Hammer Design

I have noticed, if it is not my imagination, that there seem to be a lot of variations on the 1911a1 hammer design; in respect to the length and shape of the striking face. It would seem that some of the new design hammers have different lengths measured from the hammer pin hole center to their upper edge. Also, some are straight while others seem to have a "cam" end design. Can anybody explain the reasons behind these variations and if they have an inter relation with the sear/hammer engagement?

And more importantly, do they have an effect of easing and smoothing or even reducing the slide recoil effect?

Those all look flat/straight to me, and the length looks about the same, as well. What is this photo supposed to be showing?

The hammer on the left seems to show a slightly different length and top radius (cam).

Design only, by the time the hammer is cocked the upper cam area will not be touched.

Quote:
The hammer on the left seems to show a slightly different length...

With that image copied and two parallel lines drawn (one through the pin hole centers, the other through the upper limits of the faces of the two on the right) the hammer on the left does certainly seem to have a longer face. Or the two on the right could be said to have shorter faces. That's in comparison with each other, but it's hard to say how any compare to the Ordnance face that ends about 0.915" from the pin hole center.

They do appear to be long enough to hit the firing pin.

Quote:
They do appear to be long enough to hit the firing pin.

...and that's how long they have to be for function. They are longer so that you can have a spur (or rowel) with a pleasing shape that's easier on the thumb.

Or so I imagine.

Oh, I thought he was referring to the slight angle you see at the top of some hammer-faces to ease the slide hit. My Wilson Value-line has one.

Here's the copy mentioned in Post #9, but with another line added at the top - my guess on where the face of the hammer on the left ends:

PICTURE 404

Don't forget that the longer the hammer flat the more the hammer pivots back and unloads the sear. Some 'high grade" hammers attempt shorten the hammer flat to minimized sear motion.

Wait a second, you lost me...

How does the length of the hammer (the upper portion) impact the sear if the relationship between the notches, hammer pin and hammer strut pin remains constant?

Perhaps what Eric is talking about is hammer overtravel (overcocking?), as illustrated here:

The author (Hallock) states reducing overcocking also reduces the momentum the hammer can gain from the time it's released by the slide (on its way back to battery) to the time the hooks contact the sear nose. This would reduce the impact stress on both.

AHH, I see!

The slide did not even enter my mind...

I believe in reality the hammer travels farther than the slide can push it by contact anyway. The hammer over-travels, then bounces back and impacts the slide. It is the impact of that upper corner hitting the slide right at the point where the firing pin safety occurs in Series 80 pistols that accounts for the damage to some pistols at that point.

I have a very early Para P12.45 that I bought used. I knew the previous owner had shot it a lot, and after reading a post on this forum about the problem for another member, I inspected mine and was horrified to discover that the underside of my slide was badly eroded (or pounded) at that point. I sent the slide to EGW and they welded it up and recut it, so now it's as good as new. The point is that a minor difference in the height of the hammer face to the start of the radius or chamfer actually doesn't mean much of anything.

Quote:
Perhaps what Eric is talking about is hammer overtravel (overcocking?)

Yep... that what I meant to say... thanks Niemi.

Quote:
I believe in reality the hammer travels farther than the slide can push it by contact anyway.

How true, because after firing when the slide's going back, the hammer gets whipped back and actually loses contact with the slide - whacking the bottom of the disconnector rail when it rotates back the other way as you mentioned.

The idea behind the modification in Post #13 has nothing to do with how far the hammer goes back when it whips off the slide - it'll get whipped back until the spur hits the grip safety whether it's modified or not.

But after the hammer regains contact with the slide, the slide stops and then starts going forward into battery - with the hammer in contact with it. The idea behind the modification is to reduce the distance the hooks arc through on their way back down to the sear nose (after the FPS gets forward of the hammer face).

In other words, while the slide is going forward into battery the modification will see the hammer overcocked just a little bit - instead of being overcocked a lot.

Whether it all amounts to a hill of beans, I don't really know. But maybe it helps the hooks stay on the sear nose - and avoid hammer follow on light pull triggers?

niemi24. Thanks for your drawings and comments.

You might be interested in seeing the type of hammer Hallock describes. If you follow the below link you will see a gun by Jesse E. Harpe along with a reprint of a April 1942 article from 'The American Rifleman' titled "Revamping the .45 Colt". In the article he does not mention the hammer modification as such, but it is plainly visible. The article in itself is very interesting along with the rest of the thread. The idea behind the modification would seem to be, besides your mentioned softening of the sear/hammer reset, a smoothing of the final recoil stage. If you are up to it, it might be interesting for you to draw an accurate plan, as Hallock's drawing does not seem very precise.

http://www.louderthanwords.us/forum...314&hilit=Harpe

As always thank you for your help.