Blackpowder Pistol carry.

[Texasgrillchef]

Disclaimer.... I am not going to EDC a Pietta BP revolver, with or without a cartridge conversion. This is just a question and discussion about how they were historically carried back when percussion BP guns existed, as well as how they actually carried cartridge pistols as well, including the “Peacemaker”

Many currently practice only loading 5 of the 6 cylinders in either percussion or cartridge. Yet somehow I find it difficult to believe that back then, that they did the same, and didn’t somehow manage to still carry safely. Especially riding on horses, and dealing with cattle, and other livestock and other typical farm/ranch work. I am sure there were in fact many accidents, but somehow I fail to believe that there were so many as not to consider it so unsafe that nobody was including the Texas Rangers, Marshall’s, Sheriffs still considered having them as safe. So how were these percussion black powder revolvers and the SA revolvers carried back then?

 

[.38 Special]

From what I have read, it was common to carry percussion revolvers with all chambers loaded and the hammer down on a pin. It also was common to make fun of people who did that as unsafe.

With regard to the SAA, from what I understand it was advised right from the start to carry "five beans in the wheel" and lower the hammer on the empty chamber. I have two separate texts from the 19th century which both advise to "load one, skip one, load four more, then cock and lower the hammer on the empty chamber".

 

[DocRock]

I have no reason to believe the population was more united in its opinions and concepts of risk tolerance and safety in the latter half of the 19th Century than it is now.

I carry six loaded in a flap holster in my single action cartridge guns without transfer bar safety. I can't say I've ever carried a cap and ball. In CAS, it's load five, one empty. At the range firing cap and ball, I load six.

 

[shoobe01]

One thing I have certainly gotten the impression of (most of my research being from 1900 onward, so more transitional etc) is that there were a hell of a lot more tiny guns carried every day than big manly guns. And those were carried in not holsters, but vest pockets. Oh, wait, some were even called "vest pocket pistols."

This sort of gun, a very small one (or two due to reload issues) explains why we hear that in at least some circles, at some times, in some locales, essentially everyone was armed, but... you couldn't tell. Almost no one had a big gun on the hip, but everyone had A gun.

Also important, a lot of these (I have no numbers at all, but "a lot") were not revolvers, but singles, doubles, pepperboxes, etc. So very different operation. No real option to carry hammer down on an empty chamber when you only have one So... not sure.




For revolvers, think the '49 Colt:


If the size in the hand isn't doing it, check the comparison to a .44:


Here a slightly later .22 short cartridge gun, posed in recent times coming out of a vest pocket, no holster.


Okay, the two pieces of info I was told way back when, but have no reason to believe or not either, is that: 1) the half cock was for safe carriage, but not until the "safety revolvers" came out in the 1900s did that get serious, and slipping off half cock was common 2) that back in the day more carried hammer down /between/ caps (cylinder half rotated... which I know some guns can do but not sure of all) or how well that would work.

Also, seen references to well fitted holsters to keep the caps in place, keep it dry and I wouldn't be surprised if they had something else for safety that we're not aware of, especially since all were custom jobs then, and very few survived, even fewer examples of fabric modifications.

(Aside: saw a great article about why clothes from the old days are so tiny: because those are the ones that survived. No, people weren't that much smaller, and even among the wealthy they would hand down and rework clothes for decades. Ones that fit normal people got used, revised, used up, cut up, tossed. We don't have any examples. Only the weird ones, for size, for materials, for fashion, survived. So don't forget some survivorship bias when trying to research some of this. A surviving holster for example may imply that it was not used at all so is a bad example,... since it survived!)


And yeah, there were gun control measures (with many southern cities beating NYC by decades here!) from the mid 1840s at least. So I wonder how much small was not just convenient like we think of EDC today, but sneaky, to avoid detection.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

One of the things that keeps popping into my mind about safety with the guns back then, is if there were a lot of accidental shootings, of the gun going off when u didn’t want it too and not because it was in your hand, but in a pocket, or in a holster, I find it hard to believe that colt, browning and other gunmakers of the era wouldn’t have devised a “safety” much sooner then they did finally start showing up on guns.

I did see a YouTube video of a guy that carried his cap n ball, in a holster with a flap, and then as well as a hammer loop, that kept the hammer from being cocked. He carries with all 5 chambers loaded. It is an 1858, so he carried with Hammer down, cylinder half rotated in its groove. Now he only carries the revolver on his ranch/land. So that’s what made me start thinking about how they actually carried back in the mid 1800’s

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

Okay so we'll assume it's 1875 here:
Aside from the .45 caliber Army pistol from Colt, most revolvers you can rest the hammer between two chambers for safety, even on the older cap guns. On a Remington design, there's grooves between the cap nipples. On Colts and other open top designs, there are pins that you can rest the hammer on. There is debate about the frailty about these pins, but most I've seen hold up well.
Even for cartridge pistols, there is plenty enough space between the rims of the chambers that you can rest a firing pin between and carry this safely. Infact I have done so with several, and it was quite safe. But this is what the .45 revolver by Colt is a expection, the rims of the .45 Colt are too big for the firing pin to rest in-between.
So if you can safely rest the hammer between two chambers/rims of cases, you should do so, for a man ought to be concerned about his own safety as much as his combat effectiveness.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Aside from the .45 caliber Army pistol from Colt, most revolvers you can rest the hammer between two chambers for safety,

Maybe you can....
Maybe you can't...,
In most revolvers' design, maybe, and in most revolvers' original configuration, again, maybe...,
Colt percussion cylinder in proper condition...,


But as these antique cylinders show, those cylinders did not remain in that condition. Alas we have no way of telling how long the pins lasted,


On this 1860 with a fluted cylinder you will note the hint of a pin...,


Now when it comes to Remington 1858's, here is the percussion cylinder with the safety notches...


Such notches I would doubt would ever wear out. However, what about conversions of 1858 Remingtons to cartridges ???

Note that on this particular type of conversion the cylinder no longer has "safety notches". Either the firing pin is down on an empty chamber or on the primer of a live round, OR one keeps the pistol on half-cock, with the cylinder rotated so the pin does not rest on a cartridge primer.


Here is a second type of conversion for an 1858 Remington. In this conversion, the firing pin is not spring loaded, and rides along against either an empty chamber or against the primer of a live round, unless the owner half-cocks the piece...,


So how much of a Myth was the admonition that lowering the hammer on an empty chamber and loading the remainder with live ammo was a common safety practice? Was it the most common? As one may see above, there may have been a reason for it, but whether that reason was known to be needed, or was based on repetition of a story of one or two freak accidents, can we really ever know?

LD

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

can we really ever know?

No, only what we experience ourselves when we use these old revolvers.
There's some things we can accurately guess base on scientific and reasonable evidence, and then other things such as wear that it's only speculation.
Like for example, why are so many of the cartridge conversion revolvers so loose and shot up? My theory is many of them were used well into the smokeless era, and many a person fired the modern smokeless ammo of that day, and thus beat up their gun. But yes, this is all speculation. Too bad they didn't have gun forums like we do today to document those experiences.

 

[45 Dragoon]

Well, for what it's worth, I get NEW open top revolvers in the shop with "hints of pins" and I know they were there when new!! It's a neglect "thing" me thinks!!! If New ones can be in that condition, I'm sure the originals that have been used as "toys" by those that don't know any better can have appalling "conditions". If wedges don't get installed correctly (cartridge or not) and then shot or played with for decades, you get what you get . . . so who really knows. The safetys given at the time were just those . . . and trying to decipher how and if they were used from what's left of them today may be pushing it ?

Mike

 

[sspierce8]

From what I have read, it was common to carry percussion revolvers with all chambers loaded and the hammer down on a pin. It also was common to make fun of people who did that as unsafe.

With regard to the SAA, from what I understand it was advised right from the start to carry "five beans in the wheel" and lower the hammer on the empty chamber. I have two separate texts from the 19th century which both advise to "load one, skip one, load four more, then cock and lower the hammer on the empty chamber".

Who was texting back in the 19th century Just kidding, that sounds like an excellent way to load one. I never heard that before.

 

[OrangePwrx9]

Very good thread. There's a lot could be covered here. Not just in keeping the hammer away from a live primer (where I've learned a lot already), but also how firearms were safely physically retained on one's person.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

There's some things we can accurately guess base on scientific and reasonable evidence, and then other things such as wear that it's only speculation.

Excellent point but "reasonable evidence" isn't necessarily used.

For example a few years back, Maryland changed its Hunter Safety Program. The program sacrificed some of its training in muzzle loader safety, by dropping some of the questions from its final test, so that a person may pass the written test with a grade of 100%, and not know that one cannot use smokeless powder in a muzzle loading rifle or gun. The questions that remained were "True/False: Muzzle Loading firearms load from the muzzle", and a question on how to handle a hang-fire.

The state added to the lesson plan, information about the dangers of mixing 20 gauge ammo with 12 gauge ammo when carrying a 12 gauge shotgun. That the inexperienced person might load and jamb far forward into that 12 gauge barrel a 20 gauge shell, and THEN if a 12 gauge shell could fit, and was loaded and fired, that would be bad. Sounds bad but would it actually be bad ???

Well I found several tests on the internet, and some ruptured the barrel, but most of the time the barrel held though perhaps bulged. These were staged tests. I could not find any reports on the internet of such a thing happening as an accident, let alone accidents with injuries.

On the other hand, I found no less than a dozen instances where people misloaded their muzzle loaders with modern, smokeless powder, and the guns exploded, always injuring the shooters, often maiming them. One of the victims was a Maryland resident and injured in the state of Maryland. BUT the DNR decided in spite of the evidence which I provided to them, that it was more important to have the information about what they thought was bad, vs. information and teaching about a situation that was much more common (based on actual evidence and facts) with a result that was very bad. AND the state had stopped teaching how to avoid that very bad result.

OH and when I suggested that the DNR simply add a few questions to the written test, and return the original questions to the test, so both areas of safety were covered, I was met with deaf ears.

So factual data and reasonableness doesn't always prevail, but it should.

LD

 

[woodnbow]

Excellent point but "reasonable evidence" isn't necessarily used.

For example a few years back, Maryland changed its Hunter Safety Program. The program sacrificed some of its training in muzzle loader safety, by dropping some of the questions from its final test, so that a person may pass the written test with a grade of 100%, and not know that one cannot use smokeless powder in a muzzle loading rifle or gun. The questions that remained were "True/False: Muzzle Loading firearms load from the muzzle", and a question on how to handle a hang-fire.

The state added to the lesson plan, information about the dangers of mixing 20 gauge ammo with 12 gauge ammo when carrying a 12 gauge shotgun. That the inexperienced person might load and jamb far forward into that 12 gauge barrel a 20 gauge shell, and THEN if a 12 gauge shell could fit, and was loaded and fired, that would be bad. Sounds bad but would it actually be bad ???

Well I found several tests on the internet, and some ruptured the barrel, but most of the time the barrel held though perhaps bulged. These were staged tests. I could not find any reports on the internet of such a thing happening as an accident, let alone accidents with injuries.

On the other hand, I found no less than a dozen instances where people misloaded their muzzle loaders with modern, smokeless powder, and the guns exploded, always injuring the shooters, often maiming them. One of the victims was a Maryland resident and injured in the state of Maryland. BUT the DNR decided in spite of the evidence which I provided to them, that it was more important to have the information about what they thought was bad, vs. information and teaching about a situation that was much more common (based on actual evidence and facts) with a result that was very bad. AND the state had stopped teaching how to avoid that very bad result.

OH and when I suggested that the DNR simply add a few questions to the written test, and return the original questions to the test, so both areas of safety were covered, I was met with deaf ears.

So factual data and reasonableness doesn't always prevail, but it should.

LD

Or maybe they just care less about the people who use muzzleloaders... MZ season runs concurrently with Archery season in Colorado and while muzzleloading hunters are required to wear safety orange, archers are not. Apparently archers are considered more expendable even than black powder shooters...

oh yes, during my Safety class at the local fire station, the instructor produced a formerly fine old double barreled shotgun which had exploded due to a 20 in a 12 scenario. The right barrel burst and the forend was in splinters.

 

[arcticap]

That may be because Blackhorn 209 is a smokeless powder.
And some muzzle loaders actually recommend using smokeless powder such as the discontinued Savage muzzle loader.
I believe that there are specialty makers who do convert some guns into smokeless muzzle loaders.
IIRC one of them was rebarreling H&R receivers.
IMO an important concept to teach would be to always read the owner's manual and to follow the manufacturer's recommendations.
Of course, we don't always do that but perhaps the wildlife agencies want folks to visit THR to ask their BP questions so they can save themselves.

Many but not all black powder guns are stamped "BLACK POWDER ONLY" yet many people still want to defarb them anyway.
And not everyone who simply wants to shoot BP guns takes a hunter safety course.

 

[walterelm]

Thats why i use blackpowder only and no substitutes ... way less to worry about

 

[Jim Watson]

One did not carry the SAA on "half cock". I had a book with a print of the 19th century Colt leaflet which described loading all chambers at half cock and then placing the hammer in the "safety notch" sometimes called "quarter cock." I don't know if the typical owner did that or played it safe with the hammer all the way down on an empty chamber, but the maker's instructions were clear.

Other makers thought about it. The Starr revolver and one version of the Confederate Augusta Navy had 12 bolt notches so the cylinder would be locked up between chambers, not dependent on the skimpy percussion Colt pins.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Disclaimer.... I am not going to EDC a Pietta BP revolver, with or without a cartridge conversion. This is just a question and discussion about how they were historically carried back when percussion BP guns existed, as well as how they actually carried cartridge pistols as well, including the “Peacemaker”

Many currently practice only loading 5 of the 6 cylinders in either percussion or cartridge. Yet somehow I find it difficult to believe that back then, that they did the same, and didn’t somehow manage to still carry safely. Especially riding on horses, and dealing with cattle, and other livestock and other typical farm/ranch work. I am sure there were in fact many accidents, but somehow I fail to believe that there were so many as not to consider it so unsafe that nobody was including the Texas Rangers, Marshall’s, Sheriffs still considered having them as safe. So how were these percussion black powder revolvers and the SA revolvers carried back then?

Not arguing pro or con, just an entertaining anecdote from common gossip. If true, it would seem to semi confirm both.

Wichita Beacon, Janaury 12, 1876 -- "Last Sunday night, while policeman Erp was sitting with two or three others in the back room of the Custom House saloon, his revolver slipped from his holster and in falling to the floor the hammer which rested on the cap, is supposed to have struck the chair, causing a discharge of one of the barrels. The ball passed through his coat, struck the north wall then glanced off and passed out through the ceiling. It was a narrow escape and the occurence got up a lively stampede from the room. One of the demoralized was under the impression that some one had fired through the window from the outside."

 

[Kleanbore]

Many currently practice only loading 5 of the 6 cylinders in either percussion or cartridge. Yet somehow I find it difficult to believe that back then, that they did the same, and didn’t somehow manage to still carry safely.

Probably by using a flap holster tht prevented the droppin go the pistol.

Especially riding on horses, and dealing with cattle, and other livestock and other typical farm/ranch work.

A few hours of that kind of work would likely motivate the rider to put the pistol in a safer place where it didn't get in the way of hands, ropes, and tools.

I fail to believe that there were so many as not to consider it so unsafe that nobody was including the Texas Rangers, Marshall’s, Sheriffs still considered having them as safe.

Why?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Smith and Wesson made lots and lots of small 'Pocket Pistols'. Here is a photo showing some comparative sizes. The three revolvers on the left are what are known as Tip Up revolvers. These were the first revolvers S&W made, starting in 1857. There was a latch at the bottom of the barrel, and a hinge at the top of the barrel. The little brass framed Tip Up at the bottom left is called a No. 1. This particular one is a #1, 1st Issue, 5th Type and it left the factory in 1859. It was a seven shot revolver shooting what we would call today the 22 Short. Next up is a # 1 1/2 32 Rimfire five shot revolver, and the big Tip Up is a #2 Old Army 32 Rimfire six shot revolver. The #2 was popular with Union officers in the Civil War. It was the largest Tip Up S&W made, they experimented with a 44 caliber Tip Up but the design was not strong enough for a 44 caliber revolver. The #2 with its standard 5" or 6" barrel was fairly large and not easily concealed. Over on the right are Top Break revolvers. Unlike the Tip Ups, they were reloaded by lifting the latch at the rear of the barrel and rotating the barrel down. The large screw under the barrel is the pivot point for the barrel. S&W started making Top Breaks in 1869 when the White patent, which they controlled, for boring through the cylinder for cartridges, expired. From the top, a big #3 2nd Model Russian, six shots chambered for 44 Russian which shipped in 1875. Much too big to be easily concealed, this is a belt gun. Next down a 38 Single Action 1st Model, this model is often called the Baby Russian, a five shot 38 S&W revolver, it shipped in 1876. And finally, a 32 Single Action 5 shot 32 S&W revolver which shipped in 1889. Notice all of these revolvers have external hammers and none of them are safe to carry fully loaded. A strong blow to the hammer would probably discharge them, even it the hammer was set at the fragile 'safety cock' notch. The Tip Ups are very simple revolvers, there is no 'safety cock' or half cock position for the hammer, it is either at full cock or all the way down. So the firing pin of a Tip Up is resting directly on the rim of a cartridge under the hammer. The Top Breaks all have a 'safety cock' notch, S&W actually called it half cock, because the hammer was either all the way down, about 1/8" back at 'half cock' or fully cocked.

Now here is an interesting point. After the Civil War many towns across the country began enacting laws against open carry of pistols. Up to this time S&W had only been making the tiny #1 Tip Ups and the larger #2 Old Army. In order to sell a revolver that would be more easily concealed, in other words a Pocket Revolver, they came up with the # 1 1/2 Tip Up. Bigger than the #1, but smaller than the #2. Like the #2, the #1 1/2 was a 32 Rimfire revolver, but because the frame, and hence the cylinder were smaller then the #2, it was a five shot revolver.

I suspect most did not carry these revolvers with an empty chamber under the hammer. I have no proof of that, but that is my suspicion.






Here is how a Tip Up worked. This Old Army has its barrel rotated up and cylinder removed, ready to be loaded with six fresh 32 Long Rimfire cartridges.






I find the term 'vest pocket' pistol very misleading. Here is the little S&W #1 pictured with a 25 ACP Browning 'Baby' Auto. I would consider the Baby Browning to be a 'vest pocket' pistol, but the vest would have to have pretty big pockets.






I would consider all of these revolvers to be Pocket Pistols. Notice there is quite a variation in size. Top left is a S&W 32 Safety Hammerless Bicycle Revolver. A five shot revolver chambered for 32 S&W. These short barreled models were known as Bicycle Revolvers because at the turn of the Century riding bicycles was becoming a popular national pastime. Easily hidden in a pocket in case Daisy had to be protected from ruffians while riding the bicycle built for two. This one shipped in 1908. To the right is another Safety Hammerless, this one is a 38 Safety Hammerless, 3rd Model, it shipped in 1896. The Safety Hammerless revolvers were specifically designed to be carried in a pocket. Double action only, they were meant for close quarters defense, not target shooting. The lack of an exterior hammer (there was an interior hammer hidden under the side plate) meant they would not snag on fabric when being drawn from a pocket. And all S&W Safety Hammerless revolvers had a grip safety, not much different than the grip safety on a Colt 1911. Completely safe to carry fully loaded, the trigger would not move unless the grip safety was depressed. Next down is the S&W #1 1st issue. Below that to the left is the classic Remington Double Derringer. Two shots, 41 Rimfire. Not much point in only carrying it loaded with an empty under the hammer. To the right of the Remington is a Sharps Model 1, sometimes called a Pepperbox. Four barrels, four shots, 22 Short only. At the bottom is a Colt five shot 31 caliber 1849 Pocket Cap & Ball revolver. With it's 4" barrel, Colt considered it a Pocket Revolver and so do I. No 'safety cock' notch on the hammer of any Colt Cap & Ball revolver, only half cock for loading and full cock. This one does have small pins between the nipples and a hollow on the hammer to receive the pins, but the pins and hollow are worn away and will not keep the hammer between chambers. When it was new, it could be completely loaded with five balls and the hammer placed between the nipples.






Regarding letting the hammer down on a Cartridge Colt between chambers: While this would work with a Cap & Ball revolver that had pins between the chambers, or notches to receive the hammer nose, it will not work with a large caliber Colt Single Action Army. I have tried it. Here is a 2nd Gen Colt cylinder with five spent 45 Colt rounds in the chambers. Note how little space there is between the rims at the narrowest point. If the hammer is let down so that the firing pin rests between chambers, it is resting right at that narrowest spot. That is the geometry of the cylinder and the hammer. Notice the shape of the firing pin and how rounded the tip is. With the firing pin between chambers, the slightest effort to rotate the cylinder will result in the firing pin riding up and over the bevel of the rims. It will not stay between the rims. This might work with smaller cartridges, such as a 38 Special, where there would be more space between the rims, but it cannot be relied on with a Colt chambered for large cartridges such as 45 Colt, 44-40, or 38-40.





Do I carry a Colt with the hammer down on an empty chamber? You bet. I have heard and read about too many instances of men being accidentally shot when their Colt fell to the ground and landed on the hammer. Even a stirrup falling on the hammer while preparing to mount a horse has discharged the revolver and shot the rider in the leg. Don't forget, Ruger started putting transfer bars in all their revolvers in the 1970s after they lost some expensive law suits by shooters who did not follow the safety rule of only loading the old Three Screw Rugers with five rounds and leaving an empty under the hammer. The old Three Screws worked just like a Colt, there was no transfer bar.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The state added to the lesson plan, information about the dangers of mixing 20 gauge ammo with 12 gauge ammo when carrying a 12 gauge shotgun. That the inexperienced person might load and jamb far forward into that 12 gauge barrel a 20 gauge shell, and THEN if a 12 gauge shell could fit, and was loaded and fired, that would be bad. Sounds bad but would it actually be bad ???

And that is why ALL 20 gauge shotgun shells today, no matter what brand, are bright yellow. Ever notice that only 20 gauge shells are yellow? When I was a kid, 20 gauge shells could be any color. I remember my Dad warning me about accidentally putting a 20 gauge shell in a 12 gauge shotgun. As stated, the 20 gauge would slide forward, but be caught by the front of the chamber. Very easy to chamber a 12 gauge shell behind it and blow up the gun.

Hopefully somebody is instructing new shotgunners to not let any yellow shells anywhere near their 12 gauge shotguns.

 

[Jim Watson]

After the Civil War many towns across the country began enacting laws against open carry of pistols.

An old article in the Sacramento Bee called the mining town of Bodie, California "Bad Shot Gulch" because of the low casualty rate from its many gunfights. It also said that an Army or Navy revolver was seldom seen in a belt scabbard, the usual weapon was a Bulldog revolver in a canvas or leather lined coat pocket. Might have a connection with the poor shooting.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

And that is why ALL 20 gauge shotgun shells today, no matter what brand, are bright yellow. Ever notice that only 20 gauge shells are yellow? When I was a kid, 20 gauge shells could be any color. I remember my Dad warning me about accidentally putting a 20 gauge shell in a 12 gauge shotgun. As stated, the 20 gauge would slide forward, but be caught by the front of the chamber. Very easy to chamber a 12 gauge shell behind it and blow up the gun.

Hopefully somebody is instructing new shotgunners to not let any yellow shells anywhere near their 12 gauge shotguns.

my grandfather warned me about that too, back in the day and he told me is why he wouldn’t ever buy a 20 gauge. If you don’t have one, then you won’t ever buy the shells for one, and thus will never accidentally confuse the two and never be able to accidentally put one in the other.

I only have a 12 gauge and a 410. No need to have anything in between.

 

[merwin]

So much good information here! I think the most compelling argument for single action safety here is the absence of space between big bore cartridge rims, especially .45lc. Everything else appears to be situation and conjecture. ie: Situation 1: I cannot imagine a frontier weapons philosophy of, 'If you're alive after five, load six'. Doesn't make sense that a man would sit in a poker game with a room full of strangers and leave one out; or a cavalry officer expecting his men to go into combat one round short. It does make sense that a cattle drover who had to deal with the occasional rogue steer or brush rattlesnake might opt for an empty chamber. Situation 2: The presence of safe stations in C&B cylinders and other actual engineering 'hint' in revolver evolution clearly point out a cultural safety issue. Colt actually included a 'safety' sear notch in its Bisley single action. Conjecture: By the turn of the 20th century the live round safety issue had been engineered into extinction. By the end of WWII the revolver was considered the 'safest' handgun you could carry. Written items of accidental discharges or shooting incidents that might have happened over the years dwindled into obscurity. We are always left with the same question; "What's your poison? Die of an infected leg wound or from running dry in a gunfight?"

 

[Jim Watson]

Written items of accidental discharges or shooting incidents that might have happened over the years dwindled into obscurity.

Ruger might dispute that. They got sued enough for ADs by conventional SA lockwork that they redesigned the guns and modify any Old Model they get their hands on.