Rossi M68 safe with bullet under hammer?

[wambli_7]

I have a Rossi M68 that I want to use for CC... does anyone know if it has the transfer bar to prevent discharge. I want to know if it is safe to carry it with a round under the hammer... it only has 5 shots so I would hate to loose one... but I would hate to loose the one in my leg if it is not safe... Any info would be great... I just bought it and it shoots great and feels good... but don't know the tech stuff on it...

thank you.

 

[Pistol Toter]

I'm sure that it has one. I can't think of a revolver that has been built since shortly after WWII that doesn't have the "hammer block". With the gun UNLOADED, single action the hammer and look down in there it should flop around. I don't own a Rossi but it should be a wire form or more likely than not a little flat bar that will rise up when the trigger is pulled. Hold the hammer and pull the trigger now let the hammer slow go forward; watch to see if you see that bar rise; if not find you a gunsmith to look at it for you. Incedentially that is the second safety in there to keep the gun from going off if the hammer is bumped or struck. There should be another part down in the action that you can't see (S&W calls that piece the "rebound slide") that holds the hammer up off the firing pin by providing a seat for the hammer to sit on.

 

[Ed Ames]

I can't think of a revolver
that has been built since shortly after WWII that
doesn't have the "hammer block".

The Rossi M68 has a hammer block.

As a general rule most double action revolvers (built after WWII?) have hammer blocks or equivalent.

Quite a few single action and reproduction revolvers (including those built after last Wednesday) lack any sort of hammer block or transfer bar. NAA mini revolvers would be an example. So would the more faithful of the Colt SAA reproductions, older Rugers that haven't been converted, and just about any black powder gun.

Just a caution....

 

[rcmodel]

It is a nearly exact copy of a modern Smith & Wesson.

As such, it has a rebound slide that blocks the hammer internally, and a separate hammer block (Not a transfer bar) that lies between the hammer & frame, except when the trigger is all the way back.

It is perfectly safe to carry it fully loaded.


rcmodel

 

[barnetmill]

Pistol toter: a transfer bar is not the same as what at least some Rossi and most S&W revolvers use to prevent accidental discharge.

You stated: "I can't think of a revolver that has been built since shortly after WWII that doesn't have the "hammer block".

Well I can and have owned them. Please be more careful with what you say.

For "most" modern revolvers, if the firing pin is attached to the hammer, then there is no transfer bar. A different mechanism is often used to prevent firing. To explain further would only confuse the issue. I suggest that that man with the question either check with Rossi or the NRA or a forum that specializes in Rossi revolvers. Going to a gunsmith as you suggested is another way to get the answer.

rcmodel "It is perfectly safe to carry it fully loaded." Only if the block is working correctly. Some times it is not. This needs to be verified as I do with any newly acquired gun.

 

[highorder]

You stated: "I can't think of a revolver that has been built since shortly after WWII that doesn't have the "hammer block".

Well I can and have owned them. Please be more careful with what you say.

hold on there, he said he can't think of any; not that there weren't any. Should he be more careful with his recollections as well?

Well I can and have owned them.

well, what makes and models then? please share the knowledge.



.

 

[Pistol Toter]

I stand corrected. I was not thinking of the single actions. My appologies!!! But even the cheap RG has a hammer block, admitedly it's just a wire. I would like to see a list of the modern DA revolver that don't have one. When S&W included the hammer block it was because a gun had been dropped aboard a ship knocking the hammer from the rebound slide/hammer seat causeing an AD or ND. I realize that the hammer block prevents the hammer (with the firing pin) from completing the fall, the transfer bar rises to impart the energy of the hammer to the frame mounted fiiing pin. Now educate me. Please.

 

[barnetmill]

To Pistol toter and all others: I do want to make a point about non-functioning hammer blocks.
Somewhere in my belongings is an old "Herters Guide model" in .22. I believe (Not sure) that it is similar to RG revolvers. Many years ago a small piece of metal fell out of it and after that it had no hammer block.

About "modern" DA or trigger cocking revolvers I have to agree that I have "no knowledge" of any made by a major factory in the west that does not have a provision against firing when dropped.

What I am trying to say is that one should be careful and safe. Pay attention to detail and take nothing for granted until you know for sure in regards to safety with firearms.

 

[Pistol Toter]

Ya know what this thread has done for me? I'm retired and I set here all day looking for a reason to be of some use, to help someone else. :banghead: I can more easily sit in the recliner watch the soaps, read a book or or masterbate. I don't need this B.S. Screw This!!

Moderators remove me, Please.

 

[Jim March]

That Rossi left the factory with a hammer block safety.

Whether it's there NOW is another question. Do "the checkout" to make damned sure (see stickied post, this forum).

If a hammer block breaks, the gun reverts to a "zero safety" state. If a transfer bar breaks, the gun turns into a doorstop (can't fire).

 

[barnetmill]

Pistol toter I think any honest discussion on safety is helpful. You can certainly be useful and helpful. I hope you change you mind about leaving this forum just on the account of something that I wrote.

 

[Ash]

Well, if there is no firing pin/striker on the hammer, if the hammer face is basically flat but with a small step at the top, it has a transfer bar. If it is missing the transfer bar, it cannot fire as mentioned. Cock the action and you will see the transfer bar rise up into position over the firing pin in the frame.

If it has a rebounding hammer, it will be obvious. You cock it and then lower the hammer with the trigger pulled. When it is completely lowered (as if it had fired) you should be able to see the pin through the cylinder gap at the rear where the primer of a loaded round would be. Release the trigger. If the hammer moves to the rear, it has a rebounding hammer. If you can look through the gap and see no signs of of the striker (or is it called hammer nose?) then it is working properly.

Ash

 

[KINGMAX]

Rossi 352

I have a great little ROSSI 352, 5-shot .38 spl. I use it as a backup to my GLOCK 21. I keep it loaded w/ 4 silvertips, none under the hammer. It isn't worth taking a chance.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, if there is no firing pin/striker on the hammer, if the hammer face is basically flat but with a small step at the top, it has a transfer bar.

Not on a Rossi. I have owned two 511 .22s (one got stolen), a M88, a M971, and a M68. My 92 carbine is a Rossi, but it don't count. ALL the centerfires had hammer mounted firing pins and a hammer block. My M68 (still have) was bought in 1981 new, hammer block. My 511 Sportsman .22s, however, have a flat faced hammer, but no transfer bar. They incorporate a hammer block with the frame mounted firing pin. I just went and checked mine to make sure before I posted this.

Anyway, every one of 'em were/are safe with a full cylinder. They are quite decent hanguns, too. I've had a couple of firing pins on a 971 break on me before it got fixed right, but that's the worst problem I ever had. That gun had 8 or 10K rounds through it when I traded it. Really liked shooting it, but I made a good trade with it on a .45 Colt stainless blackhawk I wanted more. Rossis are higher quality guns than most will tell you that never owned one. They tend to have decent to very respectable accuracy (my current 511 is amazing). They vary in quality of fit and finish. The late 80s, early 90s seems to be when they were the worst, tooling marks and such, and occasionally you'd pick one up who's timing was less than impressive, but my M68 bought in 81 is spot on, well put together and finished, and very accurate. And, quality in the newer Rossis seems to be back to early 80s levels from what I've seen of 'em. I'd like to get a M462, nice gun, pocket sized .357 6 shooter. But, I have a Ruger SP101 AND a 3" Taurus M66 medium frame, so I don't really need it.

 

[KINGMAX]

rule of thumb = never

NEVER carry a revolver w/ a live one under the hammer = NEVER

 

[MICHAEL T]

NEVER carry a revolver w/ a live one under the hammer = NEVER

Todays pistols are safe to carry with the cyl. fully loaded Come up to the modern times . In a J frame if you carry on empty you have reduced you load 20%
Bet you carry a auto with a empty chamber to. Do you carry you flint lock with no powder in pan or just leave the flint out.

I have a old Blackhawk SA that was never converted Yes that one I carry on a empty cyl.


























[/QUOTE]

 

[Steve C]

wambli_7, you have the revolver, check it out yourself. The "transfer bar" method is only one of the ways a revolver is made safe. Millions of S&W revolvers are just as safe with all six loaded and they use a hammer block.

DO THIS:
With the gun empty, finger off the trigger and hammer down hold it up to the light sideways and peer between the back of the cylinder and the frame. If you see the firing pin protrude in this space the gun is not safe to carry with one chambered. Push against the back of the hammer to check if the hammer is blocked from further forward movement as it should be.

If you can't see the firing pin it shows that there is no firing pin contact with the cartridge primer and there is no way for the gun to go off without pulling the trigger.

Next, with the gun still empty, pull the trigger and hold it fully back like you'd just fired a round. Check the space between the cylinder and frame as you did before and you should see the firing pin protruding as it would normally hit the cartridge primer to set it off.

Leaving a unloaded cylinder under the hammer is a remnant of single action pistols like the 1860 Colt that had no hammer block or transfer mechanism. With these guns the firing pin would rest on the primer of a round in a loaded chamber so any blow from being dropped, etc. to the hammer would set off the round. Leaving an empty chamber in a modern revolver is like pumping the gas pedal before starting your modern fuel injected car to "set the choke", not needed.

 

[KINGMAX]

yes micheal, I carry a GLOCK 21

yes micheal, I carry a GLOCK 21 without one in the chamber. Saftey first! It's obvious you are interested in having just one more shot, and disreguard saftey first. Let me know when you ar planning a range trip so I will stay home that day.

 

[dbarale]

Saftey first! It's obvious you are interested in having just one more shot, and disreguard saftey first.

King, this is not unsafe. Any double action revolver of modern manufacture is safe to carry fully loaded.
If you reload, you can try to prime an empty case, load it into your gun and (while wearing heavy gloves and eye protection) bang on the hammer with a rubber mallet and see what happens. My bet is you'll break or bend the hammer without ever setting off the primer.

 

[Ash]

Like I said, Steve

As to King, it is safe to carry a transfer bar or rebounding or hammer block revolver with a round under the hammer. And that has been around a long, long time. 1895 Nagant revolvers were safe to carry fully loaded in 1895. Ditto for the Colt New Service and the S&W 1917's, the Hopkins and Allen Safety Police of 1903 (called safety for that reason). Indeed, almost all double action revolvers made in the 20th century fit this bill. Certainly all DA's made by reputable manufacturers apply. Always best to inspect any revolver before purchase, and safe carry methods can be included with this inspection.

However, if you feel uncomfortable with this, then there is absolutely no way a revolver can fire if dropped on an empty chamber, save by the most freak of accidents. You are entitled to your opinions and if your choice is one fewer rounds, that's your choice. It certainly is safer, if only marginally so in revolvers (because a single pull of the trigger will still make it fire).

We shouldn't fault somebody for that. However, it IS safe to carry almost all double action revolvers made in the 20th century, certainly made after 1950, fully loaded. Single Action Army revolvers on the other hand do not fit and one should always check out an SAA before carrying fully loaded. Many modern-made ones cannot be carried safely with a hammer down on a loaded chamber.

Ash

 

[barnetmill]

There one qualification relative to carrying with one in the chamber, the trigger should be guarded by either a holster or other device. Carrying a gun loose like in a purse could result in a lipstick tube getting caught in the trigger guard. Same thing for a pocket with keys. Also especially with a glock stay away from the 2.5 lbs trigger pulls.

Other danger is for stored guns. House fire will cause loaded firearms to discharge. Fire fighters are endangered.

 

[Ash]

But that would mean you didn't load the next cylinder down, not the one under the hammer.

Ash