Why and when did S&W remove Firing Pin
- Thread starter jrandyh
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Don't know when they did that, but my guess is that removing the firing pin from the hammer and adding an internal firing pin with a hammer block was for safety as a dropped gun can not fire with this system as opposed to the old. Again, just a guess and please correct me if wrong.
ohioseabee
US Veteran
I had one break on a 6" 19. it was easier to change to a spare hammer than mess with the rivet.
Snapping Twig
Member
New lockwork using the new MIM material, it was a labor saving, cost cutting decision as I understand it.
There is a trigger block of steel in the original lockwork that separates the firing pin from the rounds which was 100% effective.
When was @ the year 2000, perhaps a year earlier. You can tell if the firing pin is in the frame by looking at the cylinder stop (above trigger on frame, left side). The long cylinder stop indicates the new lockwork.
There is a trigger block of steel in the original lockwork that separates the firing pin from the rounds which was 100% effective.
When was @ the year 2000, perhaps a year earlier. You can tell if the firing pin is in the frame by looking at the cylinder stop (above trigger on frame, left side). The long cylinder stop indicates the new lockwork.
Coaltminer
Member
I have broken a hammer mounted pin on a 10-7. Kind of critical as I was camping and it was the only gun I had with me. Replaced the whole hammer when I got home, also don't go afield with one firearm anymore.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
The internal firing pin uses a transfer bar setup. Ruger has done it this way for eons.
I know all this yet, way back when, and I mean decades ago, I mentioned to a knowledgeable old boy that I carried my sixguns (they were S&Ws) with no round under the hammer, 1800s style, and he said they will NOT go off if dropped, that the trigger MUST be pulled, and he proceeded to demonstrate by banging a loaded revolver on a table (not the safest thing ever, I assure you; I didn't like the demo one bit but for the result!) to prove it would not fire.
So I presume cost saving, not safety, is the key.
***GRJ***
So I presume cost saving, not safety, is the key.
***GRJ***
As someone stated a Smith used a reverse type of transfer bar in that the gun could not fire without the trigger being held back allowing the bar to move out of place. It was 100% safe. I taught LE firearms as part of my job 10 years and never had one break.
JR
JR
Jim Watson
Member
Right, S&W uses a hammer block, not a transfer bar. Relocating the firing pin had nothing to do with that.
I think that the change to MIM parts was the reason. You can mold a lot of shapes ready to use, but you can't mold in a slot and a hole. So they saved a couple of machining steps.
I think that the change to MIM parts was the reason. You can mold a lot of shapes ready to use, but you can't mold in a slot and a hole. So they saved a couple of machining steps.
Well, S&W .22's used an internal firing pin for many years, the Colt Three Fifty Seven had one in 1954, as well as the Python in 1955.
Writers back then said it was safer with magnum pressures. I can't imagine it's any cheaper to manufacture that the firing pin on the hammer, and I too have had one of those break.
Writers back then said it was safer with magnum pressures. I can't imagine it's any cheaper to manufacture that the firing pin on the hammer, and I too have had one of those break.
