M92 Miroku rebounding Hammer

1

1100 tac

New member
Would like to hear comments concerning this "feature", personally, I seem to feel the springback when I fire and I cant say I care for it. :(
 
It can be removed and filled in if you don't like it. Turnbull can do this type of work and you'd never know it was there to begin with. I have an 1886 Win/Miroku they did and it now sports the original type hammer and the safety hole is filled, CC to match gun, and the trigger is a nice crisp 3 lbs for a good shooing hunting gun. FWIW, before getting it done is shot just as well and I never had a problem with it. I did it simply to get it back to original when I took it to them to CC the frame, cap, hammer, trigger guard, trigger, etc. Wasn't that much more to do the entire project. I don't think it's worth the money just to remove that feature alone. You won't see a difference in performance.
 
That's good to know. I don't mind the rebounding hammer but I detest the tang safety.

Do you know what Turnbull charges for just that safety work?
 
Do you know what Turnbull charges for just that safety work?
Click to expand...
Not off hand. However, they're pretty helpful over the phone. I've had them work on three different guns for me and the quality of the work is absolutely outstanding.
 
I dislike the rebounding hammer, personally.

It requires additional force to cycle the action & affects trigger pull.
Denis
 
Too late, they already fixed what ain't broke.

What was the (supposed) benefit of the rebounding hammer?
 
Too late, they already fixed what ain't broke.

What was the (supposed) benefit of the rebounding hammer?
Click to expand...

I think it was corporate lawyers who just wanted to say they did all they could so you couldn't hurt yourself with the product they made. These idiots should stay out of the design stage of production.
 
The "benefit" was allowing (or forcing) the hammer to ride back off the firing pin & blocked from striking it if the gun were dropped on the hammer or otherwise got a good smack on that hammer.

Idea was chambered carry in a "safer" manner.

With two opposing spring actions, the mainspring has to be stiffer to drive the hammer forward with sufficient force to overcome the rebounding "spring" for reliable ignition.

That results in the lever requiring more force to cycle the action against a harder-sprung hammer, and it also tends to create a heavier trigger pull.
Denis
 
The rebound hammer is not actually the safety or hammer block itself, but the hammer has to rebound to allow the safety to work.

The original "safety" was the half-cock notch and Browning firmly believed that in a gun with an exposed hammer no other safety was needed. He went with what the Army wanted in putting the thumb and grip safeties on the M1911 pistol, but he didn't think either was necessary.

Jim
 
Yep, I was just addressing the "benefit" & what it does to the design that I dislike, without getting into the full mechanics of the design. :)

The hammer rebounds back far enough to allow an automatic internal "safety" block to engage that the trigger has to release before the hammer can go fully forward to hit the firing pin again.
Denis
 
Thanks guys, I ordered a new strut from Browning, will wait until it gets here before I modify the one that's in it.
 
The rebound hammer is not actually the safety or hammer block itself, but the hammer has to rebound to allow the safety to work.
Click to expand...

Beretta is using that same system on the new S&W repros, only it doesn't work all that well. The hammer doesn't rebound far enough to let the blocking mechanism interfere between the frame and hammer after you fire the gun. I suppose it doesn't matter since the gun is SA anyway, but it's just annoying to see half-assed "lawyer" devices installed in guns that don't really need them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top