hammer/FP vs. hammer/transfer bar/FP
- Thread starter hi-impact
- Start date
- Status
I think Ruger pioneered the transfer bar in the 70's, with safety being the driving force. The old cowboys learned quickly to keep an empty chamber under their hammer mounted pins. I suppose the only real advantage to the hammer mounted pin is manufacturing ease. The Ruger style transfer bar does require trigger force, so the triggers aren't quite as sweet. The Freedom Arms 97 transfer bar does not require trigger force, and the trigger pull is SWEET. (don't know about their large frames)
For the SA it meant safety as you could then carry a full cylinder safely with the hammer down.
For the DA it's just the manufactors saving money. Since around the early part of the last century the DA revolver has had some type of hammer block or rebounding hammer installed in them.
For the DA it's just the manufactors saving money. Since around the early part of the last century the DA revolver has had some type of hammer block or rebounding hammer installed in them.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Actually, the idea dates to the 1880s or 1890s.
dfariswheel
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 6,656
Actually, the MODERN transfer bar action was invented by.......COLT in 1969.
The "J" frame Colt Trooper Mark III was the first modern application of the transfer bar system, and it was so good, every revolver designed since uses a virtual copy of Colt's design.
Ruger didn't introduce their transfer bar DA revolver until 1970.
Dan Wesson brought theirs out in 1970-'71.
The big advantages of the transfer bar action are:
1. Safety. There is no way a blow to the hammer can break the usual revolver safety blocks and fire the gun, since there is no way the hammer itself can touch the firing pin.
2. A transfer bar action requires little hand fitting during manufacture.
In the older revolvers, a master fitter assembled a revolver by selecting a part and filing and stoning it until it functioned properly.
Hand labor COSTS, and runs the price of the gun up.
In a transfer bar system, the assembler has bins of parts available. He tries parts until he finds one that fits and functions.
This requires MUCH less time.
Colt was the first manufacturer to introduce a revolver that was "machine fitted" in this way.
The disadvantages:
1. Most transfer bar actions use coil springs, and these don't give as good a trigger action as many people like. (S&W alone still uses the old leaf spring in their "K", "L", and "N" frames).
2. Since the trigger controls the transfer bar, and the trigger return spring pulls the bar out of engagement with the hammer and firing pin, the trigger return spring MUST be kept fairly strong.
Again, this limits what can be done with the trigger pull.
3. Transfer bar actions are more sensitive to the strength of hammer strike.
In order to insure reliable ignition, the hammer spring must have more tension than an old style action. Again, the trigger action is stiffer.
The "J" frame Colt Trooper Mark III was the first modern application of the transfer bar system, and it was so good, every revolver designed since uses a virtual copy of Colt's design.
Ruger didn't introduce their transfer bar DA revolver until 1970.
Dan Wesson brought theirs out in 1970-'71.
The big advantages of the transfer bar action are:
1. Safety. There is no way a blow to the hammer can break the usual revolver safety blocks and fire the gun, since there is no way the hammer itself can touch the firing pin.
2. A transfer bar action requires little hand fitting during manufacture.
In the older revolvers, a master fitter assembled a revolver by selecting a part and filing and stoning it until it functioned properly.
Hand labor COSTS, and runs the price of the gun up.
In a transfer bar system, the assembler has bins of parts available. He tries parts until he finds one that fits and functions.
This requires MUCH less time.
Colt was the first manufacturer to introduce a revolver that was "machine fitted" in this way.
The disadvantages:
1. Most transfer bar actions use coil springs, and these don't give as good a trigger action as many people like. (S&W alone still uses the old leaf spring in their "K", "L", and "N" frames).
2. Since the trigger controls the transfer bar, and the trigger return spring pulls the bar out of engagement with the hammer and firing pin, the trigger return spring MUST be kept fairly strong.
Again, this limits what can be done with the trigger pull.
3. Transfer bar actions are more sensitive to the strength of hammer strike.
In order to insure reliable ignition, the hammer spring must have more tension than an old style action. Again, the trigger action is stiffer.
James Bondrock
Member
I believe the first transfer bar system was Iver Johnson's "Hammer the Hammer" c. the late 1880s.
Rugers can be made to have a very good trigger pull with the transfer bar system.
The down side of transfer bar systems is, they CAN break. All the myths about Rugers being "indestructible" are not exactly true. I've broken 2 tansfer bars in Ruger Blackhawk and Vaquero's. This was after 2 or 3 years or more of extensive dry fire practice and a lot of shooting. I now keep a couple of spares on hand.
The down side of transfer bar systems is, they CAN break. All the myths about Rugers being "indestructible" are not exactly true. I've broken 2 tansfer bars in Ruger Blackhawk and Vaquero's. This was after 2 or 3 years or more of extensive dry fire practice and a lot of shooting. I now keep a couple of spares on hand.
- Status
