GP100 hammer modification

[NormNip]

For the sake of lightening the hammer, can anyone see why one couldn't file away the part at the bottom of the hammer that's been marked in black?

 

[roylt]

I'm no gunsmith and I don't know the answer to your question but what benefit would you get from it? Just trying to understand your thoughts.

 

[Pinecone]

Nothing at all to be "gained" and just might get you looking for a "new" hammer! The strut pocket of the hammer needs that forward metal to insure leverage without "slippage". There are a lot of "Cadillac" gunsmiths out there who get into lightning parts just to be doing something "cool"! The hammer was engineered to do a certain job and that includes it's "weight"......................Dick :wink:

 

[NormNip]

What I'm trying to confirm here is just part of what I hope/dream to do in skeletonizing my GP100 hammer. If you look at some posts about hammer mods you'll get the idea that lightening the hammer can help significantly in minimizing light primer strikes when deciding to use a lighter hammer spring and therefore lighter trigger pull. The Ruger hammer is a brick.

I just can't see a problem with this step but I hate to dive in without feedback as I am just a 'kitchen table' gunsmith (I believe that's even lower in rank than a cadillac gunsmith). So thanks for your posts!

 

[Pinecone]

NormNip, As I mentioned above, take out that bottom bevel and your hammer strut/spring is not going to stay in it's pocket! I have been gunsmithing for 44 + years and I give out information according to "my" experience as a gunsmith. Not something I read about that somebody else has done. I have given you "my" recommendation, do with it what you will!..................Dick :wink:

 

[NormNip]

Pinecone,

Thanks for your persistence. I am listening. Even though I was going to try it on an old gp100 hammer first, you got me so scared straight I likely not even try that now.

After reading your post, I dry fired my GP100 upside down, looking at the interaction of hammer and strut. I still can't see how the strut could slip out but I'm going to take your word for it. Thanks again. You gotta love the forums!

 

[Pinecone]

NormNip, I may be a little harsh at times, but just usually trying to save people grief and money. I have seen too many ruined gun parts in my time to feel any other way. I have posted many times on "locktime" but will do so again. It's one of the most "overated" myths going! Other gunsmiths and shooters may disagree but that's what makes the world go around! Some believe hammers have "too much" metal in them. Evidently the engineers and manufacturers don't or that metal wouldn't be there. I totally agree with their stance! Too take metal off to gain 1/3 of 1/10 of a second in lock time (.033mili seconds) is absolutely fruitless as I have discovered in my past experimenting. You and I and the average "Joe Shooter" have "reaction" time that is much slower than that. That .033ms is eaten up way before any good comes of it! For the great competition shooters like an Ed McGivern, Rob Leathem, Doug Koenig, etc., etc. that .033ms might turn out to be significant but for you and I it isn't! I say that after having sent tens of thousands of various rounds down range in my time. It would be interesting to know just how many GP-100's have had to have a hammer "retro-fit" by Ruger because of amateur tinkering. Too much liability floating around today to put it to the test! I recommend spending your money on ammo and your time shooting it. If you want to gain an edge in accurate shooting "after" a tune up of parts, develope "your" shooting technique into something you will be satisfied with!........................Dick :wink:

 

[NormNip]

Thanks again, Pinecone. Although my goal was to be able to use the lightest hammer spring possible without creating FTFs, your words still apply. And although I do have an old hammer to experiment with, good, used Ruger hammers are hard to find indeed - and expensive!

 

[Thel]

NormNip:

Over at the other Ruger Forum is posted a picture of a hammer and where to lighten if you decide to go ahead:

http://rugerforum.net/attachments/gunsmithing/1863-gp100-hammer-modification-hammermod.jpg

And here is a thread on the subject the above being a picture of the hammer:

http://rugerforum.net/gunsmithing/9908-gp100-hammer-modification.html

One person noted for competition light hammers is Randy Lee of Apex Tactical. He makes hammers for the larger frame Smiths and has achieved DA pulls of around 4 lbs on game guns. I think somewhere is mentioned he built a carry 66 with a DA of about 6 lbs. On one of the Ruger forums there is a person who had him do a GP-100 with normal hammer that has a DA of about 7.5 lbs. This can be achieved without a hammer reduction as I have a GP with a 7.4 lb DA and an action job with light springs. If one wanted to push the limits I would suspect for a game gun you could get down in the 5 lb range with a polished interior and the right springs and decent firing pin protrusion.

Oh, the Apex site is at:

http://www.apextactical.com/

 

[NormNip]

Thel,

If all else fails I'll definitely consider Apex to skeletonize my hammer. I'm glad you mentioned they've worked on a Ruger because the Apex website seems to just mention S&W and H&K - I did burn my way through there rather too fast though.

The photo you included is Iowegan's. You can also find my photo posted in a more current part of that thread. IMO, only someone of Iowegan's caliber could go to the outer limits of his diagram without cutting into the hammer dog channel or hammer dog plunger hole or getting too close to the strut pivot. My photo is what I'd be comfortable with(except for that last dot nearest the strut pivot - I think I've got it too close). With the hammer in the fired position you wouldn't see any holes; it would look just like an ordinary hammer.

Thanks for your input.

[/img]

[/img]

 

[Jimbo357mag]

Removing weight near the top of the hammer would be the most effective. 8) 8)

...Jimbo

 

[NormNip]

Hi Jimbo,

Over 6,000 posts? Good grief! When do you find time to eat?

Of course, your idea would work and would be far easier to accomplish than worrying about where to drill this superhard stuff (50-51 Rockwell hardness) but I would want to be able to still do single action. Also I like the hammer theory of more mass on top.

I've just found out that a way to drill holes is by EDM(Electrical Discharge Machining) where hardness is not a problem. Apparently there's more than one kind of EDM. You've gotta find a small machining company who will do small jobs like this affordably.

Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[flatgate]

Hi Jimbo,

Over 6,000 posts?

Hmm, well, I hit 6000 posts..... and then some......



flatgate

 

[NormNip]

Show off! :lol:

 

[Ale-8(1)]

He had a big head start . . .

 

[NormNip]

OK, I see what's going on here - you're all just adding to your count! If I keep this up I'll pass you guys by in a week or two!