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

[Alfred Mitchell]

Frontier six shooter was on the colt 44/40 barrel. They obliviously intended six rounds to be loaded back in the day. We know better now. No big argument called for.

 

[aaaaa]

They bored the cylinder with 6 holes so it seems they intended them all to be used. Odd the gun manufacturers back then never figured out (or bothered to figure out) a safety feature that really worked to allow safe carrying with 6 rounds.

 

[kje54]

After reading through enough (not the whole 6 pages) this can be boiled down into the typical black & white, us vs them argument with no shades of grey. Per the OP we know what the manufacturers intended but once it leaves their hands what happens with it in the general population is pure speculation. There is no conclusive documentation of private usage that fully supports either side in this argument. Human nature while generally is predictable is much more random in some applications when we get down into the micro (individual/small groups) aspects. Nothing to do with individual human motivations are black & white.

 

[gwpercle]

Colt still manufactures the Single Action Army ... have they added a safety to it or is it still made as the original design , hammer mounted firing pin and half-cock safety ?
How have they survived all the lawsuits that must have been filed over the years for making such an unsafe product ?
I ask because my SA is a Ruger Blackhawk ... never owned a Colt SAA.
Gary

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Frontier six shooter was on the colt 44/40 barrel. They obliviously intended six rounds to be loaded back in the day. We know better now. No big argument called for.

Yes, the Single Action Army revolvers chambered for 44-40 were the only ones to have a separate name, other than Single Action Army.

This one is a bit unusual, it is a Bisley Model chambered for 44-40, so it has the name Colt Frontier Six Shooter marked on the barrel. This revolver left the factory in 1901.






It is also marked Bisley Model above the Colt Frontier Six Shooter marking, but that is mostly worn off.






Frontier Six Shooter was simply a marketing name, no different than 38 Special. A friend once asked me, what is so special about 38 Special? I told him nothing, it was simply a marketing name. (44 Special too). Of course when these revolvers were first made they were meant to be fully loaded with six rounds. As we have seen, practical experience showed that loading a live round under the hammer was not a great idea.




Again, look how thin the sear is on the trigger. Even if the hammer were resting in the so called "Safety Cock Notch" it would not take much of a blow to the hammer spur to snap off the sear, firing a live round under the hammer.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Odd the gun manufacturers back then never figured out (or bothered to figure out) a safety feature that really worked to allow safe carrying with 6 rounds.

They did.

Iver Johnson patented the Transfer Bar in 1896 and began installing it in their revolvers at that time. This is the patent drawing. The Transfer Bar is labeled E2. In the middle illustration, the hammer is cocked, and the hammer has raised the Transfer Bar up, ready to be struck by the hammer and transfer the hammer blow to the frame mounted firing pin. It was not called a Transfer Bar back them, but that is what it was. The principle was no different than the Transfer Bars that Ruger installs in their revolvers today, except Ruger Transfer Bars are raised up by the trigger. Why did it not become popular back then? My guess is including a Transfer Bar makes the mechanism more complicated, just as it does in a Ruger. More complicated raises the cost to manufacture, hence raises the price. Ruger did not start installing Transfer Bars in their revolvers until the early 1970s, as a response to losing a couple of expensive lawsuits. Even today, you can send one of the old Three Screw Rugers, which did not have a Transfer Bar, back to the factory and Ruger will install new parts with a Transfer Bar free of cost. I have several of the old Three Screw Rugers and I would never send them in to be modified, it makes the action sloppy. I just treat them the same as a Colt and do not load a live round under the hammer.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Colt still manufactures the Single Action Army ... have they added a safety to it or is it still made as the original design , hammer mounted firing pin and half-cock safety ?
How have they survived all the lawsuits that must have been filed over the years for making such an unsafe product ?
I ask because my SA is a Ruger Blackhawk ... never owned a Colt SAA.

Except for a few minor changes, Colt Single Action Army revolvers are still made the way they were back in 1873. There is no added safety device, such as a transfer bar.

These are the lock parts from a 2nd Generation Colt that was made in the 1973. The parts are pretty much the same as they were in 1873, and Colt is still making them this way. You can see the three cocking notches on the hammer, The top one is the so called "Safety Cock Notch", the middle notch is the half cock loading position, and the notch on the bottom is the full cock notch. You can also see in this photo how thin the tip of the sear is and how easily it could shear off the hammer spur received a sharp blow, firing a round under the hammer.






Here are the parts inside one of the old Three Screw Ruger Blackhawks. This is the "pre-transfer bar design" (I just made that term up) Very similar to the Colt parts, except there are no flat springs, the springs are all coil springs and the firing pin is mounted in the frame. This is the style of revolver that Ruger got sued over when there were injuries resulting from shooters ignoring the old rule of never putting a live round under the hammer.






These are the parts inside my Blackhawk that I bought way back in 1975. Notice the transfer bar (the thin vertical part) attached to the trigger. Your Blackhawk will be the same. Also, notice how many more parts there are in this design than the old Three Screw Blackhawk. As I said in an earlier post, more parts means added cost to manufacture, which raises the price.






Did Colt evade law suits for all those years? I have no idea. But lets not forget that back in the 19th Century society was not as litigious as it is today. Nobody was suing over hot coffee back then.

I can tell you this. I bought this 2nd Gen Colt a few years ago and it came with the box and instruction manual. This revolver shipped in 1973.






Here is what the manual says regarding safe carry. Did this insulate Colt from lawsuits?I have no idea.





Here is a link to the owners manual for one of the old Ruger Three Screw revolvers. The first page shows the Free Safety Offer to install a transfer bar. Scroll down a bit and you will see that Ruger also included a Safety Note in the manual cautioning against fully loading all six chambers. More than that I cannot tell you. Ruger got clobbered with a couple of law suits, and Bill Ruger decided to protect his company by changing the design to include a Transfer Bar. Colt did not.


https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/blackhawk-pre1973.pdf


It may interest you to know that for years single action revolvers imported into this country from overseas (mostly from Italy) had to have some sort of a safety device installed. Some had a hammer block, some had a two position cylinder pin that could be pushed all the way back so the hammer could not fall all the way. A few years ago Uberti redesigned their single action revolvers to incorporate a floating firing pin in the hammer. Normally the firing pin is retracted and will not contact a primer. When the trigger is pulled a small actuator pushes the firing pin forward so it will fire a cartridge. These rules were only for revolvers being imported from over seas, they did not affect revolvers manufactured in the US.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Darn right those plain carbon steels were inferior in every respect to the "same" steels today. The primary reason, in my opinion, is all the non oxidizing elements that were left in the steel. The steel furnaces of the day used air to burn out impurities. The air would combine with elements, but there are a surprising number of elements, copper, nickle, vanadium, tungsten, chromium are just a few that won't burn out. Given the composition of the iron ore varied based on where it was dug, the percentages of residual elements was unknown. And as scrap was dumped back into the kettle, the residual percentage increased with subsequent batches. This crap unpredictably, but always, reduced the strength and the lifetime of vintage steels. Sometime in the 1950's steel makers are using argon gas flushes, but not before.

Some time ago I copied the cylinder and frame notes from Kuhnhausen's The Colt Single Action Revolvers A shop Manual, Volumesw 1 & 2. because this discussion comes up so often.


"Frame Material Notes: mid page 70:

1. Early black powder model S.A.A. frames up to about s/n 96,000 (up to about mid 1883) were made of malleable iron.

2. Intermediate S.A.A. frames between approx. s/n 96,000 and 180,000 (mid 1883 to mid 1898) vary but were apparently made of transitional materials generally similar to modern low-medium carbon steels. The lowest carbon content found in intermediate s/n S.A.A. frames tested to date is approx. .0155, indicating the possibility that early formulations of 1015~1018, or higher carbon type steels may have been used in many frames of this era.

3. Although there are exceptions, frames manufactured after s/n 180,000 appear to have been made from medium range carbon steels. The lowest carbon content found in the after s/n 180,000 frames tested was approx. .0213, possibly indicating that 1020~1027 or slightly higher, carbon, or similar steels may have been used in these frames.


Bottom of page 71:

(1) 1st Generation S.A.A. cylinder material changes began to occur at about the same time that S.A.A. frames were being metallurgically updated. Cylinders prior to approx. s/n 96,000 (mid 1883) were made from materials generally resembling high grade malleable iron. Original cylinders from approx. s/n 96,000 to about 180,000 (mid 1898) were made from transitional low/medium grade carbon type steels. These cylinders and their parent frames were not factory guaranteed for smokeless powder cartridges. Cylinders after frame s/n 180,000 (mid 1898) began to be made from medium carbon type steels. Later versions of these cylinders were better and more uniformly heat treated. S.A.A. revolvers with cylinders of this final type were factory guaranteed in 1900 for standard factory load smokeless powder cartridges.


(2) 1st Generation 357 Magnum cylinders were made from fine grade, higher tensile strength ordnance quality gun steel. These cylinder blanks, identified by a 5 pointed star imprinted on the front, turn up on other caliber S.A.A.’s made during, and after 1935. (The 357 Magnum was introduced in 1935.)"

I don't know a whole lot about making steel. What I do know is steel has been known since Roman days, perhaps earlier. The ancients knew how to make steel even though they may not have understood the metallurgy. Before the Bessemer Process, approx 1856 if I recall correctly, steel could only be made in small quantities and it was expensive. My understanding of the Bessemer process is that blowing great quantities of heated air through the molten steel did indeed burn away the impurities, leading to mass production of inexpensive steel.

If the Bessemer Process for making steel was patented in 1856, why was Colt still using Malleable Iron for frames and cylinders as late as 1883? I do not know. But they were. Kuhnhausen's material notes only talk about frames and cylinders, nothing is mentioned about barrels or internal parts. Since the cylinder, not the frame or the barrel, is the pressure vessel that must withstand the pressure of a cartridge firing, this is understandable. I would suspect that as time advanced Colt, and the other quality firearm manufacturers were using the best available materials for the barrels and lockwork parts.

I find it interesting to note that advances in heat treating also contributed to the strength of the steels used, particularly 357 Magnum cylinders as early as 1935.

 

[Slamfire]

Some time ago I copied the cylinder and frame notes from Kuhnhausen's The Colt Single Action Revolvers A shop Manual, Volumesw 1 & 2. because this discussion comes up so often.


"Frame Material Notes: mid page 70:

1. Early black powder model S.A.A. frames up to about s/n 96,000 (up to about mid 1883) were made of malleable iron.

2. Intermediate S.A.A. frames between approx. s/n 96,000 and 180,000 (mid 1883 to mid 1898) vary but were apparently made of transitional materials generally similar to modern low-medium carbon steels. The lowest carbon content found in intermediate s/n S.A.A. frames tested to date is approx. .0155, indicating the possibility that early formulations of 1015~1018, or higher carbon type steels may have been used in many frames of this era.

3. Although there are exceptions, frames manufactured after s/n 180,000 appear to have been made from medium range carbon steels. The lowest carbon content found in the after s/n 180,000 frames tested was approx. .0213, possibly indicating that 1020~1027 or slightly higher, carbon, or similar steels may have been used in these frames.


Bottom of page 71:

(1) 1st Generation S.A.A. cylinder material changes began to occur at about the same time that S.A.A. frames were being metallurgically updated. Cylinders prior to approx. s/n 96,000 (mid 1883) were made from materials generally resembling high grade malleable iron. Original cylinders from approx. s/n 96,000 to about 180,000 (mid 1898) were made from transitional low/medium grade carbon type steels. These cylinders and their parent frames were not factory guaranteed for smokeless powder cartridges. Cylinders after frame s/n 180,000 (mid 1898) began to be made from medium carbon type steels. Later versions of these cylinders were better and more uniformly heat treated. S.A.A. revolvers with cylinders of this final type were factory guaranteed in 1900 for standard factory load smokeless powder cartridges.


(2) 1st Generation 357 Magnum cylinders were made from fine grade, higher tensile strength ordnance quality gun steel. These cylinder blanks, identified by a 5 pointed star imprinted on the front, turn up on other caliber S.A.A.’s made during, and after 1935. (The 357 Magnum was introduced in 1935.)"

I don't know a whole lot about making steel. What I do know is steel has been known since Roman days, perhaps earlier. The ancients knew how to make steel even though they may not have understood the metallurgy. Before the Bessemer Process, approx 1856 if I recall correctly, steel could only be made in small quantities and it was expensive. My understanding of the Bessemer process is that blowing great quantities of heated air through the molten steel did indeed burn away the impurities, leading to mass production of inexpensive steel.

If the Bessemer Process for making steel was patented in 1856, why was Colt still using Malleable Iron for frames and cylinders as late as 1883? I do not know. But they were. Kuhnhausen's material notes only talk about frames and cylinders, nothing is mentioned about barrels or internal parts. Since the cylinder, not the frame or the barrel, is the pressure vessel that must withstand the pressure of a cartridge firing, this is understandable. I would suspect that as time advanced Colt, and the other quality firearm manufacturers were using the best available materials for the barrels and lockwork parts.

I find it interesting to note that advances in heat treating also contributed to the strength of the steels used, particularly 357 Magnum cylinders as early as 1935.

I am reading the book American Locomotives: An Engineering History, 1830-1880 and you know what, locomotive engineers faced the same problem weapon designers had: the new kid on the block, varied highly in material properties, compared to cast iron and wrought iron. Processing for making cast iron and wrought iron were "mature" and well understood when early Bessemer converters were puking out their steels. Also the Bessemer converter does not remove non oxidizing elements, such as chromium, nickel, vanadium, copper, etc, etc.

Residual Elements in Steel

https://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&LN=EN&site=kts&NM=205

Residual elements (Cu, Ni, As, Pb, Sn, Sb, Mo, Cr, etc.) are defined as elements which are not added on purpose to steel and which cannot be removed by simple metallurgical processes. The presence of residual elements in steel can have strong effects on mechanical properties. There is therefore clearly a need to identify and to quantify the effects of residual elements in order to keep these effects within acceptable limits.


Residual elements, or at least some of them, have an influence on processing conditions and regimes, from casting to final annealing, and possibly on all mechanical properties. A clear distinction has to be made between those residual elements which have an effect due to their presence in solid solution, such as Mo, Cr, Ni, and Cu, and those which have an effect due to their segregation at interfaces (surface and grain boundaries), such as Sn, As, and Sb.


The following non exhaustive list gives some possible metallurgical effects of residual elements on processing conditions and properties of steel products. Residuals may influence:

you can read how residuals can screw up steels if you go to the article

The thing is, what sort of metallurgical processes do you think 19th century foundries were using? I would say, primitive. Hell, argon was discovered in the 1890's, and when did argon gas flushes get used in the Basic Oxygen process? A lot later.

Anyway, locomotive designers and builders were not early adopters when it came to new material technologies. They waited till new technologies were established before jumping in. A locomotive was a very expensive item, and train wrecks were spectacular events, and expensive to clear.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Thanks for the link to the Locomotive book. When I am not shooting trains and model railroads are two of my passions. I will be ordering that book.

P.S.: Did you buy it used or new?

 

[Slamfire]

Thanks for the link to the Locomotive book. When I am not shooting trains and model railroads are two of my passions. I will be ordering that book.

P.S.: Did you buy it used or new?

Used, got a much better deal on fleabay. What is not mentioned is the mechanical engineering of the era. Van Mises was created around 1910, I think they were using simple shear before the Civil War and after, but I have no idea of how they calculated loads and stresses. Really impressive research went into the book. My edition is the later, revised edition. So much of the issues of the evolution of locomotives were issues with material technologies.

Prior to the Civil War, one process to make wrought iron was the puddling process. A person had to pull to 80 ish pound lump of iron out, see picture, and you know, 100lbs of iron is surprisingly small. A cubic foot of iron is 491 pounds! To make a wrought iron tire, or control rod, lumps of wrought iron had to be forge welded together by hand. Maybe they had trip hammers. But with each lump forged into a bigger part, there would always be the risk of delaminations along the boundaries. The author talks about the durability of cast iron tires versus wrought iron tires, for example. Steel finally won out.

British crucible steel was the best of the era. Benjamin Huntsman developed a process using local Sheffield clay containers, "crucibles". Local clays happened to have all the herbs and spices necessary to make a very clean steel, once the process was figured out. In the background of the picture in the referenced article, you can see original clay pots.

A Crucible of Steel History

https://www.westyorkssteel.com/blog/a-crucible-of-steel-history/

Prior to the Bessemer converter, steels were even more god awful expensive than wrought iron or cast iron. I think the only steel pieces in a Harper's Ferry Musket was the lock spring and frizzen. If it could be made from brass, it was. Wrought iron was used where necessary, and steel was used as little as possible.


see how long it took to make wootz!

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Thanks for that video. I knew a little bit about Wootz steel but now I know much more.

Have you ever seen the video of Williamsburg Gunsmith Wallace Gusler building a flintlock rifle from scratch? The video was made back in 1969 when Gusler was a young man. I understand he retired a few years ago after making rifles for many years. The barrel he makes is iron, not steel. I would have to watch the video again, but I'm pretty sure just about the only steel he used in the rifle was for the springs. Pretty sure everything else was iron. Fascinating video, I am posting a link to it here in case you have not seen it. I first saw this video around 1969 or 1970. By the way, if you are old enough to remember, the narrator is newsman David Brinkley who I remember from the Huntley-Brinkley News Report.






My favorite book about the metals used in old weapons is Fighting Iron, A Metals Handbook for Arms Collectors by Art Gogan. A good book for the layman (like me) without too much advanced chemistry. It is available on Amazon if you are interested.




P.S. Do you have any idea why Colt was still using iron for frames and cylinders almost 30 years after the Bessemer process was patented? Perhaps they felt the steel at that time was not good enough?

 

[someguy2800]

Just as there are people today that insist on carrying a semi auto with an empty chamber, I have no doubts that some or perhaps even many carried a revolver with an empty chamber. I very much doubt it was standard practice, especially among people that had a high likelihood of having to actually use it, such as law officers, soldiers, ect...

 

[gwpercle]

Except for a few minor changes, Colt Single Action Army revolvers are still made the way they were back in 1873. There is no added safety device, such as a transfer bar.

These are the lock parts from a 2nd Generation Colt that was made in the 1973. The parts are pretty much the same as they were in 1873, and Colt is still making them this way. You can see the three cocking notches on the hammer, The top one is the so called "Safety Cock Notch", the middle notch is the half cock loading position, and the notch on the bottom is the full cock notch. You can also see in this photo how thin the tip of the sear is and how easily it could shear off the hammer spur received a sharp blow, firing a round under the hammer.

View attachment 1109108




Here are the parts inside one of the old Three Screw Ruger Blackhawks. This is the "pre-transfer bar design" (I just made that term up) Very similar to the Colt parts, except there are no flat springs, the springs are all coil springs and the firing pin is mounted in the frame. This is the style of revolver that Ruger got sued over when there were injuries resulting from shooters ignoring the old rule of never putting a live round under the hammer.

View attachment 1109109




These are the parts inside my Blackhawk that I bought way back in 1975. Notice the transfer bar (the thin vertical part) attached to the trigger. Your Blackhawk will be the same. Also, notice how many more parts there are in this design than the old Three Screw Blackhawk. As I said in an earlier post, more parts means added cost to manufacture, which raises the price.

View attachment 1109110




Did Colt evade law suits for all those years? I have no idea. But lets not forget that back in the 19th Century society was not as litigious as it is today. Nobody was suing over hot coffee back then.

I can tell you this. I bought this 2nd Gen Colt a few years ago and it came with the box and instruction manual. This revolver shipped in 1973.

View attachment 1109111




Here is what the manual says regarding safe carry. Did this insulate Colt from lawsuits?I have no idea.

View attachment 1109112



Here is a link to the owners manual for one of the old Ruger Three Screw revolvers. The first page shows the Free Safety Offer to install a transfer bar. Scroll down a bit and you will see that Ruger also included a Safety Note in the manual cautioning against fully loading all six chambers. More than that I cannot tell you. Ruger got clobbered with a couple of law suits, and Bill Ruger decided to protect his company by changing the design to include a Transfer Bar. Colt did not.


https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/blackhawk-pre1973.pdf


It may interest you to know that for years single action revolvers imported into this country from overseas (mostly from Italy) had to have some sort of a safety device installed. Some had a hammer block, some had a two position cylinder pin that could be pushed all the way back so the hammer could not fall all the way. A few years ago Uberti redesigned their single action revolvers to incorporate a floating firing pin in the hammer. Normally the firing pin is retracted and will not contact a primer. When the trigger is pulled a small actuator pushes the firing pin forward so it will fire a cartridge. These rules were only for revolvers being imported from over seas, they did not affect revolvers manufactured in the US.

Thanks for the clear and in depth answer to my questions ... I learned a lot from it .
My only SA has been a 1970 Ruger Blackhawk , three screw ... I have always done the Load one - skip one - Load four - bring to full cock and let down on the empty chamber. Now I understand why . I'm glad Colt stayed true to the 1873 design and if I ever get one will load it the same way .
Thanks again ... I'm going to print this out for future reference ... the photo's are awesome !
Gary

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Just as there are people today that insist on carrying a semi auto with an empty chamber, I have no doubts that some or perhaps even many carried a revolver with an empty chamber. I very much doubt it was standard practice, especially among people that had a high likelihood of having to actually use it, such as law officers, soldiers, ect...

Not an apt comparison. Most modern semi-auto pistols have a reliable safety which can be engaged if one wants to keep a live round in the chamber. My 1911s certainly do.

As I have explained many times, with many photos, the so called "safety cock notch" on the hammer, and in particular the thin tip of the sear in a Colt Single Action Army can easily break if the revolver is dropped on its hammer, discharging a live round under the hammer.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Thanks for the clear and in depth answer to my questions ... I learned a lot from it .
My only SA has been a 1970 Ruger Blackhawk , three screw ... I have always done the Load one - skip one - Load four - bring to full cock and let down on the empty chamber. Now I understand why . I'm glad Colt stayed true to the 1873 design and if I ever get one will load it the same way .
Thanks again ... I'm going to print this out for future reference ... the photo's are awesome !
Gary

Ooops. I assumed you have a more modern Blackhawk with the transfer bar like the one I posted a photo of.

Your Three Screw Blackhawk parts will have the parts I posted in the photo of an older Three Screw Blackhawk. The one I posted a photo of is a 357 Magnum, if yours is a 44 or 45 the frame and cylinder will be a little bit bigger, but the parts work the same way.

 

[someguy2800]

Not an apt comparison. Most modern semi-auto pistols have a reliable safety which can be engaged if one wants to keep a live round in the chamber. My 1911s certainly do.

As I have explained many times, with many photos, the so called "safety cock notch" on the hammer, and in particular the thin tip of the sear in a Colt Single Action Army can easily break if the revolver is dropped on its hammer, discharging a live round under the hammer.

I agree with you however our thoughts today on safety have no bearing on what people thought and did 140 years ago.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I agree with you however our thoughts today on safety have no bearing on what people thought and did 140 years ago.

Did you read what Wyatt Earp had to say?

"I have often been asked why five shots without reloading were all a top-notch gunfighter fired, when his guns were chambered for six cartridges. The answer is, merely, safety. To ensure against accidental discharge of the gun while in the holster, due to hair-trigger adjustment, the hammer rested upon an empty chamber. As widely as this was known and practiced, the number of cartridges a man carried in his six-gun may be taken as an indication of a man’s rank with the gunfighters of the old school. Practiced gun-wielders had too much respect for their weapons to take unnecessary chances with them; it was only with tyros and would-bes that you heard of accidental discharges or didn’t-know-it-was-loaded injuries in the country where carrying a Colt was a man’s prerogative.”

 

[Slamfire]

Thanks for that video. I knew a little bit about Wootz steel but now I know much more.

Have you ever seen the video of Williamsburg Gunsmith Wallace Gusler building a flintlock rifle from scratch? The video was made back in 1969 when Gusler was a young man. I understand he retired a few years ago after making rifles for many years. The barrel he makes is iron, not steel. I would have to watch the video again, but I'm pretty sure just about the only steel he used in the rifle was for the springs. Pretty sure everything else was iron. Fascinating video, I am posting a link to it here in case you have not seen it. I first saw this video around 1969 or 1970. By the way, if you are old enough to remember, the narrator is newsman David Brinkley who I remember from the Huntley-Brinkley News Report.

Great video

My favorite book about the metals used in old weapons is Fighting Iron, A Metals Handbook for Arms Collectors by Art Gogan. A good book for the layman (like me) without too much advanced chemistry. It is available on Amazon if you are interested.

View attachment 1109232

Purchased the first edition a long time ago

.S. Do you have any idea why Colt was still using iron for frames and cylinders almost 30 years after the Bessemer process was patented? Perhaps they felt the steel at that time was not good enough?

Don't know and have never seen anything explaining their decisions. I am of the opinion if Colt used iron for frames and cylinders it had to be because blackpowder pressures did not require steel, probably easier to machine and cost less. Corporations are now things, why should they put extra cost into something under the chance cartridges increased in pressures in the future? Why should Colt care about what users are doing, a decade, or a half century after the pistol was sold?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Don't know and have never seen anything explaining their decisions. I am of the opinion if Colt used iron for frames and cylinders it had to be because blackpowder pressures did not require steel, probably easier to machine and cost less. Corporations are now things, why should they put extra cost into something under the chance cartridges increased in pressures in the future? Why should Colt care about what users are doing, a decade, or a half century after the pistol was sold?

Thanks for getting back to me.

If you look at what I posted in post #133 (unbelievable this thread has gone on for so long) Colt began using "materials generally similar to modern low-medium carbon steels" as early as 1883. Clearly a long time after the Bessemer Process began but also clearly in the Black Powder era.

Also buried in that post is the fact that Colt did not factory warranty the Single Action Army for Smokeless Powder until 1900, mostly due to improvements in heat treatment. In fact, as early as 1901 Colt began stamping a V/P in an upside down triangle on the left front of the trigger guard. This stood for Verified Proof and was Colt's way of indicating the revolver was safe to shoot with Smokeless Powder ammunition.

A little bit worn, but here is the Verified Proof marking on a Bisley Colt from 1909.






Anyway, I have been assuming that Colt simply did not think the quality of steel was good enough to begin using it in the SAA until 1883. Machinability could certainly be a consideration.

By the way, I just ordered the locomotive book, thanks for the tip.

 

[Slamfire]

Thanks for getting back to me.

If you look at what I posted in post #133 (unbelievable this thread has gone on for so long) Colt began using "materials generally similar to modern low-medium carbon steels" as early as 1883. Clearly a long time after the Bessemer Process began but also clearly in the Black Powder era.

Also buried in that post is the fact that Colt did not factory warranty the Single Action Army for Smokeless Powder until 1900, mostly due to improvements in heat treatment. In fact, as early as 1901 Colt began stamping a V/P in an upside down triangle on the left front of the trigger guard. This stood for Verified Proof and was Colt's way of indicating the revolver was safe to shoot with Smokeless Powder ammunition.

A little bit worn, but here is the Verified Proof marking on a Bisley Colt from 1909.

View attachment 1109444

Anyway, I have been assuming that Colt simply did not think the quality of steel was good enough to begin using it in the SAA until 1883. Machinability could certainly be a consideration.

By the way, I just ordered the locomotive book, thanks for the tip.

Read about all the problems the Germans had with smokeless powders, period steels, and cartridge cases with their GEW 1888's, and that would give anyone pause about producing firearms for smokeless powders. Colt probably had to offer smokeless pistols because the market had moved to smokeless and their sales were dropping. Corporations don't like change, they only react to external influences. If Colt of old, was like the Colt I remember from the 1960's onward, Colt only made changes years after others offered them as standard on their products.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Colt probably had to offer smokeless pistols because the market had moved to smokeless and their sales were dropping.

Interesting.

Sales of the SAA varied a bit over the years. Both military contract sales and commercial sales. Not wanting to clutter things up too much I cut the sales figures off after 1890. Data from Kuhnhausen:

1873 200
1874 14,800
1875 7,000
1876 11,000
1877 8,000
1878 8,000
1879 4,000
1880 9,000
1881 11,000
1882 12,000
1883 17,000 (the year Colt began using steel for the frame and cylinder)
1884 12,000
1885 3,000
1886 2,000
1887 6,000
1888 3,000
1889 2,000
1890 6,000 (the end of the Army contracts)

These sales figures are of course influenced by everything under the sun, but it looks like sales were going pretty good up until 1885, two years after Colt began using steel for cylinders and frames. Sales do not seem to have suffered from competition, or whatever causes, until1885.

 

[Raljr1]

I like what John Wayne told Ron Howard in The Shootist, when Ron's character asked about carrying 5 versus 6. John Wayne replied something to the effect, if you feel you're gonna need six, load six.

 

[CajunBass]

Just as there are people today that insist on carrying a semi auto with an empty chamber, I have no doubts that some or perhaps even many carried a revolver with an empty chamber. I very much doubt it was standard practice, especially among people that had a high likelihood of having to actually use it, such as law officers, soldiers, ect...

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.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

When it comes to gun lore there is:
1. The "official" way.
2. How they actually did it.
3. How we think they did it.
4. How we do it.