transfer bars...


PDA






shotgunmessenger96
September 5, 2011, 03:35 AM
The transfer bar safety is genius, i love em. but why is it in every gun ive ever seen that has one, it only rises high enough for the hammer to make it strike half of the firing pin when the trigger is fully pulled? when the hammer is lowered and resting on the frame, the transfer bar could still come up a good 8th inch before getting close to the firing pin. having having a higher transfer bar would allow for it to cover and strike the entire back surface of the firing pin when the trigger is pulled instead of just half of it.
The gun i got flustered over this with is my newly acquired EAA bounty hunter, 45 colt. (i reload and my 45 colt ammo is as inexpensive as 22lr ammo and can be even less expensive,:D.did the math). Its a good gun, but If the trigger is slowly pulled, the trigger will disengage from the full cock notch before it can raise the transfer bar into its fully upward position covering the whole .04 inches that it should. In my case it only raised up far enough to barely strike the lower edge of the fp and slightly deformed it. had to take it out and polish off the deformation in order for the fp to not stick.

- My questions -why not have a transfer bar that covers the WHOLE back of the firing pin when the trigger is pulled?
-is there a way to adjust how far the transfer bar rises without fusing on an extension?

If you enjoyed reading about "transfer bars..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GP100man
September 5, 2011, 09:17 AM
Sounds as if your Bounty Hunter needs a little warranty work & I feel a FP should`nt deform from a misplaced strike .

JohnM
September 5, 2011, 09:39 AM
The lawyer safety!, what a worthless and complicated addition to a proven safe design.
I wouldn't own any exposed hammer firearm made after those things came out. :barf:

PRM
September 5, 2011, 09:47 AM
The lawyer safety!, what a worthless and complicated addition to a proven safe design.
I wouldn't own any exposed hammer firearm made after those things came out.

So what are you saying. Are you weighing in for or against.

Lawdawg45
September 5, 2011, 09:53 AM
"The lawyer safety!, what a worthless and complicated addition to a proven safe design."

I must respectfully disagree. I often carry a SA as my CCW and I hunt with a longer barrel version, so the transfer bar makes it safe to carry that 6th round with no worries. Wyatt Earp would have welcomed that transfer bar, it would have prevented his AD in the saloon that day. From that point on he carried 5 and had the hammer on an empty chamber, something he didn't like but did out of safety.:cool:

LD45

45_auto
September 5, 2011, 11:24 AM
i reload and my 45 colt ammo is as inexpensive as 22lr ammo and can be even less expensive,.did the math

Obviously you didn't do it correctly or you just enjoy lying to yourself.

There are many different brands of .22 ammo available at 500 rounds for about $15, which works out to 3 cents each (do the math).

Cheapest primers you'll find are Wolf or Tula, $16/1000 or 1.6 cents each.

Cheapest powder you'll find is about $15/pound. An EXTREMELY light load would be 4 grains per cartridge, which means each powder charge costs you about 1 cent.

It's always nice to have bullets. If you're buying the cheapest .45's you can find, they're costing you about 5 cents each.

If you're casting your own with free lead, you're probably only spending about 1 cent each for the lube.

Shouldn't be too hard for anyone to figure out that even ignoring electricity costs for casting and case cleaning equipment, and the cost of case cleaning supplies, you're well over 3 cents each no matter how you reload.

savit260
September 5, 2011, 06:06 PM
The lawyer safety!, what a worthless and complicated addition to a proven safe design.
I wouldn't own any exposed hammer firearm made after those things came out.


So you don't own any exposed hammer firearms made after 1894?? ( google Iver Johnson Safety Automatic)

Do you also remove the positive hammer block in your older S&W's and Colts?? That pretty much acomplishes the same thing the transfer bar does, in a slightly different way.

shotgunmessenger96
September 5, 2011, 06:41 PM
45_auto,my lead is free, i don't use bullet lube. i mold at a friend's house,my powder is 14 dollars/1lb. 22lr shells here are about $22 per 550. thank you everyone for your helpful advice concerning transfer bars.

Drail
September 5, 2011, 08:19 PM
Ideally the transfer should cover "most" of the firing pin. When you factor in manufacturing tolerance stacking (Google it) unfortunately quite a few guns are shipped out with only partial coverage of the pin (half or less). When I first started doing trigger work on Ruger SA revos I ran into this problem immediately. When depth of the hammer notches are cut down, the transfer bar doesn't rise as far as it did before. If it only covered half of the pin before, now it will be a little less. I personally own several Rugers that only have the T bar covering barely half of the firing pin upon sear release and through the years they have been 100% reliable. The only "solution" is to manufacture a new T bar or weld one up and cut it back to fit. Some smiths will do this if you want to pay the price. It really seems to be a non issue. A bigger issue is how much of the hammer's impact force strikes the T bar and how much strikes the frame. The frame should take most of the force (maybe 60/40). If the majority of the force is being applied to the T bar it's only a matter of time before it breaks. It is a cast part and they can be a somewhat brittle. If your gun fires every time I wouldn't worry too much about how much of the T bar is over the pin. Most of them work just fine. It sounds as though you may have a soft firing pin. You might want to buy a spare firing pin and T bar and put back for the day when it stops working.

Tallinar
September 5, 2011, 10:41 PM
I've never heard of the transfer bar being described as a lawyer safety. :confused: Perhaps you are completely mistaking the transfer bar for the ILS?

I owned a EAA Bounty Hunter awhile back. I sold it and moved to a New Vaquero in .45 Colt. The EAA had an extremely heavy hammer and trigger pull for a single action. I had an issue with screws loosening quite frequently. I will never look back. Rugers are much better fit, much smoother. For me, the comparison between EAA Bounty Hunter and Vaquero (new or old) is a shining example of "you get what you pay for."

shotgunmessenger96
September 6, 2011, 02:55 AM
yeah, this gun was a trade in. the previous owner used it for a cowboy shooting mach and decided to quit. when i got it everything checked out ok but trigger pull gauged at about 8 pounds. all of my guns have pristine triggers as i do trigger jobs on most all my guns. but live and learn, lightening the trigger to about 4 lbs caused my whole problem although the firing pin may be a bit soft. i put a neat 1/4 diam fcaw tac on the upper edge of the t-bar and polished it almost flush leaving it slightly thicker to allow the somewhat softer filler to work harden via being slammed against the frame by the hammer. i wanted to tig it but didn't have access to a machine. works great now.
Good info there, thanks Drail

CraigC
September 6, 2011, 10:03 AM
I've never heard of the transfer bar being described as a lawyer safety.
Ruger's transfer bar-equipped New Model action was a direct response to lawsuits filed by dummy shooters who shot themselves because they carried their "Old Model" Blackhawks with the hammer down on a live round.

Jim K
September 6, 2011, 12:41 PM
Many of those transfer bars don't reach their top position until the trigger is fully pulled, so if you look at the gun on full cock, you will not see the transfer bar all the way up. But that can also mean that if the trigger pull is made short or light enough that the trigger does not need to be pulled all the way to the rear the transfer bar may strike only the bottom of the firing pin, even though the designer intended that it strike more fully.

The transfer bar has a major disadvantage over a hammer block safety. The transfer bar is struck each time the gun is fired (or dry fired). That could mean, depending on design, that it is subject to battering and possible metal fatigue. Ideally, the transfer bar should be pushed forward by the hammer, with enough gap between the hammer and firing pin that the hammer is stopped by the frame, not by the transfer bar.

The hammer block safety, like the current S&W type or the Colt "positive" safety is never struck or even touched by the hammer; if the trigger is pulled, the block is always out of the way when the hammer falls.

Jim

Tallinar
September 6, 2011, 01:16 PM
Ruger's transfer bar-equipped New Model action was a direct response to lawsuits filed by dummy shooters who shot themselves because they carried their "Old Model" Blackhawks with the hammer down on a live round.

I still fail to see how improving a revolver to the point where it can be safely carried making use of all 6 chambers would strictly be a response to lawsuits. Whether or not lawsuits were the straw that broke the camel's back, I call it a valuable innovation. The transfer bar (or the hammer block, for that matter) turned a 5 shot revolver with 6 chambers into a 6 shot revolver with 6 chambers.

The transfer bar safety brought improvement to the working function of the gun. The ILS, for comparison, brings no improvement to the working function of the gun - and in some cases it can be argued that it actually brings impairment.

Not all safety features are bad, folks. :)

CraigC
September 6, 2011, 01:41 PM
I still fail to see how improving a revolver to the point where it can be safely carried making use of all 6 chambers would strictly be a response to lawsuits.
Not everybody sees it as an improvement. I don't. There is a lot wrong with it. Head to head to what I view as near perfect in the Old Model lockwork, the New Model action comes up short everywhere but its ability to save idiots from themselves. It is not as smooth out of the box, there is an inherent amount of creep in the trigger that can be minimized by a competent gunsmith but never eliminated. Old Model triggers are much lighter and more crisp. Old Model actions are much smoother. On Old Models the chambers line up properly with the loading gate at the audible "click". Which makes them much quicker and easier to manipulate. On New Models, when its clicks, you've gone too far. One must hold the chamber in position for loading and unloading. New Models will always ring the cylinder, while a properly timed and properly handled traditional sixgun will not. Myself and lots of other folks will gladly trade that one extra shot for all the advantages of a traditional action. There's a reason why Colt, USFA, Uberti and others continue to produce traditional sixguns.

But it was indeed a direct response to those lawsuits. This is undeniable. The New Model action was not a result of customer wants/needs. It was purely lawyer-induced, as was originally stated.

Tallinar
September 6, 2011, 01:56 PM
I do understand what you're describing as far as the cylinder clicks and lining up properly at the loading gate. This was somewhat of an aggravation for me with my .45 New Vaquero. My .44 special New Vaquero seems to not possess this problem though (or if it does, it's at least not as noticeable - maybe I've just learned to live with it); nor did my New Model SBH.

I defer that you know more about that subject than I do, but I came to understand that this issue was not caused specifically by the transfer bar mechanism. At any rate, I've read that Ruger has corrected in on their more recent production single actions. I may be misinformed.

As far as trigger differences. I guess I can't speak to that. I am completely satisfied with the trigger pull on my New Vaqueros. I have no intention of modifying them from their factory state (aside from simply shooting them a lot). I have fired old model Vaqueroes that had been worked to extremely light triggers, and I must say I didn't care for them.

You've persuaded me to change my argument a bit. Given my chosen applications for a single action revolver, I regard the ability to safely carry a 6th round as an improvement. But I can definitely see how others may view it differently, depending on their application. I still hold that the transfer bar brings a valid working improvement to the table - setting it apart from the classically-referred to "lawyer safeties" like the ILS.

highlander 5
September 6, 2011, 02:16 PM
In my 40 years of owning revolvers with a transfer bar I've had one break and that was a Blackhawk in 45 Colt. Sent it bacl to Ruger repaired free of charge

CraigC
September 6, 2011, 04:01 PM
I do understand what you're describing as far as the cylinder clicks and lining up properly at the loading gate. This was somewhat of an aggravation for me with my .45 New Vaquero. My .44 special New Vaquero seems to not possess this problem though (or if it does, it's at least not as noticeable - maybe I've just learned to live with it); nor did my New Model SBH.
All New Vaqueros (post 2005 mid-frame) do not exhibit this problem. For the first time in New Model history, spanning 32yrs, Ruger addressed it with their "reverse indexing pawl". This is essentially a freespin pawl with a spring-loaded plunger added that engages the ratchet teeth on the cylinder to properly index the chambers at the "click". Without the plunger, the cylinder would just spin freely in both directions. To date, only the New Vaquero (including the Montado and .44Spl's marked simply "Vaquero") and late model flat-tops have this feature. It works rather well and is a big step in the right direction.

When I speak of "Old Models", I'm referring, as Ruger does, to those traditional guns made before the New Model redesign in 1973. So the original large frame Vaquero, is indeed a "New Model" single action utilizing the "New Model" lockwork.

Though I agree 100% that the transfer bar action shouldn't be lumped in with the S&W internal lock.

bergmen
September 6, 2011, 04:13 PM
My only problem with the transfer bars on my Ruger single actions is a lack of a bevel on the top inside edge of the transfer bar that can jam the cocking motion. Easy to simulate if you point the muzzle straight down at the ground and begin cocking the transfer bar will sometimes hang up on the protruding rear of the firing pin.

This has happened to all of my Ruger SA's and I have been meaning to disassemble and fix them myself.

Dan

MICHAEL T
September 6, 2011, 04:38 PM
I have a old model Ruger black hawk. When Iam dead and buried and some one else owns. They can have the transfer bar installed I like mine just fine. I carry 5 hammer over empty. . I see no reason to change.

Drail
September 7, 2011, 08:25 AM
Bergmen, if your transfer bar is able to snag on the firing pin then the problem is with your base pin. It is either not seated all the way into the breechface or the tip has some material missing. The base pin should hold the transfer bar up off of the firing pin just enough that the transfer bar rides up over the firing pin. It should not matter if the muzzle is pointed up or down.

CraigC
September 7, 2011, 08:56 AM
Bergmen, if your transfer bar is able to snag on the firing pin then the problem is with your base pin. It is either not seated all the way into the breechface or the tip has some material missing. The base pin should hold the transfer bar up off of the firing pin just enough that the transfer bar rides up over the firing pin. It should not matter if the muzzle is pointed up or down.
Yep! I've never had it happen that it was anything other than the basepin.

CajunBass
September 7, 2011, 09:39 AM
I don't know if it's an improvement or not. I've got two old model Single-Six's, both from 1958. One has had the transfer bar installed, the other hasn't. I really can't tell a lot of difference between the triggers. The stock one might, MIGHT, be a little better, but not enough to get all whooped up over.

Of the two, I like the converted one better, but that may be simply because it's the older (lower S/N) of the two, and I like the homemade grips someone made for it better. One shoots about the same as the other as far as I can tell.

All in all I suppose I'd prefer the ones without the T/B but that's only the hidden collector in me coming out.

bergmen
September 7, 2011, 12:10 PM
Bergmen, if your transfer bar is able to snag on the firing pin then the problem is with your base pin. It is either not seated all the way into the breechface or the tip has some material missing. The base pin should hold the transfer bar up off of the firing pin just enough that the transfer bar rides up over the firing pin. It should not matter if the muzzle is pointed up or down.

Yes, I see that now after examining the cutaway views in my Ruger manual. Interesting. I had this happen on the two Blackhawks I no longer own and on occasion with my fairly new Bisley.

I will check this out. Thanks for the tip!

Dan

CraigC
September 7, 2011, 01:06 PM
The stock one might, MIGHT, be a little better, but not enough to get all whooped up over.
I've handled converted OM's that the action was so gritty and the trigger so creepy I would rather have a NM. And that's pretty bad because I run my Single Sixes fast and REALLY prefer a half cock action. My well-used OMSS has never been tuned but sports a lovely 2.5lb creep-free trigger. Others are similar but nothing compares to a professionally tuned OM, Colt or replica.

Red Cent
September 7, 2011, 01:25 PM
In my case you can blame age. Saturday matinees. Nostalgia.

CraigC has said it. Not much I can add.

If you enjoyed reading about "transfer bars..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!