Hammer Question

[JFlowers]

I am just starting to gather gear together to start shoot revolver later this year or the start of next year. Lot of the revolvers I see have the hammers heavily reduced. Is there a reason for this? And does a hammer mounted firing pin vs a frame mounted firing pin weigh into the decision?

Edited January 26, 2009 by JFlowers

[paul788]

Start of a good answer.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...hl=randy+hammer

The three bobbed hammer actions I have tried have all been better than any not-bobbed action.

Two were Randy Lee and one a Carmony.

Paul

[Carmoney]

All other things being equal, we can get the DA trigger pull about six ounces lighter by radically lightening the hammer. This is the purpose of Randy Lee's aftermarket hammer. The alternative is to cut down the stock hammer. This process has become known as "Carmonizing" but I didn't really invent it. The photo attached below is from a book published several decades ago! I have found that I can remove roughly half the weight of the stock hammer, mine are actually slightly lighter than the Randy hammer. Randy's hammer allow the internal key lock mechanism on the newer guns to be maintained--on mine, the lock system must be disabled.

The other advantage of a lightened hammer is that it reduces the "hammer crash" that you can feel when the hammer falls. It's subtle but unmistakable.

We can take the DA trigger pull a bit lighter with the newer guns that use the frame-mounted firing pin system. However, this is heavily dependent on the firing pin being used. I have had the best results with the earlier Ti factory pins--the ones with the rounded tip that measure about .495". These are not being made anymore in favor of a newer shorter and pointier version that apparently helps with the California drop tests--my supply of the "good" firing pins is slowly dwindling. I am not a fan of the aftermarket extended firing pins from C&S, having had multiple problems with them in the past.

[Carmoney]

Here are a couple shots of Carmonized hammers, one in my 625 and the other in lrjet's 627.

[JFlowers]

Carmoney,

The pictures are for frame mounted firing pin setups. My pistol is an older model with a hammer mounted firing pin. Does that change the thought process about lightening hammers or does lightening hammers still apply?

By the way, I am shooting a 6" Model 27 that will be sent out to be fitted for HeathCo moonclips.

[Tom E]

We lighten the hammer mounted firing pin hammers too. The picture in Camoney's post #3 is of a hammer mounted firing pin hammer.

There is one exception, DO NOT lighten the hammer in your 17 or 617 rimfire.

[jhgtyre]

Carmoney,

The pictures are for frame mounted firing pin setups. My pistol is an older model with a hammer mounted firing pin. Does that change the thought process about lightening hammers or does lightening hammers still apply?

By the way, I am shooting a 6" Model 27 that will be sent out to be fitted for HeathCo moonclips.

I did my hammer mounted firing pin 629 click here for a related thread.

-ld

[Carmoney]

Yeah, the same concept applies. I've Carmonized plenty of the older-style hammers with the hammer nose, it works just as well.

I have always heard that you should not cut down the hammer weight on a rimfire like a 617, like Tom E. says. I have followed that advice and probably even passed it on to others. However, I really need to experiment with it, because I can't see any reason why the same concept wouldn't apply with regard to rimfire ignition. You would think even with rimfire, a fast slap would be better than a slow crush.

When I have a little time one of these days, I'll cut down the hammer on my 617 and see for myself. The worst that can happen is I have to replace the hammer, right?

[Viggen]

Don't get carried away with equipment and this mod or that mod. The main issue is to join in the game.

As desirable as something might seem from an equipment standpoint it still always comes down to the skill of the guy pulling the trigger.

Is the trigger smooth? That's the main thing.

[Tom E]

When I have a little time one of these days, I'll cut down the hammer on my 617 and see for myself. The worst that can happen is I have to replace the hammer, right?

Yep. I've got the "carmonized" hammer I took out of my 617-6 if you want to try one. Fits any k-frame with the "new" frame mounted firing pin. Took about 1 lb more trigger pull (same rebound spring) for reliable ignition with the lightened hammer. I'd be curious what you found. My 617-1 works best and has the heavier "old style" forged hammer.

[JFlowers]

Viggen - Don't get carried away with equipment????? Darn, I guess I should sell the Open gun and rig, the Limited gun and rig, the Limted 10/Single Stack gun and rigs, and the full SASS rig and guns!!! LOL! I am shooting Open this year and just gather gear to do Revolver next.

Tim - My 27 is an N Frame gun not a K Frame one.

Carmoney - Thanks for the information.

[Carmoney]

Yep. I've got the "carmonized" hammer I took out of my 617-6 if you want to try one. Fits any k-frame with the "new" frame mounted firing pin. Took about 1 lb more trigger pull (same rebound spring) for reliable ignition with the lightened hammer. I'd be curious what you found. My 617-1 works best and has the heavier "old style" forged hammer.

Interesting. That's the same thing I have heard from other folks, including Randy. There must be something different about the way rimfire ammo ignites, huh?

[Tom E]

Yep. I've got the "carmonized" hammer I took out of my 617-6 if you want to try one. Fits any k-frame with the "new" frame mounted firing pin. Took about 1 lb more trigger pull (same rebound spring) for reliable ignition with the lightened hammer. I'd be curious what you found. My 617-1 works best and has the heavier "old style" forged hammer.

Interesting. That's the same thing I have heard from other folks, including Randy. There must be something different about the way rimfire ammo ignites, huh?

Got to be a difference. The primer system on the rimfire is pretty crude compared to a centerfire primer.

[Toolguy]

From my experience, I am guessing it's a structural issue. I can shoot CCI Magnum pistol primers in the .44 mag loads with

no misfires in a nicely tuned 629. The same action on a 686 won't reliably set off anything but Federal. That may be due to

the Large primer cup having the support of the flat face further from the center and therefore easier to deform the wider

expanse of material. The rimfire must be bent at it's very strongest point, where the metal has a 180 degree bend and has

maximum support, requiring more force to move the metal. Just a thought...

[SharonAnne9x23]

Carmoney, nice hammers; who made the rear sights?

[Revopop]

Carmoney, nice hammers; who made the rear sights?

Millett. Get them while you can, they're about to be discontinued.

[jmax]

Yeah, the same concept applies. I've Carmonized plenty of the older-style hammers with the hammer nose, it works just as well.

I have always heard that you should not cut down the hammer weight on a rimfire like a 617, like Tom E. says. I have followed that advice and probably even passed it on to others. However, I really need to experiment with it, because I can't see any reason why the same concept wouldn't apply with regard to rimfire ignition. You would think even with rimfire, a fast slap would be better than a slow crush.

When I have a little time one of these days, I'll cut down the hammer on my 617 and see for myself. The worst that can happen is I have to replace the hammer, right?

Mike,

I reduced the weight on my 617 hammer by grinding it to fit the frame using a 4X36" belt sander. It exhibits positive ignition to the point that I can shoot the Steel Challenge (~200 rounds)w/o a misfire. I do not how much it reduces trigger pull as I do not measure it but have determined the hammer spring tension for positive ignition and use that value when performing trigger jobs on these beauties. They have been reliable with all brands of ammo tested but I find CCI leaves crud in the chambers while WW does not and those are my favorites. One key issue is to properly shape the firing pin nose for positive and reliable ignition.

Now on to a bit of a technical discussion. We depend on energy to crush the case rim to insure positive ignition. Energy is proportional to mass and velocity squared. But to get increased angular velocity the moment arm length becomes important. Longer moment arms achieve the biggest gain while shorter moment arms exhibit reduced energy gains with mass reduction. Hence N Frame revolvers will benefit the most and new frame mounted firing pin K frame revolvers will not benefit as well. This is the kind of problem found in engineering dynamics classes taught back in the late 60's.

[Toolguy]

What is the best shape of nose for positive and reliable ignition?

[sperman]

I am just starting to gather gear together to start shoot revolver later this year or the start of next year. Lot of the revolvers I see have the hammers heavily reduced. Is there a reason for this? And does a hammer mounted firing pin vs a frame mounted firing pin weigh into the decision?

Devon will be proud that you decide to join him on the dark side.

[jmax]

What is the best shape of nose for positive and reliable ignition?

I bevel the firing pin such that approximately 1/3 of the original diameter is left. You want to make sure that the Bevel is vertical. I do not use extended length firing pins for RF work as they can ding the chamber mouths and will develop nasty compression fractures at the worst moment. I have a needle nose pliers that is bent at an angle making it ideal in holding the firing pin while I use a diamond lap to remove metal from one side and the the other. Stone and look, stone and look. I also use a 10X loop to monitor my work. Take your time and have fun.

[4mike]

JFlowers

another way is Dremel

[Carmoney]

Having just ordered in a brand new 617, and intrigued by this discussion, Lrjet suggested that I experiment on his new 617 and make it the guinea pig.....and here's what I found out:

First I adjusted the mainspring tension to the edge of reliability with CCI Mini-Mags--i.e., to the point where it would just barely fire 100% of the time. Then I went ahead and fully Carmonized the hammer (which removes approximately half the weight of the hammer), leaving everything else exactly the same. I also cleaned the gun at this point.

After cutting down the hammer, the first two cylinder-fulls of Mini-Mags went fine. But on the third and fourth cylinder-fulls, I got one misfire each time. Then just to see what would happen, I backed off the strain screw exactly one turn--and not one of the rounds would fire.

My conclusion is that cutting hammer weight does not help rimfire revos, and appears to be slightly detrimental to ignition reliability. The difference is fairly minimal, but real. If a person likes the rakish lines of the Carmonized hammer for aesthetic reasons, or simply wants the spur gone, a couple more ounces of DA pull weight is not a huge price to pay. But for purely performance purposes, leaving the hammer stock on a rimfire seems to be the way to go.

Interesting stuff--as several others have reported, rimfire ammo seems to like the heavy crushing blow more than the fast slap. And that's the exact opposite of what we've seen with centerfire primers!

[Tom E]

My conclusion is that cutting hammer weight does not help rimfire revos, and appears to be slightly detrimental to ignition reliability. The difference is fairly minimal, but real.

I found the "carmonized hammer" required a 3/4 to 1 lb heavier DA pull for the same reliability. I don't like clicks instead of bangs.

Edit: I tested with CCI blazer which seems to be less reliable/consistent than mini-mags but cheaper to practice with. If the Blazer ammo would go bang consistently, the Mini-Mags were for sure.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Tom E

[Bubber]

JFlowers

another way is Dremel

4mike, That is "Skeletonized" Had a friend who done something similiar in the late 70's. Not to that extreme and he left the spur but drilled it out the spur also so he could single action it. One cool looking Python. How is yours working? later rdd

[Toolguy]

Has anyone thought of "Carmonizing" a hammer, but leaving the spur on? A regular claw hammer has all the weight at the end of

the lever, but is light weight from the fulcrum point almost to the top. It might be interesting to try that on a 617. Might work,

might not.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Toolguy