Did they really load just five rounds?

[.308 Norma]

I've mentioned before that the first year Ruger came out with those little Blackhawks chambered for the .32 H&R Magnum, my wife and I bought one for my dad for Christmas. Naturally it is a "New Model" with a transfer bar, yet Dad always carried it with an empty chamber under the hammer - because that's the way HIS dad taught him to carry a "six-shooter."
I'm 74 now, and Dad's been gone for 15 years. Mom made sure my wife and I got that Ruger .32 H&R back before she passed, and as long as my wife and I are still around, it will never be fully loaded with 6 rounds - because that's the way my dad taught me, because that's the way his dad taught him.
BTW, my granddad was a genuine cowboy. He spent his whole life around horses and cattle, couldn't read or write anything other than his own name, and I actually remember when my dad tried to teach him to drive - it was a disaster.
Edited to say - even though Dad's Ruger .32 H&R will never be loaded with 6 rounds as long as my wife and I are around, both she and I have several new model (with transfer bars) Ruger Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks, and we load each and every one of them with 6 rounds. That's not the way Dad "taught me" of course, but I'm sentimental about Dad's Ruger .32 H&R, I'm not silly about it.

 

[Slamfire]

I think the five in the chamber is more of a modern myth, to "nudge" owners of SAA pistols towards a safety practice that was not followed extensively, if at all, in the old West. By convincing owners that they are simply doing what the old gun fighters were doing, firearms companies reduce the potential for lawsuits. Nudge theory is very well developed

Nudge theory

A nudge makes it more likely that an individual will make a particular choice, or behave in a particular way, by altering the environment so that automatic cognitive processes are triggered to favour the desired outcome

If someone can find a Colt owners manual prior to 1920 that recommends hammer down on an empty chamber, then I am going to claim, only those who figured out hammer down on a round in the chamber was dangerous, followed that practice. You know, few people are all that mechanical, and can't figure these things on their own. And time and again, as you have seen on these very pages, denial is intrinsic to the human nature. I argue safety all the time with deniers. Elmer Keith had a section in one of his books, about the frustration he had convincing others that a Colt SAA would discharge if hit on the hammer, or dropped. As I recall, he gave an account of a Cowboy who in a thicket, had a branch raise the hammer, and the gun discharged in the holster.

Safety was a low priority before product malpractice lawsuits. Take a look at the risks period shooters took with period weapons, and thought nothing of it! The Marlin 1898 Shotgun was carried at half cock, and, if the user bumped the action wrong, the bolt would blow out when fired.

Working with Marlin Pump Shotguns Rusty Marlin SASS #33284

http://marauder.homestead.com/files/Marlin98s.htm#_Toc5766673



And I don't think "five in the bean" was well known even in the 1960's Somewhere I have a 1960's American Rifleman which has an account of an owner of a three screw Ruger Super Blackhawk in 44 Mag. This guy was on a horse back trip, like 20 miles from no where, and something hit the hammer of that Ruger and it discharged right through his thigh. And he made it back. He was warning American Rifleman readers not to carry the pistol with a round under the hammer.

This will sure make a big hole in your thigh:



Believe what you want to believe: you are not going to do anything different anyway.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

This will sure make a big hole in your thigh:

And bone fragments. Not just a hole.

 

[eddiememphis]

"One replies". Who? What an idiot.

Who are you accusing of idiocy? Me? Or the unknown character in an apocryphal story?

 

[eddiememphis]

If someone can find a Colt owners manual prior to 1920 that recommends hammer down on an empty chamber...

Did guns come with owners manuals back then?

 

[aaaaa]

Who are you accusing of idiocy? Me? Or the unknown character in an apocryphal story?

Think he means who is the one who replies. So one of the Texas Rangers. But I think it was meant to be a smart aleck response. Perhaps he didn't want to bother giving the real explanation.

 

[derek45]

My black powder 1851 Colt Navy, 1860 Colt Army, and Remington New Model Army, all have a provision for resting the hammer BETWEEN the caps.

I have always wondered why this feature was eliminated on the 1873 SAA

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I have posted these photos many times before, but obviously they need to be posted again.

This is a 2nd Gen Colt Single Action Army, completely taken apart.






These are the lock parts. Take a look at what the upper arrow is pointing to. That is the so called 'safety cock' notch. Now look at what the bottom arrow is pointing to. That is the tip of the trigger, known as the sear. Look how thin the sear is. I double dog guarantee you that if this revolver was loaded with six rounds, with the sear resting in the so called 'safety cock' notch, and it was to be dropped and happened to land on the hammer spur, the impact would shear the tip of the sear off and the impact would drive the firing pin forward with enough force to fire the round under the hammer.

I guarantee it.






Let's look at a 1st Gen Bisley Colt that shipped in 1909.






Yes, the hammer is shaped differently, but the trigger sear is just as thin as on the 2nd Gen Colt. Again, drop it on the hammer and the sear would probably shear and a round under the hammer would most likely fire.






If we are talking about Colts, we might as well mention the old Three Screw Rugers. These were made before Ruger redesigned their revolvers and put transfer bars inside. This is a 44 Magnum Flat Top Three Screw Ruger Blackhawk. It left the factory in 1958.






Gee, look how thin the sear is. You may or may not be familiar with the fact that Ruger started putting transfer bars in their revolvers as a result of loosing a couple of expensive lawsuits from shooters who did not understand how the sear could easily shear off the trigger.






Let's go into the way back machine for a moment. This is an original Colt Richards Conversion. These were 1860 Army Colt Cap & Ball revolvers that were converted to fire cartridges.






Because these were converted from Cap & Ball revolvers, there is no 'safety cock' notch on the hammer. When loaded with six rounds, the hammer is resting directly on the frame mounted firing pin. And the firing pin will be pressing against the primer of a round under the hammer. I sure don't want to drop this baby. Some of these revolvers had an extra row of locking notches on the cylinder so the cylinder could locked with the chambers not directly under the hammer. Those revolvers would have been safe to carry fully loaded with six rounds. But not this one.






This is an actual antique Remington Model 1875, not a modern replica.






The trigger sear is just as this as a Colt, and just as prone to snap off if forced.






This is a Merwin Hulbert Pocket Army.






It is a little bit difficult to see,but the trigger sear is just as delicate as on the Colt and the Remington. Again, just about guaranteed to break off if the hammer receives a heavy blow.






Let's look at a Smith and Wesson Schofield for a minute. This is an original, not a modern replica.






There are only two notches on the hammer, the big one is the so called 'half cock' notch. The trigger must be placed in the half cock notch to open the revolver for loading. Right now, the hammer is fully cocked and the tip of the trigger is visible in the full cock notch. I would not want to drop this puppy on the hammer if I had a round under the hammer.






Let's not forget, it was not required to drop a revolver on the ground for it to fire. Many a cowpoke made the mistake of letting his stirrup hit the hammer of his holstered revolver when saddling up.


Any questions?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I have always wondered why this feature was eliminated on the 1873 SAA

My suspicion is that since the Cap & Ball revolvers had no "safety cock" notch, Colt probably felt that adding one to the SAA army would be sufficient.

I have seen reprints of Army manuals stating the 1873 SAA should be loaded with six rounds and the hammer lowered to the "safety cock" notch.

It was not until sometime later that it became apparent how easily the Colt could fire if dropped on the hammer when fully loaded.

I might as well address another myth while I am at it.

Some folks think that letting the hammer down between the rims of cartridges is a safe way to fully load a Colt.

Take a look at how little space is between rims at the narrowest spots. That is exactly where the firing pin would rest if the hammer was lowered between rims. I have tried this, I can tell you that it takes very little effort to rotate the cylinder and the rounded tip of the firing pin will ride up over the edge of a rim. Perhaps with smaller cartridges such as 38 Special, where there is a lot of room between rims, but not a good idea with large rims such as 45 Colt.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

This is pretty simple. The gun hasn’t changed since it was first introduced.

What the majority of us would do now is more than likely what was done back then.

I’d keep the hammer on an empty chamber.

That's what I do.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Slamfire]

My suspicion is that since the Cap & Ball revolvers had no "safety cock" notch, Colt probably felt that adding one to the SAA army would be sufficient.

I have seen reprints of Army manuals stating the 1873 SAA should be loaded with six rounds and the hammer lowered to the "safety cock" notch.

It was not until sometime later that it became apparent how easily the Colt could fire if dropped on the hammer when fully loaded.


View attachment 1095974

I am sure I will reference that in the future. John Browning designed his 1910 and 1911 pistol to be carried on the half cock. And the only and the only thing holding the hammer back on the half cock, is also a thin piece of metal. If a hard blow shears the half cock, the pistol will fire.



Series 70 hammer.



The series 80 hammer does not have a half cock safety, it has a ledge which may or may not stop a worn trigger sear which slips out of the firing notch. Hammers and sears wear, and at some point in the future, the sear won't reliably keep the hammer at full cock.



And what is worse, Cult Cocked and locked, puts a round in the chamber, and carries the thing with the hammer at full cock. They don't know, (or don't care) that the safety is a sear blocking safety, not a hammer blocking safety. So a hard blow to the hammer that breaks the sear nose, the safety will not catch the hammer, and that will cause a discharge. And it was known at the time.



But, John Browning was a 19th century guy, was familiar with all the half cock safeties that @Driftwood Johnson has pictured, and was probably comfortable with the risk.

 

[Slamfire]

Did guns come with owners manuals back then?

Sure, that or a CD with the owner's manual on it. And all guns came with a child's safety lock. Stands to reason....

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Did guns come with owners manuals back then?

Back then, people didn't have to be warned not to eat dishwasher soap, (had there been "pods" back then) or putting their hands in a snow-blower, or any of the crazy things owner's manuals warn you not to do now. No way there would have been any warning or literature pertaining to doing something very stupid, such as loading six cylinders, pointing the gun at your head, etc. Also, people in general were not any more stupid than as they are now. Most people would have understood the danger of loading six cartridges, and have understood that one more round wasn't going to make much difference. And, people did shoot themselves loading six, just as it still happens now. So yeah, if the IQ was over 60, they did indeed load only five rounds.

 

[Slamfire]

Back then, people didn't have to be warned not to eat dishwasher soap, (had there been "pods" back then) or putting their hands in a snow-blower, or any of the crazy things owner's manuals warn you not to do now. No way there would have been any warning or literature pertaining to doing something very stupid, such as loading six cylinders, pointing the gun at your head, etc. Also, people in general were not any more stupid than as they are now. Most people would have understood the danger of loading six cartridges, and have understood that one more round wasn't going to make much difference. And, people did shoot themselves loading six, just as it still happens now. So yeah, if the IQ was over 60, they did indeed load only five rounds.

Life expectancy was below 50 prior to 1900, and slowly got better

Life expectancy in the USA, 1900-98

men and women

Year M F

1900 46.3 48.3
1901 47.6 50.6
1902 49.8 53.4
1903 49.1 52.0
1904 46.2 49.1
1905 47.3 50.2
1906 46.9 50.8
1907 45.6 49.9
1908 49.5 52.8
1909 50.5 53.8
1910 48.4 51.8

https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

back then, you screwed up, you died. Life was tough. No sissy warnings like this:

 

[Hooda Thunkit]

The life expectancy charts are somewhat misleading.

The charts take the expectancy from birth. Infant mortality was very high, but childhood mortality was worse.

A great many families had young children die - accidents, illness, whatever. It was not unusual to lose 30-40% of the children to death before adulthood, from a combination of infant and child mortality.


Just go take a trip to a cemetery from pre-1900 and look at the stones.

Generally, if one made it to 16 their life expectancy was roughly similar to ours nowadays.

 

[Pat Riot]

I have spent many hours online looking for documentation from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s that validates the US Army or any other official group’s rules on the loading of the Colt SAA. Over the years many people have referenced the Army and in particular the Cavalry regarding the loading of five with the hammer down on an empty chamber for safety.

Many gun writers over the years have said that loading 5 is a good safe idea and many reference Army rules, or some other authority but none (that I have found) actually state where they got this info or recommendation. It’s like an urban myth, but I am sure that out there somewhere is a document, manual or letter that states a recommendation for loading 5 and not 6 for safety. I just haven’t discovered it yet.

I did start searching a site for the US Library of Congress. I started getting a headache and gave up. Maybe later…

 

[CraigC]

Honestly? I don't care. It can't be proven either way. Few people are more obsessed with single action revolvers than I am but I really have no idea why people are so obsessed with this subject.

 

[CraigC]

The life expectancy charts are somewhat misleading.

The charts take the expectancy from birth. Infant mortality was very high, but childhood mortality was worse.

A great many families had young children die - accidents, illness, whatever. It was not unusual to lose 30-40% of the children to death before adulthood, from a combination of infant and child mortality.


Just go take a trip to a cemetery from pre-1900 and look at the stones.

Generally, if one made it to 16 their life expectancy was roughly similar to ours nowadays.

There is a cemetery behind my parents' house going back to the 1830's. The newest is still 100yrs old. The couple who established that homestead buried A LOT of children.

 

[jmorris]

Some of these revolvers had an extra row of locking notches on the cylinder so the cylinder could locked with the chambers not directly under the hammer.

They still make some that way and they are “drop safe” with full a cylinder.

 

[doubleh]

Surely you aren't suggesting that an author of a book or article would simply make things up to spice up the writing?

Say it ain't so!

That would never happen today.
Journalistic integrity and all that, don'tcha know.

Oh, yes, journalism has become so much more honest and truthful today. If you believe that I have some forest land close to Maljamar, NM I would sell for a reasonable price.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The life expectancy charts are somewhat misleading.

The charts take the expectancy from birth. Infant mortality was very high, but childhood mortality was worse.

A great many families had young children die - accidents, illness, whatever. It was not unusual to lose 30-40% of the children to death before adulthood, from a combination of infant and child mortality.


Just go take a trip to a cemetery from pre-1900 and look at the stones.

Generally, if one made it to 16 their life expectancy was roughly similar to ours nowadays.

That is correct. Even back in the days of the bible, a man could live to be 70 or so. Old age has not changed much, one simply needed to survive childhood.

 

[Pat Riot]

Honestly? I don't care. It can't be proven either way. Few people are more obsessed with single action revolvers than I am but I really have no idea why people are so obsessed with this subject.

No offense, but I am not doing it for you or anyone else. I am just curious. I have heard this “rule” for so long yet have never seen it written except for in the writings of folks like Elmer Keith, John Taffin, Mike Venturino and many more.
The rule makes good sense. I would definitely follow it except I don’t own any SAA’as, real or clone. I like my Rugers with transfer bars.

Besides, I would love to have a valid reference for this when the subject comes up every few months.

 

[CraigC]

None taken. I've got 60 of them. I just load mine with five and don't worry about what they did 150yrs ago. I don't like what the alternatives do to the guns and their efficacy is questionable. I just don't see it as something that can be proven either way. The only documentation is hearsay and references like Elmer Keith. It's not something people would've bothered to write down. Which is the major reason I don't waste any bandwidth on it.

Now .45Colt vs Long Colt, that's a different story with supporting evidence.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No offense, but I am not doing it for you or anyone else. I am just curious. I have heard this “rule” for so long yet have never seen it written except for in the writings of folks like Elmer Keith, John Taffin, Mike Venturino and many more.
The rule makes good sense. I would definitely follow it except I don’t own any SAA’as, real or clone. I like my Rugers with transfer bars.

Besides, I would love to have a valid reference for this when the subject comes up every few months.

Let me ask you this: Do you know anyone who carries an M1911 on half-cock?

Probably not -- because the half-cock on the M1911 is just as dangerous as the half-cock on the Colt Single Action. Everyone I know who carries an M1911 carries it cocked-and-locked.

 

[Seedy Character]

It never was intended for that, no.

Maybe not originally intended, but after a few AD, they learned it was best.