CCW revolver...1 less in chamber?

[Schmidlin]

Im looking at 2 revolvers, either the Ruger GP100 4" stainless or the Taurus 65 4" Stainless. My question is for those that CCW with a revolver, do you carry with one open chamber or go fully loaded?



Please dont turn this into a Ruger vs Taurus thread.

 

[msb45]

Carry 6

With a modern revolver the need to carry an empty chamber has been eliminated. Both guns you mentioned are modern. The only reason to talk about Ruger would be the older "cowboy" type guns lacking the modern lockwork or transfer bar safety.

Think about this. WWII pilots carried revolvers and jumped out of aircraft without a problem. I think you'll have no issues being less active.

 

[highorder]

modern double action revolvers are meant to be carried fully loaded.

 

[6_gunner]

Fully loaded. There's no need to keep the hammer over an empty chamber with a modern revolver.

I carry my comparatively ancient S&W revolvers fully loaded without worry.

 

[Ash]

Yeah, modern revolvers like the 1895 Nagant, the 1905 New Service, the Webley Mk 6, the S&W model 1917, etc. I don't mean this to be snide, so don't think I am flaming. But carrying fully-loaded has been safe for generations in many different revolvers.

Ash

 

[Schmidlin]

That was my thought but i was just asking, as ive never carried or owned a revolver.

 

[jad0110]

That was my thought but i was just asking, as ive never carried or owned a revolver.

Once you've been bitten by the wheelgun bug, there is no going back!

Welcome to the addiction!

BTW, as far as I know, there are a handful of 1873 Single Action Army replicas that are NOT safe to carry with a round under the hammer - including those from Uberti, Cimmarron Arms and Heritage.

 

[Jim March]

Anything that has a transfer bar safety can be fully loaded. That includes all Ruger DA revolvers, all SAs from 1973 forward, plus most of the older Ruger SAs has had their free retrofit applied.

Recent Taurus designs have been transfer bar as well. No problem.

Taurus used to use hammer blocks, which are OK but need testing once in a while. The older the Taurus, the less reliable the safety. At a minimum, check to make sure it's working.

S&W now uses transfer bars too. Any post-WW2 hammer-block-based S&W is still OK...an engineering change to their hammer blocks in WW2 was a good thing. I wouldn't street-carry a pre-WW2 S&W.

Most 20th Century DA Colts used hammer blocks of a good design. Always test when purchasing, but otherwise no problem.

TO TEST:

* Unload the gun.

* Check again.

* Cock it.

* With the barrel pointed straight up, drop an unsharpened pencil down the barrel nose-first.

* If you dry-fire the gun with the trigger, the pencil will jump out (driven by the firing pin).

* Next, do the same except finish dropping the hammer without your finger on the trigger. The pencil shouldn't jump.

* Another way to check: with the pencil in there, finger off trigger, move the hammer back and forth a bit...including moderate forward pressure. None of this should transfer any pressure to the pencil.

* Yet another: without a pencil, you can usually look sideways through the empty gun and confirm that there's no firing pin visible even when you push forward on the hammer - yet after a dry-fire, holding the trigger back, you'll see the firing pin. Pull your finger off, you should see the pin retract. Cool.

Any gun that passes these tests should be safe six-up, with the pre-WW2 S&W exception noted. (There's a hammer block, but it can break if the gun is dropped...)

 

[jad0110]

Jim,

Thanks for posting those techniques for everyone. Whenever I load up my wheelies, I always test them first to verify correct function of the transfer bar.

P.S. Just be darned sure the gun is empty before anyone goes testing it!

 

[Jim March]

If a transfer bar breaks, the gun is a doorstop (can't fire).

If a hammer block breaks, the gun is a "zero safety" critter that likely WILL fire if the gun is dropped or the hammer is jarred. Just like an 1873 Colt SAA or true clone, which is where we get the idea of "five up carry" in the first place. (Well, OK, the concept was also used in percussion guns long before that...)

 

[Old Fuff]

If a hammer block breaks, the gun is a "zero safety" critter that likely WILL fire if the gun is dropped or the hammer is jarred.

It depends on the revolver...

Smith & Wesson's had a hammer-rebound and block system in all of their hand ejector models and some of the top-breaks. When trigger is moved forward the rebound slide first retracts the hammer (and firing pin) back into the frame and then blocks the hammer so that it can't move forward.

In addition some models, starting in the 1920s, had a seperate hammer block built into the sideplate. That made two safeties acting on the hammer, but the sideplate mounted system didn't always work. In 1945, after an accidental shooting on one of the Navy's battleships, S&W designed a positive hammer block that was operated by the rebound slide.

Having a transfer bar break is more likely then busting a hammer block because the hammer hits the transfer bar, but doesn't touch the hammer block unless there is a system failure. Colt revolvers made after 1908 had two independent safeties, a rebounding hammer and a second hammer block. Smith & Wesson had rebounding hammers in all models, and an additional hammer block in some. After 1945 S&W became the equal of Colt, with two independent safeties. Ruger double-action revolvers, and some of its single actions, have only had one safety - the transfer bar.

But most while most of this is interesting, it's moot. None of the big-three makers have had any likelyhood of having an accidental discharge since about World War One.

 

[TimboKhan]

By the way, if you do the pencil test, make sure it's in a safe direction when you do it. If the pin hits hit, it will fly out surprisingly fast. I have "shot" a pencil from my 1911 a good 10 feet.

 

[Alan Fud]

do the same except finish dropping the hammer without your finger on the trigger.

How do I drop the hammer without pulling the trigger? Do you mean the way one would uncock the hammer?

 

[Ash]

Right. Pull the trigger while holding the hammer back as in decocking. Release the trigger, allowing the hammer to move forward slightly (so as to prevent it from remaining cocked when you release the trigger). Then release the hammer and allow it to fall the rest of the way.

Ash

 

[Old Fuff]

If you have a Colt, Smith & Wesson or Ruger hand ejector revolver it is best to let the trigger follow the hammer down if you are lowering the hammer on a loaded chamber. If you lower the hammer while holding the trigger fully to the rear, all of the internal safeties are in effect disabled.

 

[Ash]

Which is the point in the exercise, to see if any of these safeties are bad. But that is sage advice for any firearm with a Double action trigger. Decocking a CZ-75 is the same. If you release the trigger and allow it to follow the hammer, then should the hammer slip, the firing pin block will remain activiated. Keeping the trigger pulled back and if the finger slips, the gun fires.

Ash

 

[Old Fuff]

The point of the excercise so far as the Old Fuff is concerned, is to insure that people know and understand how various safeties work, when they work, and under what circumstances they won't work.

Internal safeties in hand ejector revolvers are disabled when the trigger is held back, and also in most automatic pistols. Manual safeties and decocking levers in some pistols still work while the hammer is being lowered - if they are engaged.

 

[Ash]

Right. You are absolutely right. I'm not trying to step on toes.

Ash

 

[Old Fuff]

What toes...??

I don't see any toes.

 

[Schmidlin]

Thanks for the great responses guys. Im leaning toward the Ruger with some nice wood grips. Just looks so much nicer then an auto.

 

[tblt]

Fully loaded.
Unload the gun,pull hammer back, pull the trigger holding onto the hammer, then let go of the trigger, the bar will drop then you can let down the hammer and no firing pin contact.
The good thing about a revolver you can see all this happen with an auto you have to trust the manufacturer
Go with the ruger great gun I have one of the first gp 100's made.

 

[orionengnr]

I was taught to use a sharpened pencil, drop it into the barrel eraser-end first, point straight up at the ceiling and pull the trigger. Having a foam-tile-drop-ceiling yields the best results

 

[wyocarp]

I've always been curious just how often it has been a problem in a gun without a transfer bar. Anyone know?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Im looking at 2 revolvers, either the Ruger GP100 4" stainless or the Taurus 65 4" Stainless. My question is for those that CCW with a revolver

That was my thought but I was just asking, as I've never carried or owned a revolver.

Schmidlin,
Since you said you are new to revolvers and CCW I want to mention that trying to conceal a 4" revolver is not that easy to do. I know there are people who do but for a person who has never carried a revolver before it's going to be hard. Also, a 4" revolver is heavy. Carrying one around all day is a chore.

May I suggest instead of buying a 4" GP100 for CCW you take a look at a 3" GP100. For some reason that 1" makes a big difference in comfort and concealability. A 3" revolver is also a good compromise between an easier to shoot 4" and the very short sight picture of a 2" revolver.

IMO you will be much happier carrying a 3" revolver over a 4" revolver if you are going to conceal it. Of course, open carry on your belt is a totally different thing.

 

[Jim March]

I've always been curious just how often it has been a problem in a gun without a transfer bar. Anyone know?

When Ruger was THE big initial player in SA revolvers prior to 1973 (and going back to 1955) they had "Colt like" designs but with improvements to metallurgy, they did modern coil springs instead of the old Colt flat springs, etc. BUT they didn't improve on the Colt's safety. Too many idiots hurt themselves not loading five-up. This is with a LOT of guns out there; including the Single Six, Ruger far exceeded Colt's production numbers for the SAA by the mid-60's. Anyways. It was enough of a problem to cause lawsuits, the 1973 transfer bar re-design and the free retrofit transfer bar program still in effect for the pre-'73 guns.

As recently as a year or two ago somebody sued Freedom Arms over an in-holster discharge of a large-frame. FA's large "83" series has a mediocre hammer-block safety that FA has always claimed isn't adequate for fully loaded carry. FA's newer '97 series mid-frames have transfer bars of an exceptionally good design...

On edit: the common phrase "going off half cocked" is a reference to the 1873 Colt design, so that tells you something if we're STILL using the term today to mean "losing one's temper".