Freedom Arms model 83 safety question

[JellyJar]

http://www.trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_83806c45-56a9-5d4c-919a-2b2e4397f72b.html

I just learned about a case a few years back where Freedom Arms lost a lawsuit to a man that lost a leg after shooting himself in his leg with a model 83. He was wearing a duster and as he pulled it back somehow it snagged the hammer and when it released the weapon discharged and the wound was so bad he had to have his leg amputated.

If you are familiar with this model can you please answer two questions.

First, if a live round is under the hammer and the hammer is pulled back a ways and then released. Without anything touching the trigger is it possible for the firing pin to hit the primer and cause it to discharge?

Second, if there isn't a live round under the hammer but in the next chamber of the cylinder should the hammer be pulled back a ways and then released would this be enough to rotate the live round to be under the hammer and then for the round to discharge?

 

[PO2Hammer]

I thought the 83 has a transfer bar safety. The 97 does, and requires the trigger to be all the way back to fire.

 

[rcmodel]

The model 83 has an automatic steel bar hammer block that engages when the hammer is placed in the safety notch.

There is no physical way this ND happened the way the guy says it did unless something major broke.
Or, he bypassed the hammer-block by lowering the hammer all the way down on a live round.

Had the guy had the hammer on the safety notch, the hammer block would have worked.
Had the coat partially cocked the gun, it would have stopped in the half-cock notch and stayed there, or fell back to the safety notch with the hammer block in place to prevent firing.

See page 10 of owners manual.

http://www.freedomarms.com/

Seems like another sympathetic jury of non-gun people with no understanding of how the guns safety system works.

Or how stupid can bypass it by lowering the hammer manually to contact the firing pin.

rc

 

[Naphtali]

Freedom Arms M83s have a "semiautomatic" safety device. It does not - does not - engage automatically. To engage the safety, regardless whether cylinder is loaded, [carefully] pull the hammer toward full cock, but this movement will be approximately .25 inch. You will hear and feel a slight click. Immediately lower the hammer. If you have successfully engaged the M83's safety, the hammer will not fall to be completely down against M83's frame and firing pin. There will be a slight gap between frame and forward end of hammer. The revolver is on safe - that is, a block of steel is interposed between hammer and firing pin. For the revolver to fire on a loaded round beneath the hammer, you must essentially destroy the gun by breaking a piece of steel thicker than a ballpoint pen's refill. This safety device appears to be more massive than what you find on S&W revolvers and older Colt New Service and Official Police revolvers.

To disengage the safety move hammer toward full cock. Not much movement is needed for automatic disengagement. So it would be possible for the plaintiff to have a fully loaded cylinder, the revolver on safe, and suffer an unintentional ignition with his hammer slipping from his grasp.

Having written that, things you should be aware of.

1. Freedom Arms orders/insists/pleads with owners in their Owner's Manual to always have an empty chamber beneath the M83's hammer. Therefore the unintentional ignition for which they were sued cannot occur. Period!

2. For the M83's safety to disengage, even with a loaded round beneath the hammer whose safety is engaged, the plaintiff needed to begin his cocking before the revolver has cleared his holster. I understand fast-draw enthusiasts who use wax bullets and steel-lined holsters manipulate single action revolvers this way. I know of no one else who does - except the plaintiff.

Hope this helps.

 

[Cosmoline]

Sorry, didn't mean to revive the dead!