Victory Model Safety Issues

[Texas Star]

The new "Handguns" annual is on newsstands now, and has an article on the Victory Model.

We all know about that gun that fell on a ship's deck and killed a sailor when it fired. That rapidly led to S&W adopting a hammer block...something that Colt had been using since 1905!

According to the article, the Navy tried dropping brass weights on Victory Model hammers, seeing if they could make the guns fire. Usually, they could, if the weight was dropped from three feet. Some guns fired with the weight even lower.

Don't rely on the rebounding hammer on M&P's made prior to installation of the hammer block. It may be best to keep an empty chamber under the hammer, unless you suspect that you may have to shoot soon. When I carried one of these in the USAF, they had a five-round rule. The empty chamber rule applied even to the Combat Masterpiece. I guess they wanted to keep it uniform, because we had those old Victory Models, too

As far as I know, all postwar S&W's have the safety block.

You may want to buy that magazine and read the whole story.

T-Star

 

[DBWesson]

Un-safe Victories

Dear Texas:
You are right, Victory Models are unsafe.
I would be glad to buy all of the unsafe Victories for $150 each.
I know I am taking a chance because I know one of them could shoot me accidentally if I were to drop one.
I guess I will have live with that danger.
DBWesson

 

[Texas Star]

Dear Texas:
You are right, Victory Models are unsafe.
I would be glad to buy all of the unsafe Victories for $150 each.
I know I am taking a chance because I know one of them could shoot me accidentally if I were to drop one.
I guess I will have live with that danger.
DBWesson

You do what you want. It's your risk.

But I thought that others might want to know the background. Such discharges seem very rare, but can occur. Older S&W's are hardly the only handguns to which this applies.

Someone posted in another thread today that the Victory model that killed the sailor had never been cleaned of factory grease, which may have contributed to the problem. He did not cite an official source, though.

Good luck on finding nice $150 Victory Models. I'll leave you to them. I prefer the better-finished commercial guns.

T-Star

 

[BHP FAN]

I sold my last Victory for $300.00.I wish I had one now!!

 

[digi-shots]

T-Star, thanks for the heads-up on the magazine article!

I'll have to get a copy.

 

[Dan Cash]

So, how does the lock work in a Victory differ from a 1917? If the rebound block is to the rear, the gun can fire. If it is forward, the hammer has to shear off to fire.

 

[sigp220.45]

There's an excellent section on this issue in Charles Pate's "Handguns of WWII - Secondary Pistols and Revolvers".

I don't have it with me right now, but the problem seemed to be a difference in the hardness of metals between the hammer and the hammer block, allowing the hammer block to deform enough to allow contact between the firing pin and the primer. The hardening methods were changed, and the problem went away.

I've often wondered if other pre-war Smiths had the same problem.

 

[Texas Star]

Brad-

I think you have a point. And S&W's steel then was noticeably softer than Colt's metallurgy. I've seen lots more old Smiths with nicks and scratches than on similar Colt's. S&W had the better action and cylinder timing system, though, and the K-frame fits so very many people well that it's easy to see why the guns were so popular.

I have heard of very few instances of the guns firing accidentally due to being dropped, so it can't be common. And that one Navy gun may have indeed had Cosmoline or something preventing the hammer block from functioning, although it seems odd that the Navy would issue a revolver for active service that was in that condition. Still, I have seen amazing casualness in how well some military people maintain their weapons. Most don't even really care about guns.

Linda-

Do by all means get that magazine. It is by far the best account of these interesting old revolvers that I've seen. Over the years, the Victory Model and the M-28 were the S&W's that people with enough money to buy the better-finished guns avoided, or regarded as the ugly stepchildren. That has certainly changed, and the historical value of the Victory Model is now being acknowledged..

Considering the huge numbers of S&W revolvers fielded by the US and British Commonwealth forces in both world wars, there has been almost no mention of discharges from dropped guns. I suspect that the hammer has to strike a hard surface with enough force to overcome the hammer block. A wooden or carpeted floor might not cause one to fire, but a steel ship's deck did. And the Navy was able to duplicate the effect in their tests.

T-Star

 

[PALADIN85020]

An easy test to see if the new-style hammer block has been installed in the Victory models (other than checking the serial number for an "S" in it) is to push hard with your thumb on the hammer while it's down and look to see if the firing pin protrudes. If it does, it's unsafe and I'd go with the five-round rule. This applies to the older pre-war hand ejectors, as well. The older hammer block system relied on a spring-loaded block rather than a positive interference block. The older system is still used on modern "hammerless" S&W revolvers, because there is no danger of the gun being dropped on its hammer. There is no modern hammer block on these - check for yourself by popping the sideplate.

 

[machinisttx]

An easy test to see if the new-style hammer block has been installed in the Victory models (other than checking the serial number for an "S" in it) is to push hard with your thumb on the hammer while it's down and look to see if the firing pin protrudes. If it does, it's unsafe and I'd go with the five-round rule. This applies to the older pre-war hand ejectors, as well. The older hammer block system relied on a spring-loaded block rather than a positive interference block. The older system is still used on modern "hammerless" S&W revolvers, because there is no danger of the gun being dropped on its hammer. There is no modern hammer block on these - check for yourself by popping the sideplate.

Uh, that is wrong in my (limited)experiene. I disassembled my mother's 642 to disable the lock and smooth the trigger up a bit. It had the "new" style hammer block.

 

[wraco]

I bought a Victory back in 1971. It served as a house gun until just a few years ago when I replaced it with M13-1.

The Victory is chambered in 38 S&W, which worked good for my wife. The smaller stocks and the lower recoil was something she could handle. She got to be a fair decent shot with it.

It was kept in the night stand in a leather holster where she could get to it quick if need be. We lived out of town on our small farm with me being away working at times and between the Victory and the dog she felt secure.

The hammer always rested on an empty chamber. She shot a two hand hold, double action, so no drawback. We sold the place in the late 80's and moved back to Van. Island. We never worried over the gun being dropped and firing, just old school thinking. A 13-1 is in that holster today with the hammer resting on an empty chamber.

Regards:
Rod

 

[charlie sherrill]

This is something good to know about any gun. Back in the mid 60's I had a high school friend who was a bag boy at a local market. At closing time he and the assistance manager walked to a car with the day's proceeds. Since they had been robbed a few months before the asst. mgr. carried a .357 magnum derringer of some sort. As the asst. mgr. got to his car he pulled the derringer from his pocket so he could get to his keys. He dropped the derringer on the pavement. It apparently landed hammer first and went off and killed the bagboy. I've probably got a couple of the unsafe Victory's but don't care because I don't use them for concealed carry.

 

[shawn mccarver]

The new "Handguns" annual is on newsstands now, and has an article on the Victory Model.

We all know about that gun that fell on a ship's deck and killed a sailor when it fired. That rapidly led to S&W adopting a hammer block...something that Colt had been using since 1905!

According to the article, the Navy tried dropping brass weights on Victory Model hammers, seeing if they could make the guns fire. Usually, they could, if the weight was dropped from three feet. Some guns fired with the weight even lower.

Don't rely on the rebounding hammer on M&P's made prior to installation of the hammer block. It may be best to keep an empty chamber under the hammer, unless you suspect that you may have to shoot soon. When I carried one of these in the USAF, they had a five-round rule. The empty chamber rule applied even to the Combat Masterpiece. I guess they wanted to keep it uniform, because we had those old Victory Models, too

As far as I know, all postwar S&W's have the safety block.

You may want to buy that magazine and read the whole story.

T-Star

I thought everyone knew about the development of the S&W hammer block and the addition of the "S" to the serial numbers of the "V" serial numbers of the so-called "Victory" models.

My recollection after looking at the inside of a 1905 4th Change .32-20, however, is that there was, in addition to the rebound slide hump, a hammer block, of sorts, in the side plate, but it was not positive and I suppose, was susceptible to becoming sluggish if grease or other debris got gunked up in the action.

Does anyone remember this feature on the pre-war revolvers?

As far as post-war S&Ws are concerned, the last time I looked at the inside of the Centennial, it did not have, nor does it need, the hammer block, as it is impossible to strike the hammer on the Centennial model. Has the hammer block since been added to the most recent Centennials?

 

[shawn mccarver]

A 13-1 is in that holster today with the hammer resting on an empty chamber.

Regards:
Rod

Why? The model 13 is certainly drop safe (if in original condition).

 

[wraco]

Why? The model 13 is certainly drop safe (if in original condition).

Old school thinking and five is enough.

Rod

 

[PALADIN85020]

Uh, that is wrong in my (limited)experiene. I disassembled my mother's 642 to disable the lock and smooth the trigger up a bit. It had the "new" style hammer block.

Your 642 must be radically different from my 442, which most assuredly does NOT have the newer hammer block (I just took it apart again to verify this). What I'm referring to is a longish thin flat metal part that has a hole at the bottom that rides over a pin in the rebound slide. There is a thin channel, or groove, in guns that have it, in the sideplate, to guide it up and down. The top part of the new hammer block is twisted at a right angle to interpose itself between the frame and the hammer until the trigger is pulled all the way to the rear. Then it is forced down and out of the way of the hammer. None of my hammerless guns (442, 642, 640, 40) have it, nor are any of the sideplates on these guns channeled for it.

Let me illustrate with an (internal lock) 642, just like your mom's. The first shot shows plainly that there is no modern hammer block, nor is the sideplate cut for one:

This next shot shows where the modern hammer block would go, if one was applied. The black line indicates its position on hammered guns that have it:

Here's a pic of a hammered K-frame revolver. The white arrow points out the hammer block. By the way, this usually falls out when you pop the sideplate.

Hope this helps to clarify things.

John

 

[machinisttx]

Paladin, I have disassembled, cleaned, stoned, swapped springs, etc. in nearly every one of the dozen plus Smiths I own, plus a couple for other people. I do not recall the odd double humped rebound slide of your 442 or the illustrated 642 being present in the 642 my mother owns, but i do recall the presence of the hammer block and the appropriate slot cut in the sideplate to accommodate it. It is possible however that my memory is faulty and that I'm thinking of a different gun.

 

[opoefc]

T-Star, I'm probably the one who posted in another thread that the problem with the revolver that killed the sailor was that he had not properly cleaned the gun, as it was still full of cosomoline and that hamperd the action of the old style safety block, resulting in the fatal discharge. The sailer was being transferred from one ship to another via breeches bouy and when he arrived at his destination, the gun fell onto the deck and fired. Part of this is mentioned in Henwood's book, "Americas Right Arm", page 62. During the Korean War, the Ordnance Dep't provided my Army unit with a shipment of Victory Models which were then issued to the various MP units patrolling the Mexican border at TiJuana, Mexico, to assist military personnel returning from R&R. Most of these did not have the new hammer block, so I made sure all guns issued to my troops had spent at least 15 minutes immersed in a 55 gal. drum of boiling diesel and then blow dried. I don't recall the exact US Navy report number on the incident that killed the sailor, but I had the company clerk retrive it from the Navy at the time to prove it to my CO that were needed to have those Victory Model cleaned. Ed SWCA#15 (PS: I'll up my friend D.B.Wesson's offer to $151 for any Victory Model !)