I'm at a loss

[Sailormilan2]

I decided to do some routine maintainance of a 629 I've had for several years. I get the sideplate off, and there's no hammer block. Nothing. With all the Smiths I've owned through the years, this is the first time I've even found one without a hammer block.
Since I bought this thing 2nd hand, I have no clue if it came from the factory this way, or if someone took it out. I really am at a loss as to why someone would remove the hammer block.
Oh well, I have one on the way.

 

[Pef]

Whenever I purchase a used SW revolver, I check for the hammer block. Over the years I have purchased two used Smith's without hammer blocks. I don't know why people remove them - I can guess, and none of the reasons are flattering.

Consider your post a PSA - like you, I learned that the used revolver check-out should include a hammer block check. Good news is they are cheap and almost always in stock.

 

[OKFC05]

I had a gunsmith "help" me by removing the hammer block from a 66 when checking for worn parts in my much-used IDPA gun. I noticed it gone and said "you have now made this gun illegal for IDPA by removing a factory safety device. I need it back."
He put it back and said he just thought anybody shooting any competition would want it gone, so he always took it out.
Beware.

 

[STCM(SW)]

So, let me see. That's means all of my S&W revolvers made before WW II are unsafe?

 

[BruceM]

That's means all of my S&W revolvers made before WW II are unsafe?

Actually, there was a problem with them firing when dropped so the firing pin block was added. You may or may not want to accept that fact but the key word here is that is a fact!

Bruce

 

[AlHunt]

So, let me see. That's means all of my S&W revolvers made before WW II are unsafe?

Basically, yes. I can't find the story on here right now, but the hammer block was added after some navy sailor was killed. A revolver was dropped on the hammer, it fired and got him. Maybe there were multiple instances of ADs.

Now I'm way out on a limb here and I need to go find that post ...

ETA: Here's one reference: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/99903-victory-model-safety-issues.html

 

[Bullet Bob]

"Actually, there was a problem with them firing when dropped so the firing pin block was added. You may or may not want to accept that fact but the key word here is that is a fact!"

Bruce
_____________________________________________

There was that one incident with a sailor, but if you read old American Rifleman's and Gun Digests from the 1940's and 50's, there is some doubt as to the actual occurrence - i.e., did he drop it and it went off, or did he have an accidental discharge and blame it on the design of the gun. Ages pass, but people don't really change.

 

[Pisgah]

For decades, removing the hammer block has been something done by so-called "gunsmiths" tuning up S&W triggers, the completely erroneous theory being that it improves the trigger pull.

Never forget, the #1 source of gun fallacies is gun shops, followed closely by so-called gunsmiths and forums like this one.

 

[bipe215]

From RKG on The Firing Line Forum:

The notion that the hammer block is necessary to prevent firing if a cocked hammer is somehow dropped without a finger on the trigger can be readily demonstrated to be false.

Take a S&W revolver and remove the hammer block. Reassemble the revolver. With it completely unloaded, cock the revolver, point it toward the ceiling, and drop a pencil with a fairly new eraser down the barrel, eraser end down. Pull the trigger, and the pencil will jump (sometimes all the way out the barrel), signifying that the pin hit the eraser just as it would have hit a primer.

Now cock it again and drop the pencil again. This time, start tapping on the trigger with something (I use a teaspoon). After a couple of taps, the hammer drops, but the pencil doesn't move.

Still skeptical? OK, cock the revover with the cylinder open (if you know how), put your pinky over the firing pin hole in the recoil shield, and pull the trigger. After putting a bandaid on your bleeding finger, do it again (use the other pinky) this time tapping the trigger with the spoon. Hammer will fall and your second pinky won't feel a thing.

The pencil-and-spoon test simulates a push-off, a jar-off, a sear failure, or even a twig brushing the trigger of some moron's gun as he walks through the wood with it cocked. What happens is that as the trigger falls, the rebound slide moves forward, and it will always get home before the hammer does.

The Navy event was borne of the notion that sufficient force could be applied to the hammer of an uncocked revolver to cause it to fire. This is theoretically possible if (a) the rebound slide fails, (b) the internal hammer spur (the part that rides on the rebound slide) fails, or (c) the hammer pivot pin fails. I seriously doubt that it has ever happened in real life. I happened to witness experiments at Smith & Wesson, and after a lot of pounding on the hammer, all that ever broke was the external hammer spur (the thing you put your thumb on to cock the hammer). Not once could a revolver be made to fire this way.

To take it one step further. Examine the post-Navy hammer block. With the hammer cocked, the hammer block is retracted (i.e., out of the way of the falling hammer). If somehow you hypothesized that the hammer could pushed or jarred off and the trigger did not move forward (e.g., rebound slide spring missing; rebound slide frozen in place), so that the rebound slide did not move forward, the hammer block would remain retracted, since its action is dependent on the movement of the rebound slide (off of which the hammer block cams). If this were to happen, the revolver would fire, notwithstanding the hammer block. (By the way, I am unaware of my hypothetical scenario ever happening in real life.)

I cannot prove this, and no one at Smith & Wesson has ever admitted it (and the folks there at the time are all dead), but I am convinced that Smith added the hammer block simply to placate the Navy and prevent cancellation of a contract.

 

[ontargetagain]

I purchased a used S&W model 14 off Gunbroker. As part of my routine maintenance and check outs I removed the side plate, and just as you have found there was no hammer block in it, quickly ordered one and got it back to safe specs.
I would make good habit of any used revolver purchased to check this out. Probably could easily be done without removing the sideplate by doing a 'rattle test'.
Karl

 

[Protocall_Design]

I have seen one time where the hammer block was removed on a "target" gun. The gun was dropped, unloaded at the time, the hammer spur struck a concrete floor. The gun would have fired because the hammer hit the top of the rebound slide and the bottom part of the hammer broke off. This is the only situation that I've seen in many decades where the gun could have injured someone because of the hammer block being gone.

Still, I have the hammer block in all my guns, and all the match ones have very light and smooth trigger pulls with the block in there. It's simply a matter of knowing what to do during the trigger job to make it work right.

If you look in the top of the action with the hammer back, you can see the top flag of the hammer block.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I have seen one time where the hammer block was removed on a "target" gun. The gun was dropped, unloaded at the time, the hammer spur struck a concrete floor. The gun would have fired because the hammer hit the top of the rebound slide and the bottom part of the hammer broke off. This is the only situation that I've seen in many decades where the gun could have injured someone because of the hammer block being gone.

Still, I have the hammer block in all my guns, and all the match ones have very light and smooth trigger pulls with the block in there. It's simply a matter of knowing what to do during the trigger job to make it work right.

This is sort of like the ONE shipboard incident that killed a person and caused the hammer block. In the shipboard case, the gun was dropped on a steel deck, and apparently the hammer broke. The incident was formally investigated. While this is not necessarily a rock-solid proof, it is a strong hint that the conclusion was correct. I know that all negligent discharges are accidental, and 99% of them occur while cleaning the gun, which somehow just went off. However negligent that shipboard discharge may have been, it does appear that the hammer broke when it hit the deck, and that contributed to the fatality. Obviously, playing with/dropping a loaded gun had some effect on the outcome.

Anyway, the hammer block DOES serve as a protection against one kind of an AD that apparently DID happen at least once.

 

[steelslaver]

I have hammer blocks in all my modern guns that came with them. But, I agree that unless a hammer part or the rebound slide fails they will not fire without the trigger held to the rear. Yes, I could happen if it was dropped from a decent height and landed just right on a very hard surface. I try really hard not to drop guns especially loaded ones. I think your as likely to break a rifle safety or even a 1911, dropping one as a S&W hammer/slide deal. I still don't take out the hammer block. I didn't defeat the grip safety on my 1911 either