The single-action safety-notch and the "Cowboy Load" myth

[sleepysquirrel2]

So Arthur C Gould wrote in 1888 that you're supposed to carry the Colt Single Action Army (or DA 1877/1878 models) loaded and on the safety notch (the first click, before the half cock notch). Neither does he imply that Colt gateloaders should be loaded with a cowboy load of loading 5 and skipping 1 chamber.

To Load the Arm.—1st motion: holding the revolver in the left hand, muzzle downwards, half-cock it with the right hand and open the gate. 2d motion: insert the cartridges in succession with the right hand, close the gate, cock and fire it (taking it in the right hand), or bring the hammer to the safety-notch, as may be desired.

To Eject the Cartridge Shells.—1st motion: holding the arm in the left hand, half-cock with the right hand and open the gate. 2d motion: eject the shells in succession with the ejector pushed by the right hand, moving the cylinder with the thumb and forefinger of the left hand. When the shells have been ejected, the pistol is ready for the 2d motion of loading.

There are three notches in the hammer of this arm. The first is the safety-notch, the second is the half-cock notch, and the third is the cock-notch. The pistol cannot be fired when the hammer rests in the safety-notch or half-cock notch, and can be fired by pulling the trigger when the hammer rests in the cock-notch. The pistol should be carried habitually with the hammer resting in the safety-notch.

And Mr. Gould is not a nobody in the history of firearms world: he literally wrote the first english language book on pistol and revolver shooting, founded American Rifleman Magazine, and established the original NRA pistol/revolver competition rules. And most importantly, he wrote this back in 1888, when the Colt gateloaders (both SAA and DA models) were actually being used by ordinary people as ordinary firearms.

So when did "don't carry on the safety notch" become a thing?


I've attached a screenshot from his book, and you can read it for free at this link, as it is well out of copyright now: https://archive.org/details/modernamericanpi01goul/page/n5/mode/2up

 

[Dibbs]

I doubt many people who actually own these expensive Colt collector models actually regularly carry them, on a daily basis.

Newer SAs have "transfer bars" ( I stand corrected), which prevent the hammer from dropping on a live round. So the Cowboy Load Myth is largely moot, anymore. Most revolver carriers carry DAs, and most SAs, like the Vaquero, or Blackhawk, have the hammer block.

 

[UncleEd]

SleepySquirrel2,

Note in your reference to a "safety" you wrote
half-cock notch and called it the safety. But from
his text he refers to the "safety-notch." Two
different notches.

The safety notch which Colt provided was very tiny
and is the first click in drawing back the hammer.
I've saw one ad from Colt from that period which
mentioned loading six and going to the safety
notch. The half cock notch releases the cylinder
for loading.

HOWEVER!!!!, experience taught that the safety
notch easily broke which then let the firing pin sit
on the cartridge primer. A hit on the hammer
could easily set off the primer. So users learned
to load one, skip one and then load four, next
bringing the hammer back to full cock and then
easing the hammer down onto the skipped or
empty chamber. Even with the safety notch
in tact, it could easily be broken by a hit on the
hammer.

What you referred to as a "myth" in the headline
is no myth and your 1880s expert simply didn't
know any better.

 

[UncleEd]

Dibbs,

The Colt SAA in production today and often
used by cowboy action shooters and
single action enthusiasts don't rely on the
current "safety notch" which does exist on
the hammers. Also numerous first generation
SAA are still being used by those enthusiasts.

The basic design is still the same whether from
the 1870s or the later second and third
generation SAAs.

Don't confuse the Colt SAA with the Rugers or
some of the Italian clones. By the way, the
first Ruger Blackhawks mimicked the Colt
SAA and the company paid out a number
of lawsuit settlements when owners didn't understand
the dangers of a loaded sixth chamber.

 

[sleepysquirrel2]

SleepySquirrel2,

Note in your reference to a "safety" you wrote
half-cock notch and called it the safety. But from
his text he refers to the "safety-notch." Two
different notches.

You're right, i intended to refer to the first click (the safety notch, as Arthur Gould calls it), and i've updated my post to reflect that.

I've saw one ad from Colt from that period which
mentioned loading six and going to the safety
notch. The half cock notch releases the cylinder
for loading.

Do you have a copy of any material with those instructions? Because that would agree with Arthur Gould's instructions for loading the colts, and i suspect he took his instructions from the original colt instructions.
My understanding is the safety notch was a hold over from flintlock times: the half cock on a flintlock (and percussion sidelocks) was used as the safety. Then this was was co-opted as half-cock to free the cylinder on revolvers. So then they had to cut another notch into the hammer/tumbler as a replacement safety notch, since that was what customers expected to have at the time.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I have posted this photo many times.

These are the parts to the lockwork of a 2nd Gen Colt Single Action Army.

The upper arrow is pointing to the so called 'safety cock' notch on the hammer. I always refer to it that way because there is nothing safe about it. The lower arrow is pointing to the tip of the trigger called the sear. The sear fits into the various notches on the hammer; the so called 'safety cock' notch, the half cock notch and the full cock notch.

Notice how thin the sear is. Time and time again it has been shown that with the hammer slightly back in the 'safety cock' position, it does not take much of a blow to the hammer to shear off the sear. If the gun is dropped from waist high onto the hammer spur, there is an excellent chance the sear will shear off and the hammer will be driven forward with enough force to fire a cartridge sitting in the chamber under the hammer.






Here are the parts from a 1st Gen Bisley Colt. Again, notice how thin the sear is and how easy it would be to snap it off.






While I'm at it, here are the lock parts from a Three Screw Ruger Blackhawk. These were the revolvers Ruger was making before they began installing transfer bars in their New Models back in the 1970s. Again, notice how thin the sear is. Ruger lost some expensive law suits when shooters were injured by these revolvers falling on their hammers while fully loaded. I remember reading of one incident where a shooter was killed when his Blackhawk discharged when it fell to the ground.






This is the lockwork of a Smith and Wesson New Model Number Three. This model actually had a rebounding hammer. In this photo, the sear has automatically popped into the tiny 'safety cock' notch of the hammer. Look at how tiny that notch is. I cannot imagine it would take much of a blow to the hammer spur to shear something off and cause it to discharge.






I NEVER load any of these revolvers completely. They are always loaded with the hammer down on an empty chamber. Period.

I cannot explain why the author of that book does not think it necessary to leave an empty chamber under the hammer, but long experience has shown that if such a revolver drops on the ground, or if something heavy falls on the revolver, there is an excellent chance it will discharge if there is a live round under the hammer, even if the hammer is in the 'safety cock' position.

In CAS, everybody only loads five with the hammer down on an empty chamber. Even the guys with Rugers with transfer bars. If the Colt guys have to load five, the Ruger guys have to load five too, so they don't have an advantage over the Colt guys.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I doubt many people who actually own these expensive Colt collector models actually regularly carry them, on a daily basis.

Newer SAs all have firing pin blocks, which prevent the hammer from dropping on a live round. So the Cowboy Load Myth is largely moot, anymore. Most revolver carriers carry DAs, and most SAs, like the Vaquero, or Blackhawk have the hammer block.

You clearly have never been to very many Cowboy Action Shooting matches. There are still plenty of older Uberti revolvers in use that have actions identical to a Colt.

And by the way, there are no 'firing pin blocks' in single action revolvers. Modern Rugers have a transfer bar, which prevents the hammer from striking the frame mounted firing pin unless the transfer bar has been raised to the upper position by pulling the trigger back.

Here is a photo of the lockwork of a Ruger Vaquero. The vertical piece attached to the trigger is the transfer bar.






In this photo the arrow is pointing to the transfer bar in the raised position, ready to 'transfer' the blow of the hammer to the frame mounted firing pin.







The long, thin, angled piece in this Smith and Wesson revolver is a hammer block. It does just what its name says. If something inside breaks, the hammer block will prevent the hammer from moving forward enough to fire a cartridge in a chamber under the hammer.






The most recent single action revolvers being made by Uberti do not have a 'hammer block' in them either. They have a retractable firing pin mounted in the hammer.


As for carrying these old fashioned revolvers on a regular basis, I can assure you that everybody at a Cowboy Action Match carries their revolvers, two of them, all day long, and most of us fire far more ammo in a single day than most people who owned revolvers over 100 years ago fired in their lifetimes.

 

[DocRock]

DJ made two excellent posts on the subject. I will.only add as a CAS participant that I shoot in two categories: frontiersman and frontier cartridge duelist, the former is cap and ball and the latter is black powder cartridges. In both cases, I use revolvers with fixed firing pins on the hammer - Rogers & Spencers front stuffers, and Uberti Schofield replica cartridge revolvers. The fast guys who win matches almost universally shoot Colt SAA revolvers or replicas thereof. The vast majority of those are hammer firing pins with no blocks. The five load is a fundamental tenet and basic law of SASS. And it's not because of particularly high degree of stupidity among competitors. As DJ notes, people are generally shooting a minimum of 60 revolver rounds in a match and some weekends may shoot 200.

Mr Gould may have been explaining best competition practice in 1888 but as DJ has so graphically demonstrated, people who used single action revolvers out in the wild knew better.

 

[sleepysquirrel2]

I guess I should rephrase my post:

As modern shooters, we all recognize that it is unsafe to rely on the safety notch of the Colt SAA and colt clones (direct clones like Uberti, etc.). Yes, i know flavors and designs change over time, just like how folding trigger revolvers and guns without trigger guards were once a thing, but would be anathema to the modern day shooting crowd.
But i'm not asking about modern-day safe handling of these firearms, whether historical or reproduction. I'm asking how their actual historical usage by contemporaries in the 19th century.

Specifically, I want to know, from Colt's perspective in the 1870's, were their gateloading revolvers:
A) Designed to be carried with 6 cartridges, and hammer on the safety notch?
B) Marketed as being able to be carried with 6 cartridges, and carried safely on the safety notch?
C) Actually carried by civilians in the 1870's-1890's with 6 cartridges, and hammer on the safety notch?

So i'm not asking whether or not it is safe to rely on the safety notch in the 21st century.
Instead i'm asking: how did people actually carry their revolvers in the 1870s-1890's?

I've saw one ad from Colt from that period which
mentioned loading six and going to the safety
notch. The half cock notch releases the cylinder
for loading.

So far my evidence is that contemporary writers and target shooters from the 1880's (mind you, Arthur C Gould worked with Annie Oakley, Ira Paine, and the best of the best target shooters of the time) advised that the gate-loading Colt's could be carried fully loaded and hamer on the safety notch.

If it's true that period advertisements from the 1870's described proper loading as all 6 chambers loaded, and hammer rested on the safety notch, then that would support the hypothesis that people actually did carry their revolvers with 6 cartridges, and hammer on the safety notch.


Just to clarify: My questions is not about what is safe or unsafe today. Instead i am asking:
(A) how did the designers in the 1870's originally intend for these revolvers to be carried, and
(B) how did people actually carry their revolvers in the 1870's-1890's?


DriftwoodJohnson:
Yes, those are insightful picture on the hammer notches and sear arrangment. In fact, those pictures show that the construction of the safety notch and half-cock notch aren't much different from a tumbler from a flintlock or percussion lock rifle. And for those guns, they were used actively as a half-cock safety: the whole point of the late 1600's french flintlock is you have a half-cock safety, as opposed to an early 1600's dog-lock which has an external catch safety.




In fact, this design is used in the contemporaneous trapdoor springfield: early versions that directly used modified percussion locks only had a 2-notch tumbler, because there was no need for a third loading notch with percussion muskets. But because the original percussion half-cock was used as a loading cock, these early trapdoors do not have a safety cock.
Meanwhile later 1873 Trapdoor springfields switched to a 3-notch tumbler, because they started manufacturing brand new parts for these guns, and the US government specifically requested the addition of a safety cock, just like the purpose of the original half-cock on a flintlock or percussion rifle.

And the sear on a trapdoor/flintlock isn't much larger than that of Colt SAA, and yet the government still requested the addition of a safety cock on the trapdoor. Not to mention dropping an 8 lb rifle is much more likely to snap off a sear tooth than dropping a 2lb revolver. Now, someone will probably chime in that the trapdoor springfields were intended to be single-loaded for volley fire and not meant to be carried with a round in the chamber. But that doesn't change the fact that the US government saw it necessary to change the tooling at Springfield to switch from 2-notch tumblers to 3-notch tumblers, for the sole purpose of adding the safety-notch.

So from the contemporary 1870's perspective, it was not unusual to use a safety-cock position on a firearm: in fact, we see how the US government specifically requested it on at least the trapdoor rifles!





Thus my question is: Given that contemporary opinion of the 1870's was that safety-cock positions were adequate as safeties, and even desirable features (at least to the US government), did Colt and S&W gun designers in the 1870's also design and intend for their guns to be loaded and carried on the safety notch/safety-cock position?

Because if the safety-cock was never intended to be used, why would they be added?

From DriftwoodJohnson's pictures, both the Colt and S&W have half-cock notches that get used during loading. That explains the purpose of cutting a half-cock notch.
But why would those gunmakers waste their time cutting and fitting another safety-notch if they designed them to be originally carried with 5 rounds and an empty chamber?

And I don't want to speculate on whether or not "in the know" cowboys should've/would've/could've carried with 5 cartridges and one on an empty chamber. If someone can find historical proof of the so-called "cowboy load" written some time between the 1870's-1900, that would be greatly appreciated.

But as it stands, all the documented historical evidence I've found points towards the usage of the safety notch as a carry notch in the 1870's-1890's.
I cannot find any primary source documentation from the 1870's-1890's about the "cowboy load" technique, only speculation from secondary sources.

And yes, i know it is unsafe to rely on the safety notch today in the 21st century. Just because people carried their revolvers on the safety notch in the 1870's doesn't mean I should carry my revolvers on the safety notch today in 2021. Just like there are many photographs of soldiers showing complete lack of trigger discipline through the WW1, but that doesn't mean I should abandon trigger discipline when carrying a 1911.

So to reiterate: my question is not about what is right/wrong or safe/unsafe in 2021, but what actually happened in the 1870's-1890s.

Thus that still leaves these questions:
Why did Colt in the 1870's design their gateloaders with a safety notch?
Why did Colt in the 1870's advertise being able to load cartridges and carry on the safety notch?
Why do contemporary writers and target shooters from the 1880's recommend carrying on the safety notch?
And the key question: how did the average person actually carry these revolvers in the 1870's-1890s?

 

[CraigC]

We don't really know what they did. We can speculate but that's about it. I don't really see the point anyway.

 

[DocRock]

I guess I should rephrase my post:

As modern shooters, we all recognize that it is unsafe to rely on the safety notch of the Colt SAA and colt clones (direct clones like Uberti, etc.). Yes, i know flavors and designs change over time, just like how folding trigger revolvers and guns without trigger guards were once a thing, but would be anathema to the modern day shooting crowd.
But i'm not asking about modern-day safe handling of these firearms, whether historical or reproduction. I'm asking how their actual historical usage by contemporaries in the 19th century.

Specifically, I want to know, from Colt's perspective in the 1870's, were their gateloading revolvers:
A) Designed to be carried with 6 cartridges, and hammer on the safety notch?
B) Marketed as being able to be carried with 6 cartridges, and carried safely on the safety notch?
C) Actually carried by civilians in the 1870's-1890's with 6 cartridges, and hammer on the safety notch?

So i'm not asking whether or not it is safe to rely on the safety notch in the 21st century.
Instead i'm asking: how did people actually carry their revolvers in the 1870s-1890's?



So far my evidence is that contemporary writers and target shooters from the 1880's (mind you, Arthur C Gould worked with Annie Oakley, Ira Paine, and the best of the best target shooters of the time) advised that the gate-loading Colt's could be carried fully loaded and hamer on the safety notch.

If it's true that period advertisements from the 1870's described proper loading as all 6 chambers loaded, and hammer rested on the safety notch, then that would support the hypothesis that people actually did carry their revolvers with 6 cartridges, and hammer on the safety notch.


Just to clarify: My questions is not about what is safe or unsafe today. Instead i am asking:
(A) how did the designers in the 1870's originally intend for these revolvers to be carried, and
(B) how did people actually carry their revolvers in the 1870's-1890's?


DriftwoodJohnson:
Yes, those are insightful picture on the hammer notches and sear arrangment. In fact, those pictures show that the construction of the safety notch and half-cock notch aren't much different from a tumbler from a flintlock or percussion lock rifle. And for those guns, they were used actively as a half-cock safety: the whole point of the late 1600's french flintlock is you have a half-cock safety, as opposed to an early 1600's dog-lock which has an external catch safety.


View attachment 1010136

In fact, this design is used in the contemporaneous trapdoor springfield: early versions that directly used modified percussion locks only had a 2-notch tumbler, because there was no need for a third loading notch with percussion muskets. But because the original percussion half-cock was used as a loading cock, these early trapdoors do not have a safety cock.
Meanwhile later 1873 Trapdoor springfields switched to a 3-notch tumbler, because they started manufacturing brand new parts for these guns, and the US government specifically requested the addition of a safety cock, just like the purpose of the original half-cock on a flintlock or percussion rifle.

So from the contemporary 1870's perspective, it was not unusual to use a safety-cock position on a firearm: in fact, we see how the US government specifically requested it on at least the trapdoor rifles!


View attachment 1010138 View attachment 1010139


Thus my question is: Given that contemporary opinion of the 1870's was that safety-cock positions were adequate as safeties, and even desirable features (at least to the US government), did Colt and S&W gun designers in the 1870's also design and intend for their guns to be loaded and carried on the safety notch/safety-cock position?

Because if the safety-cock was never intended to be used, why would they be added?

From DriftwoodJohnson's pictures, both the Colt and S&W have half-cock notches that get used during loading. That explains the purpose of cutting a half-cock notch.

But why would those gunmakers waste their time cutting and fitting another safety-notch if they designed them to be originally carried with 5 rounds and an empty chamber?


Yes, i know it is unsafe to rely on the safety notch today in the 21st century.
But why did Colt in the 1870's design their gateloaders with a safety notch?
And why do contemporary writers and target shooters from the 1880's recommend carrying on the safety notch?
And the key question: How did the average person actually carry these revolvers in the 1870's-1890s?

I think it’s quite reasonable to believe that “safety notches” were machined into hammers with the manufacturer believing the revolvers could be carried with six loaded and the hammer in the “safety notch”. And that, boys and girls, explains why tort law developed.

 

[Col. Harrumph]

I've never owned or handled a Colt or any other SAA but I wonder if it's possible to carry one fully loaded the way I (very occasionally) carry my .32 Iver Johnson filled with all 5. I lower the hammer to rest between the case rims. The firing pin rests on the cylinder and, being between two cartridge rims, prevents the cylinder from turning.

 

[UncleEd]

SleepySquirrel2,

Let's just say it was a learning process. No doubt the
six-shooter was loaded with six but as regular handlers
of the firearm learned, it was better to go to five.

John Wayne in "The Shootist" is a good illustration of
probable practices. He carries five but when he knows
he's going to a major dustup, he loads the sixth
rounds in his two pistols and relies then on the "safety
notch." And one can assume he knew his pistols
were in excellent working order to chance the full
six.

 

[45 Dragoon]

I'm with CraigC on this, don't really see the point.

My only submission would be that a hammer on half cock would be more prone to snag (especially with the fixed firing pin) on "pretty much anything" more so than one on the safety notch which is only slightly removed from down position.

Mike

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

In fact, this design is used in the contemporaneous trapdoor springfield: early versions that directly used modified percussion locks only had a 2-notch tumbler, because there was no need for a third loading notch with percussion muskets. But because the original percussion half-cock was used as a loading cock, these early trapdoors do not have a safety cock.
Meanwhile later 1873 Trapdoor springfields switched to a 3-notch tumbler, because they started manufacturing brand new parts for these guns, and the US government specifically requested the addition of a safety cock, just like the purpose of the original half-cock on a flintlock or percussion rifle.

And the sear on a trapdoor/flintlock isn't much larger than that of Colt SAA, and yet the government still requested the addition of a safety cock on the trapdoor. Not to mention dropping an 8 lb rifle is much more likely to snap off a sear tooth than dropping a 2lb revolver. Now, someone will probably chime in that the trapdoor springfields were intended to be single-loaded for volley fire and not meant to be carried with a round in the chamber. But that doesn't change the fact that the US government saw it necessary to change the tooling at Springfield to switch from 2-notch tumblers to 3-notch tumblers, for the sole purpose of adding the safety-notch.

So from the contemporary 1870's perspective, it was not unusual to use a safety-cock position on a firearm: in fact, we see how the US government specifically requested it on at least the trapdoor rifles!

Howdy

I submit to you that the simple geometry of a single action revolver is much different than the geometry of a rifle or shotgun. If I were to drop my Trapdoor, I would probably have dropped it from a horizontal position. So it is very unlikely the hammer spur would even contact the ground. If it fell over from being staged in a vertical position, most likely the stock would hit the ground first, so that when the hammer spur struck the ground the blow would have been greatly diminished, probably not enough to shear off anything and fire a cartridge.






Winchester lever action rifles also had a 'safety notch, or 'half cock notch' on the hammer. The description varies with who you talk to. This is a Model 1873, but I have several Model 1892 Winchesters as well as a Model 1886. They all have the 'extra' notch on the hammer.






This is the hammer and two piece trigger from the Model 1873 Winchester pictured above. Notice the upper notch has an overhanging lip to capture the sear, so the trigger could not be pulled with the hammer in that position. All the revolver lockworks I posted in my previous post also have an overhanging lip like that on the 'safety cock' notch. I can tell you for a fact that if you pull the trigger hard enough with a design like this, you can either break off the sear, or break off the over hanging lip on the 'safety cock' notch. Trust me on this. Those lips were very fragile, and if the over hanging lip broke off the notch would no longer capture the sear and the trigger could easily be pulled from the notch, causing the hammer to move to the completely down position. Not enough to fire a cartridge, but the 'safety cock' notch has been rendered useless, and if the shooter is not aware of this he is trusting a safety device that no longer exists.






Marlin rifles had a 'half cock' notch on the hammer too, just like a Winchester. By the time the 1894 Marlin came out it had a split firing pin in the frame.






A bit hard to read on this old Marlin Model 1894, but the words MARLIN SAFETY stamped on the top of the frame indicate the presence of the split firing pin. The two halves of the firing pin only line up when the lever is completely closed. Otherwise, even if the hammer is released, the firing pin will not fire a round unless the lever is completely closed. Marlin's use of this design indicates to me that they were not completely comfortable with only relying on the half cock hammer position for safety.






If I were to drop my Sharps, the same logic applies. If I had forgotten to lower the tang sight, it would probably break, thereby cushioning any blow to the hammer, if I happened to drop the rifle while it was upside down.






Drop a Colt and it is a different story. There is no extended rifle stock to prevent the hammer from striking the ground. If the revolver is dropped while being holstered or unholstered, it is likely the finger may still be in the trigger guard. Yes, drawing a Colt or other single action revolver is not like drawing a modern semi-automatic revolver. Like it or not, the finger is often in the trigger guard, which is perfectly safe because the hammer has not been cocked yet. If the revolver is dropped when holstering or unholstering, it is likely the finger in the trigger guard will serve as a pivot point to spin the revolver around so it is free to land directly on its hammer spur.





So pardon me if I seen a little bit glib, but your logic for comparing dropping a long gun vs dropping a revolver does not hold any water.

 

[Jim Watson]

I once had the Haven and Belden book, which had reprints of period literature.
Operating instructions from Colt in the 1880s specify using the safety notch with all six chambers loaded.
It is written right on some of the guns "Frontier Six Shooter."
Gould agreed, Keith did not.

I wonder if John Wayne picked up the idea of loading the sixth only when danger threatened from the book version of 'The Searchers'. I don't think it appeared in that movie, but it may have stuck in his head until he made 'The Shootist.' Any road, those are works of fiction and John Wayne was an actor. I wouldn't depend on the movies for technical expertise.

What is considered safe by modern standards is known. What was considered safe in the 19th century is, too.

 

[CajunBass]

John Wayne in "The Shootist" is a good illustration of
probable practices. He carries five but when he knows
he's going to a major dustup, he loads the sixth
rounds in his two pistols and relies then on the "safety
notch." And one can assume he knew his pistols
were in excellent working order to chance the full
six.

It's also mentioned in James Michener's novel (and the later TV miniseries) "Centennial, when the character of "Mule" Camby advises a young Jim Lloyd to "never carry a cartridge under the hammer" (or some words along those lines). However, both of those are well researched, but nonetheless, modern sources. And it is a novel/TV show, a perhaps not a reliable source of what was actually done in the 19th century.

The first time I ever heard of the practice was in Ruger advertising in the early 70's of so, as Ruger was offering a conversion kit for their old model S/A revolvers. Those adds also stated that a rolled up 20 dollar bill was inserted into the empty chamber as "burrin' money." However I have read/seen in some magazine/video somewhere along the line that paper stored there could catch fire from the muzzle flash. Plus it would render that chamber useless in a real emergency.

I suspect and this is my personal opinion only with absolutely no evidence to back it, that some people did carry hammer down on an empty chamber. They either learned this the hard way, or it was taught to them by someone who had learned it the hard way, rather it was second, third or 103d hand information. Word got around. At the same time I doubt the practice was ever a part of a manufacturers procedure. Did the manufacturers even print such things as what we'd call an owners manual in those days?

What I really wondered is did those Ruger adds establish the "fact" that everyone knew the practice and it was only in recent times that the practice had died out. Not beyond the realm of possibility either, considering the fact that the single action had almost died out a couple of times before being resurrected by the popularity of western movies and especially TV shows.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I've never owned or handled a Colt or any other SAA but I wonder if it's possible to carry one fully loaded the way I (very occasionally) carry my .32 Iver Johnson filled with all 5. I lower the hammer to rest between the case rims. The firing pin rests on the cylinder and, being between two cartridge rims, prevents the cylinder from turning.

Howdy Again

I have heard that question asked many times. Here is the cylinder from a 2nd Gen Colt chambered for 45 Colt. Notice the shape of the firing pin below the cylinder. Notice too the geometry of where the firing pin strikes the primers. Draw a circle through those six points and you will see that if the firing pin is resting between cartridge rims it will be resting at the spot where there is the least space between rims. I have tried this, with fired cartridges of course. The firing pin does not rest on the cylinder, it is slightly raised and bearing against the bevels of two rims. If the cylinder is accidentally rotated, the rounded tip will ride up over the bevels and the cylinder can rotate as far as it wants to. Theoretically the firing pin could wind up resting on an unfired primer. What you are suggesting will work with smaller cartridges, such as 32-20, 38 Special or 357 Magnum to name a few, but with cartridges with large diameter rims, such as 45 Colt, 44-40, or 38-40, this technique cannot be trusted.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So when did "don't carry on the safety notch" become a thing?

Probably the first time some cowboy, tightening the girth of his saddle, had the stirrup slip off the seat and hit the hammer of his six gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Probably the first time some cowboy, tightening the girth of his saddle, had the stirrup slip off the seat and hit the hammer of his six gun.

One of the famous gunmen had his firearm discharge when it fell from his holster while he was seated in a saloon. I cannot remember his name.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The first time I ever heard of the practice was in Ruger advertising in the early 70's of so, as Ruger was offering a conversion kit for their old model S/A revolvers. Those adds also stated that a rolled up 20 dollar bill was inserted into the empty chamber as "burrin' money." However I have read/seen in some magazine/video somewhere along the line that paper stored there could catch fire from the muzzle flash. Plus it would render that chamber useless in a real emergency.

Howdy Once Again

Over the years I have tried all sorts of things to dispel myths. I too have heard the story of keeping a 20 dollar bill in the empty chamber for "burying money".

Here is a 20 dollar bill sitting under the cylinder of a 32 Rimfire S&W #2 Old Army Tip Up revolver, and a Colt 2nd Gen cylinder chambered for 45 Colt.






The S&W 32 Rimfire #2 Old Army was very popular with Union officers during the Civil War. So just for the fun of it I tried to stuff the 20 dollar bill into the chamber. No go.






However the 20 dollar bill fits very nicely in a chamber of the Colt cylinder. Yes, I am aware that bank notes in the 19th Century were larger than today's bills, but I'm sure one of them could be folded up to fit into this cylinder. Whether or not the bill would survive sparks, smoke and soot from adjacent cylinders being fired I do not know. I keep meaning to try next time I attend a Cowboy Action Match with my Black Powder 45 Colt ammo.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Remember, bills were much larger in those days. Our currency was changed to the present dimensions during the '30s.

A team of Nazi spies, landed in the US by submarine, were caught because they had the wrong size bills.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Read what I said again.

"Yes, I am aware that bank notes in the 19th Century were larger than today's bills, but I'm sure one of them could be folded up to fit into this cylinder."

They were not that much bigger. An old bank note could easily be folded up and fit into the cylinder of my Colt.

 

[entropy]

Because if the safety-cock was never intended to be used, why would they be added?

Because it was, at least from a mechanical point of view, better than a doglock on rifle/musket actions, and was carried over on some cap & ball revolvers, and thus cartridges revolvers. Some cap & ball revolvers has 'safeties' machined into the back of the cylinder, for the integral firing pin on the hammer to sit. This was not easily done on subsequent cartridge revolvers, for reasons Driftwood has shown above.

I've never owned or handled a Colt or any other SAA but I wonder if it's possible to carry one fully loaded the way I (very occasionally) carry my .32 Iver Johnson filled with all 5. I lower the hammer to rest between the case rims. The firing pin rests on the cylinder and, being between two cartridge rims, prevents the cylinder from turning.

See above. If they do actually fit between the rims, then you have the firing pin breaking and rendering the gun inoperable instead of an AD, a slightly more desirable outcome, but still not ideal if it is your only gun on you when needed.

Remember, bills were much larger in those days. Our currency was changed to the present dimensions during the '30s.

A team of Nazi spies, landed in the US by submarine, were caught because they had the wrong size bills.

I know there are fake Civil War-era bill made for display and reenactment, (plus there were enough made of Confederate bills during the war) maybe there are 1870's-1890's bills reproduced for the same reasons.

And there are:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/373329144928

 

[Jim Watson]

I think Mike Venturino tried the banknote-in-the-chamber trick. I think the bill was pretty scorched, but no longer have that reference.