Revolver Safety?

[MS .45]

This just popped in to my head a minute ago. Why are no revolvers designed with a manual safety. Many people carry autos cocked and locked so as to avoid the DA pull for the first shot. Why is this not considerd when designing revolvers. May be a dumb question, but maybe somebody knows why this is not done.

 

[RyanM]

So you'd have a revolver that's SA for the first shot, and DA for the rest? That's kind of dumb.

S&W did used to make some hammerless snubnose revolvers with a grip safety, but later decided it was unnecessary.

 

[MS .45]

Yeah I thought of that, but I also thought of how, in many fights, the first shot might just be the most important. With that in mind, some may prefer that shot to be in SA.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yeah I thought of that, but I also thought of how, in many fights, the first shot might just be the most important. With that in mind, some may prefer that shot to be in SA.

That would mean you have time to make a precision shot, and are far enough away from your opponent to make it desirable. You'd be better off moving in a case like that.

 

[Chip Dixon]

Have you been exposed to older S&W revolvers? Or one that has had an action job? A nice double action revolver trigger is nothing like that on a DA auto.

I prefer my Model 10's double action trigger to many SA autos, including an untuned 1911. I shoot just as well with it in double action as I do (if not better than) when I cock it and fire it single action.. it is all in staging the trigger and knowing your particular gun. A nice revolver's trigger will be smooth all the way until it breaks. With enough trigger time and a nice revolver I'm sure you'd agree.

"Safeties" on revolvers = sacrilege.

 

[MCgunner]

DA can be very accurate if you learn to shoot it. First off, in the time it takes to flick a safety off, I can cock a hammer if I don't like DA. Of course, I don't do that for combat. I am well practiced at the art, though, shooting thumb busters as I do.

I, too, like a good, smooth DA trigger. I have an old 50s vintage S&W M10, in SUPER shape, that is just slick as a DA can get. That gun makes hitting with DA almost easy. My Taurus M85 isn't too bad and even my Rossis are decent compared to a lot of DA autos I've fired, my P85 being one of 'em. DA autos vary in quality of trigger, too, though. Some of 'em are really smooth, like my Kel Tec. But, the Kel Tec stages fairly heavily at the end, not as good for combat shooting as a good DA revolver, though it helps a lot with accuracy work off the sand bags.

For carry guns, I'm a DA kinda guy all the way. I like the safety of carrying hammer down, yet ready for dancing. I've carried SA guns safety on, just don't feel right in public to me. I wanna be safe as I can and still only a trigger pull away when I need the gun.

The best DA I've ever shot was a Python. WOW, those things have a reputation for a reason. That gun belonged to a friend and it was one slick mama. It was SOOO smooth. I worked over a Security Six I had to be probably the best that I personally have ever owned. Traded that gun, whatta fool.

 

[MS .45]

Thanks for the responses guys. I guess the main point of my question was why it had never been done(mechanical problems or simply no market for a revolver with a safety). I guess it is more of a market thing. I too like a good smooth DA pull. The pull on my S&W 65 is very nice and I personally am just as accurate in DA as SA with this particular gun.

 

[P95Carry]

I had a Webley many years ago - an Australian knock-off - and it had a safety!!! I think it was a MkIV - snubby in 38 Short and Weak.

It had so many sharp edges anyways - plus the ''safety'' - it would never come out of a pocket - probably not even a holster. It was a crazy idea!

Plus - DA was so heavy it was safe anyways - only possible use for the safety was to keep it cocked! Further sharp edges, as the spur was a weapon in itself

 

[Old Fuff]

Double-action/hand ejector revolvers that were made by principal U.S. makers since the 1930's (and in some cases going back to 1908) such as Colt, Smith & Weson, Ruger, etc.) have mechanical safeties that prevent the gun from firing unless the trigger is held back while the hammer is falling. In the case of Smith & Wesson and Colt, most models had two, independent safeties that blocked the hammer.

In theory, but not recommended in practice, one could carry a fully loaded revolver cocked when holstered and it wouldn't fire if the hammer fell so long as nothing restricted the trigger from following down at the same time.

This issue was brought up before the .45 1911 pistol was adopted by the (then horseback riding) Cavalry which was dead-set against automatic pistols. They pointed put that in a fight a trooper could jam his sidearm back into a holster when it became necessary to control his mount - and he could do so even if the Colt model 1892 or 1909 that was then issued was cocked!

Colt and Browning responded by adding a grip safety to their prototype pistols.

Both Smith & Wesson and Ruger have made revolvers on special order with a manual safety for European police departments that insisted on the feature, but here they are considered superfluous and unnecessary.

 

[Old Fuff]

P95Carry:

That manual safety on Webley's was optional, and usually not found. More recently some Mark IV's were modified in Canada, and a manual safety added so that they could meet U.S. import regulations.

 

[P95Carry]

Thx for info Fuff - well that one was aquired in UK back in 80's - but thx to UK Gov it ''went'' in 1997!!

It was a dog really in some ways but fun to have just ''because'' - wish I still had it to show folks - sharp bits and all

 

[slopemeno]

There was/is also the "Murabito" thumb safety for K-frame S&W's, as well as the Magna Trigger conversions for K-frame S&W's and Ruger Security Sixes.

Slower to flick a safety off? You might tell that to those IPSC guys....

 

[rbmcmjr]

There was/is also the "Murabito" thumb safety for K-frame S&W's, as well as the Magna Trigger conversions for K-frame S&W's and Ruger Security Sixes.

The Magna-Trigger is available for J, K, L, and N frame S&Ws. See here: http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html

I have one on my nightstand gun. It works. The Murabito leaves me less thrilled by the concept. The guys at Tarnhelm sell it, too.

Rick

 

[ribbonstone]

The Webly MK IV's that Singapore ordered for it's police force had a safety...a cross bolt type on the frame behind the hammer, right about at the frame "hump". Still have my example, and the safety while useless does work (and has the blessing of being able to just ignore it).

Was a company that would modify your S&W so that the cylinder latch not only did that job, but would also pivot and act as a safety. High Standard's "Crusader" had at least one prototype with a safety more-or-less like that S&W modification.

Have seen several odd little European pocket revolvers with functioning safties. At lest some of the old US made pocket break-open revolvers had a trigger safety that looks and works a whole lot like Glock's.

All in all, that revovlers without a safety are very common speaks well for the common sense of most revolver shooters.

 

[P95Carry]

Slower to flick a safety off? You might tell that to those IPSC guys....

Slopemeno - not tho probably in the case of that Webley I mentioned - darned safety was a transverse deal - push across from right or left - not fast!!

Found a pic - lousy image, old photo scanned but - hard to see but above top of grips was the cross-safety deal.

 

[ribbonstone]

Good picture. The Mk IV in the safe uses that same stubbie grip frame, but with a set of oversized grips and a full 5" barrel.

By anychance is there a SPF stamp at the top of the back strap (near the safety's screw)?

 

[P95Carry]

Sorry - gun is long been history (thx to UK Gov 1997 when I was still there).

That pic is all I have left sadly.

 

[Old Fuff]

P95Carry:

Ah… You had the so-called “Pocket Model,” which was more often seen with the manual safety. Why this was I don’t know. Most of my limited experience with the Webly Mk. IV .38’s was with commercial grade police models with larger stocks and 4 or 5 inch barrels that were used by Canadian police. That, and a couple of World War Two guns which finish-wise were more roughly finished but fully functional. None of these had a manual safety.

None of them had particularly sharp corners or edges, and the Canadian cops I knew could reload one while I was still thinking about it. They would hit the thumb latch and then bump the barrel against the back of their leg. Brass would fly as they fingered new loads into the chambers. Another “bump” and the barrel was closed and latched – ready to fire, and in far less time then it took to write this…

I could never match them with a hand ejector, as this was before speed loaders were available. But if they had them their considerable speed would have been even faster. On the police guns the double-action was much lighter then on a pocket model. They had a “V” mainspring, and in the case of the smaller gun I think they had to make the spring stiffer. The cartridge was wimpish by our standards, but I learned to respect the revolver. As I understand it, the BATF&E will no longer allow them to be imported into the United States unless they do have some sort of additional safety.

 

[Hardtarget]

As said...get an old S&W. Get a GOOD trigger job. You'll be surprised. My brother-in-law (ex) shot some surprising groups at 50 yards ...double action only...iron sights.
Mark.

 

[P95Carry]

Thx for extra info Fuff - well that one for sure was the ''pocket snagger'' model!

And the grip - well small wasn't in it! Fun tho.