1911 hammer hook questions

[redlightrich]

Hello all, I was cleaning my Ruger 1911 ( deep clean) and I started to study parts of it.

I have a new Remington spur hammer, which I eyed up next to the factory Ruger hammer. I took the hammer pin, and placed it thru both hammers so they could align as close as possible.

In lining them up, the full cock hooks are in identical places, however the half cock position is off quite a bit. Maybe .080 or .090. I didn't measure it, but I eyed it up. It is noticeably different.

Placing the Remington hammer in the place of the Ruger hammer ( keeping everything else the same, the half cock notch seems to keep the hammer back off the firing pin stop area, without the pressure of the main spring. It almost as if spring pressure causes it to back away from the firing pin stop plate.

I realize that hammers are fit to sears and vice versa, but why would the hammers have such different half cock positions? Also, are there variations in sears for 1911? The Ruger is a 70 series. Would an 80 be different? How about the Kimber ( Swartz) design?

Again, the full cock positions are dead on the same.

I have always wondered about the Ruger sear/Hammer fit ( along with any other mass produced 1911). I would think they are less than optimal for the purpose of speeding the assembly work.

Any insight to this? I have searched and come up with a lot of information, but not my answer.

Thank you

 

[Unclenick]

Exact half-cock engagement position is simply non-critical. It can engage anywhere in the hammer travel from where the full-cock notch lets go to just before the firing pin. The latter puts less pressure on the sear nose when you place it there on purpose, so if you use half-cock a lot, that would be preferred. But if the hammer slips off onto half-cock, having it catch earlier prevents the hammer picking up as much angular momentum before stopping, so it is less likely to peen the sear nose and affect the feel of the single-action release unfavorably. It's the designer's choice.

The Series 80 -type hammer and sear are cut for the extra safety in the trigger mechanism. I've done trigger jobs on them before, and it is perfectly possible, but they never feel quite as sharply crisp as the older government/Series 70 style so because of the extra spring compression involved. Others may prefer the feel of them, though.

 

[redlightrich]

Thank you Uncle Nick!!! I was wondering why the difference. I did search quite a bit, to see if there were different parts available for different hammers, but found nothing conclusive.

My Ruger ( which is one of the hammers I was inspecting) is a series 70, I really am not sure if the Remington ( the spur hammer I had in my parts bin, and used in my comparison) is an 80 or a 70. Now, to satisfy my curiosity, I will take my Kimbers apart and compare them. The Kimbers are neither 70 or 80, but still have a firing pin safety.

I will say, one well used Kimber I have ( maybe 7000 rounds) has a nicer trigger than my Ruger, but the FP block on the Kimber ties to the grip safety.

I digress.

My guess is if the sear was matched to the spur hammer, all would be fine.

Again, thank you for the great explanation.

Rich

 

[Nathan]

Typically, series 70 type guns typically stop the sear higher in a captive notch and series 80 guns catch it lower and pulling the trigger will pull the sear free and drop the hammer...maybe without enough force to fire??

If this is bad info, please correct as this is all from memory. If I check my guns and I'm wrong, I'll try to remember to update.

BTW, Springfield actually uses the non-captive type and their guns would be 70 type.

 

[Jim Watson]

Heck, there are Springfield hammers with both a captive half cock AND a non-captive "safety stop."

Would you explain the difference if I said I loaded my pistol with a clip?
If so, I will explain what "Series 70" actually means.

 

[Nathan]

Would you explain the difference if I said I loaded my pistol with a clip?

So you have an M1 converted to pistol?


When I use the 70 or 80, I am referring to the generalized patten of 1911 which Colt calls by those numbers.....there, happy?

 

[RickB]

There are essentially two styles of half-cock, the original captive style, and the "shelf" introduced by Colt in the Series 80, as noted above.
As long as the notch/shelf does its job catching the hammer, the location and configuration doesn't really matter.

I've installed "Series 70" hammers in Series 80 guns, and swapping them back and forth is not an issue.
I prefer the philosophy of the captive half-cock to the "it won't fall hard enough to fire the gun . . . will it?" theory of the S80 shelf.

Colt collectors sometimes start frothing when "Series 70" is applied to trigger action, as it originally referred to the barrel and bushing in Colt Government Models and Gold Cups (only), but when Series 80 was introduced, everyone started calling any gun that didn't have a firing pin lock a "Series 70".
Even Colt joined in, as the new Series 70 Colts do not have the Accurizor barrel and bushing of the originals.

 

[Jim Watson]

Just because the twerp clerks at Sceins Asset Strippers Inc do not know the terminology of the company they have run into the ground is no excuse for an Internet Enthusiast to perpetrate the error.
If it isn't a hasn't got an Accurizor bushing, it ain't a Series 70. Even if it is a Colt.

 

[Unclenick]

So, when I got rid of the springy, unevenly contacting collet bushing on my Series '70 Goldcup and replaced it with a hand fitted and scraped solid bushing, I needed to grind the "Series '70" imprint off the slide?

 

[Jim Watson]

Probably should.
Or perhaps I should have said "If it did not come from Colt with a collet bushing, it is not a Series 70. Unless it is an early Series 80." so as to be correct about it.

And don't get me started on "bore diameter."