No announcement yet.

questions on early hammers ?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    questions on early hammers ?

    Just asking if there is any original data sheets on Springfield 1940 rifles that show a "side marked" revision 2 hammer ?

    Also, any data that might include a Winchester hammer with the extra hole ? Click image for larger version

Name:	P1010032_0029.jpg
Views:	125
Size:	90.9 KB
ID:	36301

    Those side marked -2sa hammers are very hard to find in my book. It must have been a very short window, sort of like the -9 followers. Any idea when the cutoff was for the extra hole WRA hammers?


      Just looking for a data that would show a side marked rev 2 hammer. have been advised that my 41K restoration could have one.

      There is no cut-off for the Winchester hammer with extra hole because there isn't a beginning. My photos show WRA 100,001 of a data sheet
      from Scott Duff and friends. You can be sure if there was a WRA hammer with the extra hole it would be listed Click image for larger version

Name:	dscn1666.jpg
Views:	130
Size:	782.6 KB
ID:	36307 Click image for larger version

Name:	dscn1667.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	763.0 KB
ID:	36308 Click image for larger version

Name:	dscn1668.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	764.4 KB
ID:	36309 Click image for larger version

Name:	dscn1669.jpg
Views:	108
Size:	749.1 KB
ID:	36310


        Here is a photo of the follower and slide in Winchester 100,001 taken recently by the owner.

        Over the years collectors have come up with different thoughts about the Winchester hammers with the extra hole. Some think they were hammers from Springfield without markings ? others think they were faked while others thing they were only spare parts (like the S marked sear)
        Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN3701.jpg
Views:	128
Size:	3.21 MB
ID:	36313 Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN3699.jpg
Views:	111
Size:	3.14 MB
ID:	36314


          Mr. Seccombe,
          WRA 107,792 has what I believe to be its original trigger group with an extra hole hammer.
          in contrast, the hammer in WRA 104,805 does not have the extra hole.


            Your Winchester 107,792 is the first rifle that I know about, that was found with the extra hole WRA hammer, thanks for posting this information. Any details on where this rifle came from would also be important as well how correct for the time period. Winchester 104,805 and 105,845 still had the comp spring and keystone spring which I would doubt would be in 107,792.

            It can be very difficult with the passage of time to really determine if a rifle is original, had some parts changed/replaced or is a restoration.

            I remember Winchester 100,180 that surfaced at Tulsa a few years ago, almost correct and the Pucci Winchester 1,200.001 missing the stock and trigger housing.

            Also, what really needs to be done is a study of the Winchester hammers with the extra hole with a comparison to the Springfield hammers with the extra hole. this would include the machining patterns, milling marks and profiles. Also keep in mind these Winchester hammers with the extra hole could have been faked too, as these hammers have been around about twenty years. Bodyman first displayed the Winchester hammer with the extra hole years ago and soon after the east coast collectors displayed them too.

            What I am stating is that you really need to show s/n 107,792 in detail
            Last edited by RCS; 07-02-2022, 08:50 AM.


              I'm not an SA expert, however it appears it would be correct for a 41K SA rifle to have a revision 2 hammer, face marked. Revision 2 hammers may have been available for production in the earliest weeks of 1940. Billy Pyle's book shows face marked -2SA hammers on selected serials in the 38K to 50k range. Face marked -2 were produced before front marked -2, hopefully that isn't at question. Paul can weigh in here much better than me.

              Anyway, as you know I'm more interested in the WRA hammers with a hole.

              When 100,001 was assembled sometime late 1940, but no later than January 10th, 1941, Winchester had already produced hammers with and without holes, so both were options and it is unfair to argue that hole or no hole is right or wrong. How and in what sequence WRA hammers with holes were assembled is unknown. The purist likely demands that hammer production sequence was perfectly correlated to rifle assembly sequence, the reality is that they weren't but it would be a fair assumption that the hammers with holes were generally assembled and shipped in early WRA M1 Rifles. Why?

              Winchester didn't produce "No Hole" -> "Hole" -> "No Hole", there is documentation to support this. Again, we must caution on part production sequence to pure assembly sequence, it is a general assumption but we may mislead ourselves by subscribing to 100% absolute.

              If I was restoring a WRA EO M1 Rifle I would seek to put a WRA hammer with a hole in it, but it doesn't have to be, 100,001 tells us that. I love 100,001, we are fortunate that it exists, we have and can learn so much from it. There was a photo published in The Garand Stand some few years ago of a picture taken on January 10th, 1941 at Winchester. The WRA M1 Rifle in the photo didn't have a hammer with a hole and only 100 M1 Rifles from Winchester had been shipped against the EO Contract when that photo was taken. So you put whatever WRA hammer in in your early restoration what you like, it just has to be of the early variant. Much after the first couple thousand I'd be less inclined to put a WRA hammer with a hole in a restoration. If 100,002 surfaced in 100% original condition anyone want to bet if it had a hole or not in the hammer?