Did you have a hammer block failure?

[Deputy]

Originally Posted by searcher451

Good points all here, fellas, both for and against the repairs. The question still remains: What exactly is the problem? We still don't know because S&W has been something less than forthcoming it its description of what the issues are, or might be, or could be, or perhaps may be.

This is the REAL problem in a nutshell. If S&W gave an accurate, complete description of when and how the alleged malfunction occurs, we would be able to make more informed decisions about it. Notice that there have been NO articles either online or in gun magazines or newspapers about problems with the pocket pistols. When Glock had their notorious Kaboom problems with their Model 22, it spread like wildfire, and even the news media reported about it. All we have from S&W is MAYBES. That alone makes me wonder if S&W really knows what the problem is, or if there is a problem at all with the FUNCTION of the gun. Maybe S&W is trying to make the pocket pistols "idiot proof" because one or more owners did something really stupid with their guns? We just DON'T KNOW.

There is NO GUARANTEE that what S&W is doing to the pocket pistols is going to INCREASE RELIABILITY. That is an ASSUMPTION. The mods they make may just REDUCE LIABILITY on S&W's part. Remember the shysters are running the show at S&W.

[Shadow Catcher]

Originally Posted by Deputy

This is the REAL problem in a nutshell. If S&W gave an accurate, complete description of when and how the alleged malfunction occurs, we would be able to make more informed decisions about it. Notice that there have been NO articles either online or in gun magazines or newspapers about problems with the pocket pistols. When Glock had their notorious Kaboom problems with their Model 22, it spread like wildfire, and even the news media reported about it. All we have from S&W is MAYBES. That alone makes me wonder if S&W really knows what the problem is, or if there is a problem at all with the FUNCTION of the gun. Maybe S&W is trying to make the pocket pistols "idiot proof" because one or more owners did something really stupid with their guns? We just DON'T KNOW.

There is NO GUARANTEE that what S&W is doing to the pocket pistols is going to INCREASE RELIABILITY. That is an ASSUMPTION. The mods they make may just REDUCE LIABILITY on S&W's part. Remember the shysters are running the show at S&W.

Good points - and it begs the question -

Has anyone taken a S&W gun and a pre-S&W gun apart and compared parts dimensions and tolerances, exchanged pieces, looked at interoperability and interchangeability, or done any other analysis as to what is different and what is indistinguishable?

There may be a subtle change in operation due to a redesign of some components, there may be a set of parts that were made out of spec that got mixed into the bin and randomly used in assembly (e.g. over size firing pin or undersize safety pieces).

Has anyone done a comparative study, irrespective of the recall issue - what's meaningfully different besides the casting of a longer beavertail?

I ask this because speculation is interesting - but fruitless - analysis though may lead to knowledge or at least elimination of certain lines of speculation . . . .


Shadow Catcher

[searcher451]

Well said, Shadow Catcher. Maybe someone with examples of all of the guns has the time and the expertise to pull them apart and see if he can detect the differences, if any in fact exist. That would be helpful to the discussion, for sure. Volunteers?

In the meantime, I sent a lengthy email to S&W this morning requesting a more detailed accounting of the issues involved so that all S&W-made Walther owners could make a more informed decision about the next steps to take. I indicated that the information received from them would be posted on this forum and asked them to address the exact problems, as determined by S&W's engineers, so that we can understand the specifics rather than the ifs and the maybes involved here.

I'm sure that we'll get something back. It may take some time. As soon as it arrives, I'll post it for all to see and consider. We can only hope that it will answer all of the questions and get at the root of all of the issues involved here. Knowledge will be our friend.

Stay tuned.

With that being said, let the debate continue.

[Deputy]

Well done Searcher and great idea Shadow!!!

I'm interested in seeing what happens with both these ideas.

[searcher451]

+1, Deputy. I am hoping that we get more than a standard "Thanks for writing to the customer service department; the recall is well explained on the website" response. The email went to some lengths to encourage them to share the comments with their engineers so that they can obtain an exact description of the exact issues involved here. I also provided a link to this thread, in the event that they want to take a look for themselves at the discussion, in all its wide-ranging glory. So we'll see what they have to say, if anything at all.

I'm also hopeful that someone on the forum who has the various guns and the expertise to pull them apart and gauge the differences in parts will weigh in. That would be most helpful, indeed.

[Andy Fox]

Originally Posted by Ogie

Of course you are right, but my original point, that I may not have conveyed correctly, was that the hammer does not "drop" and it would be safer to rack the slide in that fashion than it would be to drop the hammer by using the safety/decocker.

Are you sure about this? (sorry to come out of left field on this but only just now am reading this thread). When I rack the slide on my S&W PPK/S with the safety engaged the hammer does "drop" back to its rest position--it does not just follow the slide.

[Ogie]

Originally Posted by Andy Fox

Are you sure about this? (sorry to come out of left field on this but only just now am reading this thread). When I rack the slide on my S&W PPK/S with the safety engaged the hammer does "drop" back to its rest position--it does not just follow the slide.

Yes, I am sure, although I am not sure as to what rest position you refer to unless it is the uncocked postion of the hammer.

When I rack my slide the hammer does follow the slide back to the uncocked position, as far forward as possible. This occurs as well when I use the safety/decocker to decock the pistol.

Keep in mind I don't have the S&W PPK/S. I have the Interarms imported W. German made PPK/S.

[Versipellis]

I keep thinking about the situation with my PPK. The consensus seems to be that my pistol is not demonstrating the behavior described in the recall. But, isn't a hammer block supposed to be in place unless the trigger is pulled? Don't most trigger blocks move out of the way of the hammer only when the trigger is pulled? Since my finger is nowhere near the trigger or trigger guard when the hammer drops, strikes the firing pin, which then hits the live primer, how is this not an example of the hammer block failure? Like I said, I'm no gunsmith, so I'm really just curious.

[Andy Fox]

Originally Posted by Ogie

Yes, I am sure, although I am not sure as to what rest position you refer to unless it is the uncocked postion of the hammer.

When I rack my slide the hammer does follow the slide back to the uncocked position, as far forward as possible. This occurs as well when I use the safety/decocker to decock the pistol.

Keep in mind I don't have the S&W PPK/S. I have the Interarms imported W. German made PPK/S.

Yes, by "rest position" I mean fully uncocked position.

Okay, see this *is* interesting as the S&W doesn't operate like this--at least mine doesn't. When racking the slide back the hammer becomes fully cocked. When racking the slide forward again the hammer stays in place (fully cocked) and does not move until the slide is nearly back into normal position, then the hammer suddenly "drops" back to the fully uncocked position. Maybe this is what the whole recall thing is about.

[Umy]

Originally Posted by Ogie

...the uncocked position, as far forward as possible.

That is interesting as well. On my S&W PPK/S. The uncocked position is not as far forward as possible. After decocking and coming to rest, the hammer does not contact the safety catch/back of the slide. It can be pushed forward but always springs back to a point about 1/8 inch from the safety catch.

That may be why Andy referred to it as a rest position.