I'm a neophyte, so I could have it wrong, but my understanding is that it works as a drop safety but isn't present in 642/442 guns at all. So with the 442 hammer, there really isn't anything (spur) to hit. Thus it's an extra peice. Or at least it would be equally as drop safe as a 442. I think.Originally Posted by TheNewbie
What is the advantage of removing the transfer bar? Wouldn’t it’s operation be largely imperceptible during normal use? If it is imperceptible, then why remove it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
Looking at gunpartscorp, the part in question is a "hammer block". When the hammer is at rest, the hammer block is between the hammer and frame. This offers protection from an unintended blow to the hammer. It is a physical barrier that keeps the hammer from moving forward, striking the primer. When the trigger is pulled, the rebound slide moves backwards and in the process, lowers the hammer block down below the hammer, enabling firing of the revolver. It is a very clever design.
As far as the need for it in a revolver with no exposed hammer is debatable. But since it is viewed as a safety feature I would be hesitant to remove it. Liability and appearances a legal setting. Like, "Sir why did you remove a safety feature that the factory obviously deemed necessary to install in the first place? Oh, by the way, can you show us your armorer's certification too? Just the world we live in today.
That type of stuff isn't something I'm concerned about. I've not found any of the various legal trainers who discuss the matter on the web (@Mas or Andrew Branca) to be intensely critical of such things either. I think weapons modifications should be well thought out for their practicality and usefulness. I'll probably have the internal lock plugged at some point too. It isn't going to really impact my defensive use of the weapon which is what the crux of any legal issue will be.
I did manage to stop at a backwoods range I know about and function check the new hammer. The first area I went to (where I would normally go) was closed for sheriffs training. The backup spot was clear. I ran 25 rounds to function check quick. 10 for the function, 5 from the AIWB, 5 from the pocket, 5 SHO. All around 7 yards to a pie plate. Seems to ignite just fine, the trigger is still harder to manage and will get an Apex spring kit some point.
Probably the quickest and least amount of stuff I've ever run out to shoot with.
Is there any gunsmith that will remove the lock or is that something that due to their liability concerns, no gunsmith is going to touch?
No shit, I had no idea.
I get that it is an extra piece, but agree that it is not something that is in all other S&W revolvers and is not a problem, plenty of slick guns have it.
But www.gunpartscorp.com doesn't show it as included in the 642:
I also think this would be a safeguard against an inertia discharge from being dropped on the muzzle, but apparently S&W doesn't think so?
Just goes to show ya that you actually do learn something everyday. Not sure what I am going to do with this particular piece of knowledge though...
No shit, I had no idea.
I get that it is an extra piece, but agree that it is not something that is in all other S&W revolvers and is not a problem, plenty of slick guns have it.
But www.gunpartscorp.com doesn't show it as included in the 642:
I also think this would be a safeguard against an inertia discharge from being dropped on the muzzle, but apparently S&W doesn't think so?
Just goes to show ya that you actually do learn something everyday. Not sure what I am going to do with this particular piece of knowledge though...
Definitely something I didn't know either. I just kind of learned it by goofing with the hammer. That being said, having verified that the gun functions just fine with the transfer bar in there I might wind up leaving now. It's not hurting anything, might add some drop safety, and isn't impacting the reliability. So who knows. Just kind of superfluous I guess.
My comment on the hammer block was specific to the S&W 637 that Cory owns with an exposed hammer. Post #48 shows the sideplate off and the hammer block we are talking about. As far as an enclosed hammer goes, if Smith says those models don't need a hammer block I'm sure they can back that up. Life is like a box of chocolates........drive on!!
I frankly was surprised to learn this earlier today. One thing it made me wonder about is that the enclosed hammer guns started out life as "Lemon Squeezers" with the grip safety:
Of all the J-Frames I have had, my M&P 340 is the only concealed hammer version, and I do not believe I have ever had the side cover off of it. Now I want to go open it up just to see it with my own eyes!!
What model is that Smith? Flat cylinder release and pinned barrel. It’s a beaut!! That’s what I like about this forum….all the information gleaned from these posts! Man, I do like your revolver!!
Reply With Quote