Quick question about "Modelo 1937"

[9mmfan]

So I have one of the Brazillian contract 1917s. If the info I have found is correct, the serial number (203xxx, the 3 might be a 5. Hard to tell, it's been parkerized, but I'm 95% positive it's a 3) puts it in the first batch that went out before all production shifted to the war effort.

I also have a .38 M&P that is dated to 1920. I have been told for safety sake to only load five rounds and carry with the hammer on an empty chamber, the hammer block not being all that reliable caused a fatal accident during the war.

Answering the "Load Up Your Handguns, How Many Rounds..." Thread, a very dim bulb lit above my head. "My 1917 is pre-war, I can therefore extrapolate that it also should only be carried five up." Putting two and two together in a timely fashion apparently is not my strong suit. Of course it's not a gun that I carry, so maybe that's why I hadn't thought about it, but still.

So is that in fact the case (the five round thing, not the 9mmfan is occasionally dense thing)? Or does anyone have some information I am lacking?

 

[tipoc]

There is a book called "The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson Revolvers", now in it's 3rd edition, that revolver aficionados ought to have. On page 142 of that book the authors report that:

"An accident...forced an important step for S&W concerning hammer blocks. A revolver was dropped on the deck of a U.S. Navy ship and accidentally discharged, killing a sailor. This prompted the Navy to investigate and request...a better hammer block design."

So in 1944 a better design was placed in all guns produced by S&W from that date on. Colt already had such a type safety.

Answering the "Load Up Your Handguns, How Many Rounds..." Thread, a very dim bulb lit above my head. "My 1917 is pre-war, I can therefore extrapolate that it also should only be carried five up." Putting two and two together in a timely fashion apparently is not my strong suit. Of course it's not a gun that I carry, so maybe that's why I hadn't thought about it, but still.

Fact is if you regularly carry a handgun older than 1944 for self defense you may want to consider a newer gun. Not for safety reasons but for reliability concerns. There is no reason to place the hammer over an empty chamber in a da revolver of any type. Even the old ones. Unless you work on the steel deck of a ship and you fumble drop the gun regularly.

tipoc

 

[9mmfan]

Thanks. I Googled the info after I posted. Probably should have been the other way around, but what are you going to do. There was some discussion from years back, some of it right on this very forum.

I don't carry this gun, don't spend much time on steel decks either. The only time I am carrying an older design is when out in the woods. Couple Cimarrons, and then I do definitely go "five beans in the wheel." Well, ten since there are two, but same principle. Even if I did pack the 1917, it would be in a full flap type situation. Leather Webley reproduction to be specific. Try real hard not to fumble my guns, or anyone else's for that matter.

In "civilization" it is either sixteen in a Glock or five in a J frame, so no worries there. Just curious, thanks again for the info. It is much appreciated.

 

[Slamfire]

This is the lockworks from a Victory Model.

The cylinder hand pushes the hammer block safety out of the way.





In practice, the hammer block safety can be gummed up, probably some other failure mechanisms that I have not thought of. It is not as positive as the later lockworks.

I would leave an empty under the hammer if I planned to carry the thing or have it on a table.

 

[9mmfan]

All right. One fur, one agin'. I was thinking I would err on the side of caution, whether really necessary or not. It is six up in the safe right now. It's not one that gets jostled much, if I'm going to handle it in the house (or any of them for that matter), first thing happens is it gets unloaded.
It's probably okay, but we all are big on better safe than sorry. My wife does like the old .38, usually just shoots it, doesn't carry, but I will keep this in mind just in case. I do kinda like having her around.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

As I said just a couple of weeks ago, this is the only gun forum where I see advice to not carry an older Smith fully loaded.

Take a look at this thread, and in particular, take a look at my photos and comments.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=726179

The hammer block on a modern S&W is a redundant safety. Ever since the Model 1902, the rebound slide has been part of the design. The rebound slide pushes the hammer back, pulling the firing pin away from a primer. This is a much more robust design than the old 19th Century single actions which were well known to discharge if the hammer was struck a strong blow.

Yes, there is one recorded incident of a Victory Model discharging when it hit the deck of a battle ship. After it fell off the superstructure. Who knows how far it fell before it hit the deck.

The manufacturers of revolvers were well aware of the pitfalls of the 19th Century designs, and designed there 20th Century revolvers to be safe to carry fully loaded. That's why Bill Ruger went to his transfer bar design in the 1970s. But other than one incident, I have found no cases of a Smith and Wesson made after 1902 discharging upon being dropped. Particularly not from waist high.

If I was carrying a Smith high up on the superstructure of a battleship, I would probably keep an empty under the hammer, as I do with all my old single action revolvers. Otherwise, I don't worry about it.