No hammer block in my old M37

[chp5]

For the first time in years, I took the side plate off my 1960's m37. To my surprise, there's no hammer block.

Should I order one and are they the same as the new J frame hammer blocks?

[Toolguy]

Any Smith revo with a hammer spur needs the hammer block. The new ones will probably fit OK.

[chp5]

Any Smith revo with a hammer spur needs the hammer block. The new ones will probably fit OK.

No hammer spur - the hammer is bobbed, but it can still be cocked if you grab the hammer. I only shoot it DOA.

[Carmoney]

We've discussed this before, a search may turn up some information.

My own view is that the hammer block is purely a redundancy. It was added to the design to fulfill some old government specification that mandated two separate safety systems or some such horseshit, many years ago.

Even with the hammer block out, the gun cannot fire without the trigger being pulled to the rear, even if you pound on the back of the hammer with a lead babbitt. The little old ladies on the S&W forum all wring their hands and talk about things like broken hammer studs, etc., but that's all nonsense. In my view, anyway.

I will admit that hammer blocks generally don't cause problems, other than a little extra friction here and there, and I do leave them in carry or defensive guns. I also leave them in IDPA guns in order to meet Willard's equipment rules. But I routinely remove the hammer blocks from competition revolvers that won't be used for IDPA, and I do so with absolutely no hesitation.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Carmoney