Help with History of the Hammer Block?

[dlidster]

What was S&W's motivation to add the hammer block after WWII? Had there been accidental discharges resulting from guns being dropped on the hammer? Was it marketing? Or, was this just a preventative measure anticipating a possible AD from a dropped gun?

I have a couple prewar models (M&P and Outdoorsman) without the block; an S-prefix long action transitional with the block, and several numbered models that have the block now that it' standard. I've never noticed any difference in function -- I'm just curious.

If this improvement just came into being today, I'd know the lawyers made them do it. But I'm not aware of what might have been going on behind the scenes in the mid-40s.

Edit: Sorry. I didn't do enough research before starting this thread. Right after submitting the post I saw the "Similar Threads" box. My question had been asked and answered several times before. Thanks to those who did. There certainly is no end to the information that's available here.

 

[s&wchad]

The government requested it during WWII. The hammer block safety was developed by S&W and implemented after a sailor was killed by an AD when a revolver was fumbled on deck.

I'm sure others can provide a more detailed explanation.

 

[Oyeboteb]

The story as I was eventually able to find out, if I am remembering it correctly, is that the Revolver was dropped from something like 85 feet up, landing on to a heavy Steel Decking area, where, having landed on the Hammer, and breaking the Hammer in a way which allowed the Primer to be impacted by the Firing Pin, it fired.

The idea then was to have a new kind of Hammer Block which would prevent even this outrageous of an incident from occasioning an Accidental Discharge.

 

[DWalt]

There actually was a S&W safety before 1945. However it was not 100% foolproof. Various types of hammer blocking safeties were in use even back in the 19th Century. Both Iver Johnson and H&R had them. In particular, IJ had the "Hammer the Hammer" feature, and they advertised that you could actually take a hammer and beat on the revolver hammer of one of their revolvers without discharging it.

 

[opoefc]

The Navy's "After Action" report on the fatal accident indicated that an inspection of the Victory Model revolver disclosed that the action was full of cosmoline that clogged the hammer block from doing it's job preventing mis fires and the inertia of the fall on the hammer fired the revolver. I think the lesson here is that sailors cannot be trusted with firearms. There were no incidents of soldiers or Marines shooting themselves because they failed to clean their weapons, that I know of. Ed. ( 40th Infantry Div. )

 

[STCM(SW)]

The Navy's "After Action" report on the fatal accident indicated that an inspection of the Victory Model revolver disclosed that the action was full of cosmoline that clogged the hammer block from doing it's job preventing mis fires and the inertia of the fall on the hammer fired the revolver. I think the lesson here is that sailers cannot be trusted with firearms. There were no incidents of soldiers or Marines shooting themselves because they failed to clean their weapons, that I know of. Ed. ( 40th Infantry Div. )

You have to be kidding.....

Or just being a wise guy.....

 

[22shtur]

Hammer block

I heard the sailor was shooting for qualification when the revolver was dropped and the shot went off. He was scored a miss which upset him so much, he designed the hammer block which he unveiled at the first tailhook convention.

 

[shawn mccarver]

The incident, along with excerpts from government reports and S&W's side of the story are well-documented in the new book on the K frame by T. J. Mullin. The book is just out and available from Collector Grade Publications.

 

[Hondo44]

I have a couple prewar models (M&P and Outdoorsman) without the block; an S-prefix long action transitional with the block, and several numbered models that have the block now that is standard. I've never noticed any difference in function -- I'm just curious.

Some of the later prewar N frames like your Outdoorsman had the prewar style, right side hand actuated hammer block. Post war hammer blocks with the sliding bar are trigger rebound block actuated.

You won't notice any difference in function with either style hammer block.

 

[Skeetr57]

S&W revolvers with a rebound slide, and that would include all N frames, have a hammer block built into the rebound slide that also causes the hammer to retract into the rebounded position. This block is effective unless the foot of the hammer is broken off. Sometime before 1923, the I frame and K frame service guns got an additional hammer block that was actuated by the hand. Target K frames got that style at a later date, around 1926.I don't know when the hand operated hammer block was applied to the N frame guns. When working correctly the hand operated hammer block was effective, but as narrated above, hardened grease or rust could prevent its operation. The hammer block designed in response to the Navy incident is totally positive in action, and the gun won't function if it is jammed by anything

 

[hsguy]

The incident, along with excerpts from government reports and S&W's side of the story are well-documented in the new book on the K frame by T. J. Mullin. The book is just out and available from Collector Grade Publications.

If I recall correctly Charlie Pate also had copies of the original investigation documents in his book "U.S. Handguns of World War II".

 

[STCM(SW)]

And so Navy personal were the ones who caused this to happen?
More likely is that war time production was not up to standers were not adhered too and that that caused the hammer to break and fire the revolver. This is a may likely cause as there are not reports of any kind of this fault happening before in any "K" frame happening from 1898.....

 

[El Biblioitecario]

I don't know what happened in the navy incident. I do know what happened when I inadertantly replicated the accident.

I was wearing a Model 17 in a Tom Threepersons holster with the safety strap unsnapped. When I bent over, the revolver fell out, the hammer hit the concrete floor--a drop of less than three feet--and the weapon fired.

Knowing the navy story, I wondered why the hammer block hadn't worked. When I removed the sideplate, the answer was apparent--there was no hammer block. Apparently when Fred Sadowski's 300 Gunsmith Shop in Denver had done an action job on that particular revolver in the '70s, they decided the hammer block was counterproductive, and removed it. I checked two other S&W revolvers tuned at that shop; neither had a hammer block.

I don't classify this as 'accidental,' but personal stupidity; I should have had the safety strap snapped--which is why I didn't run to the phone directory and look under 'ambulance chasers.'

 

[Oyeboteb]

I don't know what happened in the navy incident. I do know what happened when I inadertantly replicated the accident.

I was wearing a Model 17 in a Tom Threepersons holster with the safety strap unsnapped. When I bent over, the revolver fell out, the hammer hit the concrete floor--a drop of less than three feet--and the weapon fired.

Knowing the navy story, I wondered why the hammer block hadn't worked. When I removed the sideplate, the answer was apparent--there was no hammer block. Apparently when Fred Sadowski's 300 Gunsmith Shop in Denver had done an action job on that particular revolver in the '70s, they decided the hammer block was counterproductive, and removed it. I checked two other S&W revolvers tuned at that shop; neither had a hammer block.

I don't classify this as 'accidental,' but personal stupidity; I should have had the safety strap snapped--which is why I didn't run to the phone directory and look under 'ambulance chasers.'

I would say, the Gunsmith who removed the Hammer Block, had erred in judgment, to do so.

I hope you scolded them!

A Revolver which never had one to begin with...is one thing.

A Revolver which had one to begin with, quite another! And no one should remove that part on their own recon, on someone else's Revolver. And it would be irresponsible to remove that part on one's own Revolver, were it ever to be sold, given away, loaned out or passed on.

Bad idea!

 

[Hondo44]

Sometime before 1923, the I frame and K frame service guns got an additional hammer block that was actuated by the hand. Target K frames got that style at a later date, around 1926.

I don't know when the hand operated hammer block was applied to the N frame guns.

Tom,

I have several I frames between 1920 and 1941. None of them have the 2nd or hand actuated hammer block. If you have one that does, I would appreciate a photo.

The hand actuated hammer block was applied to the 1917 N frames at about # 185,000 c.1919. It was introduced on the 2nd and 3rd model 44 Hand Ejectors c.1927 at about #29000.

 

[Hondo44]

And so Navy personal were the ones who caused this to happen?
More likely is that war time production was not up to standers were not adhered too and that that caused the hammer to break and fire the revolver. This is a may likely cause as there are not reports of any kind of this fault happening before in any "K" frame happening from 1898.....

Actually the war time production models by S&W had the highest inspector scrutiny due to the government inspectors.

 

[Hondo44]

I don't classify this as 'accidental,' but personal stupidity; I should have had the safety strap snapped--which is why I didn't run to the phone directory and look under 'ambulance chasers.'

I would classify it not as personal stupidity, but rather as a victim of a potential death trap.

 

[Skeetr57]

Hondo: My comment on the I frames was based on information from my 1923 copy of the D 3 S&W catalog that states that the .32 HE and .32 and .38 RP all have the Safety Hammer Block. It is mentioned in two places in each ad. The ads for the.38 M&P round butt, square butt and .32-20 all have the same wording in the same places. The pages for the .44 Military and the 1917 Army don't mention the hammer block. Neither my 1917 issue Army or my 1917 commercial have one and the commercial is in the early 174000 range.

 

[opoefc]

Group, Happy Thanksgiving to all, and my apologies to Master Chief ( Ret. ) STCM(SW) if my humor ruffled his bell bottoms! I have great respect for the US Navy! They were very good in protecting out troop ships sailing to foreign lands where soldiers and Marines won the war. They also contributed to our pocketbooks aboard ship, whenever we could get them into poker games with us. The Navy did an investigation of the dropped Victory Model fatality where they were able to repeat the misfiring incident in the testing of 90 Victory Models received from S&W. The Navy's report says the guns came with protective wrapping in "grease & oil" and were then submitted to various dropping and weights on the hammers, etc., causing some mis fires. Did they clean the guns first? No way, Jose! And, guess what? Surprise! Bang Bang! Ed. ( Hint - When we received an issue of small arms, via the Quartermaster, You expected them to arrive full of cosmoline, so you had a 55 gal drum full of diesel oil set up over a low fire to raise the oil to near boiling point. In went all the ordnance full of cosmoline for about 15 min. Then pull the weapons out of the oil, disassemble and wipe down thoroughly. No more cosmolne and everything functioned as designed. You could reuse the oil to run a generator.)

 

[Hondo44]

Hondo: My comment on the I frames was based on information from my 1923 copy of the D 3 S&W catalog that states that the .32 HE and .32 and .38 RP all have the Safety Hammer Block. It is mentioned in two places in each ad. The ads for the.38 M&P round butt, square butt and .32-20 all have the same wording in the same places. The pages for the .44 Military and the 1917 Army don't mention the hammer block. Neither my 1917 issue Army or my 1917 commercial have one and the commercial is in the early 174000 range.

Tom,

It's not surprising since the catalog is just that, a catalog. It's not unusual for catalog text and even illustrations to be carried over from previous catalogs and therefore not always the best source for technical info.

Therefore but more likely in the case of the I and K frames, it's referring to the rebound slide/hammer foot original style (and less reliable) safety, not the hand actuated hammer block safety.

The pages for the .44 Military and the 1917 Army don't mention the hammer block because they came into the world originally with the 1st style and it therefore wasn't noteworthy IMO to state it in the catalog since it wasn't an 'upgrade' as it was in the I and K frames which originally did not have the rebound slide.

Your 1917s both predate the c.185000 introduction and are correct to not have the HAHB.