|
Ouch!
Apr 16, 2011 3:15:29 GMT -5
Post by dbd870 on Apr 16, 2011 3:15:29 GMT -5
I guess that would depend on how old the revolver is wouldn't it? Almost all new revolvers have the hammer blocked until the trigger is pulled. Not so with the older revolvers. Having your hammer resting on a round with an older revolver you are but a accidental slip or drop away from killing yourself or worse, killing someone else. Moral of the story, always know where your muzzle is pointed! CORRECT!! Again ......Safety First!You would have to have a very old or very cheap wheel gun not to have a hammer block at this point. There is no reason to carry a revolver that doesn't have one.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 16, 2011 5:45:32 GMT -5
Post by mrfixit on Apr 16, 2011 5:45:32 GMT -5
Aww not necessarily. Most manufacturers didn't make the switch until the early 90's. Smith and Wesson's I believe was in the mid 90's, about the same time they made the switch to the frame locks and Hillary holes. I'm not trying to argue with ya, just saying people need to know what they are carrying, how it operates etc etc and not assume anything. Sometimes that extra round just isn't worth the risk, at least not in my opinion. But then we both know what opinions are like Most defensive situations are going to be very quick with a minimum amount of rounds fired. I remember reading a study once that said something along the lines that a the vast majority, like over 80 or 90 percent of defensive situations last less than 5 seconds with with only 5 or 6 rounds fired between both parties. I don't remember the exact numbers but I do remember the few rounds fired and the small amount of time really surprised me. I've also heard that a pistol is only a means to get you to your rifle if the S really does HTF, and there's some logic in that thinking too. ;D
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 16, 2011 7:40:49 GMT -5
Post by danf on Apr 16, 2011 7:40:49 GMT -5
I don't have much experience in the world of revolters, so correct me if I'm wrong here... If a revolver is carried on an empty chamber and the trigger is pulled (double action revolver, who in their right mind would carry a single action for self defense??) won't the cylinder still rotate as the trigger is pulled and the hammer will then strike a live round?
What I'm getting at, is in the situation posted at the beginning of the thread a revolver still would have gone off if enough pressure was applied to the hammer by the holster. I would guess that it would have been difficult for the holster to apply as much pressure as required due to a heavier trigger, but it still would have been possible for a revolver to go off.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 16, 2011 8:13:19 GMT -5
Post by mrfixit on Apr 16, 2011 8:13:19 GMT -5
Yes you are correct, it would have gone off if the trigger was pulled even if it was being carried on a empty chamber. The empty chamber is only to prevent an AD when dropped or if the hammer is otherwise struck. Once the trigger is cycled all bets are off, it will discharge barring ammo failure.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 16, 2011 13:16:51 GMT -5
Post by coyote6974 on Apr 16, 2011 13:16:51 GMT -5
Aww not necessarily. Most manufacturers didn't make the switch until the early 90's. Smith and Wesson's I believe was in the mid 90's, about the same time they made the switch to the frame locks and Hillary holes. I'm not trying to argue with ya, just saying people need to know what they are carrying, how it operates etc etc and not assume anything. Sometimes that extra round just isn't worth the risk, at least not in my opinion. But then we both know what opinions are like Most defensive situations are going to be very quick with a minimum amount of rounds fired. I remember reading a study once that said something along the lines that a the vast majority, like over 80 or 90 percent of defensive situations last less than 5 seconds with with only 5 or 6 rounds fired between both parties. I don't remember the exact numbers but I do remember the few rounds fired and the small amount of time really surprised me. I've also heard that a pistol is only a means to get you to your rifle if the S really does HTF, and there's some logic in that thinking too. ;D Uhh.. Most Smith & Wesson double action revolvers have been produced with an internal hammer block for over 100 years. It's been safe to carry Smith & Wesson double action revolvers with a live round under the hammer for the past century. Colt also fitted their double action revolvers with hammer blocks from the time they began producing DA revolvers. These internal hammer blocks simply keep the hammer mounted firing pins from contacting a cartridge primer if the gun is dropped on the hammer. Colt Single Action Army revolvers, and early Ruger single action revolvers required that the hammer be lowered on an empty chamber since there was no hammer block in these early single action revolvers. When Colt resumed production of their SAA after WWII they incorporated a hammer block into their revolver making it safe to carry fully loaded. Ruger incorporated a hammer block into their single action revolvers in 1973, and offered a free service to fit your earlier gun with the hammer block. Though I refuse to ever own one, I believe the frame locks on the current production S&W revolvers lock the action so it will not function at all, and can't be cocked. The hammer blocks have been in the guns forever.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 17, 2011 6:58:42 GMT -5
Post by dbd870 on Apr 17, 2011 6:58:42 GMT -5
The 90's! Yep, hammer blocks are not new at all. The early Rugers are a good example of a more "recent" one, but single action revolvers are now pretty well only seen used as field guns and cowboy action shooting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Ouch!
Apr 17, 2011 7:12:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2011 7:12:31 GMT -5
Ruger offered a free upgrade on all of their revolvers to make the changes on prior models. Carry a pistol not loaded to capacity is not smart if you think you may need to use it in a gun fight, which is way your carrying anyway. Same goes for long guns used for protection
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 18, 2011 18:01:24 GMT -5
Post by mrfixit on Apr 18, 2011 18:01:24 GMT -5
Dang you all are right. I didn't realize there had been a "hammer block" on the S&W revolvers since the 40's. Sometimes it does pay to hang around this place ;D
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 19, 2011 12:55:03 GMT -5
Post by dsayer on Apr 19, 2011 12:55:03 GMT -5
I don't own a handgun and I've only shot one once, maybe twice so maybe this is a really stupid question, but isn't there a safety on this thing? Pretty sure every gun I've shot (except my ML) requires that I switch the safety to "fire" before it goes bang.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 19, 2011 14:49:16 GMT -5
Post by Sasquatch on Apr 19, 2011 14:49:16 GMT -5
I don't own a handgun and I've only shot one once, maybe twice so maybe this is a really stupid question, but isn't there a safety on this thing? Pretty sure every gun I've shot (except my ML) requires that I switch the safety to "fire" before it goes bang. DING DING DING! I wouldn't carry something on my hind end with an exposed trigger that could go off if touched. How long does it take to flip a safety off, especially if you are in the habit of doing it? It should be automatic. This guy, unless I'm mistaken, didn't have a choice. The lack of a true safety is the one thing I don't like about the Glock. I would also add that idiotic, fully preventable , and potentially deadly screwups like this just give anti-carry folks convincing arguments to use against us. Perhaps we should shoot the guy with his own handgun. I know it sounds harsh, but I truely believe this kind of dumbness endangers our rights.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 19, 2011 15:39:04 GMT -5
Post by dsayer on Apr 19, 2011 15:39:04 GMT -5
That's exactly what I was thinking Sas. No way in Hell would I carry a loaded gun strapped inside my pants that didn't have a safety. And to your point about how quick it is to flip a safety switch, I just keep thinking about when I'm bird hunting and how I don't even have to think about the safety. It's just part of the motion of shooting. I'd think it would be the same with a handgun, but as I mentioned, I have virtually no experience with them.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 19, 2011 17:29:24 GMT -5
Post by shinglemonkey on Apr 19, 2011 17:29:24 GMT -5
This guy, unless I'm mistaken, didn't have a choice. The lack of a true safety is the one thing I don't like about the Glock. You are mistaken. Did you even look at the pic? The problem was with his wore out holster that should of covered the trigger, it caved in and pushed the trigger. It had nothing to do with the gun, it was a holster that was not properly maintained.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 19, 2011 17:30:35 GMT -5
Post by shinglemonkey on Apr 19, 2011 17:30:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 19, 2011 18:51:44 GMT -5
Post by Sasquatch on Apr 19, 2011 18:51:44 GMT -5
This guy, unless I'm mistaken, didn't have a choice. The lack of a true safety is the one thing I don't like about the Glock. You are mistaken. Did you even look at the pic? The problem was with his wore out holster that should of covered the trigger, it caved in and pushed the trigger. It had nothing to do with the gun, it was a holster that was not properly maintained. What I meant was the gun doesn't have a safety. In that I believe I am still not mistaken. Yes, I saw the picture. I concede that the holster was a piece of crap, but the gun did indeed have something to do with this, most notably that it went off without a finger anywhere near the trigger. I still say the guy is a poor representative for firearms owners.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 19, 2011 19:36:12 GMT -5
Post by dsayer on Apr 19, 2011 19:36:12 GMT -5
I think it's obvious that the holster is what depressed the trigger and caused it to fire. I think the point that Sas (and myself) are trying to make is that if there was a safety engaged the holster could have been on that trigger all day long without the weapon ever firing. That's what makes a safety so...safe.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 19, 2011 19:47:26 GMT -5
Post by shinglemonkey on Apr 19, 2011 19:47:26 GMT -5
The gun worked like it was designed, to fire when the trigger and the trigger saftey was depressed. The weak link was the slob of a gun owner.
Lucky for us there are slobs in every aspect of life not just guns and hunting.
|
|
magnum500
Full Member
A man is built by trial... not comfort.
Posts: 78
|
Ouch!
Apr 22, 2011 13:33:49 GMT -5
Post by magnum500 on Apr 22, 2011 13:33:49 GMT -5
First off, I really appreciate conversations like this, guys. I'm fairly new to the firearms scene (only been shooting about 2 1/2 years now), and need to soak in all the information I can. So, excuse me for being so green, but could someone explain to me what this "hammer block" is for the revolver? (since we are on the subject of being safe with carry arms) I know I can learn this from some website somewhere, but I'd rather hear from experienced, real people. I'm thinking about getting and possibly carrying a revolver, (S&W most likely) so it would really help if I knew all the saftey features on them.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 22, 2011 15:18:55 GMT -5
Post by mrfixit on Apr 22, 2011 15:18:55 GMT -5
|
|
magnum500
Full Member
A man is built by trial... not comfort.
Posts: 78
|
Ouch!
Apr 22, 2011 20:11:56 GMT -5
Post by magnum500 on Apr 22, 2011 20:11:56 GMT -5
Thanks, mrfixit. The joy of the visual aid.
|
|
|
Ouch!
Apr 24, 2011 8:30:47 GMT -5
Post by chicobrownbear on Apr 24, 2011 8:30:47 GMT -5
Hammer blocks are also referred to as "transfer bars" as well. I believe the different terms are copyrighted. IIRC, "Transfer Bar" is what Ruger calls it.
|
|