Metallurgy is definitely better than 150 years ago, but the safety notch on the hammer is tiny and who knows how it would hold up to a dropped gun on a hard surface that landed directly on the hammer spur?. Sure, while in a holster, with a safety loop on the trigger to keep it from falling out it might be okay if you hit it with your elbow, but a hard strike, I'm not so sure that I'd trust the safety notchI figured that was a safety notch
then carrying 6 on a modern SAA show be fine then! just don’t forget the safety notch
The originals had the safety notch, but some of the clone makers have redesigned the safety to something they think is better. This has been discussed in the last couple of pages, and even though it's been redesigned, Uberti at least still says not to carry with a round under the hammer. It's all in the name of regulation that satisfies the political machine and puts the manufacturer further away from liability if the user gets hurt. These new safeties in some cases (the Cattleman II internal rod/floating pin design) can be retrofitted with parts made available by the manufacturer.Colt 1873s and their clones don't have a "safety notch." The 1851 and 1860 did as did the Remington 1858. But not the Colt 1873.
Yes, it does. Whether you want to trust that tiny notch in the hammer against an accidental discharge if the gun is dropped is up to YOU. I only use it when I'm at the range and have loaded 6, and am in the process of getting ready to shoot within the next minute or two. The revolver is usually laying on the table with the muzzle downrange, or if I'm alone, is in a holster (range rules don't allow drawing from a holster at our club). Otherwise, it's load one, skip one, load four. go to full cock and then lower the hammer. Then you have an empty chamber under the hammer. SAA users should make a habit of going to full cock and then lowering the hammer all the time, and not lower the hammer from half cock, as the cylinder doesn't turn if you lower from half cock.C-O-L-T
The four clicks of the SAA. Doesn't that first click hold the hammer off the primer?
1873's are cartridge loaded guns so no they don't have those pins on the cylinder. The bored-through cylinders of cartridge loaded guns don't have space available between the charge holes for pins like that. The original 1858 Remington (a percussion revolver) had notches between the cylinders (where the pins are in your photo) that allowed lowering the hammer into one of them so the gun could be carried with 6 rounds ready. There's still a potential, if the hammer came off one of the pins you show, or out of the original notches, it could crush one of the percussion caps and fire the gun. I'm only familiar with the 1858 Remington design, what percussion revolver is that cylinder from?View attachment 1197157
1873s don't have the following as shown above.
If you mean first-cock notch in the hammer of the 1873 itself. Which was prone to breaking. Then that really isn't a safety nor a safe way to carry the firearm.
Freedom Arms says:Uberti at least still says not to carry with a round under the hammer.
I had read a few years ago that Uberti has manufactured more cap and ball replicas than Colt made originally.berti is that big?
Why did they change his name to Ethan for John Wayne to portray?)
I don’t think Colt make that many pistols…. That’s why they are rare & expensive. I could be wrongI had read a few years ago that Uberti has manufactured more cap and ball replicas than Colt made originally.
Would you be willing to bet on that if the gun fell and the muzzle was pointing at you?. Maybe that little tab on the trigger will deform and not release the hammer, but it's been shown in testing that the hammer can split where the notch is cut, like the tip of that small tab on the trigger acting like a chisel or splitting wedge, and shear that portion of the hammer off. Even 1911's have either a "safety notch" and/or a half cock notch that is supposed to stop the fall of the hammer if it is cocked and then dropped on the hammer, to prevent the hammer from striking the primer; those have failed in testing also, and are not recommended to be used as additional safeties when carrying the pistol with a loaded chamber. For example, my three Springfield Armory 1911's all have the "first click" notch, just barely holds the hammer off the firing pin, and the trigger will release it from that notch simply by pulling it. That's probably not enough fall distance to fire the gun, but....? The SA's (I have three), all have that first notch, and they have a half-cock notch. The hammer won't drop from half cock by pulling the trigger, just like on an old SA revolver, you have to pull to full cock or hold the hammer back manually and pull the trigger before you can manually lower the hammer. My RIA and Ruger 1911's don't have the "1st click" safety notch, but do have half-cock notches that are just like the SA half cock. But nobody that makes 1911's recommends using these notch positions as a safety, especially on a loaded chamber. The 1911 hammer is more robust in the notch areas than these SAA clones by a long shot (pardon the pun ) and the manufacturers say these notches are designed to prevent drop discharges, but they won't recommend using them as a safety. Murphy didn't design them, but he's still present when they get dropped. Given the right circumstance, nothing is truly "drop safe", and I don't want to test it on myself or anyone nearby.Apart from the lore that the hammer safety notch is exceptionally fragile, are there actually any known cases of one breaking on an 1873? Yeah I heard the story of a guy who knew a guy who is friends with the wife of a guy who's related to someone who dropped an 1873 off a horse and it went off... but did that really happen? If so, how do we know they didn't Bubba around with the safety notches in that endless quest for a better trigger?
The rotational force of a blow to the hammer is being transferred into the base of the notch, not sideways against the thin catch holding the sear in place. It's compression into the notch, I don't think it's going to shear the tab off the side and come out, and then still have enough force after doing that to set off the primer.
View attachment 1197164
All the old Colt documents on the 1873 say to load 6 and use the safety notch in the hammer. I'm sure that's how everyone did it back then too.
Now that I think of it a few was probably 20 years ago, now maybe it doesn't seem as big of deal.I don’t think Colt make that many pistols…. That’s why they are rare & expensive. I could be wrong
Dixie Gun Works has the best Cap & Ball!Now that I think of it a few was probably 20 years ago, now maybe it doesn't seem as big of deal.
Dixie is just another importer, well I guess mostly they do have some domestic stuff but I'm pretty sure their cap and ball are all imported.Dixie Gun Works has the best Cap & Ball!
1860! looking at you boss!!!
oooh really? they don’t put a Dixie stamp on the gunDixie is just another importer, well I guess mostly they do have some domestic stuff but I'm pretty sure their cap and ball are all imported.
Apart from the lore that the hammer safety notch is exceptionally fragile, are there actually any known cases of one breaking on an 1873?
In 1873 there was no history.Apart from the lore that the hammer safety notch is exceptionally fragile, are there actually any known cases of one breaking on an 1873? Yeah I heard the story of a guy who knew a guy who is friends with the wife of a guy who's related to someone who dropped an 1873 off a horse and it went off... but did that really happen? If so, how do we know they didn't Bubba around with the safety notches in that endless quest for a better trigger?
The rotational force of a blow to the hammer is being transferred into the base of the notch, not sideways against the thin catch holding the sear in place. It's compression into the notch, I don't think it's going to shear the tab off the side and come out, and then still have enough force after doing that to set off the primer.
View attachment 1197164
All the old Colt documents on the 1873 say to load 6 and use the safety notch in the hammer. I'm sure that's how everyone did it back then too.
PS- this is one of the videos that had shaped my original opinion.Well I'll be... I believe it now!
Especially with this case found through the other link that was posted:
Bender v. Colt Industries, Inc., 517 S.W.2d 705 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Bender v. Colt Industries, Inc., 517 S.W.2d 705, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
I should probably do a minute of research before I post my dumb opinion...
Well, there is enough lore and have been enough lawsuits that the manufacturers are redesigning their guns away from the quarter cock. Ruger did it in 1973.
Here is one:
Ruger hammers during that time were brittle.
I wonder how much the prosecution thought about the negligence of the gun owner not properly securing his gun in a holster, instead of just sticking it in a coat pocket, which was not a proper container for a loaded firearm? Or did that not matter, because it could have happened even if the gun had been in a holster and fell out of it, a proper container for a loaded firearm. The award of $15K seems a bit low if it had been solely because of a bad design that had existed for over 100 years, and had not been improved during that period.Well I'll be... I believe it now!
Especially with this case found through the other link that was posted:
Bender v. Colt Industries, Inc., 517 S.W.2d 705 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Bender v. Colt Industries, Inc., 517 S.W.2d 705, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal databasecasetext.com
I should probably do a minute of research before I post my dumb opinion...
Source?
That's $108,263 in today's money. It's still low for getting shot in the head.The award of $15K seems a bit low