[stantheman86]

There is NO need to carry a modern DA revolver like a S&W with an empty chamber below the firing pin That's what the hammer block is for.

I can't believe that pistolsmiths "back in the day" would remove the hammer block......this would never happen today, with all the liability out there.

 

[DaTerminat'r]

I've asked two shooters of whom I'm familiar with about this, and they both said they toss the hammer block away after trigger job but these were range gun, not carry weapons. Chances of dropping a loaded range gun on its hammer is almost nil.

 

[stantheman86]

I am interested in the hammer blocks of other brands, like Charter Arms, etc. They may use a transfer bar, I don't have one so I don't know.

What really is to gain from removing the block? Right now due to a fitting issue I have a 10-5 with no block in it, and the trigger feels no different than my other Smiths that have it in.

I in no way advocate removing the hammer block in a S&W in any way but people carry Charter revolvers every day, just curious what kind of drop safeties they have. I also checked out my older Taurus .38 and without taking the plate off there was no hammer block I could see, although it may look different.

That's part of the dreaded CA laws is the guns have to pass a "drop test".

 

[Janitor]

Just out of curiosity, I have been on this forum over 2 years and still am not quite sure what "YMMV" means....can someone enlighten me please? Sorry, not up on all this computer lingo.....ha ha

Finally - something I can answer!

YMMV = Your Millage May Vary

ETA:

... too late.

*sigh*

 

[bountyhunter]

Remove it and you can be DEAD and wrong!!!!!!!!! The part that the hammer is setting on is spring loaded, when dropped on the hammer the spring in the return will compress and let the hammer mover forward. Then "BANG" you or a friend is dead. If you can't put it back together right, you don't need to own it. You become a hazzard to the ones around you.

But, to be fair, that can only happen if the hammer fractures somewhere midsection separating the top half from the bottom. The bump on the RB slide will absolutely block the hammer from moving forward if the hammer is intact because it blocks it at the bottom of the hammer.

I suppose it's possible the boss pin the hammer is mounted on might break and let the entire hammer move forward (?)

 

[bountyhunter]

I've asked two shooters of whom I'm familiar with about this, and they both said they toss the hammer block away after trigger job but these were range gun, not carry weapons. Chances of dropping a loaded range gun on its hammer is almost nil.

The reason no smith would remove it on a carry gun is liability. No gunsmith I know would defeat any safety on any gun (other than his own) because the risk of lawsuit is too great. I don't use them on my comp guns, but they are in both of my defense guns as well as full power stock springs. No modifications means no lawyer can claim the gun was made "unsafe".

 

[bountyhunter]

The internal lock is really unnecessary, but it's still there despite angry customers.

It's there because there (allegedly) was a documented case where somebody dropped one on the hammer and it went off. That being the case, the gun maker is on notice and liable to make a modification..... no matter how rare the incident may be.

 

[bountyhunter]

That's part of the dreaded CA laws is the guns have to pass a "drop test".

I don't think it needs that bar to pass a drop test since they drop them on the muzzle. They only fire that way if the inertia of the firing pin is sufficient to pop the primer. That's why many kali guns go to lower mass titanium firing pins to pass a drop test.

 

[Dpris]

The original reason for the hammer block introduction was a Navy sailor who died when he dropped a Smith .38 on a steel deck and it discharged on impact.
NOT on the muzzle, since the bullet that killed him didn't hit the deck before he did.

Denis

 

[bountyhunter]

The original reason for the hammer block introduction was a Navy sailor who died when he dropped a Smith .38 on a steel deck and it discharged on impact.
NOT on the muzzle, since the bullet that killed him didn't hit the deck before he did.

Denis

Right, it would have to land on the spur of the hammer and break something inside to be able to strike the primer.

 

[smithman 10]

Don't mess with the hammer block - leave it in there

There is absolutely no reason whatsover to take the hammer block out of a Smith and Wesson revolver.

It won't make the trigger pull any better. It will make the gun unsafe.

DON'T DO IT!

DON'T DO IT!

 

[savit260]

I am interested in the hammer blocks of other brands, like Charter Arms, etc. They may use a transfer bar, I don't have one so I don't know.

but people carry Charter revolvers every day, just curious what kind of drop safeties they have. I also checked out my older Taurus .38 and without taking the plate off there was no hammer block I could see, although it may look different.

.

Charters have a transfer bar. Not going to fire unless the trigger is all the way back.

Double action Colts have a positive hammer block as well from well before WWII. Sometime around 1905 ish.

Some Iver Johnson's had transfer bars as well I believe back as far as the 19th century.

 

[stantheman86]

Oh yeah, the old Iver Johnson "Hammer the hammer" advertisement where they have a guy hitting an Iver Johnson with a hammer

 

[bmcgilvray]

That's a good thing to do with an Iver Johnson.

 

[haggis]

There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions about the functionality of the hammer block. I think that before you say anything about it, you should learn a few facts. When people talk about an "alleged incident" in which a sailor was killed, it only convinces me that there are a lot of folks who think opinion is the only thing that counts, and theirs is as good as anybody's. The only thing that counts is data, and some of these opinions could get people killed.

Appendix F in Charlie Pate's book (U.S. Handguns of World War II, the Secondary Pistols and Revolvers) is entitled "S&W Hammer Block Documentation" and covers everything that happened. Don't believe me - get a copy and read it. In summary, the early hammer block was found defective, and 31 of the 32 guns that were tested discharged when the hammer was struck a blow equivalent to a one deck fall (20 feet). The rebound slide did not prevent the gun from firing, and the hammer did not break in most of these tests. Subsequent testing on the new hammer block showed increased drop resistance from 98-139 feet with some breakage of the hammer. This was considered by the Navy to be adequate to prevent firing if the gun was dropped any place on ship. It took 2-4X more force to fire with the new hammer block than it did with two Colt revolvers that were tested.

Here's my take on all this:

• The rebound slide alone is not effective in preventing a dropped revolver from firing.
• The current S&W hammer block should prevent firing if the gun is dropped on its hammer from any reasonable distance.
• Any mechanical safety device can be defeated by the application of sufficient force. One has to judge for oneself what constitutes acceptable risk.
• Anybody, no matter how famous or well known, that tells you that removing the hammer block does not increase the risk of a dropped gun discharge is both negligent and full of crap.

Buck