older S&W revolver hammer block

Txs

Can anyone point me toward diagrams or good pics showing the workings of S&W's pre-WWII hammer block safety system(s) and/or info on when changes were made?

givette

No pre WWII hammer blocks. The device was put into play 'mid war' when a drop-accident got the Navy's tits all aflutter.

Since S&W was supplying the Navy with tens of thousands, they adapted their entire product line to accomodate the hammer block, and continued it beyond the war production years.

Implementation? Mid 1943.

Best, Joe

EDIT
Lookup on u-toob 'S&W Revolver Disassembly', and you will get an idea of the position, and function of the device. Best again, Joe

Txs

quote:Originally posted by givette
No pre WWII hammer blocks. The device was put into play 'mid war' when a drop-accident got the Navy's tits all aflutter.I've heard tell that beginning around WWI their revolvers were equipped with a non-positive, spring/plunger type hammer block which was operated by movement of the hand instead of the later rebound slide operated design spurred by that WWII Navy incident.

I'm familiar with their modern hammer block design, but I'd like to see how this older system operated.

Hawk Carse

There are photos and discussion of the old style S&W hammer block as used 1915-1945 in a thread on the S&W board at:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/255524-qquestion-about-older-k-frame-internal-part.html#post136582700

Unfortunately not a diagram of its operation, but if you can make out the block set into the sideplate and the rib on the cylinder hand that actuates it, you might can figure out its operation.

Txs

Thanks, Hawk. That's the one I've had described to me.

Supposedly, with this non-postive design it was possible for crud, corrosion etc. to interfere with it's function and cause it to stick in the 'fire' position - which is theorized by some to have been a contributing factor in that Navy incident.

Those pics are good for understanding it's operation, but now I'm wondering how this assembly was retained. What was required for the end user to disassemble this for cleaning?

Hawk Carse

Beats me.
Old parts lists show the Hammer Block but not a Hammer Block Pin or Hammer Block Screw. Nor a Hammer Block Spring.
Perhaps it is held in by an undercut in the plate and just plucks out.

http://www.gunpartscorp.com/catalog/Products.aspx?catid=8042

givette

I pulled two revolvers of the time. My 1913 triple lock 'New Centruy' (premium revolver from S&W) doesn't have it. However, the other one (post WWI) has the device.

You are partially correct.

The fin on the hand, when going upwards, cams against the block in the sideplate, pushing the block flush against the sideplate, allowing the hammer to fall to the primer.

Now, in your photo of the gun with the sideplate removed..notice the gap between the hammer and the frame immediately behind the top sideplate screw boss? That's where the block normally rests.

So, the crud you've mentioned: it will clog the space between the block and the sideplate, preventing the hammer from rising, either in single, or double action!

Conclusion: you have a rare setup, there. It's an 'oddity'. Most pre WWII rev's didn't have a block. And this one was proven to be unreliable. Too much wear on the tab/hand during normal function.

I'm not good at describing..so here goes. Picture, if you will, the latest style blocks as moving vertically to impede/allow hammer movement, with the one in question (your gun) moving sideways instead of up-n-down, to the same end.

It's a bonafide block, but poor in design. Tossed soon after implementation. Best, Joe

EDIT
There's no spring. The lower shaft of the block is curved spring steel, and that is what moves the block. Notice the different 'head' on the block? That part is not spring steel. The entire unit should pop out. Lightly staked in, or crudded in? Anyway, the sideplate, once installed, should allow the block to bear against the hammer (near the hammer pin), keeping the block in place. Best, Joe