That is all good information and helpful. Thank you. However it might be speaking to the design and strength of the spring itself, rather than the hammer position in relation to the nipple when the hammer is at rest.
Here's a picture.
Davis Hawken lock and Griffith breech below. The top of the lock plate is roughly on the bore centerline. The hammer cup at rest is very low in relation to the nipple. If the lock and barrel were in a stock like this, the hammer would be preloaded quite a bit when sitting in the nipple.

Same setup here but I've pulled the hammer back to about where the cup would rest in the nipple. Lots of hammer preload. But the cup is shallow so I'd probably want to deepen it so it covers more of the nipple and cap.

Here's a different one. Griffith lock and breech. Bottom of blue tape is a hair lower than depth of the hammer cup. The hammer seems too tall and/or the cup is too deep. Setting the top of the lock plate line on the bore centerline causes the hammer cup to not hit the nipple at all.... I'd need to bend the hammer nose down. How much? Just enough to have it rest on the nipple rather than the bridle, or enough so that the hammer is preloaded similarly to the Davis lock hammer?

For the Griffith lock, I think I'd have to bend the hammer rather than moving the lock plate down... Doing the latter would put the lock much too low and would throw off the gun geometry
The Griffith lock spring is super strong by the way. Stronger than the Davis. Maybe because I asked him to leave some meat on it.