Educational Opportunity: SA vs DA

[rickr44318]

I see that SA revolvers, particularly by CAS rules, should be carried with the hammer down on an empty chamber (i.e., with five shots ready to go); but I've never seen that mandate for a DA such as my 642. I'm having trouble figuring this out:

1. Why is this necessary for the SA if the hammer is already down and has to be pulled back to fire the weapon?
2. Is this necessary (or desirable) for DA revolvers, and if not why not? (and if so, that means I 'should' be carrying around a four-shot weapon ... not a fiver).

Thanks much, r/

 

[isp2605]

Early SA hammers would rest on the primer which means a blow to the hammer, like dropping it, could cause it to fire. A lot of SA makers are now putting in some kind of hammer block or transfer system so the hammer doesn't rest on a cartridge and those are safe to load with 6. DAs like your 642 have a hammer block mechanism so no matter how hard you'd hit the hammer it cannot move forward and strike the primer.

 

[Jim March]

Exactly. The 1873 Colt SAA (and most 19th-century guns) weren't drop-safe AT ALL.

20th century wheelguns have either "hammer block" or "transfer bar" automatic safeties.

S&W hammer blocks prior to WW2 were somewhat second-rate. A shipboard accident that killed a sailor with one prompted a redesign. Some people don't recommend street carry of a pre-war S&W for this reason, or carry one "five up" if you must.

A hammer block works by positioning a piece of metal in front of the hammer which is only removed (read: slid down and out of the way) on a full and deliberate trigger press. Until then, the hammer can't hit the primer, period.

In a transfer bar gun, the hammer literally cannot directly hit the firing pin at all. On a deliberate full trigger press, a piece of metal called a "transfer bar" is slid UP into position, to where the hammer can hit the transfer bar and the transfer bar can hit the frame-mounted firing pin.

If a hammer block breaks, the gun will turn into a no-safety gun. If a transfer bar breaks, the gun will turn into a doorstop. In practice, neither breaks often enough to sweat it. Hammer block systems can use a mainspring up to 25% lighter than a similar transfer bar gun because in the hammer block system there's fewer bits of metal connected to the ignition process.

There are now three mass-market Colt SAA "near-clones" that have fully modern transfer bars: the Beretta Stampede, Taurus Gaucho and Ruger New Vaquero. Of the three the Ruger is the least Colt-like in terms of operation, because you can do all loading and unloading with the hammer fully down - just opening the loading gate frees the cylinder while locking the hammer and trigger. The others require half-cocking like a Colt SAA...but at least with the transfer bar they can't "go off half cocked" (and yeah, that's where the term comes from).

The Ruger 50th Anniversary 357 Blackhawk is built on the same Colt SAA-sized frame as the New Vaq but has adjustable sights. Same gun otherwise.

The EAA "Bounty Hunter" and Ruger "Old Vaquero" and other "New Model" Blackhawks/Superblackhawks are built on larger 44Mag-class frames (even when sold in smaller calibers) but are otherwise transfer-bar-equipped SA wheelguns.

Freedom Arms "97" series SAs have transfer bars fit for fully-loaded carry too. The 83 series has a hammer block system which FA seems to think isn't as safe as a transfer bar and they recommend carrying with hammer on an empty cylinder on the 83s.

 

[rickr44318]

Educational Opportunity: SA vs DA

Excellent -- many thanks, and Jim, thank you for the CAS tutorial. I've been interested in getting into it, and did not know what "Old Vaquero" / "New Vaquero" was all about ... makes more sense now. r/

 

[Jim March]

No problem.

A key thing to know about Rugers is that the company NEVER varies their heat treat or other metallurgy processes except in rare cases...when they upgraded the SuperRedHawk to 454Casull (and later the 480) they did a different grade of stainless than prior SRHs.

I believe that's the sole case of two Rugers of the same frame type being different metallury.

So, when Ruger put out various calibers other than the 44Mag on the same frame as their 44Mag guns (357Mag and 45LC in particular), they gave the guns a 44Mag-grade heat-treat and metallurgy process, starting in 1973.

Which at the time was revolutionary: S&W did different heat-treats for different calibers on the same frame size, presumably to save money. (I understand they've ended that practice today and the 45LC N-Frames shipping now are pretty stout.)

The Ruger 45LCs made between 1973 and 2004 were all built on 44Mag-class frames, which is why "45LC+P" loads that say "Ruger ONLY!!!" are capable of power levels sometimes *past* the 44Mag. Buffalo Bore sells a 325gr hardcast pulling 1,300fps.

And then in 2005, in my opinion Ruger screwed up. Bigtime.

They shipped the New Vaquero in 45LC (and 357 thank God!). The New Vaq is NOT a 44Mag-class frame, it's a near-clone of the Colt SAA. Which gives us a Ruger that can't take 45+P "Ruger ONLY" loads.

To their credit, Buffalo Bore is putting a caveat regarding the New Vaq on their website and I believe on all new packaging. But they're not the only maker of wild-child 45LC+P loads. Somebody is going to screw this up and *maybe* hand-grenade their gun, or damage it.

Ruger 357s prior to 1973 were on a smaller frame size similar to the New Vaq. Responsible gunsmiths refused to convert those to 45LC over this same issue: you'd get a Ruger 45 that wasn't as strong as the rest. A lot of those 357s got converted to 44Spl and made their owners very happy with horsepower levels right in the same ballpark as 45LC normal fodder.

My New Vaq is a 357. I may upgrade it one day to 44Spl, or I'm considering the Reeder "356GNR" conversion (use a 357 barrel, set up the cylinder for a wildcat 41Mag shell necked down to 357).

 

[Trebor]

I still gotta disagree with you on this one Jim.

The New Vaquero is safe to fire with any ammunition that is within SAAMI spec for the caliber of the gun.

I just don't see how Ruger "screwed up" by offering a gun that is safe to fire with SAAMI spec ammunition.

Just because the "Old Vaquero" had such a generous "safety margin" built into it that aftermarket companies and hand loaders felt they could abuse that safety margin doesn't obligate Ruger to make sure that every other gun in that caliber is equally capable of handling such a load.

The guns can handle ammo within SAAMI specs. If someone blows up a New Vaquero using ammo that is hotter then SAAMI specs, it's their own fault and the fault of the ammo company that manufactured such a hot load. Ruger isn't obligated to make their guns so overstrength that they can't possibly be blown up.

 

[Jim March]

Hmmmm.

From 1973 to 2004 -=all=- Ruger 45LC guns, SA or DA, were as strong as 44Mag guns.

An entire aftermarket cropped up in response.

In 2005, Ruger not only ignored all that, they called the new gun a confusingly similar name as older stronger guns in the same caliber (Vaq vs. New Vaq). We get people on here all the time asking how to tell the difference.

No, I'm sorry, I don't think this was a good idea.

The pre-1973 357Magnum Blackhawks were on a frame size similar to the New Vaq (and Colt SAA). Gunsmiths have for years rechambered them in 44Spl but often refused (as a matter of policy) to set them up in 45LC. Dave Clements has such a policy. The point is not to produce a 45LC Ruger weaker than all other 45LCs.

I think there's a 50/50 change somebody is going to try and shoot a box of BuffBore 325gr 1,300fps monsters in a New Vaq, detonate it and then sue Ruger.

Ruger's market share (hell, *dominance*) was easily sufficient to stir a revival of the 44Spl in the New Vaq. That caliber (along with the 357 of course) would have made lots of sense in this new frame size.

Do y'all really think they'd have lost sales to the Gaucho and Stampede when people wanted 45LC instead of 44Spl? I don't.