Let’s be sure we’re talking apples-to-apples here, as what’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander.
Full frame, centerfire revolvers used in competition have luxuries J frame (small frame), rimfire revolvers like the 94 in question just don’t have. Shorter frames, shorter hammer shanks, and tougher ignition are problems the competition revolver doesn’t face. Larger frame revolvers are simply easier to make run reliably due to the longer hammer arc, and centerfire ammunition is easier to ignite, equally improving reliability.
When we skeletonize hammers for competition, we have to leave sufficient mass in the tip to ensure ignition by sufficient angular momentum upon impact. It’s not a challenge to figure out empirically by cutting up a few hammers, but many, many unwitting shooters have realized they lose reliability when they simply bob their spurs. If the mass of the hammer is further reduced by skeletonizing the shank and body, that reliability returns, as the lockspeed skyrockets.
Most often, when a Taurus comes to my bench with reliability issues - very often for rimfire versions - reducing the nose of the hammer corrects the issue. Increasing spring rate helps as added insurance.
I’ve been told by Taurus reps at various times their hammers are “heat treated” or through hardened, and also that they are not hardened at all, but never that they were case hardened. I’ve also been told by their tech reps that nothing is done to reharden after the part has been fit at the factory (which would coincide with through hardening, or no hardening). To be blunt, their hammers aren’t very hard, whether they’re hardened or not. I’ve never skated a file or stone on a Taurus hammer - and I have fit dozens of them over the last ~20yrs, while alternatively, their frames and cylinders are notably harder when you run a file across them for fitting work. I have, however, improved ignition reliability in those dozens of Taurus revolvers, and further couple hundred other transfer bar revolvers of other makes in that same time, including many of my own, which have taken thousands of rounds of dry fire and live fire without peening the hammer nose. The transfer bar will remain the impingement surface and the firing pin and spring will remain the resistance which aborts the hammerfall, and the hammer nose will not make hard contact with the frame during decocking. In simpler, more direct terms - absolutely nothing is gained by having a hardened surface on the hammer nose of a transfer bar revolver, and nothing is lost if that surface were not hardened. But again, the hardening I have been described isn’t case hardening, so such consideration is largely moot.
Alternatively, I would counter - the hammer nose is also often mal-formed, such only a small portion of the nose actually contacts the frame. Hardened steel - if we believe they’re
Here’s a link to a project I documented a few years ago, consistent (save the cylinder replacement) with the same action work I have done on many DA revolvers over the years. This particular revolver was quite short on firing pin protrusion, and maximizing it helped increase reliability.
Huntingnet.com Taurus Revival thread
About halfway through the original post, I included this photo, above which is some narrative about reducing the hammer nose to increase firing pin penetration, and resultingly increase reliability of ignition.
