Why are most revolvers manufactured with the firing pin built into the frame as opposed to on the hammer nowadays? I'm sure it has something to do with safety, but what?

My S&W has the pin on the hammer. Any advantage to this setup?

Thanks.

The hammer on most revolvers doesn`t hit the firing pin housed in the frame. The gun has a "transfer bar" that rises up between the hammer and transfers the hammer blow to the fireing pin when the trigger is pressed. The hammer can`t accidently fall and discharge the firearm this way, the hammer blow won`t reach the striker with out the trigger being depressed fully. This is a safty feature that has been in use in DBL actions for it seems ever by some manufactures, now by all I believe, and started I think in the early `70s by Ruger in their SAs.

Fixed firing pin DA revolvers use a hammer *block* system of passive safety. It started in 1898 with the "Hammer the Hammer" safety revolver from Iver Johnson. S&W adopted it in 1903.

Colt and other frame-mounted firing pin revolvers use exactly the reverse system....the hammer strikes a transfer bar that then hits the firing pin.

THe transfer bar system is cheaper to make unless it's done like the original Colts.......it's VERY hard to make them as well as the early Colts made them.

The transfer bar/hammer block bar actions prove that firearms can be made SAFE and keep a a VERY good trigger with absolutely no creep, very light, and no backlash.

Who wouldn't love to have a trigger on your varmint rifle as good as a Python or a black box S&W?? I sure would!! ........... And they won't fire unless the trigger is pulled..

So both setups can have a built in safety feature.

Didn't S&W switch to frame mounted firing pins? If so, why?

Also, Freedom Arms doesn't have a transfer bar. Why not? Better trigger?

Is there an advantage to the pin on hammer system?

[ 05-06-2003, 22:48: Message edited by: recoiljunky ]

S&W switched to cut manufacturing costs. A frame mounted firing pin requires a couple of holes to be drilled in the frame, a S&W hammer mounted firing pin required some complicated machining of the frame to let that firing pin hit the primers.
The disadvantage is that the frame mounted firing pin has a spring holding it away from the primer, so the hammer fall has to be a little harder to overcome this spring action. This leads to a heavier double-action trigger pull; and actually is very marginally less safe than the hammer mounted firing pin. Since only a spring holds the firing pin away from the primers, a hard enough blow to the front of the gun could theoritically set off a round. The spring is heavy enough so that a simple fall can't overcome it's pressure, but a deliberate fast heavy blow can.

Another thing to consider is with the advent of lighter guns, especially Double Action, this also meant a lighter hammer & softer mainspring. This was to for the DA to be pulled rapidly & smoothly, & yet be strong enough to still fire the round.

As gun design changed internal design also had to change. Compare the Colt SSA's heavy hammer to the following.

As the power increased say from 38 Spl. to 357 Mag. the rearward thrust increased. This drove the fired case & primer back against the firing pin. If the hammer/mainspring was not heavy enough to hold the firing pin forward in the fired position, the primer would flow rearward into the hole & or around the firing pin tip, locking the gun up so you could not rotate the cylinder & you had to drive the cylinder open with a mallet.

Case in point is the OLD Colt Trooper in 38 Spl of the mid 1950s & the 357 Python. Same basic gun. The Trooper had an intregal firing pin tip, while the Python uses a floating firing pin. If you try to soup up the Trooper you get the hammer to not have enough energy to stay forward after the actual firing. The Python's floating FP can only move rearward a fixed amount.

Thank you everyone for the information.