#59 just answered the question. Thanks Kevin.
Send my best to Mac.
Send my best to Mac.
I have been away from the computer since I posted the question. I've asked a friend to post a pic for me since I cant figure out how to do so. Thank all of you for your replies but unless it was a steel string I don't see the string theory possible It takes quite a bit of pressure to cock that hammer and just pulling it back would not cock it in the first place. It would have to come back and down to be fully cocked.#59 sound like the answer ,but still not why it was there in the first place.3 Observations:
1. I stand corrected (post 3) in that all 39-2 hammers were the same based on Army field Manuals instructions... FMJ although that leads me to...
2. Where are all the pics of this hole? I am post #49... Not 1 pic of this hole in the hammer? There should be someone who has a pic of a pic at least. Even searching an old post from 2010 referenced the FMJ but no pics.
3 And finally ... 49 posts and 3 days since our OP his posted his question to start this thread. He hasn't been heard from since. OP are you there ? Do you have a pic?
I have been away from the computer since I posted the question. I've asked a friend to post a pic for me since I cant figure out how to do so. Thank all of you for your replies but unless it was a steel string I don't see the string theory possible It takes quite a bit of pressure to cock that hammer and just pulling it back would not cock it in the first place. It would have to come back and down to be fully cocked.#59 sound like the answer ,but still not why it was there in the first place.
For those who were so vehemently opposed to the notion that the hole in the hammer could be for anything so ludicrous as a training aid, please allow me to quote from the U.S. Army Basic Field Manual FM 23-35: