Strange SA Transfer Bar Conversion Question

[caryc]

Hondo44. My point is that 10s if not 100s of thousands carry the way the guy who shot himself did. My point is that it's not horrible just not as safe as simply carrying the hammer down on a loaded chamber.

To the No and the other my apologies I didn't intend to high jack the thread.

For the life of me, I can think of no legitimate reason to carry a single action revolver in a holster with the hammer cocked.

If you can think of even one, I'd sure like to hear it.

 

[Snake45]

Hondo44. My point is that 10s if not 100s of thousands carry the way the guy who shot himself did. My point is that it's not horrible just not as safe as simply carrying the hammer down on a loaded chamber.

To the No and the other my apologies I didn't intend to high jack the thread.

For the life of me, I can think of no legitimate reason to carry a single action revolver in a holster with the hammer cocked.

If you can think of even one, I'd sure like to hear it.

Me neither. Nor a DA revolver, for that matter.

Maybe he was just making a point in a bit of hyperbolic fashion. :?

 

[choirboy]

Check the shootout at the end of Midsoner Murders episode Blood on the Saddle if you you want to see the cocked revolver in the holster bit. It's a hoot.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1505615/

 

[grobin]

I realize that this is a revolver form and the folks must be forgiven for their ignorance of modern pistols. The Glock only has a passive trigger safety! If you want to carry a +1 round in the chamber the only way is with the action cocked. There is no external hammer nor decocker. So there is no alternative. On modern revolvers-unlike the unconverted three screw carrying the hammer down on a loaded chamber is perfectly safe; after all that's the reason for the conversion! You no longer have to turn your six shooter into a five. Carrying a SA cocked IS LIKE CARRYING A LOADED DA. Pulling the trigger will fire the revolver in either case!

 

[NikA]

Sure, except pulling the trigger on a holstered DA revolver won't do anything, since the cylinder is constrained by the holster. And a DA trigger pull is much longer and heavier than a SA pull as an added safety precaution. And no revolvers that I know of have a passive trigger safety.

A passive safety is still a mechanical protection against accidental discharge of the firearm. You are basically saying that some protection is the same as no protection; it should be no surprise that most people here disagree with you.

Obviously you just know mo' betta than all us rubes.

 

[Snake45]

I realize that this is a revolver form and the folks must be forgiven for their ignorance of modern pistols. The Glock only has a passive trigger safety! If you want to carry a +1 round in the chamber the only way is with the action cocked. There is no external hammer nor decocker. So there is no alternative. On modern revolvers-unlike the unconverted three screw carrying the hammer down on a loaded chamber is perfectly safe; after all that's the reason for the conversion! You no longer have to turn your six shooter into a five. Carrying a SA cocked IS LIKE CARRYING A LOADED DA. Pulling the trigger will fire the revolver in either case!

Unbelievable. :roll:

Do you know people who actually carry single action revolvers cocked? :shock:

 

[caryc]

I realize that this is a revolver form and the folks must be forgiven for their ignorance of modern pistols. The Glock only has a passive trigger safety! If you want to carry a +1 round in the chamber the only way is with the action cocked. There is no external hammer nor decocker. So there is no alternative. On modern revolvers-unlike the unconverted three screw carrying the hammer down on a loaded chamber is perfectly safe; after all that's the reason for the conversion! You no longer have to turn your six shooter into a five. Carrying a SA cocked IS LIKE CARRYING A LOADED DA. Pulling the trigger will fire the revolver in either case!

That statement is just plain crazy. If you have a cocked single action, it takes very little pressure to pull the trigger. Carrying a loaded DA, when you pull the trigger it is much harder because that trigger is also working against the hammer spring because it is also cocking the hammer.

My Beretta 92FS is a double action semi auto. I can carry it with a round in the chamber and use the decocker to lower the hammer. All I have to do to fire is pull the trigger and it cocks the hammer at the same time, so it's a much harder trigger pull. After that shot the gun is in semi auto mode and the trigger is to the rear in the trigger guard and is much easier to pull and fire.

 

[David Bradshaw]

To make a false statement, might as well do it at top volume.

FALSE STATEMENTS
1) "Safe to holster a cocked revolver and carry it cocked."
Answer: none necessary.

2) "No revolver has a passive safety."
Answer: A passive safety engages without manipulation when the revolver is at rest. A passive safety engages without manual manipulation.

Examples:
a) Smith & Wesson double action revolver; passive safety activates as trigger is released. Colt, Dan Wesson, Ruger, and Charter Arms (et cetera), DA revolvers have passive safeties.
b) Ruger New Model single actions employ a passive safety.

David Bradshaw

 

[Snake45]

To make a false statement, might as well do it at top volume.

FALSE STATEMENTS
1) "Safe to holster a cocked revolver and carry it cocked."
Answer: none necessary.

2) "No revolver has a passive safety."
Answer: A passive safety engages without manipulation when the revolver is at rest. A passive safety engages without manual manipulation.

Examples:
a) Smith & Wesson double action revolver; passive safety activates as trigger is released. Colt, Dan Wesson, Ruger, and Charter Arms (et cetera), DA revolvers have passive safeties.
b) Ruger New Model single actions employ a passive safety.

David Bradshaw

The "passive safety" on S&Ws is the ramped interface between the top of the rebound slide and the bottom of the hammer. The hammer's not going to hit the firing pin unless the trigger is held back. They also have a sliding safety thingie rattling around in there which is completely redundant. "Back in the day" we used to take those things out, but Mas Ayoob convinced me that removing or altering any "safety device" on a gun that might be used defensively is a bad idea, no matter how silly or useless the thing is.

 

[NikA]

My apologies, I amend my statement: I don't know of any revolvers with passive safeties that prevent trigger manipulation, a la the trigger safety on striker-fired pistols. I am aware of the rebound slide and transfer bar mechanisms on modern revolvers.

I maintain my position that it is NOT safe to carry revolvers around cocked.

 

[Clovishound]

I maintain my position that it is NOT safe to carry revolvers around cocked.

Absolutely!

It may only be a difference in pull weight and length of pull, but those two make quite a difference.

 

[Snake45]

I maintain my position that it is NOT safe to carry revolvers around cocked.

Of course it's not. I've been shooting and/or reading about shooting for more than half a century, and this thread is the first time I've ever heard of anyone even suggesting the idea. :shock:

 

[grobin]

caryc

If you have a cocked single action, it takes very little pressure to pull the trigger. Carrying a loaded DA, when you pull the trigger it is much harder because that trigger is also working against the hammer spring because it is also cocking the hammer.

We agree its the same. Just a matter of degree. Pulling the trigger fires the revolver whether DA or SA!

David Bradshaw

{not} Safe to holster a cocked revolver and carry it cocked.

Explain why it's not. Don't make false and silly assertions.

NikA

My apologies, I amend my statement: I don't know of any revolvers with passive safeties that prevent trigger manipulation, a la the trigger safety on striker-fired pistols.

All modern SA revolvers have a passive trigger safety. They will not fire unless the trigger is pulled just like the SIG and Gock. The fact that they don't have a weird thingy on the trigger is irrelevant. That doesn't keep the trigger from being pulled!

I maintain my position that it is NOT safe to carry revolvers around cocked.

Some one explain why not! It used to be true but with the advent of the passive trigger safety it no longer is. All I hear is well I read it was bad for (50, 100, 1000 ...) years; yes well it was bad but things change. All I see here is Oh,Oh,Oh; Look, Look, Look; bad, bad, bad; without any explanation of why. Yes if you pull the trigger the revolver, or pistol will go off—well that is what is supposed to happen!

 

[caryc]

David Bradshaw

{not} Safe to holster a cocked revolver and carry it cocked. Explain why it's not. Don't make false and silly assertions.

Suppose you go tumbling down a rocky hillside with that gun bouncing around?

Suppose you are in thick brush and a bear surprises you and jumps you? Suppose he hooks a claw into that trigger guard?

Now tell me why you would carry a single action in a holster with the hammer cocked. What situation would you be in that cocking the hammer would mean you might die in the time it takes to do it?

Just how long does it take to cock that hammer? Besides if you are in such a dire situation and you already have the hammer cocked, you might just freak out and pull that trigger before you get that gun completely out of that holster.

I shoot fast draw myself and it's not like any fast draw shooter has never fired that gun too quick. That's why fast draw holsters have deflectors on the bottoms of the holsters. A lot of starters in fast draw wind up missing the target because they are firing too fast before they bring the gun up level.

If you're not used to fast draw, don't tell me that drawing the gun with a cocked hammer from a holster in a panic situation might not cause you to fire too soon, maybe even into your leg. It's just stupid and dangerous.

 

[NikA]

The trigger pull of a cocked revolver is maybe 1/8" at 3-4 pounds or less. It is my understanding that the trigger pull of even a tuned striker fired pistol is roughly 1/2" at 4+ pounds. That little lever in the trigger will prevent the trigger from being pulled incompletely, i.e., if the force is not directed straight back across the whole trigger; this feature does not exist in other trigger designs. The trigger pull of a DA revolver is usually 1/2" at 8+ pounds.

Say I'm walking through heavy brush with my revolver holstered (something that conceivably many here on the board do). A branch getting down into my holster if my revolver is not cocked is no issue: it won't be able to overcome the friction of the leather to turn the cylinder if it pulls the DA trigger or contacts the hammer. If my revolver is cocked, I had better hope that branch breaks before my trigger does, or else I'm in for a surprise.

In the real world, stuff happens. It's nice that if you drop your revolver in a controlled setting, it won't go off. Keeping the hammer uncocked adds the assurance that it won't go off under other, more adverse conditions. If you don't carry under those conditions, maybe this is not a concern. You shouldn't dismiss it for those who do.

 

[Snake45]

Now tell me why you would carry a single action in a holster with the hammer cocked. What situation would you be in that cocking the hammer would mean you might die in the time it takes to do it?

Just how long does it take to cock that hammer? Besides if you are in such a dire situation and you already have the hammer cocked, you might just freak out and pull that trigger before you get that gun completely out of that holster.

And just to elaborate on this line of thinking, if you are carrying a gun in such a situation that you think you MIGHT POSSIBLY need the (tiny) edge that a revolver cocked in the holster ( :shock: ) might give you, why on earth are you carrying ANY kind of SA revolver? Why are you not carrying a much more efficient (and safe!) weapon such as a semiauto or even a DA revolver? Hmmmmmm? :? :? :?

 

[David Bradshaw]

"Explain why it's not. Don't make false and silly assertions."

If the quoted declarative statement is aimed at me, I would like to know the author's real name, so that he may take possession of it. Such juvenility deserves an owner. And I would appreciate the naming of a few references, preferably known masters, who holster a cocked revolver. Hell, forget sharpshooters; list even ONE Range Safety Officer who will countenance a holstered, cocked revolver!
David Bradshaw

 

[Hondo44]

The "passive safety" on S&Ws is the ramped interface between the top of the rebound slide and the bottom of the hammer. The hammer's not going to hit the firing pin unless the trigger is held back. They also have a sliding safety thingie rattling around in there which is completely redundant. "Back in the day" we used to take those things out, but Mas Ayoob convinced me that removing or altering any "safety device" on a gun that might be used defensively is a bad idea, no matter how silly or useless the thing is.

Snake,

Mas Ayoob should know better.

Actually the rebound slide/hammer foot safety only kicks the hammer/firing back off of the primer. It alone has failed many times because a dropped revolver will often shear the hammer pivot pin and the gun will fire.

That's the reason S&W designed three different style hammer block safeties to work in conjunction with the rebound slide/hammer foot safety, beginning in 1915. The second style was prone to sticking in a dirty gun. Therefore only the rebound slide was left functioning in a 38 M&P Victory Model resulting in the death of a sailor in WW II when the gun dropped and the hammer pin sheared. The final solution is the post war sliding bar hammer block you describe.

Neither the rebound slide or sliding bar are foolproof by themselves, only when they work together. The sliding bar will not slip between the hammer and frame w/o the 'kickback' of the rebound slide, and the kickback of the hammer alone has the failure reality described above.

 

[Snake45]

The "passive safety" on S&Ws is the ramped interface between the top of the rebound slide and the bottom of the hammer. The hammer's not going to hit the firing pin unless the trigger is held back. They also have a sliding safety thingie rattling around in there which is completely redundant. "Back in the day" we used to take those things out, but Mas Ayoob convinced me that removing or altering any "safety device" on a gun that might be used defensively is a bad idea, no matter how silly or useless the thing is.

Snake,

Mas Ayoob should know better.

Actually the rebound slide/hammer foot safety only kicks the hammer/firing back off of the primer. It alone has failed many times because a dropped revolver will often shear the hammer pivot pin and the gun will fire.

That's the reason S&W designed three different style hammer block safeties to work in conjunction with the rebound slide/hammer foot safety, beginning in 1915. The second style was prone to sticking in a dirty gun. Therefore only the rebound slide was left functioning in a 38 M&P Victory Model resulting in the death of a sailor in WW II when the gun dropped and the hammer pin sheared. The final solution is the post war sliding bar hammer block you describe.

Neither the rebound slide or sliding bar are foolproof by themselves, only when they work together. The sliding bar will not slip between the hammer and frame w/o the 'kickback' of the rebound slide, and the kickback of the hammer alone has the failure reality described above.

Very interesting, and I'd never heard any of the stories of hammer pins shearing, but it does sound possible with the results you describe.

But nothing in your post contradicts anything Mas knows, said, or told me. All I said was that he has stated that removing or altering a safety device is a bad idea. (The "no matter how silly or useless" part was all me, and I didn't intend to imply that he said that, though I now see how it could be read that way.) :wink:

 

[Snake45]

"Explain why it's not. Don't make false and silly assertions."

If the quoted declarative statement is aimed at me, I would like to know the author's real name, so that he may take possession of it. Such juvenility deserves an owner. And I would appreciate the naming of a few references, preferably known masters, who holster a cocked revolver. Hell, forget sharpshooters; list even ONE Range Safety Officer who will countenance a holstered, cocked revolver!
David Bradshaw

I asked him back on page 2 if he knew anyone--anyone, not even a master or "expert"--who actually carries a cocked revolver. I see that he hasn't answered that question. The silence speaks for itself. :wink: