As a tool, are there any benefits to an SA over a DA?

[DMK]

Strictly looking at a revolver as a tool to get a job done, are there any benefits to a single action wheelgun over a double action?

For this discussion, let's ignore personal preference, heritage, coolness factor, Iwanna be like my favorite cowboy hero, etc.

The only possible advantage that I can see is that no matter how hard you pull that trigger, an SA gun can not be fired with the hammer down (perhaps on a live round with a modern SA like a Ruger Blackhawk with a hammer block for instance). You need two deliberate actions to fire it (cock hammer, pull trigger). So maybe it might be a slightly safer gun to throw in a tackle box or glove compartment, etc.

Any other thoughts? How about strength?

 

[MrMurphy]

Solid frame Peacemaker-type revolvers are stronger than many DA side-opening revolvers. This is whyt he superduper hot round custom guns are generally made on a Peacemaker design. Single action is easier to shoot for accuracy (rather than speed) for target and hunting, although for close range, DA can be very fast and very accurate.

 

[Nick96]

They are the simplest of repeating firearms. Few parts and the ability to keep using as is - or "jerry rigging" replacements even if some of them broke may have been an advantage in the 19th century - not so much a factor with modern firearms though. Talking about .22's - some come with interchangable cylinders from .22LR to .22Mag (maybe some others I am not aware of as well). Some find SA's to be more natural "pointers" than DA revolvers (if point shooting is your thing).

As far as safety & durability comparisons between modern SA's and DA's - I don't think there is much difference. Swing out the cylinder or just look for the rims in non-recessed chambers on DA revolvers. Whereas the SA has to be half cocked, gate opened and cylinder manually turned to inspect all the chambers (or - !! GASP !! - look down the front of the cylingers). With probably a few odd ball exceptions - no common production SA revolvers come to mind that are significantly stronger than an equivelent DA's. Logic would indicate that the simpler design of the SA would make it less costly to produce than a DA - but market forces are such that this really isn't the case in terms of what they actually sell for.

So I expect it boils down to personal preference more than anything else.

 

[Dienekes]

I think I would give the nod to (a good) DA revolver over a current SA. Compare a nice K or L frame S&W or a GP-100 and I think they will be just as rugged and durable as an SA...just don't flop the cylinder around.

I have used quite a few of both, and SAs are not infallible. The old Colt-style ones have flat springs, and the newer Rugers' loading gate interlock does too many things for my comfort. I replaced the v-spring on one recently when the original one lost tension. I have also had the odd ejector rod housing depart the gun on recoil on two SAs.

Of all the SAs I would chose the three-screw Rugers; probably the best of the bunch.

Probably the most trouble-free revolvers I know of are the old Ruger Security-Six series and their variants. Just like a Timex watch.

 

[Jim March]

Peak accuracy CAN be higher with an SA, given equal overall quality and cost with a DA.

On the DA, every time the cylinder is "swung in", it does a "realignment" with the barrel. On firing this alignment can shift slightly (even with a forward-latch gun like a Ruger or the Taurus "Raging" series lockwork). With the SA, these cylinder alignment issues are much more "locked down", when new, when somewhat used, even when firing.

The SA "roll in the hand" grip offers better recoil control for many folks; the Ruger "Bisley" has a particularly good rep in this regard. Ruger sells 44Mag SAs that weigh 10 - 12oz less than their lightest DA 44mags; without the crane hinge, the frame is much slimmer yet stronger for the same weight and the grips allow better recoil control for the gun's weight.

If you compare a Ruger Vaquero-Bisley at 39oz custom-chambered in 475Linebaugh with an S&W500 loaded "light" to duplicate 475L ballistics, and then shaved enough metal from the S&W X-Frame that you got it down to 39oz, there is NO way the S&W will be controllable. The custom Ruger will be at the ragged edge but it's still usable for fast and close wild animal defense or whatever. Not for the faint of heart but it's usable.

Toughness has been commented on. SAs can be rigged to function with large amounts of the gun missing - ejector housing, grip frame screwed up, even the trigger gone (set it to hammer-fire with just crude tools).

Finally, they have the fastest first-strike-speed of any handgun type. Master sixgunners can get controlled competition-class first shots off in under .3 seconds as a regular thing. This takes real dedication of course...but for most folks, a good belt holster will still let an SA be used pretty damn fast with moderate practice - you have to be committed to learning the type though.

So: more accuracy potential, lighter for the same amount of controllable power, tougher, can be kept running in crappy conditions...and faster for the first shot if you're willing to put the practice in.

They're not obsolete. I consider them superior for "woods carry" - again, if you're willing to put the time in first.

 

[zeke]

Ruger SA with 4 5/8 barrel-

1-fairly light with the aluminum grip frame
2-better recoil handling with heavy loads (with right grip)
3-Very sturdy and easy to maintain
4- PRICE. Try comparing to quality DA with same strength and weight
5-dependable and commonly available

 

[BluesBear]

Another big advantage to a traditional single action revolver is the ability to chamber it for ANY cartridge that can fit in the cylinder.
Since you have the ejector rod you don't need any of those pesky old moon clips.


And yet another plus is the ability to fit interchangable cylinders that can be swapped withiout tools. This way uyou can have a .357 Magnum fitted with a 9mm Cylinder. or .38 Super or even .380 (but I can't really imagine why)

.45 Colt with a .45acp Cylinder. Or a .45 Winchester magnum cylinder.

.38/40 with a 10mm cylinder or a .40S&W cylinder.

.30 Carbine with a .32 H&R magnum cylinder with would also enable using .32 S&W and .32 S&W Long (and possibly .32acp). You could even get a .32-20 cylinder.

 

[seeker_two]

In regards to DA vs. SA strength, SA's can usually handle more powerful loads in smaller, lighter packages than their DA counterparts. Just look at the .454 DA's offered by Ruger & Taurus in comparison to the 5-shot SA's from Freedom Arms, Bowen & Reeder. Even though you lose one shot in the cylinder, the size & weight savings are second to none.

For a big-bore packin' pistol, give me a SA anyday. For CCW in .357Mag or smaller (where one shot may not be enough), DA is the way to go.

 

[James Bondrock]

As a "beater" handgun, the SA (particularly the Ruger with its coil springs, as opposed to the Colt with its fatigue- and breakage-prone leaf springs) has a major advantage: there is less to go wrong with it. You have a heavy solid frame with a large pin running through the full length of and anchoring the cylinder, and simpler and stronger internal action parts. A DA revolver subjected to rough treatment can go out of time or get the cylinder yoke/crane or even the frame sprung/bent out of shape. As a self-defense handgun, the SA is slower to shoot (obviously, if you have ever watched the cowboy action shooters, this can be overcome with practice) and dreadfully slow to reload. The protruding hammer is a detriment to concealed carry, as it is prone to snagging. Still, if I had to, I would not hesitate to rely on my "old model" Blackhawk .45 convertible. With SAs of the original Colt or Ruger designs (no internal hammer block or transfer bar), you must keep the chamber under the hammer empty. If the hammer is all the way down on a chambered round, the firing pin will rest on the cartridge primer. If the hammer is struck somehow (usually the gun falls or is dropped, and the weight balance is such that it will spin in the air and land on the hammer), the round will go off. The safety notch (the first click that positions the hammer about 1/8" rearward of the frame) does not work very well. If the gun falls from more than a couple of feet, this notch can be sheared off on impact and the hammer will still hit the firing pin anyway. For almost all uses of such a handgun, however, the loss of one round is no big deal. Rugers made after 1973 (New Models) can be carried fully loaded safely.

 

[Hal]

How about strength?

Up to the .44magnum I believe the S/A has a $ vs power advantage.
(I'll call it "practical strength" as opposed to real mechanical advantage)

Beyond that power level, I believe the strength vs $$ level switches over to the D/A.
- .500 S&W magnum. I saw a D/A Smith yesterday priced @ $900. The dealer also had a Freedom Arms on the shelf - $1900.00.

- A Ruger SRH in .480 Ruger, or a .454 Raging Bull really doesn't have a S/A counterpart as an off the shelf item for under a grand.
A .45LC Ruger S/A can approach the power levels, but it's probably going to go south w/fewer rounds @ that level than a Raging Bull or SRH or RH in .45LC using similar loads. Customs like Bowens' can be had of course but you probably won't see it sitting on the average dealers' shelf.

- Probably the single most commonly seen used revolver. The K frame Smith and Wesson. If someone were to ask me what to buy for home defense w/out investing a bunch of money or time,,,,, a used Smith Model 10 or 19. Is a S/A stronger mechanicly? Sure. Is it stronger from a standpoint of how many .38spl practice rounds can go through it? Who cares. It's a nonissue. Generally, with just a small bit of looking, a 200/300 dollar used Model 10/19 is easy to find.

- Tackle box/trunk. hmm, tough one. Overall I think the D/A would fit more roles,,,,but the power nod would probably go to a S/A. My personal "go to" happens to be a S/A Blackhawk in .38/.357mag. Honestly? I dislike the gun. I sort of "gave it" to my son. Come vacation/camping time, it's the one that goes along. I believe I'm going to shelf it (make that -- give it back to the kid) though in favor of a D/A Model 19. Another "Go to" I use is also a S/A Davies derringer in .22lr. Now, flip a few things around and I'd probably "go to" my old H&R D/A convetible in .22lr/.22mag. Even in the no carry state of Ohio, just about every kid I grew up with slipped a D/A .22 H&R (usualy bought at Sears or Western Auto) in their coat pocket to run their trap lines.
Strengths - No question about it. This type of gun is one that's more destined to become a piece of rust or at the bottom of a lake than shot out. Also, there's the real possibility that this type of gun would be stolen. Again, I'd have to give the nod to the D/A here. Apples to Apples would be a .22lr Heritage Rough Rider vs a Comanche
( http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=76921 )
OTOH, a Ruger Single Six in .22LR is a better bargin than a Smith Kit Gun.

So -yes. Overall I believe a D/A has more "practical" strength than a S/A.
(Good topic. I had to really set aside a lot of personal preference for the S/A to look beyond just the nuts and bolts of it)
PS: (My kid will probably be happy to get his BH back

 

[Obiwan]

Target or Hunting Tool.....S/A

Defensive Tool ...D/A

All of the above...D/A

 

[biere]

I believe the ruger redhawk in 44 mag can chamber a longer round than the super black hawk in 44 mag can handle. I used to know but forget now.

I would buy a cheap nylon holster for whatever you get to keep anything from lodging in the barrel and what not, and therefore I don't think you need to worry about pulling the trigger since it will be covered by the holster.

I had a single and double action in 44 mag at the same time. I simply do better with the single action when it comes to aiming and hitting what I am aiming at. My use is for carry around my place to shoot varmints or go plinking. I don't need quick reloads for this as one shot is all I get at a varmint before it is moving and gonel.

I see no need to worry about strength unless you are going to get a top break revolver or have one modified such as some of the conversions of the super black hawks to 5 shot 454 casull or whatever it is.

One thing about the tool description that comes to mind is I like something simple and solid and to me the single action is better at that than a double action. Of course that only works if the single action is an acceptable tool for the job.

 

[Jim March]

Sorry, but comparing an FA to the S&W500 and remarking on how much more expensive the FA is doesn't make sense.

Regardless of anything else, the FA is a higher-quality, far more "precise" and handfitted gun. The cylinder is line-bored to the barrel - that means that the cylinder bores aren't put in until the gun is otherwise finished. The cylinder bores are EXACTLY mated to that gun's frame and barrel dimensions.

FA makes some of the most accurate revolvers in the world.

The S&W500 is a damned good gun, but seen purely as an excercise in the art of fine machining, it ain't an FA.

 

[BluesBear]

YEAH, er, um, What Jim March said.

Now I am not disparaging the S&W. It's a good gun. If I was still Young, Dumb and full of C... er, um, Fun I'd probably have to have one.


If all you need is a machine to launch a projectile that's all well and good. The S&W will do the job and you'll probably get your money's worth.

If you are desiring of finer machinery that will do the job longer and better then you can see the value of the Freedom Arms.



A Cadillac Sedan DeVille will get you from point A to point B. So will a Geo Metro. The value of the journey is up to you.

 

[Hal]

Neither of you read past the first few words of my post.

'sides arguing the supposed merits of a firearm which as far as I can tell can't even be purchased in Califonia is a bit beyond asinine.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

Single action revolvers of standard size are exempt from the California drop test requirements.