We really need Driftwood Johnson to show us some pictures.
I THINK a 1918-1920 M&P has a hammer block. True, one of the early type that can be defeated but I consider reasonably safe if kept clean and working right.
I don't know about a Triple Lock, it may only have a rebound slide. You would have to treat a nice gun awful roughly to override it but it can be done.
Howdy
Seek and you shall find.
First of all, I would like to address Vern Humphrey's comments. I don't know why, but whenever Triple Locks are brought up he always says the same thing, that because the third lock detent is pressed backward by its spring, recoil will tend to partially disengage it on firing. I have to wonder if Vern has actually ever fired a Triple Lock? For a long time, the Triple Lock was my grail gun. I'm happy to say I now am lucky enough to own four of them, so I may be a little bit prejudiced. I was just monkeying around with one of them, and I have to tell you, the spring that shoves the third latch back, which also happens to be the same spring that pushes the latch for the front of the extractor rod back, is very stiff. I find it hard to believe that recoil is going to have much affect on loosening how tightly the third latch is engaged.
Let's look at some photos. this photo shows the third latch plunger protruding from the bottom of the under barrel lug. Notice it is slightly conical in shape, and has a bit of a bevel on the front. The plunger for the front of the extractor rod is also visible in this photo, protruding into the hollow in the under barrel lug. In fact, both of these plungers are the ends of the same 'U' shaped piece. There is one hefty spring that pushes them both back when the cylinder is closed.
Here is a view of the front of the cylinder assembly. There is a hardened piece set into the yoke. There is a tiny screw at the other side of the yoke holding the piece in place. A little bit of the colors of the Case Hardening of the latch piece are still visible in this photo. We can see there is a ramp that pushes the third latch back as the cylinder closes. Once the cylinder closes all the way the spring for the two plungers pops the third plunger into the deep hole in the hardened piece to help secure the cylinder. At the same moment, the plunger for the end of the extractor rod pops forward, depressing the spring loaded rod visible slightly out of focus at the end of the extractor rod.
That's it, that is the third latch in a nutshell. I might also point out that with any standard S&W revolver with a side swinging cylinder, the spring that holds the plunger for the extractor rod would also be 'shoved forward' by recoil. I have never heard of this being a problem with any other S&W revolvers.
The Triple Lock was manufactured from 1908 until 1915. Triple Lock is a nick name, the official name was 44 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, sometimes also called the New Century. The reason the 3rd latch was incorporated in the Triple Lock has nothing to do with supposed superior accuracy, it was a gimmick. S&W just wanted to show that they had the machining capability to make something extra precise, that Colt was not making. One might note that Colts only lock the cylinder at the rear, there is no plunger at the front of the ejector rod on a Colt. The cost to manufacture the Triple Lock was $21, according to Roy Jinks in his book
History of Smith and Wesson. I might add that $21 was a hefty sum in 1908. During the First World War some Triple Locks chambered for the 455 British round were sent to England. The Brits did not like the third latch, the thinking was that mud or other fouling could get trapped in the hollow of the barrel underlug in the field and make the revolver useless. So Triple Lock production stopped in 1915 after 15,375 chambered for the 44 Special cartridge had been produced. The 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model whose production started in 1915, was identical to the Triple Lock except the third latch was eliminated, leaving the underside of the barrel clean except for a small lug to engage the front of the extractor rod. The cost to make the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model was $19, the $2 difference being chalked up to the lack of the extra work to make the 3rd latch.
Looking through the collection of Triple Lock photos on my hard drive I realize I did not have any photos of the insides of one, so I had some fun opening this one up for some photos. Seek and you shall find. This nickel plated Triple Lock is one of the later ones, it left the factory in 1915. There is no hammer block. I left the side plate in the photo to show a lack of any provision for a hammer block.
Pardon my oily fingerprints, the inside of this old girl was pretty dry, so I applied a little bit of Rem Oil. What we see here is the slight bump on top of the rebound slide has shoved the bump on the bottom of the hammer back a little bit, withdrawing the hammer a little bit and withdrawing the firing pin back into the frame and away from the primer of a round in the chamber. Let's hold on to that thought and come back to it after we talk about Smith and Wesson hammer blocks.
Before any meaningful discussion can be held about S&W hammer blocks, we have to go back and look at Colts first. These are the lockwork parts of a Colt Single Action Army. The upper arrow is pointing to what I call the 'Safety Cock' notch on the hammer. The lower arrow is pointing to the tip of the trigger. The top of the trigger is called the sear. The idea of the Colt is that in order to fully load it with six rounds, the hammer should be pulled back to the 'Safety Cock' position, which pulls the firing pin back away from the primer of a cartridge under the hammer. Long experience showed that it did not take much of a blow to the rear of the hammer to shear the sear off the trigger, or break the over hanging lip of the 'Safety Cock' notch. If the blow was strong enough, the firing pin would be driven forward and fire a round under the hammer. Dropping the gun onto its hammer from waist high was enough to make this happen if the revolver was fully loaded with six rounds. So anybody who is familiar with one of these revolvers knows not to trust the 'Safety Cock' notch and only load five rounds, leaving an empty chamber under the hammer. Or like John Wayne once said, "If you think you're gonna need six, load all six". Or something like that.
Here is the lockwork of an early S&W 38 Military and Police. S&W was not using hammer blocks at this time. Sorry, I cannot say exactly when this one shipped, probably around 1910 or so. Notice the shape of the bump on top of the rebound slide and the bump on the bottom of the hammer are not quite the same as in the Triple Lock shown above. The bump on top of the rebound slide is a bit more pronounced. S&W made small design chamges like this all the time and it is often difficult to pin down exactly when they occurred. Anyway, the two arrows a the bottom of the photo are showing the position of the bottom of the hammer and the top of the rebound slide when the rebound slide spring has shoved it all the way forward. Notice the hammer is pulled back about 1/16" from the frame, and the firing pin would have been with drawn this much. So the question is, what would happen if this hammer was struck while there was a live round under the hammer?
My guess is the bottom of the hammer would break off like this and the revolver would fire if a live round was under the hammer. Or perhaps the stud that the hammer pivots on would shear with the same result.
Smith and Wesson has had three different hammer block designs they have used over the years. This is the first type. It is in a 38 M&P that left the factory in 1920. I do not know if S&W was putting this type of hammer block in their revolvers before 1920, but this is the oldest smith in my collection with this style of hammer block and Roy Jinks told me it left the factory in 1920. The hammer block is a long, thin, flexible piece sitting in a groove in the side plate. It is peened in place in the side plate at the bottom. At the top of the hammer block the small rectangle is a tab extending towards us in this view. When the hammer is down, the rectangular tab extends towards us enough that it blocks the hammer from moving all the way forward. I have placed the hand in the side plate in the position where it would sit when the revolver was assembled. A spring loaded pin is pushed back by the angled section of the hand as the hand rises. The pin is tapered, and as it moves back in the groove in the hammer block it causes the hammer block to bend back, retracting deeper into its groove in the side plate. This withdraws the hammer block so the hammer can fall all the way. I hasten to add that this style of hammer block does not appear to have been applied to all S&W revolvers at the same time. I have a K-22 that left the factory in 1932 and it has no hammer block.
This is the next style of hammer block that S&W was installing in their revolvers. They were putting this style in for a long time. This 38 M&P left the factory in 1939. I have some other Smiths with this style of hammer block, but I would have to do a lot of poking around to find when they left the factory. This style of hammer block is much simpler than the earlier style. In typical S&W fashion, it has less parts, so probably cost less to make. The hammer block is a piece of spring steel, peened in place in its groove in the side plate. Like the earlier style, there is a rectangular tab at the top of the hammer block which normally blocks the hammer from falling all the way. On this style there is tab extending sideways on the hammer block. There is a ramp on the hand that engages the tab as the hand rises, withdrawing the hammer block deeper into its groove, so the hammer can fall all the way. As with the earlier style, the hammer block is made of spring steel, so it's normal position is extended to block the hammer. When the revolver cycles, the hand drops down, allowing the hammer block to spring forward again, blocking the hammer.
This is the style of hammer block that failed in 1944, when a Victory Model revolver, a variation of the 38 M&P, fell to the deck of a warship, killing a sailor. I have no information on how far the revolver fell, whether it fell from an upper deck, or from waist high. I have no information on what type of warship it was, I have no information if the sailor who was killed had dropped his own revolver or if somebody else had dropped it.
What I do know is S&W immediately began an investigation. They dropped lots and lots of Victory Models from waist high, and found an alarming number of failures of hammer blocks to prevent hammers from falling all the way. The final decision was that hardened cosmoline inside the revolver had prevented the hammer block from springing back to its normal 'safe' position, and allowed something inside to break, perhaps the hammer stud, perhaps the bottom of the hammer, perhaps the top of the rebound slide got crushed. Smith and Wesson had all hands on deck and they came up with a new hammer block design in one week. Smith and Wesson immediately began retrofitting the new hammer block design into existing Victory Models, and changed the V prefix in their serial numbers to VS to indicate the new style hammer block was inside.
This is the style hammer block that S&W has been putting in their revolvers ever since 1944, and is still using today. This happens to be a 44 Hand Ejector 4th Model from 1955, but it shows how the present style hammer block works. The hammer block sits in a groove in the side plate, and is free to slide up and down. This is the position it is normally in. Notice it is not actually blocking the hammer, there is a little bit of space between the hammer and the top of the hammer block. The hammer block is actually a redundant safety device, ready to do its job in case something in the lockwork breaks. When the rebound slide moves back, in single action or double action mode, the pin on the rebound slide pulls the hammer block down out of the way. After the hammer falls, and once the trigger is released, the rebound slide moves forward and pushes the hammer block up again.
So getting back to the original question of 5 or 6. I strongly suspect that police officers who carried the early S&W revolvers without a hammer block inside, probably fully loaded them with six rounds. The design was stronger, and less prone to failure than the old Colt single action design. I also strongly suspect that with both of the older style hammer blocks inside, officers probably routinely fully loaded their revolvers too. I have no documentation of this, it is just my suspicion, base on my knowledge of human behavior. Clearly, the 1944 incident brought this to the fore front of everyone's mind at that time, So maybe some officers rethought about carrying fully loaded, but I tend to doubt that. Personally, I only shoot my old revolvers at the range, I do not carry, so it is not a concern to me. For what it's worth, I routinely only load 5 rounds into the cylinder of any revolver, new, old, antique, S&W, Colt, whatever. I do this simply because my ammo boxes organize my ammo in rows of five, and it is easier to keep track of how many rounds I have fired that way.
I will refrain from commenting on whether or not someone should carry an old revolver. Personally, if I were going to carry it would probably be a modern S&W with the modern hammer block inside and I would probably carry it fully loaded. But as I said, I don't carry.
As for the cost of these old revolvers it is all over the place.
This Triple Lock Target Model is pretty rare. It shipped in 1913. I paid a lot of money for it.
This is a very early one that actually shipped in 1907, not 1908. Hardly any blue left anywhere, except n the usual protected areas, and the grips are very worn. I won it at auction a few years ago for only $650, because none of the 'high end' collectors was interested in it. When I saw it I fell in love, and was happy to pay so little for it. Old as it looks it still locks up as tight as when it left the factory and is still a great shooter.
