What's that on my hammer???

Looks like a rough spot where the casting (or forging) didn't clean up properly. If it doesn't ever get around to the sear or springs then I wouldn't worry about it.


Mark
 
I had to read the title over 2 or 3 times to make sure I was reading it right. "This is hardly the place for VD show and tell.." thought I. Happy to be wrong. :p

Definitely looks like a void in the casting.
 
It is a little un sightly on a new pistol...see if they will send you a replacement....nice toy by the way....congrats.
 
Caboose said:
1911 Guru's... Is this gonna be a problem? I really hope it's just cosmetic, be a shame to change out a hammer on a brand new gun

Click to expand...

It doesn't look so good to me. It looks like a pretty large surface flaw. People say it could result from casting but why would they cast a hammer? I'd expect hammer to be forged steel. The hammer works in a fatigue mode so that flaw might be a source of fatigue cracking in the future after so many cycles.
Did you buy that pistol brand new? If so, if I were you I'd immediately ask for a replacement or money back. I wouldn't tolerate that.
 
05RAV said:
It doesn't look so good to me. It looks like a pretty large surface flaw. People say it could result from casting but why would they cast a hammer? I'd expect hammer to be forged steel. The hammer works in a fatigue mode so that flaw might be a source of fatigue cracking in the future after so many cycles.
Did you buy that pistol brand new? If so, if I were you I'd immediately ask for a replacement or money back. I wouldn't tolerate that.
Click to expand...

Depending on the make, lots of parts are being investment cast these days. If it works for Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 magnum cylinder frames, it will work with anything. The hammers seem produced the same way.
Also, the parts do receive some machining and polishing to finish the process and improve the appearance.
 
Quote Originally Posted by 05RAV View Post
It doesn't look so good to me. It looks like a pretty large surface flaw. People say it could result from casting but why would they cast a hammer? I'd expect hammer to be forged steel. The hammer works in a fatigue mode so that flaw might be a source of fatigue cracking in the future after so many cycles.
Did you buy that pistol brand new? If so, if I were you I'd immediately ask for a replacement or money back. I wouldn't tolerate that.
Click to expand...


Lonesome Donkey said:
Depending on the make, lots of parts are being investment cast these days. If it works for Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 magnum cylinder frames, it will work with anything. The hammers seem produced the same way.
Also, the parts do receive some machining and polishing to finish the process and improve the appearance.
Click to expand...

I'm an old-timer very much used to good old forged steel pistols. I know that Ruger has been making investment castings of pistol frames but I guess a cast revolver cylinder, hammer, and a few other parts are a bit too much for me. Anyway, I've never had any special attraction to the Ruger pistols and in general, I don't like revolvers. Never owned one. Apparently, in the case of the OP's pistol they completely missed that surface flaw. That pistol looks expensive to me so it's outrageous.
 
Wow I'd send the seller a pic of the flaw and say a new one was in order. For a PC1911 QC that doesn't make me want to rush out and buy one.
 
05RAV said:
I'm an old-timer very much used to good old forged steel pistols. I know that Ruger has been making investment castings of pistol frames but I guess a cast revolver cylinder, hammer, and a few other parts are a bit too much for me. Anyway, I've never had any special attraction to the Ruger pistols and in general, I don't like revolvers. Never owned one. Apparently, in the case of the OP's pistol they completely missed that surface flaw. That pistol looks expensive to me so it's outrageous.
Click to expand...

I doubt that the Ruger cylinders are investment cast.
In any case, Ruger has been manufacturing their single action revolvers this way since the mid 1950s.
That's around 62 years.
I would guess that they must be a quality product despite your misgivings, if they have survived this long.
Also, since I'm in my 60s, I qualify as an old timer myself, and I like them.

But, to each his own.

The OP's pistol may not be inexpensive, but mainly that's because it's from the S&W Performance Center, and has a certain amount of add-ons and extra work done.

The basic S&W .45 ACP model that it's based on sells for about the same price as a Ruger SR1911 .45 ACP.
In order to reach that same basic price point, it must use similar construction techniques that the Ruger uses.
That means that, like the Ruger, it must have some investment cast parts, like the hammer.
I doubt very much that S&W would use a forged steel hammer in the Performance Center upgrade and not in the standard model.
The safety looks like it is investment cast as well, judging by the photos.

S&W should have rejected that hammer, but that's the world we live in today.
If the OP is unhappy, then he should by all means go through the onerous process of having it replaced by them.
 
I haven't fired it yet, but other than the casting flaw on the hammer its an exceptional pistol. S&W have perfected slide serrations, the fish scales are very grippy. If its merely cosmetic I guess I can live with it. Perhaps Bulls Eye will sell me a replacement hammer at their cost?

Online shopping sure is convenient. But we roll the dice when purchasing new without a personal visual inspection

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom