Dropped revolver

[kell]

A couple of days ago, I dropped a loaded revolver on my garage floor. The hammer was not cocked. It discharged. It's an old gun - S&W Model of 1905 3rd Change. It doesn't have a hammer block safety although it does have the rebound slide saftey. All was and still in good working order. Many folks, including me, have always assumed that a modern DA revolver would not discharge from a blow to the hammer. That is not true. From now on, I'll load the old west way with the hammer on empty.

 

[edwardware]

It doesn't have a hammer block safety although it does have the rebound slide saftey. All was and still in good working order.

I have to think the rebound slide is worn out of fit, or something bent (hammer or hammer pivot). If correctly fit, it should have blocked the hammer from moving.

I don't think your 1905, 4th is modern in any but the most esoteric sense. . . notice the lack of a hammer block, and the model year 115 years in the past.

 

[Pat Riot]

I’m glad no one was hurt.

 

[kell]

Nothing broken or bent, everything fits tight. Tip of hammer spur bent from impact on the concrete. No other damage. Only theory I have is: rebound slide was jarred rearward on impact and hammer being forced forward almost silmultaneously. If that is correct, then a hammer block may not have prevented this since it's operated by the slide.

 

[whughett]

Dropped gun, I’ve never actually done one , not a fully assembled one at any rate. Dropped guns are a thing for Hollywood producers it seems, how many action scenes have we viewed where someone drops the gun, frequently more than once, they never, or maybe they do, go off even when flung half way across the room. I hate dropped guns in movie scenes.
Apologies OP, it’s a slow day forum wise.

 

[Riomouse911]

Wasn’t that the exact reason S&W improved the safety of their revolvers back in the 1940’s?

Stay safe.

 

[.455_Hunter]

How deep was the impression on the primer?

My 1899 .32-20 will expose just a nub of the hammer nose if the hammer is forced forward at rest. It, of course, extends properly when in the firing position. Probably best as a five-shooter...

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

A couple of days ago, I dropped a loaded revolver on my garage floor. The hammer was not cocked. It discharged. It's an old gun - S&W Model of 1905 3rd Change. It doesn't have a hammer block safety although it does have the rebound slide saftey. All was and still in good working order. Many folks, including me, have always assumed that a modern DA revolver would not discharge from a blow to the hammer. That is not true. From now on, I'll load the old west way with the hammer on empty.

Still safer than a P320......

Never dropped a loaded gun, but somebody dropped my M36 hard enough to bend the spur-

Still works fine though.

 

[Stophel]

As I recall, a sailor dropped his .38 on the deck of the ship, it happened to hit just right, and the gun went off, and I believe killed him or someone else. At which point, S&W came up with the hammer block, which, to my knowledge, has been 100% effective ever sine.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

This was discussed at length on another forum.

Here are a few photos I posted.

This is a very early S&W 38 Hand Ejector that shipped in 1908 as I recall. There were no hammer blocks in this model, hammer blocks came along a number of years later. The OP in this post stated that the parts inside his revolver looked a lot like this.

Notice the shape of the rebound slide and the bottom of the hammer where they meet. Both are rounded.






When the rebound slide moves forward, the hump at the top wedges the bottom of the hammer back, rocking the firing pin back from a round under the hammer.






If the hammer spur receives a heavy blow, the bottom of the hammer may break off at the line shown, allowing the hammer to fire a live round. Also, the rebound slide is hollow. It houses the rebound slide spring. It is possible for the rebound slide to be crushed by a heavy blow, with the result again being a fired round. Lastly, a heavy blow may break the hammer stud (the pin the hammer rotates on) again allowing a discharge if the hammer is struck a heavy blow.






The OP stated that when he took the revolver apart, nothing appeared broken. So I suspect his theory may be correct. The rounded profiles of the rebound slide and bottom of the hammer may have allowed the hammer to force the rebound slide back, allowing the revolver to discharge.


Smith and Wesson was continually tweaking their designs. Sometimes to make things better, sometimes to save money manufacturing the product.

This 38 M&P shipped in 1939. The photo is a little bit out of focus, but we can see how different the profiles are of the interface between the rebound slide and the bottom of the hammer. They have been squared off, there are no more rounded surfaces that might force the rebound slide to move back. Simply speculation on my part, but I suspect this change was because the engineers at S&W realized there could be a problem with the older shape of the parts.






This revolver has the style off hammer block that caused the problem on shipboard in 1944. Yes, a sailor was killed when a S&W revolver struck the deck of a warship and discharged. The hammer block in this revolver is a piece of spring steel riding in a groove in the side plate. It is staked in place. Normally, the spring action of the hammer block keeps the top of the hammer block in position between the hammer and the frame. When the trigger is pulled or the hammer cocked, a ramp on the hand engages a tab on the hammer block and pulls the hammer block back into its groove in the side plate, allowing the hammer to fall all the way and fire a cartridge. A thorough investigation was held into the incident and it was determined that hardened cosmoline in the revolver most likely prevented the spring action of the hammer block from doing its primary function of blocking the hammer. Instead, the hardened cosmoline kept the hammer block in the withdrawn position, so that when the hammer received a heavy blow, something broke and the revolver discharged.






Smith and Wesson had a large contract to supply revolvers to the government at the time. The government demanded rapid resolution of the problem. First, S&W conducted tests of the hammer block, and found that the revolvers sometimes discharged when dropped. The engineers were called in, and the current hammer block design that has been inside S&W revolvers ever since was perfected and put into production in the space of one week.

This Model 10-5 shipped around 1968. It has the same style hammer block in it that every S&W revolver has had since 1944. The hammer block rides in a groove in the side plate. A pin on the rebound slide pulls the hammer block down, withdrawing it from between the hammer and the frame when the rebound slide moves back. This happens every time the trigger is pulled or the hammer is cocked. Again, notice the interface between the top of the rebound slide and the bottom of the hammer. They meet together squarely and there are no rounded surfaces to move the rebound slide back. This style of hammer block is actually a redundant safety device. The hammer block never actually touches the hammer, you can see there is space between the hammer and the hammer block. If something catastrophic should cause something to break, then the hammer block will prevent the hammer from moving forward enough to discharge a live round under the hammer.





I would like to add that Smith and Wesson revolvers discharging when the hammer was struck a heavy blow was relatively a rare occurrence.

Nowhere near as common as accidental discharges with old fashioned Colt style single action revolvers.

These are the parts of the lockwork of a Colt Single Action Army. The upper arrow points to the so called 'safety cock' notch on the hammer. The lower arrow points to the tip of the trigger. Notice how thin the tip is. If the hammer was placed in the 'safety cock' position, the thin tip of the trigger rested in the notch. It did not take much of a blow to the hammer spur to break something and discharge a live round under the hammer. That is why a single action revolver with the Colt design should NEVER be carried with a live round under the hammer. Someday when I have an inexhaustible supply of Colts and old Smiths I may make a study of exactly how much force is required to create a discharge with a live round under the hammer. For now, I suspect the old S&W design was more robust than the old Colt design.

 

[Paul R Zartman]

1905 is not a modern firearm with safety built in. Empty chamber is the factory suggestion of carrying these.
I know H&R had their 6 shot 32 set up so you could turn cylinder to be inbetween cartridges, and they suggested empty chamber or set firing pin between chambers.
I as a avid revolver enthusiast, i carry mine always on a empty chamber unless in the case of that early H&R...in between ...
If you can't do damage in 4 shotssomethin is very unusual...
I see while I was slow typing, Driftwood showed up...listen to what he says...

 

[Waveski]

- The only time I load 6 in a revolver of that vintage is at the range. In a range setting you will wind up with a round under the hammer no matter what , right?

- The rebound mechanism of a model of 1905 is not a hammer block , it just a fairly robust rebound mechanism. It will keep the firing pin off of a chambered round ... to a point. (as you have learned...)

- My curiosity prompts me to ask - how did you come to be handling a fully loaded 100 year old six shooter in your garage?

- To repeat Zartman : Listen to Driftwood Johnson. He knows of what he speaks and is the undisputed king of instructional images.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Driftwood Johnson is an overflowing cornucopia of abundantly invaluable firearms knowledge.

Seriously, what would we do without him?
Thanks for all of the care and time and photographs that you put in to your presentations.
We all learn so much from you.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

1905 is not a modern firearm with safety built in. Empty chamber is the factory suggestion of carrying these.

I have reproductions of Smith and Wesson catalogs,from 1895, 1900, 1905/1906, and 1927. None of them mentions keeping an empty chamber under the hammer.

I am repeating here what I said at the end of my earlier post.:

"I would like to add that Smith and Wesson revolvers discharging when the hammer was struck a heavy blow was relatively a rare occurrence.

Nowhere near as common as accidental discharges with old fashioned Colt style single action revolvers."

I suspect that police officers who carried the old S&W revolvers probably carried them fully loaded with a live round under the hammer. Even the really old ones that had no hammer block. Certainly, the ones with the pre-1944 style hammer blocks were carried fully loaded.

I restate that the mechanism of these revolvers was more robust than that of the old Single Action revolvers, and I think my photos bears that out, so accidental discharges when they were dropped was relatively rare. Why else would one have discharged accidentally when dropped in 1944 if carrying them fully loaded was not standard practice?

I have several old S&W hand ejector revolvers that lack any sort of hammer block. I also have quite a few that have the old style hammer block in them. I do only load them with five rounds at the range, not because I am afraid of an accidental discharge, but because ammunition boxes usually have 10 rows of five rounds each. Loading five at a time it is simply easier to keep track of what I am doing.

Even though I am fully licensed by the state where I live in to carry concealed, I never do. Not going to get into a political discussion here, I just don't carry. If I did, I would most likely carry a post 1944 S&W with the modern hammer block in it, just to be on the safe side. When I am shooting cowboy at a CAS match, I always carry my revolvers with an empty chamber under the hammer, partially because that is a strict rule in CAS, and partially because most of my CAS revolvers are Colts, or antique S&W Top Breaks which are absolutely unsafe to carry fully loaded with a live round under the hammer.

 

[dh1633pm]

I am going to mirror what everyone else has said. Glad everyone was ok. Back when I was in the Air Force, a Security Policeman was clearing his S&W at the end of the shift. He dropped a 38 round on the ground. It exploded and he got a somewhat minor injury in his leg from some brass. The discharge tube or whatever you want to call it had a rubber mat under it, but his drop made its way to concrete. These things happen.

 

[Gordon]

Howdy

This was discussed at length on another forum.

Here are a few photos I posted.

This is a very early S&W 38 Hand Ejector that shipped in 1908 as I recall. There were no hammer blocks in this model, hammer blocks came along a number of years later. The OP in this post stated that the parts inside his revolver looked a lot like this.

Notice the shape of the rebound slide and the bottom of the hammer where they meet. Both are rounded.

Thank you sir, very impressive work you did there ! You are indeed the man !

 

[garandsrus]

Excellent write up! How different or similar is the hammer block to what Iver Johnson put into his pistol in the early 1900’s? I was very surprised when I found out that the hammer block was that old.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Iver Johnson did not put a hammer block in their revolvers.

Iver Johnsons had transfer bars.

This is a patent drawing, perhaps the only one, for Iver Johnson's transfer bar. The transfer bar is part E.






A transfer bar is not a hammer block. A transfer bar does exactly what its name says, it transfers the blow of the hammer to the firing pin. When not about to be fired, the transfer bar is withdrawn so the hammer face cannot contact the firing pin. When the trigger is pulled, the transfer bar rises up and positions itself between the hammer and the frame mounted firing pin, so it can transfer the force of the hammer to the firing pin.

Modern Ruger revolvers have transfer bars, not hammer blocks, but Iver Johnson invented, or at least patented the transfer bar.

Because they were felt to be very safe, Iver Johnson had a marketing campaign called Hammer the Hammer, which illustrated how safe they were.







Iver Johnson made it clear they felt their revolvers were very safe.






I only have one Iver Johnson revolver, this Safety Hammerless model, chambered for 38 S&W. I have never had it apart, so I don't know what the mechanism looks like. Perhaps I will take it apart one of these days for a look see.

 

[Dan-O]

Note to self:

Never drop a loaded gun

 

[kell]

I have reproductions of Smith and Wesson catalogs,from 1895, 1900, 1905/1906, and 1927. None of them mentions keeping an empty chamber under the hammer.

I am repeating here what I said at the end of my earlier post.:

"I would like to add that Smith and Wesson revolvers discharging when the hammer was struck a heavy blow was relatively a rare occurrence.

Nowhere near as common as accidental discharges with old fashioned Colt style single action revolvers."

I suspect that police officers who carried the old S&W revolvers probably carried them fully loaded with a live round under the hammer. Even the really old ones that had no hammer block. Certainly, the ones with the pre-1944 style hammer blocks were carried fully loaded.

I restate that the mechanism of these revolvers was more robust than that of the old Single Action revolvers, and I think my photos bears that out, so accidental discharges when they were dropped was relatively rare. Why else would one have discharged accidentally when dropped in 1944 if carrying them fully loaded was not standard practice?

I have several old S&W hand ejector revolvers that lack any sort of hammer block. I also have quite a few that have the old style hammer block in them. I do only load them with five rounds at the range, not because I am afraid of an accidental discharge, but because ammunition boxes usually have 10 rows of five rounds each. Loading five at a time it is simply easier to keep track of what I am doing.

Even though I am fully licensed by the state where I live in to carry concealed, I never do. Not going to get into a political discussion here, I just don't carry. If I did, I would most likely carry a post 1944 S&W with the modern hammer block in it, just to be on the safe side. When I am shooting cowboy at a CAS match, I always carry my revolvers with an empty chamber under the hammer, partially because that is a strict rule in CAS, and partially because most of my CAS revolvers are Colts, or antique S&W Top Breaks which are absolutely unsafe to carry fully loaded with a live round under the hammer.

I do the same thing for the same reason (loading 5). Are we OCD?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I do the same thing for the same reason (loading 5). Are we OCD?

I don't know about you, but I am. Just ask my wife.

 

[Odd Job]

Driftwood, thanks for the great photos and explanation, much appreciated!