New, no lock, Model 19-10 extra part?

[shawn mccarver]

Brand new Classic Line, Model 19-10, no lock, fresh from the Distributor.

Fit, finish, action, timing are all superior. I have not disassembled it.

The hammer has a notch cut out on the left side when viewed from the rear. There appears to be an extra part that interacts with the hammer (no, it is not the bolt) and I cannot discern what its purpose is.

Has anyone noticed this? If so, what is the name of the part, and what is its purpose? I have been unable to find a thread about this, nor have I been able to locate a schematic for the new no-lock Model 19.

One picture shows it is a no-lock, one shows the "notch" cut out of the left side of the hammer, and two pictures shows it is the part about which I am asking.

Anyone know about this?

 

[Grimjaws]

Space filler

Maybe a space filler for the lock model so they only need to make one hammer for both?

 

[Beju]

Maybe a space filler for the lock model so they only need to make one hammer for both?

Arguably one frame as well, minus drilling the lock hole.

 

[642Fan]

Series 80 firing pin safety??

 

[SWFan27]

The frame of my 19-9 is different but it looks the 19-10 uses the same hammer.

 

[stansdds]

S&W has never been known to waste parts after an engineering change. I suspect that they are using up their supply of internal lock hammers.

 

[SLT223]

The mountain guns are the same way. I haven't popped the plate yet, but I locks like some lock parts in there to minimize engineering changes.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Maybe a space filler for the lock model so they only need to make one hammer for both?

I thought of that, but why? If the lock parts are not there, there is no reason to put a filler as it is just something else to go wrong, and there is no disadvantage that I can see to having the lock cut out on the hammer and in the frame and just not putting anything in those empty spaces. Seems like unnecessary complication if you ask me.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Arguably one frame as well, minus drilling the lock hole.

It is not the same as the pics posted of the 19-9 show the rectangular cut out that is there for the "flag" of the lock to stick up whereas the 19-10 does not have that rectangular cut. I feel like you are correct that they both start out as the same forging, but the machining is obviously different. My question is why machine out the inside where the lock would go at all if there is no lock to be installed. Too bad we don't have a knowledgeable S&W employee on here to answer questions for us!

 

[shawn mccarver]

S&W has never been known to waste parts after an engineering change. I suspect that they are using up their supply of internal lock hammers.

Perhaps, but there are still plenty of other K Frame models using locks, such as Model 66, etc. Maybe they are going to get rid of all the locks!

 

[SWFan27]

It is not the same as the pics posted of the 19-9 show the rectangular cut out that is there for the "flag" of the lock to stick up whereas the 19-10 does not have that rectangular cut. I feel like you are correct that they both start out as the same forging, but the machining is obviously different. My question is why machine out the inside where the lock would go at all if there is no lock to be installed. Too bad we don't have a knowledgeable S&W employee on here to answer questions for us!

I agree that they are just using parts on hand. Probably all the hammers they have molded are formed that way. They figure most buyers will be happy just to not see a lock, along with the minor change to the frame.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I thought of that, but why? If the lock parts are not there, there is no reason to put a filler as it is just something else to go wrong, and there is no disadvantage that I can see to having the lock cut out on the hammer and in the frame and just not putting anything in those empty spaces. Seems like unnecessary complication if you ask me.

Yes, but unnecessary complication may be a tradition that they felt obliged to continue.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I bought a 19-10 Classic "no-lock" a couple months ago. I did open it up to install a Wolff spring kit and noticed these parts. The part in question looks similar to the lock "flag" plate of the IL system that has been modified. It still has the retention fork and spring in place used in the IL models. I came to the same conclusion that it must be a space filler to give the hammer something to ride against so that debris or whatever couldn't get trapped between the hammer and frame. In this way, they don't have to get a separate hammer design MIM'ed just for the few no-lock guns, which is an expensive proposition given the enormous initial mold costs. That's the only explanation that makes sense to me, as I don't see that it has any other function.

I'll just be glad when the IL era is finally over and they go back to making guns without that gawd-awful hole in the side.

 

[chief38]

My personal opinion........ if in the market for a new one, wait 'till S&W uses up all the old parts and makes them the right way before pulling the trigger. Just when you think they did the right thing too..........

 

[Bobbysixkiller]

There's another thread here somewhere that shows it. It's the flag from the lock. Looks like the same flag as before but no way to unlock it if it fails. Unsure why they left it there. Would seem to just not put it in at all would save time and money. Im holding out for a bit longer until it's completely gone.

 

[mariner1915]

This whole topic of extra "vestigial" lock parts in the "no lock" guns is both very interesting and somewhat concerning. The internal lock appears to work as shown in the attached diagram; in addition to the flag it looks like it requires a very specific groove pattern in the hammer with notches at two points that the flag fits into into when it is in the "up" or locked position; one notch for when the hammer is cocked, (C) in the diagram, and one for when it is down, (D) in the diagram.

If this is all correct, I'd be interested to know: do the hammers of these new "no-lock" guns have the same pattern of the groove (B) with notches (C) and (D) branching off it?

If it just has the groove (B), it would seem less likely to "lock up" although the flag would still seem like an unnecessary extra part, which is usually not optimal. If it has the notches (C) and (D) branching off the groove, that would seem a bit more scary as it suggests that the modified flag of the "no lock" gun might fit into one of the notches and lock up the gun without external indication....

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

There's another thread here somewhere that shows it. It's the flag from the lock. Looks like the same flag as before but no way to unlock it if it fails. Unsure why they left it there. Would seem to just not put it in at all would save time and money. Im holding out for a bit longer until it's completely gone.

You're making way too much sense Bob. We're talking about the same company who continued installing pins above barrels for years after the pin no longer even touched the barrel.

When I had my 19-10 open, I considered removing those parts but then changed my mind and decided I'll just leave them there, at least for now. They aren't hurting anything, and if they ever fail, no huge deal; I'll take it apart and remove them then.

Sometimes in high volume manufacturing, it is easier and more efficient to continue adding superfluous features to parts even when they serve no function when a majority of other similar products you make require it because doing so helps eliminate extra process steps and minimizes mistakes on the guns that do require the parts. Since there is no visible lock on the outside and no slot for the flag next to the hammer, these extra remnants from the IL aren't noticed during normal use, and they don't interfere with function in any way.

 

[s&wchad]

MIM molds are very expensive.

https://mikeshoppingroom.com/understanding-the-costs-of-metal-injection-molding/

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

This whole topic of extra "vestigial" lock parts in the "no lock" guns is both very interesting and somewhat concerning. The internal lock appears to work as shown in the attached diagram; in addition to the flag it looks like it requires a very specific groove pattern in the hammer with notches at two points that the flag fits into into when it is in the "up" or locked position; one notch for when the hammer is cocked, (C) in the diagram, and one for when it is down, (D) in the diagram.

If this is all correct, I'd be interested to know: do the hammers of these new "no-lock" guns have the same pattern of the groove (B) with notches (C) and (D) branching off it?

If it just has the groove (B), it would seem less likely to "lock up" although the flag would still seem like an unnecessary extra part, which is usually not optimal. If it has the notches (C) and (D) branching off the groove, that would seem a bit more scary as it suggests that the modified flag of the "no lock" gun might fit into one of the notches and lock up the gun without external indication....

The hammer is the same as the models with the IL. I would have to open my gun up again to refresh my memory, but I seem to recall the "flag" in my no lock 19-10 lacking the raised lug indicated by "A" in your photo. It also lacks the cam that moves it, and since there is no slot in the side of the frame that would allow the flag to move upwards, it isn't possible for it to lock into the hammer anyway. It's trapped where it is.

 

[mariner1915]

The hammer is the same as the models with the IL. I would have to open my gun up again to refresh my memory, but I seem to recall the "flag" in my no lock 19-10 lacking the raised lug indicated by "A" in your photo. It also lacks the cam that moves it, and since there is no slot in the side of the frame that would allow the flag to move upwards, it isn't possible for it to lock into the hammer anyway. It's trapped where it is.

Excellent, good to hear, thank you.

 

[Bullet Bob]

"...there is no reason to put a filler..."

Except maybe that then people would be posting complaints about the empty space. We're a hard bunch to satisfy.

 

[Yendor357]

It didn't take long for the shine of the "No Lock" models to come off.

At some point, you just have to come to the realization that it's not 1969 anymore.

 

[b737lvr]

It didn't take long for the shine of the "No Lock" models to come off.

At some point, you just have to come to the realization that it's not 1969 anymore.

To be fair there is still no lock. All they did was put a dummy lock in place that can't engage. It's really not a big deal.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

OK, I decided to go ahead and open her back up and show you what's there. My memory failed me; it does still have the "lug" on the little "flag" plate, but it cannot engage the hammer notch, so...why? As you can see, it's not the same part as the "flag" in the IL models, and there is no engagement cam either. It also doesn't have the same retention method with the little fork as the IL system uses. It has some kind of pivoting arm with spring for retention. The spring holds this part in downward orientation so that it cannot pivot upward to engage the hammer. I also included a pic of the hammer so you can see it is the same hammer used in the IL models. So this begs the question... why did S&W decide to make an entirely new part and bother putting this part in the no-lock guns to begin with? I'm sure it is a transition part if they are eventually planning to move away from the locks. But still, it has no apparent function that I can think of, and the gun will still run just fine without it, so why put this thing in there? What is the thought process here?

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

To be fair there is still no lock. All they did was put a dummy lock in place that can't engage. It's really not a big deal.

Correct, it can't engage. And it's not really a big deal to me, except for the fact it makes no sense to me why it's there. Seems like an unnecessary expense. But maybe it has some legit purpose in conjunction with the IL style hammer?

 

[b737lvr]

OK, I decided to go ahead and open her back up and show you what's there. My memory failed me; it does still have the "lug" on the little "flag" plate, but it cannot engage the hammer notch, so...why? As you can see, it's not the same part as the "flag" in the IL models, and there is no engagement cam either. It also doesn't have the same retention method with the little fork as the IL system uses. It has some kind of pivoting arm with spring for retention. The spring holds this part in downward orientation so that it cannot pivot upward to engage the hammer. I also included a pic of the hammer so you can see it is the same hammer used in the IL models. So this begs the question... why did S&W decide to make an entirely new part and bother putting this part in the no-lock guns to begin with? I'm sure it is a transition part if they are eventually planning to move away from the locks. But still, it has no apparent function that I can think of, and the gun will still run just fine without it, so why put this thing in there? What is the thought process here?

Maybe they did it to give us something to talk about, we sure love that here

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Just to F with us!

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Ok, curiosity got the best of me, so rather than speculate what that part is intended for, I called S&W and asked. The CS guy I talked to told me it was a drop safety device and was there so it would pass California drop safety requirements.

The way it functions is, if the gun ever falls and lands violently upside down on a cocked SA mode hammer, ostensibly the plate will pivot upwards under inertia to engage the slot in the hammer and preventing it from striking the firing pin. If you look at my photo above, there is a pin on the LH narrow end of that plate. This is a hinge. A spring in the slot forward of the plate holds it in the downward position at rest, so it cannot engage the hammer in normal use. Only if the gun falls and lands upside down on the hammer can inertia cause the plate to pivot upwards.

Colt addressed this CA requirement by putting a "hook" on the hammer sear ledge of the Python and Anaconda (and maybe some of their other "snake" revolvers as well) which is why its SA trigger pull out of the box is 5-6 lbs.

 

[b737lvr]

Ok, curiosity got the best of me, so rather than speculate what that part is intended for, I called S&W and asked. The CS guy I talked to told me it was a drop safety device and was there so it would pass California drop safety requirements.

The way it functions is, if the gun ever falls and lands violently upside down on a cocked SA mode hammer, ostensibly the plate will pivot upwards under inertia to engage the slot in the hammer and preventing it from striking the firing pin. If you look at my photo above, there is a pin on the LH narrow end of that plate. This is a hinge. A spring in the slot forward of the plate holds it in the downward position at rest, so it cannot engage the hammer in normal use. Only if the gun falls and lands upside down on the hammer can inertia cause the plate to pivot upwards.

Colt addressed this CA requirement by putting a "hook" on the hammer sear ledge of the Python and Anaconda (and maybe some of their other "snake" revolvers as well) which is why its SA trigger pull out of the box is 5-6 lbs.

Wow, good to know. Glad we got it sorted. So there really is no lock.

 

[DT75]

Ok, curiosity got the best of me, so rather than speculate what that part is intended for, I called S&W and asked. The CS guy I talked to told me it was a drop safety device...

That's what the hammer block is for, is it not?