Why no more grip safety on SW J-frame snub?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ttownthomas

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
21
Years ago someone loaned me a model 40 Smith. I had it for a few years. It was one of those fantastic "hammerless" snub nose .38's with the grip safety on the back. From time to time I would throw it into a suit coat pocket by itself without a holster. There it rode by itself in an empty pocket and I felt like the grip safety was an extra layer of protection from an accidental discharge. Nowadays I never carry anything without a holster even in a pocket but I have to say, back then, I felt completely secure with the Lemmon squeezer carried like that.

What reason did smith use to eliminate those grip safety snubbys?

Did the grip safety present a False sense of security from an AD?
Was it unneeded because of the double action pull and was redundant?
Was it to cut costs?

I'm not expecting definitives here as I'm sure it was a variety of reasons but does anyone have any insight into the evolution of these pistols?
 
A bit of all of the below:
Did the grip safety present a False sense of security from an AD?
Was it unneeded because of the double action pull and was redundant?
Was it to cut costs?
I would add ultimately it was an redundant safety feature of questionable value that added more parts and a spring any of which could fail at the wrong time.
 
Interesting question. I was thinking all current S&W revolvers use a hammer block. Looks like i be wrong.

A double action only, seems to need the trigger pulled to fire. After firing, does the hammer rebound off the firing pin? If so, it can't fire by dropping or striking the hammer.

But if any object, tree branch or what ever, pushes and holds the trigger to the rear, i think there will be an accidental discharge??

Wish i had a hammerless to open and look at. These photos at link will have to do, i guess.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/99903-victory-model-safety-

20170803_080419.png issues.html
 
Most people think the long DA trigger pull makes the j frames safe enough.

Plus, it's best to use a pocket holster when carrying in a pocket.

And keep other stuff out of the pocket where the gun is.

But, I'd still love to have one of those old Model 40s.
 
Probably cost a few cents more to make.

Pocket fluff will eventually build up inside a holsterless gun and not do good things to the operation of your revolver, or auto knife for that matter.
 
Interesting question. As A Smith collector, I'm embarrassed to say I have NO definitive reply as to WHY?

I'd imagine it was a SAFETY concern. NO possible way for the hammer to be accidentally cocked or the gun discharged without a good grip on the grip frame?

Had an old M-40 yrs ago and was surprised to note it came with a small pin that could be inserted to keep the grip safety BACK. Remove the grips, add the pin, re install grips.
 
But if any object, tree branch or what ever, pushes and holds the trigger to the rear, i think there will be an accidental discharge?
Click to expand...
In that situation no hammer block will prevent the revolver from firing - the block is actuated by the trigger. A hammer block is needed to insure that if the hammer is hit with sufficient force and breaks there will still be a physical barrier to prevent an AD. As the concealed hammer S&W revolvers are pretty well protected from that, they do not need a hammer block, but a rebound slide is still needed to insure proper operation (loading, unloading, firing and safe carry).
 
For whatever its worth, the grip safety blocked rearward travel of the hammer. The trigger could be pulled and the hammer raised, but not far enough to disengage the trigger sear.

So, likely its an economical move.

Bob Wright
 
Sunray said:
The M40 was produced from 1887 to 1940 and again as a Smith & Wesson "Centennial" project in 1952.
Discussed at length by these guys. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/smith-and-wesson-with-grip-safety.248470/
http://www.gunsandammo.com/reviews/sw-centennial-review/
Click to expand...

Think you've got your model numbers a little premature ~ S&W didn't start using model numbers until about 1956 or so, maybe later. And the Centennial model was introduced in 1953.

There was a hammerless S&W top break, but it was not a Model 40, nor Centennial.

Bob Wright
 
What was the grip safety supposed to do? See the J Centennial is a small gun. Any kid, except maybe a 8 month old toddler, can grasp it, automatically depressing the safety, and pull the trigger.

So what was it supposed to do?

Deaf
 
"... it's purpose was no different than any other grip safety"

The original intent of the grip safety on an auto pistol was to make sure the hand was out of the way of the slide before the gun could be fired; that would not seem to apply to a revolver.

Jim
 
I remember S&W was making a few around 2008-09. I handled one in a shop but couldn't afford the $500 tag at the time. It looked like a 442 just with the grip safety. It may have been one of their classic offerings back then. I don't recall whether it had the IL or not.
 
I never trusted the "lemon squeezer" because on occasion I found I could grip the revolver without the grip safety being fully depressed. Also, it prevents using aftermarket grips that cover the backstrap. They are really cool guns, however. And, the safety apparently isn't an issue for most folks with "normal" hands.
 
This is just a guess but maybe S&W were trying to capture the BUG market of those who carried a 1911. The M40 came out in 1952 just after WWII and just before the end of the Korean war. There were countless war veterans who trusted their life to a 1911 and it had a grip safety. Maybe a grip safety on a J frame would win them over too. Just a thought, never read it anywhere.
 
Smith and Wesson's first "lemon squeezer" was the Safety Hammerless model, that predates the 1911 by more than 20 years. Maybe they just decided to make a homage to an old model - who knows?
 
The picture of the 642 looks like the revolver is perfectly safe as the hammer isn't resting on the firing pin, the firing pin is retracted and would not be resting on the primer of a live round. There may be some other block preventing forward hammer movement without the trigger being pulled. If one had the pistol they could remove the side plate and see if they could manually move the hammer forward to contact the firing pin without pulling the trigger rearward. If the hammer will not move completely forward without the trigger being pulled the mechanism has some sort of way to block the hammer travel and would be as safe as the hammer block system of the K frame and larger revolvers.
 
The Centennial (after 1957 or so the Model 40) was the only J frame revolver with a grip safety. They were not all that popular and didn't sell in the commercial sense. (Sort of like the Corvair or Falcon automobiles.) So it was dropped from production.
 
Archie,

.....and yet to this day I think the Falcon Futura Sportscoupe I had as a yout' with its 289 V-8, power everything and in dash AC was the best car I have ever had. Only "customizing" I did was an FM receiver under the driver's seat and thankfully never got around to installing the 8 track before totaling the little jewel.

Don't expect anyone to start making them again though.......

-kBob
 
I wish I'd not dragged my feet when the company did some production runs of a current production M40 & M42 several years ago. I remember thinking about ordering a nickel 40-1, or maybe even a M42, just to have both a steel and Airweight version of the old style Centennial with the grip safety. I was lazy, though, and by the time I thought about actually ordering one or both, they'd been dropped from production again.

Remember this older article from that time?
http://www.tactical-life.com/combat-handguns/sw-m42-centennial-38spl-p/

FWIW, I was told the new iterations of the Centennials with the grip safety didn't come with the pin that could be used to disable the grip safety, nor was there any way to insert an older pin in the newer guns. Since I never had a chance to get one, I never had the chance to look inside one, and they weren't even mentioned in my revolver armorer class.

I still kinda wish I'd picked up a steel one in nickel, or even the "color case hardened" finish.
 
cal44mag said:
Most people think the long DA trigger pull makes the j frames safe enough.
Click to expand...

Most people(?), are nervous nellies that spend too much time listening to lawyers, political appointed police chiefs, and the 5th estate, none of whom have a clue as to what they are flapping their pie hole about.again. i ask what are people doing in their pocket that they dont trust a 8-12 lb trigger pull.
 
Personally, I just like the idea of extra features just for themselves, find them interesting. Sort of like "complications" on watches. Even if you don't need them, they're cool. I think a grip safety on a revolver would fall into this category.

S&W seemed more inclined to add these type of things than Colt did. You could include the shrouded J frame models, and extra round cylinders. They can also go too far though, with things like the dreaded lock. lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
J Frame grips with larger backstraps?
Replies
9
Views
855
PRM
PRM
J
  • Locked
Pocket holster for J-frame
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
fiVe
F
F
  • Locked
Hogue grips for SW 629
Replies
6
Views
1K
paul105
P
K
  • Locked
Snubby Curiosity
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
azrn
A
S
  • Locked
Oversized Sile Stocks for S&W J-frame...
Replies
3
Views
1K
Shade00
S
Back
Top