[Steve F]

I just want to fully understand the functions of 2 different revolvers if I may,first is a S&W 29-3(soon to be here:D ) and second,a Charter arms (undercover .38).Carrying with all chambers loaded,is only dangerous if dropped on the hammer(or trigger pulled;) ),is that correct?Just checking,I'm an auto guy that is expanding his horizens:cool:

Thanks,Steve:)

[J Miller]

Steve F,

Smith & Wessons are safe to cary with all chambers loaded. They have a built in hammer block that prevents the hammer from moving forward unless the trigger is pulled back.

As for the Charter Arms, I don't know how they are built.

[Art Eatman]

Yup. With the S&W, the "safety-block" (or whatever specific name) has to break before the hammer can go forward. (On my Model 36, it looks like the hammer spur might break first.)

Art

[M1911]

Steve: You can drop the 29 on the hammer and it won't go off.

[Old Fuff]

Handgun safeties fall into two categories: First, manual safeties – which require the user to do something to put the safety “on” or “off” such as moving a lever or pushing a button. Second, mechanical safeties – in which some part of the gun’s lockwork renders it safe without any independent act by the user being necessary.

Both of the revolvers you mentioned have internal mechanical safeties that block the hammer and prevent it from moving far enough to fire a cartridge unless the trigger is pulled and held back while the hammer falls. If either revolver should be dropped on a hard service and land on the hammer they still wouldn’t fire.

To be more specific – the Smith & Wesson has a safety that blocks the hammer while the Charter arms has a safety device called a “transfer bar.” In this case the hammer must hit the transfer bar, which in turn hits the firing pin. When the trigger is forward the bar is lowered so that it rests below the firing pin. That being the case the gun won’t fire until the trigger is pulled.

[Steve F]

Thank you kindley Gents;)

[braindead0]

Uh, not all S&W's have a hammer block...at least not the old ones.

Just wanted to clear up that rather sweeping statement, my dads old Smith has a hammer mounted firing pin and no safeties.

[Tamara]

Uh, not all S&W's have a hammer block...at least not the old ones.

Just wanted to clear up that rather sweeping statement, my dads old Smith has a hammer mounted firing pin and no safeties.

Unless your dad's old Smith is really old (pre-1920's), it certainly does have a hammer block unless someone removed it. Just because a Smith has the firing pin on the hammer doesn't mean it doesn't have a hammer-block safety... (Which is a different animal from the Ruger-type flat-nose hammer transfer-bar system that many people associate with hammer safeties.) This can be watched in action by slowly lowering the hammer on an empty gun while holding the trigger to the rear. Once the hammer is all the way down, slowly release the trigger. You will notice the hammer move slightly rearward; this is from the hammer block sliding back into place beneath it.

[braindead0]

It is old, pre-1920's.... ;-). Granted, I'd imagine the model he was talking about assured it would have pin block..

It's just the categorical declaration that 'it's a smith, it's got hammer safety'..

[Tamara]

Touche. :)

[braindead0]

:what: :neener:

[Jim March]

Trivia note: the guy that designed the Charters used to work for Ruger, and the Charter snubbies bear some mechanical similarities to a New Model Ruger Single Action - the lack of sideplates is one such, the transfer bar is another.

S&W has been switching to the transfer bar but both that and the hammer block work well.

[braindead0]

I used to get asked a lot 'why you loadin' only 5 in that gun'.. well I learned to shoot on my dads S&W (.455 Webley, I believe a model 1917)..which doesn't have any safeties at all, you can push the hammer with the cylinder open and see the firing pin sticking out ;-).

Luckily, I've got over that..and now load full cylinders on everything I own..as they're all relatively new.

[Albert Shear]

The "safety bar" was incorporated after WWII and S&W changed serial #s to an S prefix to denote said change. The "transfer bar" system used by Ruger and Charter Arms uses the bar itself to strike the firing pin where S&W justs blocks the hammer. Also, be aware that S&W Hand Ejectors have a "safety shelf" integral in the mechanism itself. There is a "ledge" on the bottom of the hammer that sits on top of a "ledge" on the top of the rebound slide. When the trigger is at rest these two surfaces meet and there is no way the hammer can fall unless the engagement surfaces are worn, broken or filed down.
Al

[M1911]

There is a "ledge" on the bottom of the hammer that sits on top of a "ledge" on the top of the rebound slide. When the trigger is at rest these two surfaces meet and there is no way the hammer can fall unless the engagement surfaces are worn, broken or filed down.Al: Isn't that how the DAO J-frames work?

[Old Fuff]

Smith & Weson have had some kind of a hammer rebound safety in their hand ejector revolvers since the beginning of the 20th century. During the 1920's they added an additional safety that was fitted into the sideplate and blocked the hammer under the firing pin. In 1945 after a "Victory" model was dropped on the deck of a battleship and went off for unknown reasons they changed the hammer block to one that was operated by the rebound slide. This system is still used today.

As for the "J" frame. Unless someone changed it there will be two internal mechanical safties. 1. The rebound slide, that pulls the hammer back so the firing pin doesn't rest on the primer, and 2. The hammer block incorporated when the model was introduced in 1950. The kind of action (DAO vs. SA/DA) doesn't matter.

Being extra careful I always carry pre-1945 revolvers with the hammer down on an empty chamber, but this may not be necessary on post-1920 revolvers.

The hammer on a model 1917 should rebound. If it doesn't something is seriously wrong and the gun should be checked.

[Albert Shear]

M1911- I'm not sure I know what you mean. At rest the hammer is contacting a raised portion of the rebound slide. This prevents the hammer from moving forward unless the trigger is pulled(rebound assembly then moves rearward) and the contact ledges are disengaged from each other. Even without the modern safety block bar you should not be able to push the hammer forward without pulling the trigger.
Al

[Standing Wolf]

If you drop a revolver on the hammer, you'll likely break it, and can wreck other internal parts, as well.

[M1911]

Albert: Yes, that's what I was talking about. The rebound slide keeps the hammer from contacting the firing pin. Old Fuff, the DAO J-frames do not have the hammer block and instead rely solely on the rebound slide/hammer interaction.

[Old Fuff]

"Old Fuff, the DAO J-frames do not have the hammer block and instead rely solely on the rebound slide/hammer interaction.
"

Interesting. On checking I find that you are right. In this day and age when "safety is everything" I'm suprised. In any case I haven't ever heard of an unintentional discharge with one of these revolvers because of a lack of a hammer block so apparently they don't need one.

[VictorLouis]

Yes, the DAO 'Centennial' series of J-frames have no exposed external hammer. Therefore, no chance it will face an impact and no installation of a hammer block. It relies solely on the rebound-slide safety.

You can see it in operation on tradtional S&Ws as Tamara described above. A camming surface on the top of the rebound slide pushes against a mating surface at the bottom of the hammer. This forces the hammer to the rear, almost as if rebounding from impact with the firing-pin(or frame if the gun has a hammer-nose style of pin).:)

[280PLUS]

if you drop it on your foot, it will hurt. unless, of course it is the s&w model 332 / .32 h&r mag,,,blah, blah, blah...

:evil:

[ENC]

How does this relate to single actions?

I thought the difference between Older and newer Ruger single sixes was the presence of a transfer bar. Like if you sent a three screw in to be fitted for an extra cylinder they would make the modification whether you wanted them to or not.

I have heard that a three screw single six should only have five rounds in it unless it has been modified by ruger. Is this correct? How can someone tell if the modifications have been made or not?

Evan

[Mike Irwin]

"I used to get asked a lot 'why you loadin' only 5 in that gun'.. well I learned to shoot on my dads S&W (.455 Webley, I believe a model 1917)..which doesn't have any safeties at all, you can push the hammer with the cylinder open and see the firing pin sticking out ;-)."


Braindead, that's incorrect. That gun is broken and needs to be serviced if you can see firing pin sticking out through the recoil shield when the hammer is down and the trigger is at rest.

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that S&W Hand Ejectors of ALL vintages, from the very first ones, had a rebounding hammer.



Old Fluff,

My 1916-17 vintage Regulation Police has the side-plate mounted hammer block.

[Old Fuff]

Mike:

The 1903 Regulation Police was introduced in 1917, allegedly at serial number 331320 in .32 caliber. (Serial number 1 in .38 caliber). However a local dealer recently got a .32 with a number substantially lower then the one listed. It also has grips with “gold” trademark escutcheons – that were supposedly discontinued in 1917. If he still has the piece I’m going to check and see if it has a “sideplate mounted hammer block” or not, as it has to be a very early example of the type.

It has been some time since I pulled one apart, but I seem to remember that either the .455 Hand Ejector (Second Model) or 1917 Model didn’t have a sideplate mounted hammer block. I believe this feature might have been eliminated because of problems related to getting mud and dirt into the works. But then again I might be wrong about them not having the safety.

All of the Hand Ejectors from 1899 to this day had some kind of hammer-rebound system. It is probably unnecessary to carry the hammer on an empty chamber but I do so anyway. I consider the older examples to be range and field guns – not weapons.

[Mike Irwin]

Fluff,

Mine is actually a .32 HE Model of 1903, 5th Change, but I've always just called it a Regulation Police. My bad.

But here's the funny thing about it. Even though it's well inside the .32 HE 5th change serial numbers, it has the shouldered backstrap of the Regulation Police.

I'll try to post some pix.

A little extrapolation on the serial number puts it in last couple months of 1916 or first couple months of 1917.

The 1917s did have the sideplate mounted hammer block. Friend of mine has one from the first batch of US military guns, judging by the serial.

My Brazilian contract has the old-style sideplate safety, but it was made just before WW II, so it really doesn't count.

[Old Fuff]

Mike:

I’m way out in left field with a strained memory, but I seem to remember that sometime in past history I popped the sideplate of an early “N” frame and was surprised to find the sideplate mounted hammer block wasn’t there, nor was the sideplate milled for it. It seems to me it was either a .455 Hand Ejector (Second Model) or a 1917, but I’m not sure. Considering your observation on the 1917 I’m thinking a .455 might be more likely, but who (besides Roy Jinks) knows?

The little .32 Regulation Police my dealer has is an interesting piece. He recently obtained it as part of an estate sale. If someone didn’t buy it yet I’m going to give it a more careful look. It has to be an early gun – possibly in the first run. I have a (totally unproven) theory. In 1917 S&W was up to their eyeballs in government orders from all over the world, plus those from our own military. I think they had to get out some Regulation Police models because they’d just introduced them. To do so they took some regular 1903 H.E. “I” frames, reprofiled the backstrap, and made them into the first Regulation Police revolvers. This would account for the “too low” serial number.

Incidentally, that was a nice “New Departure” that you showed on another thread. I have a similar one that belonged to the late Col. Rex Applegate.

[Old Fuff]

Mike:

As I mentioned earlier I checked into two Smith & Wesson revolvers. One, a .32 Regulation Police, and the other a U.S. Model 1917.

The Regulation Police is particularly interesting. Supposedly production started in 1917 at around serial number 331320. However this example, which is unquestionably a Regulation Police, not a 1903 Hand Ejector/5th Change, is numbered 260,1XX. The barrel is 3 ¼” long and the gun is nickel plated. The square-butt, checkered walnut grips have “gold” trademark escutcheons (supposedly discontinued sometime in 1917) and the bottom is stamped with the “Pat. June 5 1917” marking. As you noted, it does have a sideplate-mounted hammer block. Thus it is clear that S&W was using a hammer block safety on some models during, if not before, 1917. You’ll see the importance in a minute.

The U.S. Model 1917 is standard and correct in all details, with the serial number 62,4XX. This would place it slightly past the middle of the first contract for 100,000 revolvers issued in on June 15, 1917 and completed in August 1918. First shipments were made during September 1917. While I was not able to remove the sideplate I did examine the inside area around the firing pin slot in strong sunlight and did not find any evidence of a sideplate-mounted hammer block. Clearly, it never had one. The only safety is the rebound slide.

In addition I referred to my copy of Numrich/Gun Parts Catalog; #23 – Page 778 and find they list two kinds of sideplates for pre-war “N” frame revolvers: N-22 (without hammer block) and N-22A (with hammer block). The hammer block referred to is the pre-war kind, not the style currently used.

So does all of this make me right and you wrong? I don’t think so. I believe that most if not all post World War One 1917 revolvers have the hammer block and probably some U.S. World War One guns also did. But some didn’t. The question is, “When did S&W introduce the safety, and for what period (or on what foreign contracts if any) did they discontinue it?”

Given all of this I would say that the owner of a pre-World War Two “N” frame revolver should presume that their gun doesn’t have a hammer block until they look and discover that it does – and I think in most cases they will find that it does, with the possible exception of some guns made during and before World War One.

I’m glad you brought all of this up. I learned something.