Auto safety Release (patent Pending)

[Zaydok Allen]

No, I wrote it to mean exactly as you read it - the hammer face in many transfer bar models have a recess so the hammer "nose" rests against the frame and the recess provides clearance over the firing pin until the transfer bar raises into place.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I'll have to look at my SP101 more closely later tonight.

The Smith & Wesson hammer block safety, or other rebounding hammer models are NOT transfer bars, they are hammer blocks - these have a recess in the frame and a flat faced hammer - that is NOT a transfer bar, they're hammer blocks.

That I am aware of, and was not referring to Smiths when I posted. I was thinking of Rugers, but you clarified that for me. Thanks.

 

[Jim K]

Just for fun, there are other ways to run that railroad. Back a ways on this site, I described the old Hopkins and Allen Safety Police this way:

"I can only say that my Safety Police says "SAFETY POLICE" on the top strap. The barrel is marked "THE HOPKINS AND ALLEN ARMS CO./NORWICH CONN.USA PAT'D AUG. 21 1908", Serial is E7413, on the front strap. Those are the only markings; there are no markings under the grips.

The unique Safety Police feature is that the hammer is on an eccentric and moves up and down as it is cocked, either DA or SA. It rests in the upward position, where the hammer nose is above the frame-mounted firing pin and the gun cannot be fired by striking the hammer. When the hammer is cocked, it moves down, and can strike the firing pin. It is easy to see this action simply by cocking the hammer or pulling the trigger.

AFAIK, no other revolver ever used that system, even though it seems to be a good one."

Jim

 

[Jim Watson]

Fascinating gimmick. Said to not be as durable as transfer bar or hammer block.
Maybe if one of the Big Names had refined it.

 

[Theohazard]

I'm a little late to the show here, but I want to chime in that I think this is a terrible idea. No offense Erhan, because you apparently have engineering skills that are way above average.

Like others have said, you don't want a defensive firearm that requires you to manually cock the hammer when drawing from the holster. But to me, that's not the worst part about this. Am I correct that activating this safety requires pulling the trigger while you push down on the rear sight? This is horribly unsafe and is a terrible design.

Any manual of arms that requires pulling the trigger with a round in the chamber is a very bad idea. This is one of the reasons Condition 2 is so frowned upon with single-action pistols. Sure, with your design the gun won't fire if you're pressing down on the rear sight, but what happens if you're in a hurry and don't press down hard enough, or you forget to press down at all?

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

Is this mechanical add-on that interferes with the factory designed operation of a pistol (insert make, model, type, action, etc here) an answer to a question that even needed to be asked?

I am not seeing the benefit at all, and a whole slew of downside.

I think keeping your finger off the go button in the case of a DAO or NON "On-Off" gun is sufficient to the purpose, and and disengaging the safety during the draw stroke on an "On-Off" gun is likewise sufficient to the purpose.

The wheel...I just don't see where it needs to be reinvented.

Maybe I am just old fashioned.