Singe Action Aficionados - Load 6 safely?

[ArmedBear]

Was talking to an old guy about revolvers, new and old model Ruger SAs, etc.

He told a story about a guy whose old SBH went off when he stuffed it in the back of his pants to go for a hike and the hammer caught on his shirt. Not sure how that would happen.

Anyway, he also said he sometimes loads 6, with the hammer down, the cylinder between stops, and the firing pin between two rims.

The pin keeps the cylinder from rotating. I tried it, and it does seem to work.

Anyone else ever done that?

Is there any particular reason that it would be unsafe?

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

I hunted with a guy in Orlando that lost part of his leg when his blackhawk .44mag's hammer got caught in a limb or branch and pulled the hammer back far enough for it to fire. I was not present when this happend and can't imagine what had to "come together" for the gun to fire. Anyway this accident required the removal of part of his leg above his kneecap.

 

[mdThanatos]

I had some 1875 Remington Outlaw Clones that I wouldn't load with six cause of the safety concern, plus I am used to loading five for my CAS shooting. However my Blackhawks are the new models with transfer bar and I don't have a problem loading six in them.

 

[ArmedBear]

mdThantos- I'm talking specifically about Colt-style "four-click" guns with the pin on the hammer, e.g. Colt, USFA, Uberti SAA, or the Ruger 3-screw guns.

I load six in my New Model Rugers, no problem.

I'm wondering about this "firing pin between the rims" trick with the pin on the hammer and no transfer bar.

351- Yeah, like you, I can't imagine what had to come together. The safety notch should stop the hammer if it's pulled back partially, that is if the half-cock doesn't already. I suppose the trigger could have been caught on the shirt or tree branch, along with the hammer, but if that was the case, I don't suppose a transfer bar would have helped, either.

 

[Old Fuff]

I'm wondering about this "firing pin between the rims" trick with the pin on the hammer and no transfer bar.

Considering the possible consequences if something goes wrong it isn't worth the risk. If the hammer gets bumped the firing pin (which is attached to the hammer) will be pulled backwards out of contact with the cartridge rims, while the hand is able to start the cylinder turning. All of this is not likely, but it has been known to happen. The safe solution to carrying all of the chambers loaded is a revolver with a transfer bar safety,

 

[dagger dog]

Was cleaning a 3 screw Single Six for a friend the other day and was trying the hammer down between rounds, well on this gun you could rotate the cylinder! So at least on the Ruger Single Six 4 click gun I don't think it's a good idea!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Would the hammer have enough energy to fire the primer if drawn back short of engaging the half-cock safety position and released? This could be tested with primed casings as I did testing the safety on my Mauser pistol (I recommend hearing protection: primers can be loud).

 

[Old Fuff]

The grater problem is that once the firing pin is (in theory) no longer blocking the cylinder's rotation by resting between the cartridge rims, the cylinder can move to the point where the firing pin can hit a primer. This probably could only happen if the hammer had been moved backwards far enough so that the tip of the trigger engaged the safety notch on the hammer. Then if a hard blow hit the hammer, such as when the revolver was dropped, it would probably go off.

The point is that the suggested mode of carry is very unsure, and the consequences of an unintended discharge so grave, that it is foolish to take the risk - especially when it isn't necessary. If one feels that they must carry 6 rounds in the cylinder there are revolvers offered in that marketplace where doing so is completely - not questionably - safe.

 

[ArmedBear]

True, Fuff, if the hammer does get drawn back enough to engage the safety notch, then the cylinder could rotate freely.

Furthermore, it has a spring assist in the counterclockwise direction, so a nudge will make it lock, right over a live round. At that point, the sear would be in the "safety" notch, which isn't so safe, and the gun could go off if dropped on the hammer.

HOWEVER...

It only takes a little more travel of the hammer to do the same thing if you have the hammer down on an empty chamber.

I'm trying this as I type.

If the hammer is pulled back a bit past the safety notch and dropped again, the cylinder will advance, but then reverse back to the empty chamber. However, it's also quite possible to pull the hammer back so that the cylinder doesn't reverse back and lock, especially if the cylinder meets even the tiniest bit of resistance, like it would in a holster. Now again, it will be biased to go counterclockwise, back to the empty chamber, but it can advance, too.

So, clearly having the hammer down on an empty chamber provides a significant extra margin of safety vs. the "between the rims" method. You're absolutely right, and I've been messing with a SAA and trying everything we're discussing here.

WHICH LEADS TO...

Either way isn't all THAT safe.

The more I mess with the gun, the less confidence I'm feeling in that empty chamber. Sure, if you just pick up and drop the gun, it won't go off, but that's true with the pin between the rims as well.

If the hammer gets hooked on something, though, all bets are off, even with one empty chamber. Yes, with the empty chamber, the hammer has to be drawn back a bit farther than with the pin between the rims, but given that, as you said, the consequences are so grave, I don't have real confidence in either way to carry the gun "safely."

As much as Ruger collectors love their old models, I wonder if it makes any sense to carry a 4-click single action in 2009, when transfer bar guns are so readily available.

Thanks Fuff, et al. for an enlightening experiment.

 

[Old Fuff]

I hate to bring up such an ugly and unfortunate matter, but the truth is that "back when," no less then the renowned Wyatt Earp had a.... well you know he had no business having six rounds in his six-shooter... anyway, nobody got hurt - but it got reported in the newspaper...

 

[ArmedBear]

Wyatt Earp had more than a few negligent discharges, methinks. Most of them in the direction of other people he didn't like much.

 

[Old Fuff]

Most of us that occasionally carry an older-style single action revolver (Colt, Colt clone or 1st generation Ruger) do so with the hammer down on an empty chamber, and in a holster that that a safety strap (best way) ot thoung (second best way) that prevents the hammer from being able to move back. It sort of slows down my super-fast draw, but so far I haven't had anything happen that shouldn't.

 

[ArmedBear]

With a safety strap, it seems that either way outlined above would work okay.

Wouldn't want to carry it in Elmer Keith-style that way, though (stuffed in the front of his pants with the loading gate open to keep it from falling down his leg). Probably a bad idea, one way or another...

 

[Old Fuff]

Wyatt Earp had more than a few negligent discharges, methinks. Most of them in the direction of other people he didn't like much.

Well there is some truth to that. Some day I must copy and post that newspaper account - it's a hoot.

 

[Old Fuff]

Wouldn't want to carry it in Elmer Keith-style that way, though (stuffed in the front of his pants with the loading gate open to keep it from falling down his leg).

Elmer never recommended that, he just illustrated it in his book, Sixguns; as a method used by some frontier era peace officers. One such officer was apparently Virgil Earp.

 

[zxcvbob]

Anyway, he also said he sometimes loads 6, with the hammer down, the cylinder between stops, and the firing pin between two rims.
The pin keeps the cylinder from rotating. I tried it, and it does seem to work. Anyone else ever done that?

I do that with a Ruger Old Army, but it has deep-cut safety notches between the nipples. (I imagine it would work with an 1858 Remington too, but not so well with the old blackpowder Colts that had something kind of similar but I can't remember the details) I wouldn't trust it with just the cartridge rims to keep it safe, but I suppose it's better than nothing on rare occasions when you need to carry 6.

All my other single-actions have transfer bars.

 

[ArmedBear]

Elmer may not have recommended it, but he DID it.

Ever heard his story about being frisked by Mounties at the Canadian border?

 

[ArmedBear]

I imagine it would work with an 1858 Remington too

It does. However, these guns don't have "safety notches" where the hammer can lock about 1/8" from all the way down. If you pull a Remmie hammer back slightly, it just drops again.

A SAA hammer, if lifted slightly, stays slightly raised, allowing an unlocked cylinder to rotate until it locks on one side or the other.

 

[David E]

Just as a matter of clarity, the "safety notch" on an original style single action hammer is NOT the 1/2 cock notch, but the FIRST click of the three created by the hammer.

I am wary of explanations like "the hammer caught on his shirt as he was putting the gun back into his pants." First, he likely had his finger on the trigger.. Second, he'd have to rake it pretty hard and fast against his shirt to cock it.

Lessons learned:

1) Keep finger OFF the trigger unless sights are on target and you want to shoot said target.

2) Use a holster designed to properly carry the gun, not the front of your pants.

3) Never, ever holster angry !

.

 

[ArmedBear]

Right. The "safety notch" I'm talking about is sometimes called "1/4 cock."

It doesn't exist on, for example, a Remington New Model Army, which has something utterly different, but also called "safety notches" AFAIK. These are notches where you can rest the hammer between chambers.

 

[Jim K]

The "hammer down between rounds" is an old trick I first heard about some 60 years ago from a man who had "been there" in the old west. It doesn't work well with .45, since there is almost no room between rims, but it is OK with other calibers.

Today, I, like others, recommend carry on an empty chamber, but the old timers didn't buy a six-gun and make a five-gun out of it. They also carried small frame revolvers with no gate that way, leaving an empty chamber at the loading slot.

The baloney about the $20 bill in a chamber is a Colt lawyer myth to make something glamorous out of persuading people to be safe (and keep Colt from being sued).

Note that Colt, Manhattan, and Remington percussion revolvers had a means of keeping the hammer off the nipples. The Colt had safety pins, the Remington safety notches, and the Manhattan a second set of notches. Other guns had other systems but all depended on having the hammer down between rounds, not on a hammer block or transfer bar.

Jim

 

[ArmedBear]

It doesn't work well with .45, since there is almost no room between rims, but it is OK with other calibers.

Yeah. For the record, I tried it on a SAA clone in .357.

 

[Jim K]

Colt wanted to keep nearly the same cylinder size for the SAA as for the Model 1860, but the army wanted a .45 caliber. The only way to get both was to reduce the rim diameter of the .45 Colt to a minimum. That was no problem with the SAA, a rod ejection pistol, but the ejector jumping over the rims was enough of a problem with the Model 1909 (New Service) that the government made its own ammo with bigger rims and issued only that. It has remained a problem even today with rifles chambered for the .45 Colt.

Jim

 

[ArmedBear]

Yeah, much as the .45 Colt can be a great cartridge, I've opted to drop down to the .429 Magnum for a bigger-bore pistol cartridge. Solves all those issues without me having to do anything special. I've got troubles enough.

Doesn't the .454 Casull have a larger rim, also?

 

[Jim K]

The .454 Casull rim is the same (.512") as the .45 Colt (nominally - most cases mike slightly smaller). Externally, they are the same except for the longer .454 case. Internally, the .454 case is stronger, and it is not a great idea to load .45 Colt cases to .454 data even if the gun is strong enough.

Jim