1911 hammer designs to lower mainspring weight.

I have modified the hammer and firing pin retainer to lower the mainspring effect on recoil on my 1911s. My intent is to have as high a recoil spring weight as possible. In addition I've built my Homemade .22 conversion using a S2 tool steel slide. It is 2oz. heavier than my Nelson slide. In addition I put an Aluminum scope mount with iron sight from Nelson. As per him it was the only one he had, claims the aluminum mount don't sell. It is quite a bit lighter than the standard steel mount he sells. So the weight of the gun with aluminum scope mount is about the same as the Nelson with steel mount.
 All works well with CCI standard velocity ammo but not SK they don't eject. I also intend to make a longer ejector but the one installed is working fine. (it's a modified 1911 style ejector) I have a 16lb main spring in the gun but flat faced hammer I stole from my ball gun.
 I'm wondering what others are using or what might be available in hammer designs to help lower mainspring weight on the slide. Higher the contact the slide has with the hammer the greater the mechanical advantage the slide has in pushing the hammer back.
 Any suggestions? I have the hammer back in the attached photo, I intend to re-blue the gun after testing, possibly shorten the barrel. Currently there iis no firing pin in the gun due to me testing extraction using live rounds.

Supposedly some pistolsmiths in the past removed some material low on the hammer face to help overcome the mainspring.

Cammer Hammer offers a variation on this theme.  https://www.cammertechnologies.com/

Thanks Sa-tevp!  I have a few GI hammers I might try and modify to a similar design as the Cammer Hammer. I was thinking of doing something like that. I have a few blank hammers I had wired from AR500 steel plate. I'll do some work on CAD to see what's the best radius.

Some old threads:

https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t19914-any-one-try-the-cammer-hammer

https://www.bullseyeforum.net/t18436-1911-hammer-mod-for-improved-cycling

https://www.1911addicts.com/threads/cammer-easy-rack-hammer.153599/

Image posted by Gregg Derr in the last link:

Is the upper part of your hammer making any (possible) contact with the slide? I see some scrapes on the side of the hammer. The C&S ultra match hammer is relieved for that purpose.

My hammer does not hit the slide, being that I made the slide I cut the slot a little wider since there is no firing pin retainer in a Nelson conversion nor a typical 1911 extractor. My intent is to lower the force on the side via the main spring. My recoil spring if memory is correct is a Wolff 6 pound variable rate 1911 spring that I cut a few coils off to get lock-back with CCI ammo. I'm hoping I can get lock-back using SK match ammo by changing the hammer design. I do not have ignition problems.
 I did some drawings on AutoCad. The hammer on the left I don't like. as the slide is going back the bottom will now reach the upper end of the hammer but that tight radius will require more force just as the recoil spring is nearing max. weight as well as the main spring. The other hammer on the right is better. I did find that a 5/32" radius cut .80 deep followed by a 34° angle to the hammer face is best!
 However I'm at home due to light snow so I don't have the Nelson slide. If my memory is correct the firing pin protrudes out the back. My conversion the pin does protrude out the back and if the top of the hammer is being pushed it will push the firing pin against the round and off the extractor hook! I'm not sure if the .22 firing pin can be made to function with inertia like the 1911 pin. I'm using a Nelson firing pin that was shortened due to the rear of the slide is about 1/4" shorter than the Nelson. Maybe if I make a Tungsten firing pin I can get it to work with inertia!

I just purchased a 12" length of pure Tungsten, 1/4" Diameter to make firing pin. I looked at Nelson slide. Firing pin is similar to other pistols in that it's like the 1911 FP it's shorted than the length it's installed in and when flush with the hammer side it will not touch the primer on the other.side It relies on inertia to overcome spring tension to travel the necessary distance to ignite the primer. I intend to shorten the Nelson FP I modified because I reduced the rear of the slide length so as the barrel could extend closer to the magazine. Wanting to alter Hammer design to allow greater advantage to compress main spring I need the FP to be flush with the rear of the slide. Adam having issues with his Nelson conversion firing pin when mounted on an Accuracy X frame (don't think the frame has anything to do with the problem and mention it simply because that's how it's mounted).
 I will modify my Nelson FP so as to allow inertia to complete the task but as I shorten length, weight is lowered too. I thought if I made a tungsten FP it will be much better since Tungsten is dam near 2.5X that of steel, it's also more than lead! I did screw-up, when looking for Tungsten on ebay I found none available in the length needed until one shows-up! In my haste I ordered only to find it's in Israel and be over a month for delivery. Looking again at the item I continued my error in that it's Tungsten Carbide! Mad at myself I ordered a 99.95% pure Tungsten rod 12" long for $53 so slightly less  than 3" will cost $13.25 if anyone is interested in the extra 3" (minus saw cut) length. If it works great I might order a few rods and make some Nelson length Tungsten Firing Pins. If anyone is interested let me know.

Fair warning, tungsten is brittle. Not an ideal material to take direct impacts.

I looked at Tungsten in McMaster-Carr. The Ultra-Dense Tungsten they have is chemically pure tungsten and what I assume is near the 99.95% pure tungsten I purchased has a hardness of Rockwell C35, tough but not very hard. Other online sights agree, listing pure tungsten at Rockwell C31. A file is in the upper C50s range.

Frank,
I have a hammer im not using that does what you were asking in your original post. PM me if you are interested.

Message sent

A few tips on machining tungsten:  It work hardens VERY quickly.  Don't pause or take light cuts or you are toast.  Back around 1975, I used a piece to made a compact barrel weight for a Browning Medalist that would fit inside a custom walnut fore-end.  

Cutting the chunk of "easy to machine" tungsten (I think it had a small amount of copper in it) down to size was a lengthy battle.  I used a hack saw, and it was taking forever using standard hardware store "shatterproof" blades.  I went home over Christmas, and continued to saw it down, but I used my father's hacksaw.  It zipped right through it.  It had a very old "shatterable" carbon steel blade that was a LOT harder than what I had been using.

I needed to drill a hole for the mounting screw.  I had asked one of the top machinists at Polaroid if he had suggestions, and he said use a new high speed steel drill bit, lots of cutting fluid, and just go for it.  The result was very undramatic compared with my hacksaw adventures.

Normally I use carbide cutters in my lathe, I do have a number of carbide drills designed for hard metals but for the firing pin I don't need to make a hole. Yes I do have to cut a length off the 12" long bar but I only buy and have the top of the line hacksaw blades like Starrett and others. To put the notch for the retaing pin in the 1/4" diameter side on the FP I have every size below 1/2" solid carbide end mills. I use and like very much solid carbide end mills!
 When I get the rod, tracking on ebay has them being shipped, I will report here how difficult it was to cut and if cracking is a problem so others can make a Tungsten Firing Pin. I also see in McMaster Tungsten alloyed with copper is only C20 in hardness.

Hi Frank,
99.9% tungsten is what green tip TIG rods are made of and are very brittle. I used 1/4" electrodes to weld 1"thk CNC 4 position tombstones. I've only ground the tips and never tried to machine electrodes. Bad choice for a FP.
Endmills and lathes tools are made of Tungsten Carbide and are very brittle and hard - C70+. Have only ground them on a diamond wheel and are a very bad choice for a FP.
I have also machined a lot of sintered carbide (dry), but the parts were not "impact type" parts. Don't know it would work for a FP.
Why not use S7 which is made for impact applications?
Just my .02,
Wes

I use a lot of Tungsten Carbide, know it well. I don't intend to use Tungsten Carbide that is very hard and brittle. I know there are much softer grades but simply put Tungsten Carbide is not to be used. I do like and use solid carbide end mills! Just about all my lathe tool bits use carbide inserts.  I have a TIG welder and have the Tungsten electrodes. I'm trying the Tungsten because it's listen in the C30s hardness range. Worst thing that can happen is the firing pin brakes and I have to make one from steel maybe AR500, I do have S2 also. The reason to try Tungsten is weight, its heavier than lead and about 2.5X heavier than steel. My brother was making competition darts from Tungsten, again for weight, didn't have a cracking problems nor did any ever crack.
 I'll make one for my homemade conversion, if it works another for My Nelson and Adam's Nelson.

Why not grind a 5/32" electrode to the size of a Nelson FP and try it?
I'll send a picture of a Chuck Warner relieved hammer tomorrow. Works great on my conversion.

5/32"???? I purchased 3 Firing pins from Nelson as well as the springs. The hammer side of a Nelson firing pin is 1//4", 1/4" side has a slot milled in .050" for the retaining pin. I don't have that large electrodes, 1/4" is quite large don't think I have 5/32" either, probably largest I have is 1/8" One of the Nelson Firing Pins I shortened as described earlier but that was on the .090" side. Don't remember what diameter the spring fits, that might be 5/32" or 3/16"

It seems that once the tungsten FP is moving, it will strike the case with more energy, but won't it also require more energy from the hammer to get it to move due to its greater mass?

DA/SA wrote:It seems that once the tungsten FP is moving, it will strike the case with more energy, but won't it also require more energy from the hammer to get it to move due to its greater mass?

Conservation of momentum affirms this^^^^

I always thought the primer is detonated through a chemical reaction that depends on kinetic energy, which is a function of mass, but also the velocity^2, and the rate of energy transfer across impacting interfaces. Energy transfer is affected by the coefficient of restitution at the hammer-FP interface, and the FP-primer cup interface. Lightweight hammer and firing pin designs (capable of reaching the highest relative velocities), with high COR values, would seem to me to be a logical choice. Also, the angle at which the hammer makes contact with the axis of the FP would be important, and the FP spring rate. Obviously, with the right spring, one could prevent the FP from ever reaching the primer. In the conversion, I'm not sure if you have a FP spring or if it is more of an AR design.

In "high power" (rifle) circles, some folks use titanium firing pins, so they are going in the opposite direction.  This is partly to reduce the mass to avoid slam fires.  If you want the hammer impact to transmit the maximum force to the primer, I would think a zero mass, infinitely rigid, pin would be best.

I would assume the heavier FP weight would require more energy to start movement and there for when movement is countered by the brass rim have greater energy to compress it. FP travel in Nelson conversion is limited so FR doesn't strike the barrel. Spring and hammer weight in the 1911 is quite a bit larger than the FP. Without doing some rather involved math my assumption is there will be enough energy transferred to the FP so forward speed will be the same or dam near the same as the lighter FP in the travel distance the hammer makes with the FP before hitting the slide. In addition the FP in a 45acp 1911 is larger therefore heavier than the Nelson steel pin so there is enough energy provided by the hammer to overcome any additional weigh provided by Tungsten.
 As to lock time I think it's not an issue in pistol but rifle the range is greatly increased. In addition no bolt action rifle as I mentioned earlier uses inertia to transfer energy to the primer that I know of but is possible. Spring pressure is applied directly to the primer by the FP.
 As I mentioned before simplest way to find out is make the Tungsten FP and try it. It will either be better or just equal to the steel FP. Possibly Tungsten being to brittle will crack and therefore be eliminated as suitable FP material. My guess is it will not crack or that there might be an alloy using Tungsten that will work. I could be wrong and that the lower Rockwell hardness will not prevent cracking, Graphite used in pencils is soft and easily abraded by paper yet will crack when excessive force is applied. Therefore I could be wrong about the strength of Tungsten that is C35 or C30. The test dive will answer that question.

Material selection and design of a firing pin have competing requirements especially in autoloading pistols. A 1911 is an inertia firing pin balanced by a spring.  So the mass of the firing pin has to enough to overcome the spring but the mass cannot be high enough to allow for inertia of breech closing to fire the round.

That's true Wobbley but slide forward speed is much lower than hammer strike. Hammer hitting the FP can easily launch a pencil out of the barrel, yet if a pencil were put in open slide and allowed to close I doubt it will get out of the barrel. Another function of the FP spring is to insure retraction. Even less if a pencil were put on a loaded round in the magazine and slide released, slide will close much slower!

Hybrid ball bearings use silicon nitride (Si3N4) rolling elements, very common now in many high-load and high-speed applications. I wonder how they would fare as a mainspring plug/hammer strut/hammer/firing pin combination? Modern mfg. techniques will easily hold the required tolerances. Silicon nitride has very high fracture toughness, larger than tool steel. It is also harder. Far less expensive and higher quality than when they first appeared decades ago. It would be interesting to see if a silicon nitride-based 1911 ignition system (of identical dimensions to current steel products) would "launch" (no pun intended) a pencil to greater heights?

Very few people know that the hybrid angular contact BB saved the space shuttle's high-pressure oxydizer turbo pump (HPOTP) bearing (pump side) problem, and thus the entire shuttle program itself, in the early 1990s. Until then, it did not meet the 7.5 hr TBOs, so Congress was going to shut the program down. The tribology team at Pratt only made it by a few weeks, IIRC.