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

[stantheman86]

Good thing I put mine back in my 10-14 It was out for a total of maybe 2 weeks and I managed to not shoot myself

The 10-14 still shoots like a laser, the extra ounce or two on the trigger pull hasn't affected it in any real way.

So, in other words, if you have a pre-1943 S&W and shoot it, be careful!

 

[aryfrosty]

Centennials

I have had my 640-1 apart and the centennials do not have a hammer block. This is simply because, the hammer is not accessible from the outside of the fire arm to put any pressure on it to make it impact the frame mounted firing pin.

Unsure how old your revolver is because ALL contemporary S&W revolvers have the same design hammer block. The only way yours wouldn't is for someone to have phyhsically taken it out. I have 3 M-442s and they all have it. Any modern S&W revolver would never be safe without the block unless you did carry with the hammer over an empty charge hole. That's why they are designed as they are.
Regards; Al

 

[stantheman86]

I have read that the newer Centennials do not have a hammer block, or any of the shrouded hammer snubs.

I have an M&P from about 1912 and it does not have a hammer block, I think the spring loaded sideplate block was added in 1915. I don't know if the Triple Lock had one, I don't own one. I'm sure a few people were shot by dropped S&W's before 1915,but back then all this added "safety" stuff wasn't as big an issue, like many things in production, safety measures aren't added until a few people die in accidents...... like with the famous ill-fated sailor in 1942....

I'm not a big "snub" enthusiast and do not own a Bodyguard or Centennial but I was told none of these have hammer blocks. I probably will never own a shrouded snub, since my M60 fills my need for a J-frame, but it would be a new piece of info to me to hear that the new shrouded hammer snubs have a hammer block now.

The hammer block only comes into play if the hammer receives a hard blow and the rebound slide safety is defeated or the hammer is broken somehow allowing the firing pin to be impacted. When the hammer is uncocked and "at rest" it doesn't touch the hammer block.There would be no need to keep the chamber empty under the hammer in a Centennial with no hammer block. I don't know why S&W would be adding blocks to these, just to be overcautious? In case the revolver is dropped from 200 stories up, the hammer shroud is destroyed, and the hammer is pushed into the firing pin?

I'm sure there are more than a few exposed hammer S&W's being used and carried every day with the hammer blocks removed.......probably by the same people who don't wear seatbelts. A guy was killed on the highway near me yesterday morning, he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and was ejected and killed......his passenger, a woman, was wearing a seatbelt and survived with minor injuries. The guy probably had the "I won't get in an accident" mentality and he's dead now. If there's a safety device in place, it's probably there for a reason, might as well use it if it's there.Lots and lots of people died in car wrecks before the advent of seatbelts and airbags, if you got 'em, why not use 'em......I knew a guy who took the airbags out of his car and sold them. I hope he doesn't ever miss them, if he hits a guardrail at 80 mph.Don't be a part of the "I'll never drop my loaded revolver on the hammer" crowd.

 

[aryfrosty]

Hammer blocks

To repeat: All contemporary S&W revolvers have a hammer block. Your older Smith is not what I'm referring to. I am referring to the guns which are more recent. Also, all S&W revolvers which are of modern make have a hammer block. It is the slim metal piece with an angled hole in the bottom and the 90 degeree angle at the top. It exists. Maybe some don't understand what it is but it is there, guys. Really. All of my modern Smiths, including my Centennials and my lone Bodyguard have it. Now that it part of a S&W revolver I wouldn't carry one in CC if it didn't have it.

 

[haggis]

To repeat: All contemporary S&W revolvers have a hammer block.

Meaning no disrespect, but you're wrong about this. I've been inside several 642's (taking out the flag) and none of them have (or have had) a hammer block. I just went out to the shop and took the sideplate off my 642 which I've had since it was new, and there is no hammer block. More than that, there is no pin on the rebound slide to actuate a hammer block. Nor is there a hole for a pin. Therefore, your all-inclusive "all contemporary S&W revolvers have a hammer block" is incorrect.

I don't know about your personal revolvers, having not seen them, but unless they were part of some special run that added hammer blocks, I can neither understand where they came from or why they are necessary. The function of the hammer block is to prevent a heavy blow to the hammer from breaking it and causing it to strike the firing pin or primer. An enclosed hammer can't be struck by an external object, hence the gun can't be fired in that fashion, and thus a hammer block is unnecessary on an enclosed hammer revolver. The rebound slide controls the hammer's movement perfectly well in that case.

Buck

 

[aryfrosty]

Okey

My 342s do have them. But I stand corrected regarding my statement that they have them on all of them. Thank you.

 

[stantheman86]

If someone's got a pic of a Centennial with a hammer block I would like to see it.

 

[lkydvl]

Just an interesting note...if they are a "necessary safety item" why has S&W discontinued them as parts?

Andre'

 

[Blueduck]

Any Gunsmith that specialized in pistols and was therefore a "Pistol smith" knows full well the liability one assumes just working on other peoples' guns let alone removing safety devices from them. Big Cholla

Mike Carmoney is one top pistolsmith and revolver competitor that pitches them when doing an action job. Guess he never considered the product liability, likely due to spending all his time as a Product Liabiity Lawyer when he's not competing or gunsmithing

EDIT: Now one thing he also does to most his revolvers is also to take off the hammer spur, which means it would take an odd (but not impossible) blow to impact it. May be something he takes into account.

 

[haggis]

Well, Mike's a forum member, and he hasn't yet contributed to this thread. Perhaps he will join in and give us his reasoning.

Buck

 

[snubbiefan]

I have a neighbor that removes them to "keep everything out of the way of the trigger-pull" he says.

I don't hang around him much when he has his loaded 686 in his hand. I don't want him to drop it and shoot ME.

 

[apotter11]

I dropped my 1899 yesterday and it added a new hole in the wall. Wish it had a hammerblock or I had treated it like I was taught i the Army and had an empty cylinder. Could have been worse.....

 

[gwalchmai]

I dropped my 1899 yesterday and it added a new hole in the wall. Wish it had a hammerblock or I had treated it like I was taught i the Army and had an empty cylinder. Could have been worse.....

What did you carry in the Army?

 

[Skeetr57]

The first hammer block was patented by S&W in 1914, and the prewar revolvers had the patent date stamped on the barrels-Dec 29 '14, but not all revolvers got them at the same time. 1917 Army's didn't get them until around 1919 or so, and some of the target guns didn't get them until the mid 1920's. The revolver that was dropped and killed the sailor during WWII did have a hammer block. but it was not functioning properly. The original hammer block was moved out of the blocking position by the hand, and returned to the blocking position by spring action, so if rust or grease jammed the hammer block, the gun would operate, but the hammer block wouldn't function. The current style hammer block operates in a positive manner in both directions, and will jam the gun if it gets rusted in place. I don't know about all the modern hammerless S&W revolvers, but my 940 doesn't have a hammer block, and the rbound slide doesn't have the actuating pin, nor does the sideplate have the milled recess for the hammer block.

 

[tipoc]

One of the challenges with threads that are dug up from the grave, as this 2010 thread has been, is that the questions and answers written in this year and month were answered in this thread when it started over 3 years ago. However folks resist the toil of reading through a page or two so they re-ask and re-answer, address and re-address the same issues over and over.

I encourage you to start reading from the beginning and the questions are answered. If you need to might be best to begin a new thread.

tipoc

 

[Bearbait in NM]

Seems like a reasonable place to ask something that has me scratching my head. New to Smith's.

What is the rationale for the locking bar to hammer safety for the cylinder being open? The only thing I can rationalize would be a cylinder not fully closed, but would the mechanisms all work (hand/ratchets etc.) to even allow firing? Does this safety predate all the others?

Craig

 

[spad124]

I'm assuming that everyone here is smart enough NOT to walk around with the revolver cocked-and-unlocked.

A cocked and unlocked revolver? I've heard of cocked and locked 1911s, but never a cocked and locked revolver. Are you referring to the IL S&W revolvers? My 5 S&W revolvers all happen to be pre-IL so I can't check if you can cock the hammer into SA and then lock the IL. But, even if you could, wouldn't it be much simpler and more efficient to just carry the revolver in DA mode?

 

[tipoc]

"A cocked and unlocked revolver? I've heard of cocked and locked 1911s, but never a cocked and locked revolver. Are you referring to the IL S&W revolvers? My 5 S&W revolvers all happen to be pre-IL so I can't check if you can cock the hammer into SA and then lock the IL. But, even if you could, wouldn't it be much simpler and more efficient to just carry the revolver in DA mode?"

I believe the fella was referring to walking or running around with a cocked revolver ready for a sa trigger pull. There was no reference to the il meant. Well unless he did mean that then everyone is confused.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

Seems like a reasonable place to ask something that has me scratching my head. New to Smith's.

What is the rationale for the locking bar to hammer safety for the cylinder being open? The only thing I can rationalize would be a cylinder not fully closed, but would the mechanisms all work (hand/ratchets etc.) to even allow firing? Does this safety predate all the others?

Craig

The gun will not fire unless the cylinder is fully closed. This is not so much a "safety" device as a result of how the guns are built. In the same way that under normal circumstances a motor won't turn over unless the ignition switch is activated. It's not a safety as much as a design feature.

The hammer will not cock if the cylinder is open. The hand, ratchet, etc. work together and are timed to do so. This requires that the cylinder be closed.

tipoc

 

[Bearbait in NM]

Tipoc,

Thanks and yes I understand how it functions. It is always listed as a safety, and was just trying to understand how the gun would be unsafe if the hammer could drop with the cylinder open. Perhaps as you noted, it is only safer for the gun.

Thanks, Craig