Putting to rest the myth of the "Cowboy Carry": Colt + S&W recommended carry w/all 6 chambers loaded

[Driftwood Johnson]

I don't know how many carry a modern D/A type revolver with an empty charge hole under the hammer, but back in the 70's when I was a young fellow, I had a job as an armed guard with Brinks Security. Along with a Colt Official Police 38, a border patrol holster and Sam Brown Belt, I was issued a little booklet called "You and your revolver" (that was the extent of my "training BTW). In that booklet it was clearly stated, under a picture of a modern D/A type revolver, that the revolver should always be carried with an empty chamber under the hammer, as was the practice of most experienced handgunners (or some such wording). I remember it because I was a gun rag junkie even then and this subject was being debated about every month.

Now, some of that no doubt was due to the WWII experience of a sailor being shot when he dropped his S&W Victory 38. Some of it was no doubt, just plain CYA by whoever actually published the booklet (It was a generic type thing, not Burns specific). Those instructions were immediately ignored, even by the company who issued me six (6) rounds of RNL 38 Special ammo.

You are probably correct about the CYA issue in your booklet.

Ever since the shipboard incident which you describe, in 1944, S&W double action revolvers have been completely safe to carry fully loaded. The incident, in which the sailor was killed, caused S&W to redesign the hammer blocks that had been inside their revolvers up to that point. It was determined that the older style of hammer block malfunctioned because cosmoline that had not been properly removed had hardened and prevented the hammer block from functioning properly. The new sliding hammer block that has been inside all S&W revolvers since that time has made all S&W double action revolvers safe to carry fully loaded.

Your Colt Official Police was also safe to carry fully loaded, Colt patented their Positive Lock in 1905 which made all Colt double action revolvers safe to carry fully loaded.

 

[Jim Watson]

Seems to me that if you looked inside you could tell whether the old "flag" hammer block was working. Too much to expect from the Navy.

 

[halfmoonclip]

...It was determined that the older style of hammer block malfunctioned because cosmoline that had not been properly removed had hardened and prevented the hammer block from functioning properly. The new sliding hammer block that has been inside all S&W revolvers since that time has made all S&W double action revolvers safe to carry fully loaded...

Driftwood, we had this discussion the other year. Is it now the thinking that hardened cosmoline prevented the rebound slide from moving fully forward, and thus not supporting the hammer in its rebound position? The later, hammer blocking safety is powered by the pin on the rebound slide...if that slide is sticking, the hammer block still wouldn't be in position to block the hammer. A clogged up gun remains a clogged up gun; perhaps Ruger's transfer bar remains a more fail safe system.
It sounds like Smith came up with a solution that satisfied the military, but really wouldn't solve the problem of a neglected handgun.
Our previous disagreement was more based on the likelihood of breaking the boss on the Smith hammer (part of both the single and double action) that is supported by the rebound slide in its forward position. Hit hard enough, I suppose it could break, but it is a much more substantial feature than the 'safety notch' on single action Colt hammers.
My very first handgun was a Colt single action .22; my second a Ruger Super Bearcat. Both have the original Colt style hammer; the Colt is gone, still have the little Ruger. Wonder just how I handled it back then; really don't remember. My gun handling knowledge didn't extend beyond the M16 and the 1911, courtesy of the gummint. Have to look for the original manual for the Bearcat in my papers. We are talking 50+ years; I'm lucky to remember where I left the Jeep keys.
BTW, how do Colt double action revos support their rebounding hammers? Driftwood, don't doubt you have that answer.
Moon

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Driftwood, we had this discussion the other year. Is it now the thinking that hardened cosmoline prevented the rebound slide from moving fully forward, and thus not supporting the hammer in its rebound position? The later, hammer blocking safety is powered by the pin on the rebound slide...if that slide is sticking, the hammer block still wouldn't be in position to block the hammer. A clogged up gun remains a clogged up gun; perhaps Ruger's transfer bar remains a more fail safe system.
It sounds like Smith came up with a solution that satisfied the military, but really wouldn't solve the problem of a neglected handgun.
Our previous disagreement was more based on the likelihood of breaking the boss on the Smith hammer (part of both the single and double action) that is supported by the rebound slide in its forward position. Hit hard enough, I suppose it could break, but it is a much more substantial feature than the 'safety notch' on single action Colt hammers.
My very first handgun was a Colt single action .22; my second a Ruger Super Bearcat. Both have the original Colt style hammer; the Colt is gone, still have the little Ruger. Wonder just how I handled it back then; really don't remember. My gun handling knowledge didn't extend beyond the M16 and the 1911, courtesy of the gummint. Have to look for the original manual for the Bearcat in my papers. We are talking 50+ years; I'm lucky to remember where I left the Jeep keys.
BTW, how do Colt double action revos support their rebounding hammers? Driftwood, don't doubt you have that answer.
Moon

Let's look at a few photos.

Originally, S&W double action revolvers had no hammer block of any kind. This is the lockwork of an old 38 Military and Police. If my records are correct, it shipped in 1908. There is no hammer block in this revolver. In order to open the revolver, all double action revolvers with swing out cylinders must have a rebounding hammer so the firing pin can be retracted from a spent primer. As can be seen in this photo, the bump on top of the rebound slide (the part with the patent date on it) has pushed up the very bottom of the hammer, rotating the hammer back slightly and pulling the hammer mounted firing pin with it. S&W made revolvers like this for many years, and I'm sure most of the cops who carried them carried them fully loaded. Yes, this system is more rugged than the "safety cock" notch on the hammer of a Colt Single Action Army with its attendant very thin sear on the tip of the trigger.






Here is the photo of the Colt lockwork that I have posted previously on this thread.






Anyway, at some point S&W thought it would be a good idea to install a hammer block in their double action revolvers. We could probably argue until we are blue in the face about the failure mode one of these early Smiths discharging with a blow to the hammer. I have always thought that the thin cross section at the bottom of the hammer could shear off, or, since the rebound slide is hollow, perhaps a heavy blow would crush it, allowing the hammer to move forward. Sorry, I don't remember our argument, not quite sure what you mean by the boss. I suppose a heavy enough blow could also break the stud the hammer rotates on. The shape of the hammer on S&W revolvers evolved a bit over time, here is the insides of a K-22 from 1935. This model lacked a hammer block too. Notice how thin the bottom of the hammer is, where it interfaces with the bump on top of the rebound slide. I can envision a heavy blow to the hammer shearing off the bottom of the hammer, allowing the hammer to ride forward and strike the frame mounted firing pin.






This is the side plate from a 38 M&P that shipped in 1920. This is the first style of hammer block that S&W put into their revolvers. The hammer block is a piece of spring steel, pinned to the side plate and resting in a groove in the side plate. The rectangle at the top of the hammer block is what will sit between the top of the hammer and the frame. In its normal 'rest' position, the top of the hammer block sits between the top of the hammer and the frame. I have positioned the hand in the position it sits in in its recess in the side plate. When the hand rises, it shoves a tapered pin which pushes the hammer block down into its groove. This pulls the tip of the hammer block away from its position between the hammer and frame, allowing the hammer to fall all the way. When the trigger is released, the hand slides down, allowing the spring steel hammer block to spring back into its normal position, blocking the hammer.






This is a S&W Victory Model. This particular one shipped sometime between 1942 and 1944. This is the style of hammer block that failed in the shipboard incident.






This is not the Victory Model pictured above, it is the lockwork of a 38 M&P that shipped in 1939, but it is the same style of hammer block that was in the Victory Model and this photo is a little bit clearer. This hammer block is one piece. Again, it is a piece of spring steel pinned to the side plate and resting in a groove in the side plate. I have no proof of this, but I suspect S&W went to this 2nd style of hammer block because it was only one piece, which would have cost less than the older style to manufacture. Notice that in this hammer block, in addition to the rectangle at the top there is a tab extending out to the side. Anyway, this hammer block works in a similar manner. When "at rest" the spring action of the hammer block keeps the tab at the top positioned between the hammer and the frame. Notice there is a ramp on the rear of the hand. When the hand rises, it shoves the hammer block down into its slot in the side plate, allowing the hammer to fall all the way. When the hand retracts, the hammer block springs back to its normal position between the hammer and frame. Note the bump on top of the rebound slide is still keeping the hammer rotated back slightly. The hammer never actually touches the hammer block, there is a smidgen of space.The hammer would only contact the hammer block if something broke. Notice too how thin the bottom of the hammer is, to me that is a great candidate to break off if things went wrong.






Here is a K frame Model 10-5 that shipped around 1965 or so. The arrow is pointing to the hammer block. It is the same style of hammer block S&W has been putting into their revolvers ever since the shipboard incident in 1944. I have positioned the hammer block in its normal "at rest" position. Again, notice the hammer is not actually contacting the hammer block, the hammer only contacts the hammer block if something breaks.






Sorry to be posting photos from so many different Smiths, but this is a photo of how the modern hammer block sits in a slot in the side plate of a Model 17-3






These are hammer blocks. The blued one is from the Model 17-3, the stainless one is from a Model 617-6. They are simple stamped parts, with one end twisted 90 degrees to form a tab that will sit between the hammer and frame when the revolver is at rest.






Anyway, yes the modern style hammer block gets pushed into its normal position by a pin on the rebound slide. When the trigger moves back, either in single action or double action mode, it forces the rebound slide back, and the pin on the rebound slide will draw the hammer block down out of the way, so the hammer can fall all the way. I am trying to figure out how this system could fail. Anybody who has ever taken a S&W revolver apart knows how strong the rebound slide spring is. I am having a hard time imagining a gun so gunked up that the rebound slide spring would not shove the rebound slide forward so the hammer block could sit between the hammer and the frame.

No, it is not a modern conclusion that hardened cosmoline was the cause of the shipboard accident in 1944. According to the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, by Supica and Nahas, the Navy investigated and requested, through the Springfield Armory, a better hammer block design. Approximately 40,000 revolvers were sent back to S&W to be modified with the new hammer block. Hardened cosmoline could prevent the spring steel hammer block from "springing" back to its normal "at rest" position. Knowing their contract with the government to supply revolvers to the military was at risk, S&W called in the engineers and had the new hammer block designed and in production within a week. They set up some test stands and concluded that a revolver with the old style hammer block could fail. Revolvers already in production had the new hammer block installed. Older Victory Models had a V for Victory serial number prefix. These run from V1 to about V69,000. Those with the new hammer blocks have a SV serial number prefix which run from SV76901 through approximately SV811832. I assume the S stands for 'safety', just my own assumption.



What ever the case, this style of hammer block is still installed in every S&W revolver today, since 1944, so I would say it is very reliable. Just my opinion you understand.




Regarding Colts, in 1905 Colt patented the Positive Lock. Hence the name of the old Colt Police Positive revolvers. Here is a photo of the hammer block in position on an old Police Positive Special.






In this photo the hammer block has been with drawn down so the hammer can fall all the way. As far as I know, not just the Police Positives, but any double action Colt had this hammer block inside after 1905. So in a sense, S&W was playing catch up with their designs. They could not use Colt's patented design, so they had to come up with their own.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Driftwood, thnx. I'm familiar with the rebound slide supporting the hammer, and with the stamped steel part you've shown. I was unfamiliar with the spring steel block (have a pre-Model 10 from the '30s, never felt the need to pull the side plate; may have to take a look). It does seem conceivable that the spring steel arrangement could stick.
Frankly, the rebound slide supporting the hammer (when everything is at rest), without the additional block, seemed pretty safe to me. It is a fairly rugged system, far more so than the SAA notch. OTOH, I do know that current Smiths are drop safe; I've ground off the broken hammer spur on two of them. Neither went off from the drop.
I do suspect (reflecting on the original post) that our estimate of 'how safe is safe' has changed over the years.
Still a little perplexed about Colts, but I've never had on apart.
Envy your collection.
Moon

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Still a little perplexed about Colts, but I've never had on apart.

I do not recall if the Positive Lock hammer block of double action Colts is pulled down out of the way by the hammer or the trigger.

I have a few Colts that have one inside, one of these days I will take one apart again to have a look see.

 

[halfmoonclip]

BTW, cap&ball revos had a provision for resting the hammer between chambers. This would indicate that gunmakers had concerns about keeping the hammer off a cap that went beyond using the fragile safety notch.
Which makes me wonder two things...why revert to a less safe system in the later cartridge handguns, and why didn't the gunmakers create a similar between-the-chambers place for the firing pin?
The only modern revos with a similar arrangement are the NAA mini-revolvers, and I have to admit, their firing pin notch between the chambers is a lot less than failsafe. But still better than a fragile 'safety notch'.
Moon

 

[Peakbagger46]

What the factory recommended and what was common practice isn't necessarily the same. I'm not saying you're wrong, I don't know. Kudo's on gathering the documentation but you have provided no evidence to show what people actually did. This isn't going to put anything to rest.

The speed limits on interstates here is 65 or 70. But most drivers are driving closer to 80. One hundred fifty years from now my great-great grandkids won't be able to look at the posted speed limits in 2022 and understand how most people actually drove.

If you want to put this to the rest, you need documentation showing what people actually did. It is pretty clear that at least some didn't trust the safety notches on these older guns and there is evidence they can discharge if dropped. Which would be a concern when on horseback. How common was it to load only 5? We will probably never know for sure.

So your suggestion is people carried one less round than the gun manufacturers recommend? About as likely as a Georgia boy killing a CO elk on an over the counter tag hunt.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

BTW, cap&ball revos had a provision for resting the hammer between chambers. This would indicate that gunmakers had concerns about keeping the hammer off a cap that went beyond using the fragile safety notch.
Which makes me wonder two things...why revert to a less safe system in the later cartridge handguns, and why didn't the gunmakers create a similar between-the-chambers place for the firing pin?
The only modern revos with a similar arrangement are the NAA mini-revolvers, and I have to admit, their firing pin notch between the chambers is a lot less than failsafe. But still better than a fragile 'safety notch'.
Moon

The Cap and Ball revolvers made by Colt and Remington had no 'Safety Cock' notch on the hammers. The hammer was either all the way down, at half cock for loading, or at full cock. So if the revolver were fully loaded the hammer would be pressing agianst a percussion cap, there was no 'Safety Cock' notch on the hammer.

These are the lock parts of an original Colt Richards Cartridge Conversion revolver. I have a couple of Pietta replicas of the Colt 1860 Army, but I am not going to take them apart right now to show photos of the parts. The Richards Conversions were cartridge revolvers made by modifying the Colt 1860 Army Cap & Ball revolvers to accept cartridges. Looking at the hammer we can see it has a flat face to strike the frame mounted firing pin. We can also see there are only a half cock notch for loading and a full cock notch on the hammer. No 'Safety Cock' notch.






Here are the lock parts from an Italian replica of the 1858 Remington Cap & Ball revolver. The same story, just a half cock notch for loading and a full cock notch. No 'Safety Cock' notch.






On the left in this photo is the cylinder from one of my Pietta replicas of the Colt 1860 Army Cap & Ball revolver, on the right is the cylinder from one of my replica 1858 Remington Cap & Ball revolvers. On the 'colt' cylinder we can see the pins between the nipples that were typical of this model. There is a hollow on the hammer and the idea is setting the hammer between the nipples will allow the hollow in the hammer to sit on one of the pins. I don't have a real Colt Army, but I can tell you with these replicas this system is useless. The pins do not protrude enough from the face of the cylinder to prevent the cylinder from rotating. Any inadverten handling of the cylinder will allow the cylinder to slip out of this 'safe' position and the hammer could be resting directly on a cap. The 'remington' used a different scheme. There are slots cut in the cylinder and the hammer nose can be rested in those slots, providing a secure way to keep the hammer off a cap. Again, I do not have an original 1858 Remington, but I can tell you on my old EuroArms Remmie the hammer nose is a little bit too fat and will not ride down into the slots. If the hammer nose were shaved down a bit, and I'm sure the original hammers were narrow enough, this system would be quite secure, but not with my old Remmie.






Here is the Richards Cartridge Conversion revolver I mentioned a little bit earlier. As I said, without a 'Safety Cock' notch on the hammer, the hammer rests directly on the frame mounted firing pin, and the firing pin will be resting directly on the primer of a cartridge if there is one under the hammer.






Here it is completely disassembled.






The heart of the Richards Conversions was the cylinder. On the left is a Pietta replica of an 1860 Colt cylinder, on the right is the Richards Conversion cylinder. The area where the nipples were was completely cut away, exposing the rear of the chambers, and a new ratchet was fashioned. Those are a couple of original 44 Colt cartridges in the chambers.






I am taking the liberty of posting a photo from R. Bruce McDowell's excellent book, A Study of Colt Conversions and Other Percussion Revolvers. What we are looking at is a Twelve-Stop Richards Conversion. Six extra cylinder looking slots were cut into the cylinder, evenly spaced between the normal six. To make the revolver safe to load with six rounds, the bolt would rest in one of the extra slots, keeping the cylinder locked in position, isolating the rounds in the chambers from the frame mounted firing pin. Only some of the very early Richards Conversions were the Twelve-Stop versions. Their cylinders were modified from 1860 Army Colts that already had the extra slots. Once Colt ran out of their stock of Cap & Ball cylinders to convert, new cylinders were made up and they lacked the extra slots.






In retrospect, the Twelve-Stop cylinder is an excellent idea. I suspect it was never incorporated in the Colt Single Action Army because it was probably more expensive to cut six extra stops in the cylinder than to simply cut that useless (my own very prejudiced opinion) extra notch in the hammer. I have never seen a SAA with extra stops on the cylinder, but I will snoop around and see if I can find an example of such a bird.




It is often asked, why not just let the hammer down with the firing pin between cartridges. Here is why it does not work. Here is a 2nd Gen Colt cylinder chambered for 45 Colt. The cylinder is full of six spent cartridges. Draw an imaginary circle going through the centers of each of those primer dents. Now envision where that circle crosses between each cartridge rim at the narrowest spot between the cartridge rims. If we let the hammer down with the firing pin between rims, that is where it will rest. Now take a look at the profile of the firing pin in the hammer of the Colt. Notice how the tip is rounded. I have tried this.The fact is, with the firing pin resting on a narrow spot between rims, it takes very little effort to get the cylinder to rotate. The cylinder would be unlocked, because the bolt would not be resting in a locking notch. The nice rounded portion of the firing pin rides up over the nice bevel at the edge of each rim. At least with large caliber rounds like 45 Colt or 44-40 or 38-40, the cylinder can inadvertently rotate very easily. With smaller cartridges, such as 357 Magnum, this would probably work, but I am here to tell you it will not keep the firing pin away from a primer with large caliber cartridges.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I'm looking forward to watching the mental gymnastics that the historical revisionists will use to cope with the cognitive dissonance of seeing the original, historical facts.
Let's find out how many people on this forum get upset from learning about firearms history!




How about the Springfield Ordnance manual?.
View attachment 1103946


"To Load - Hold the Pistol in the left hand, muzzle downward; half-cock it with the right hand and open the gate. Insert the cartridges with the right hand, close the gate and bring the hammer to the safety notch; keep it there until the Pistol is to be fire."
- Springfield National Armory, 1874

Well, before you say "but 1874 was too early they still would have had early adopter problems", how about the updated ordnance manual in 1882?
View attachment 1103947

"To Load - Hold the Pistol in the left hand, muzzle downward; half-cock it with the right hand and open the gate. Insert the cartridges with the right hand, close the gate and bring the hammer to the safety notch; keep it there until the Pistol is to be fire."
- Springfield National Armory, 1882

Well, you might be someone who disagrees and distrusts the government. Would you trust the very first american book on revolver shooting, published in 1888 by the father of the American Rifleman magazine?
View attachment 1103955
View attachment 1103948

"The pistol should be carried habitually with the hammer resting in the safety-notch"
-Arthur Corbin Gould, first publisher, editor, and writer of American Rifleman Magazine, 1888

All of these books are in public domain, and I've provided the links you can read the evidence for yourself if you have any doubts.




That's a pretty big claim to make without posting some of that "evidence". I'm sure many of us on the forum would like to read some of it, so why hold back?


And before someone posts the story about "well how about that Colt revolver that was made in 1884 that was found in the arizona desert" -- remember, just because it was made in 1884, doesn't mean it was dropped in the desert in 1884.

Are all the guns you shot this year made in 2022? If so, then you have different tastes then I do.
I own several revolvers and rifles made in the 1880's. Some even have the year of manufacture stamped on them. If I drove to Arizona and dropped them in the desert tomorrow, would that mean someone left them in the Arizona desert in the 1880's?


One final question for those pushing the No-True-Scotsman fallacy that "any REAL expert knew to carry 5 rounds and 1 empty chanber": Why didn't Colt update their advertising literature by the 1940's?
They clearly weren't just recycling an old avertisement since they specifically emphasized the whole "For more than half a century, this model Single Action Revolver has been a favorite of the Old and New West" point

No evidence of carrying just five but there is historical evidence of a Colt revolver safety failing. That was how Curly Bill Brocius was acquitted when they proved that his revolver was defective and did not have to be fully cocked to fire. Fred White himself stated before he died that he did not believe Bill shot him on purpose and did not believe his revolver was cocked. Stories say the revolver was found fully loaded with only one shot fired. Was probably chocked up as bad luck and people still carried them that way but I'm sure as more and more of this went on over time more and more people would quit trusting the mechanism of the single actions. If the problem were not real then why did it finally get to the point Ruger and others started making the actions so that they really are safe to carry fully loaded?

 

[halfmoonclip]

Driftwood, thnx. I was frankly too lazy to go check my cap n' ball revos (including a letterable Colt replica) for the 'safety' notch on the hammer.
Your points are well taken regarding lodging the firing pin between the chambers.
My point; both Colt and Remington noticed that there was a danger to carrying their cap & ball revos with six loaded chambers, but made no effective effort to address it when they transitioned to cartridge arms.
Perhaps they thot' the ease of slipping in a loaded cartridge, as compared to 'loading' a c&b.
Or maybe they thot' that, if you were smart enough to buy their product, you were smart enough to keep it from going off by accident. Who knows.
Moon