Why was the firing pin moved to the frame?

[SLT223]

What is the design advantage to having the firing pin on the frame instead of the hammer?

 

[BigRich315]

The quickest, easiest answer: strength.

 

[valkyriekl]

Common parts-

All the revolvers can share the same parts--the same firing pin will work in J, K, L, N, and X-frames, even between rim-fire and center-fire. Triggers are the same between K, L, N, X; hammers are the same between K and L; cylinder stops, rebound slides...it's part of the cost-cutting measures.

You also get the added benefits of a lighter hammer and less deformation of firing pin bushings (among others, I'm sure).

 

[Tom C]

I think the movement of the firing pin from the hammer to the frame was done to increase the cartridge circle to increase the round count of the Model 27 from 6 to 8. The chamber pattern radius was increased by something like .030”. That necessitated a new hammer design, or they could make lemonade from lemons and change the firing pin to a frame mounted pin and increase commonality between the different frame sizes.

 

[shawn mccarver]

What is the design advantage to having the firing pin on the frame instead of the hammer?

They moved it to the frame in order to:

(1) make the weapon more susceptible to inertial firing when dropped on the muzzle (since the hammer block no longer stops forward movement of the firing pin when the action is at rest) - yes I realize this is unlikely, but it is possible in theory,

(2) make it more likely that there would be pervasive and recurrent issues with misfires because the firing pin simply does not protrude far enough through the breech face to insure positive ignition (I have never heard of a failure to fire with the hammer mounted firing pin that could be attributed to the revolver),

(3) let others profit from selling and installing after-market firing pins with tracks allowing more forward travel in order to overcome the problems mentioned in number 2 above,

(4) make sure that the most reliable revolver on the market now must be second guessed so much that the performance center has its own PC firing pin that can be installed, upon request, to make your revolver have reliable ignition, and,

(5) to keep us poor customers wondering why Colt and Ruger, both of which make DA revolvers with frame mounted firing pins, do not have problems with misfires, while it is possible to read almost weekly reports of such on new S&Ws on this forum, and finally,

(6) to keep S&W's track record on redesigning its products to make them less reliable by apparently being unable to have its engineers calculate enough "oomph" into the action to reliably set off the primers, a problem that got S&W initially disqualified from the mid-80s military trials when its 459s fell just short of the minimum force required in the specs for energy transmission for the firing pin, and which has been repeated in the early (and perhaps current) M&P pistols and in the frame mounted firing pin version of all of their excellent revolvers.

Come on S&W, it's time to get with the program and either redesign the frame mounted system or go back to hammer mounted firing pins (hammer noses)!

 

[roaddog28]

I don't know if this is true or not but some of the personnal at my shooting range/gun store told me that it was strictly a safety deal. Also, some states like California might not approve Smith and Wesson revolvers if they did not move the firing pin to the frame like other revolver manufactures. I have three Smiths with the old firing pin on hammer and one with the new firing pin in the frame. The action is not as nice on the new revolver as with the old revolvers.

Summary, keep your older revolvers. If you want to buy a new revolver I would buy a Ruger. They have perfected there transfer bar/firing pin system and now their revolvers have a better action than the current Smith & Wesson revolvers.

Too Bad!!!

 

[pinkymingeo]

I've got to say that my experience is very different. I've pared my herd way back to a dozen S&W revolvers. It worked out that half are hammer-mounted firing pin, the other half FMP (three have the IL, nine don't). I prefer, slightly, the hammer-mount, but have to say that the FMP revolvers are noticeably smoother. Like MIM or hate it, the stuff fits precisely and gives a really smooth trigger pull. You need an action job or thousands of rounds through the older guns to get what's now available out-of-the-box.

 

[epj]

Summary, keep your older revolvers. If you want to buy a new revolver I would buy a Ruger. They have perfected there transfer bar/firing pin system and now their revolvers have a better action than the current Smith & Wesson revolvers.

Too Bad!!!

The Rugers are pretty good guns. I have an older Security Six and a newer GP100. Both have had trigger jobs and while both are satisfactory, neither will come close to my newer 686+ as far as a smooth, light trigger pull. The best thing the GP has going for it is the ease of changing front sights, or rear for that matter. I like the Rugers a lot and shoot well with them. I wouldn't trade the 686+ for either of them, lock or no.

 

[roaddog28]

The Rugers are pretty good guns. I have an older Security Six and a newer GP100. Both have had trigger jobs and while both are satisfactory, neither will come close to my newer 686+ as far as a smooth, light trigger pull. The best thing the GP has going for it is the ease of changing front sights, or rear for that matter. I like the Rugers a lot and shoot well with them. I wouldn't trade the 686+ for either of them, lock or no.

I would agree to a point. I have a 686-3 which has a very good trigger as well as my 66-4. But I was able to handle a new Ruger GP100 at the range and the action was as smooth as my 686 or 66. Ruger has improved action over the years. My newer 10-14 has a heavy trigger and feels like the older Security Six revolvers. I know because I have a old Police Service Six. The action is not as smooth as my older Smith and Wessons.

I believe the best years of Smith and Wesson were between the early fifties to the early sixties. My best shooting revolver is a combat masterpiece made in 1951. Best action of any of the revolvers I own.

I believe Smith and Wesson is like many companies now. More production and less concern about refining their product. Just opinion.

roaddog

 

[stiab]

"I have never heard of a failure to fire with the hammer mounted firing pin that could be attributed to the revolver"

You must not of seen the thread I started a month or so ago about my M66-2 and the broken firing pin from a range trip. It went 3 pages or more, with many posters telling how they also had S&W broken firing pins. Somewhere about the second page one of the posters counted up and stated that just in that one thread alone there were 24 broken hammer mounted firing pins accounted for, far exceeding the number of documented lock failures. Here's a pic of mine, I learned from the replies to that thread that it is not uncommon at all. When you hammer mounted firing pin looks like this, your revolver is dead..

 

[Nframe357]

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1600/481405/1988188/365147580.jpg[/IMG]

That's not a fair comparison, when the lock has been on the weps for 100+ yrs then we'll talk about what's more reliable. Nothing manmade is 100% but I've NEVER had a fail to fire with any of my hammer mounted FP S&W's, period. I have seen new Smiths FTF and have lock issues. A 325NG that I unfortunately talked a friend into buying.

 

[bountyhunter]

What is the design advantage to having the firing pin on the frame instead of the hammer?

It reduces cost. The hammer is no longer an assembly made up of parts that have to be put together, it's just an MIM piece that drops out of a mold with no machining required. Every assembly step eliminated means lower cost. Notice that the other two assembly pieces of the hammer (the DA sear and the mainspring hook) are no longer pinned in either, you just stick them into the hammer.

It's all about money and not having to hire workers with skill levels above a retarded monkey.

 

[stiab]

Nothing manmade is 100% but I've NEVER had a fail to fire with any of my hammer mounted FP S&W's, period.

As to never having a broken firing pin yourself, I had not either, until the one in the picture you saw. Like you, I though it was a rare event, until I was proved wrong by many other posters to whom it had happened.

I think you will find this thread interesting... http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-re...73093-darn-my-first-ever-k-frame-failure.html

 

[shawn mccarver]

"I have never heard of a failure to fire with the hammer mounted firing pin that could be attributed to the revolver"

You must not of seen the thread I started a month or so ago about my M66-2 and the broken firing pin from a range trip. It went 3 pages or more, with many posters telling how they also had S&W broken firing pins. Somewhere about the second page one of the posters counted up and stated that just in that one thread alone there were 24 broken hammer mounted firing pins accounted for, far exceeding the number of documented lock failures. Here's a pic of mine, I learned from the replies to that thread that it is not uncommon at all. When you hammer mounted firing pin looks like this, your revolver is dead..

Perhaps I did not make my statement clear enough - I meant that I had never heard of a failure to fire problem with the hammer mounted firing pin when the hammer nose is not broken and in working order.

The issues with the new frame mounted firing pin seem to be occurring WITHOUT the FMFP being broken.

Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges (broken hammer nose versus NOT broken FMFP).

 

[ol timer]

It makes swapping out a worn or busted pin quicker and simpler.

But I disagree with the first reply, which stated strength as the reason for the switch. Significantly more material is machined away directly behind the recoil shield for a FMFP than on a hammer nose revolver.

 

[superdave2]

I had the firing pin nose break off on my Model 610 that is hammer mounted also, caused me a loss in the Winchester shoot-off at second chance in 1998. Gun had about 1500 rounds thru it. Lucky it was 2 losses to be bumped out, I ended up taking third place winning $1000 with a borrowed buddies model 610. (was the highlight of my competitive shooting career ) I was shooting against a guy with a compensated 1911 in the last round to win and beat him by about a second with the stock 6" barrel 610. Sure proves that the statement anything man made/mechanical can fail. I've shot over 20,000 rounds thru 2 revolvers, a 625 and that 610 and that's the only time I had a failure to fire due to the gun. Sure can't say that for my 1911's though there pretty good and I love them too.
Luckily the bowling pins didn't shoot back.

 

[stiab]

That's MUCH different from what you said before, but I think most folks would agree with your new statement.

 

[danski]

When Colt put in frame-mounted firing pins, such as the on Python, I did not realize it at first. When I did, I took my Pythons and threw them in the river. My 3-screw flattop Ruger Blackhawks also went into the river.
Ditto for my Model 18 and Model 17.

No dang crappo 20th Century changes for me!!!!!!!

 

[Bullseye Smith]

Why are you guys doing in this section anyway? If you don't like the newer guns go to the ruger forum and the other sections that don't cover what you don't like. Kids don't cry as much as grown men and ladies over thier Ice Cream being cold.

 

[nn]

What is the design advantage to having the firing pin on the frame instead of the hammer?

I asked S&W that question and they said it is cheaper mill out the frame that way.