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

[Rexster]

First, to be clear, I am not belittling any of the posts in this discussion. I consider this to be a valid discussion, from the beginning of the original post.

Quote: “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.”

Well, the only way to KNOW, is to find a statistically-meaningful sample of folks, from that era, and poll them. If we cannot find enough of them to interview, well, second best would be to find a poll that was conducted, during the time those folks were still available, to be polled. I am not sure when such polling became commonplace. We will probably have to rely upon researching the non-fiction writings of as many authors’ accounts, as we can. We know that Elmer Keith was acquainted with some number of folks who carried guns during the 19th Century, and he wrote prolifically, so, that would be a start.

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?”

Regarding the first two bold-print questions, I have little doubt that Colt’s engineers intended for the Safety Notch to work, as intended. Even if they knew that folks might tend to carry with an empty chamber, under the hammer, it was probable that loaded chambers would end up under the hammer, one way or another, so, the safety notch is something that would be a desirable feature.

In the 19th Century, as today, writers write what writers write. It is up to the educated reader to believe, or not believe. Then, as now, there was news, and fake news, and fiction, and non-fiction. Regardless, there is what I have seen called “the mist of time,” which I reckon to be a milder-mannered cousin of the often-heard “fog of war.”

Your fourth bold-print question is addressed, above. To get an “average,” one would need to find a statistically-meaningful sample.

As I type this, I am trying to remember where I read about “emergency loading” the SAA. The author/speaker recommended carrying five chambers loaded, but that one would “emergency load,” with a cartridge in each chamber, and trust the Safety Notch, when trouble was expected. “Emergency Load” just might be a term used in the 19th or early 20th Centuries. The practice was discussed by the character J.B. Books in the movie “The Shootist,” as UncleEd already mentioned, but I do not remember the words “emergency load” being spoken by John Wayne, so I think I read it elsewhere.

 

[UncleEd]

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.

I merely cited Wayne and "The Shootist" as
a well-known movie example of how someone
might approach use of the six-shooter.

It is well known that when the occasion arose,
Wayne and others in moviedom had Colt SAAs
that sometimes fired as many as 20 shots without
a reload.

 

[Master Blaster]

AT the time he wrote his expert manual, no one had yet reported having a stirrup (while saddling or even preparing to mount a horse) hit the hammer of their pistol and shoot them in the leg or the ass. A large number of folks had not yet dropped the gun giving it a reputation for firing rounds left under the hammer.
People didn't have the internet and it took a while for word of mouth to spread the news that it was unsafe to load six.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"It is well known that when the occasion arose, Wayne and others in moviedom had Colt SAAs that sometimes fired as many as 20 shots without a reload."

In one Western, there was a scene where the protagonist relieved an antagonist (to use the Screen Writers' Guild terminology for white hat/black hat) of his Colt SAA. In a later scene that was actually shot, after the protagonist fired six from his own Colt SAA, he pulled the other Colt SAA from his belt and fired six. The film editor decided to leave the gun swap scene on the cutting room floor to speed up the action.

 

[Reinz]

There may be more validity to John Wayne’s words about loading five than is given. Keep in mind that he hung out a lot with Wyatt Earp in those early days of movie making. He questioned Wyatt quite a bit about the “old days”.

 

[Reinz]

I've never owned or handled a Colt or any other SAA ……..
…………
.

Oh you poor depraved soul!

You must add handling and shooting a SAA to your bucket list.

 

[whughett]

So an individual back in those days who’s life might just hang on having that one shot left would actually turn a six shooter into a five shooter. My self, I find that rather hard to believe.
And the rather slow process of reloading a percussion revolver would make that even more unlikely.

 

[SW351C]

Growing up watching westerns on tv I notice you only had to load five and you could shoot a dozen. So I really don’t understand this thread.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

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.

In my efforts to replicate that form of carry I've found that the rims are too close together for that mode of carry in an 1873-type revolver in .45Colt. And, considering the logistics of replacing ancient parts, a snapped firing pin in those guns is a very bad thing. The 1873's hammer-nose firing pin is very different from the I-J's frame-mounted "safety hammer" firing pin.

 

[sleepysquirrel2]

Well, the only way to KNOW, is to find a statistically-meaningful sample of folks, from that era, and poll them. If we cannot find enough of them to interview, well, second best would be to find a poll that was conducted, during the time those folks were still available, to be polled. I am not sure when such polling became commonplace. We will probably have to rely upon researching the non-fiction writings of as many authors’ accounts, as we can. We know that Elmer Keith was acquainted with some number of folks who carried guns during the 19th Century, and he wrote prolifically, so, that would be a start.

Elmer Keith was born in 1899, so while he had much contact with the generation of individuals living through the 1870's-1890's, he is at its core what historians call a "secondary source".
On the other hand, we know that Arthur Corbin Gould actually lived in the 1880's, so he would be primary source.

And let's not forget that Arthur C. Gould was the equivalent of Elmer Keith, Jeff Cooper, or Massad Ayoob of his time: he literally wrote the first english language book on pistol/revolver shooting. Yes, his techniques and logic were more oriented to target shooting, so the analogy to Elmer Keith or Jeff Cooper as "practical" shooting may not be the perfect analogy. Though that is not to discredit Arthur Gould for having opinions based on the common experiences in the 1880's.

For instance, Elmer Keith in Sixguns wrote against using a tight two-handed shooting grip, and even advocated the cup-and-saucer grip for two handed shooting:

"Grip the gun normally in the shooting hand, whether right or left, then bring the other hand up loosely under the shooting hand to form a good steady rest for the shooting hand. Never grip the gun with both hands. It will shoot to a different point of impact if you do so." - Sixguns, page 97

But that doesn't mean we should throw out Elmer Keith's opinions, just because it reflected the zeitgeist of the 1930's-1950's shooting world before Jeff Cooper came along. And the point is, neither should we discount Arthur C. Gould simply because some of his opinions may be dated: they nevertheless still give us insight into how target shooters approached shooting in the 1880's

And Arthur C Gould was still one of the prolific firearms writers and target shooters of that time. Mind you, any of you getting a copy of American Rifleman magazine in the mail each month should not forget how that magazine started.

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.

H&R actually recommended this in their 1890's instruction manuals/boxes as the proper way to carry the revolver. So at least one company manufacturing top breaks in the 1890's considered it not only safe, but the intentional use design.

While carrying the revolver fully charged, allow the hammer nose or striker to rest between two cartridge heads. After the first shot, the hammer may rest on the exploded cartridge until the next shot, and so on until all are fired.

Now whether this was recommended by other manufacturers (S&W, Forehand&Wadsworth, or Iver Johnson), or in common practice in the 1890's with other top-break revolvers, I have yet to see any concrete documention speaking one way or another. But since at least one company recommended it, I suspect it was more common practice back in the 1880's-1890's. Because if H&R was the only company that designed a six-shooter that could be carried with 6 shots - instead of 5 shots and 1 empty chamber - I'm sure they would have spent a ton of money advertising that feature!

And mind you, H&R was no small name, they were the second earliest company to produce top breaks after S&W - I'm speculating because Gilbert Harrington was literally Daniel Wesson's nephew, and used to work with Frank Wesson (D. Wesson's younger brother), that the S&W company may have played nice instead of sueing them into oblivion for making top break revolvers as early as the mid 1880's.

 

[Rexster]

True, Elmer Keith did not believe in trying to resist the recoil of powerful handgun cartridges. I think that is probably wisdom-based advice, as it may be best, for long-term hand/wrist health, to “stay out of the way” of the recoil, at least in the case of big-bore Magnums.

 

[Ranger99]

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.. . .

Yeah Centennial was a good show, and I
have it on a disc set. There's a lot of
inaccuracies though , but then it's not
a documentary
You can read in the book when Levi Zendt
is getting his newly purchased flintlock
converted to percussion how inaccurate
Mr Michener's knowledge of stuff like that is.
But again, it's entertainment and not a
documentary

 

[Ranger99]

One thing I've not seen mentioned is that
a good many of the older holsters ( the ones
I've seen) that are in museums and collections and not rotted to pieces are more
of a full coverage holster and many with a
flap like the military cavalry holster.
A good many of the minimal coverage exposed hammer holsters are the product
of the 1950's "old west " fascination and
the fast draw contests and marshall dillon
and paladin type shows back then.
Not much of what's shown has any
historical root , even today

 

[UncleEd]

While much has been made about Arthur
Corbin Gould and his knowledge of
firearms during his life and the SAA,
I don't get the impression his expertise
was the result of daily carry and hard use.

He appears to be an Eastern sportsman,
and a fine gentleman no doubt, but I doubt
he knew as much about the SAA as say
a U.S. marshal in the Indian Territory
or a Texas ranger along the border. The
hard use users of the SAA no doubt learned
about its fragilities pretty early on and
acted accordingly to be safe. And one thing
they may well have learned was the safety notch
was not all that reliable.

 

[Pat Riot]

The carry of of gun with the hammer on an empty chamber is not a “myth”.
Since the OP I have been looking for something I read many years ago about Wyatt Earp and an incident he had with a dropped gun that was documented in a newspaper article and discussed in his biography.
This is an excerpt of the story that I found in this link:
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2013/02/guns-ruger-vaquero.html?m=1
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2013/02/guns-ruger-vaquero.html?m=1

This article doesn’t mention the “safety notch” and appears to discuss a cap and ball gun but the concept of a hammer down on an empty chamber is discussed.

Below is the excerpt from the article:
From a news clipping of the time, the January 12, 1876 edition of the Wichita Beacon:

“Last Sunday night, while policeman Earp was sitting with two or three others in the back room of the Custom House Saloon, his revolver slipped from its holster, and falling to the floor, the hammer which was resting on the cap, is supposed to have struck the chair, causing a discharge of one of the barrels. The ball passed through his coat, struck the north wall then glanced off and passed out through the ceiling. It was a narrow escape and the occurrence got up a lively stampede from the room. One of the demoralized was under the impression that someone had fired through the window from the outside.”

Earp had in fact admitted that it happened when his biographer Stuart Lake asked him about it, and in a note asked Lake to leave out “the little affray with the chair.”

When Lake’s Wyatt Earp, Frontier Marshal did come out a few years later, Earp was emphatically quoted in it as saying "professionals would never carry a live round under the hammer of a single-action revolver."

 

[sleepysquirrel2]

The carry of of gun with the hammer on an empty chamber is not a “myth”.
Since the OP I have been looking for something I read many years ago about Wyatt Earp and an incident he had with a dropped gun that was documented in a newspaper article and discussed in his biography.
This is an excerpt of the story that I found in this link:
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2013/02/guns-ruger-vaquero.html?m=1
http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2013/02/guns-ruger-vaquero.html?m=1

This article doesn’t mention the “safety notch” and appears to discuss a cap and ball gun but the concept of a hammer down on an empty chamber is discussed.

Below is the excerpt from the article:
From a news clipping of the time, the January 12, 1876 edition of the Wichita Beacon:

“Last Sunday night, while policeman Earp was sitting with two or three others in the back room of the Custom House Saloon, his revolver slipped from its holster, and falling to the floor, the hammer which was resting on the cap, is supposed to have struck the chair, causing a discharge of one of the barrels. The ball passed through his coat, struck the north wall then glanced off and passed out through the ceiling. It was a narrow escape and the occurrence got up a lively stampede from the room. One of the demoralized was under the impression that someone had fired through the window from the outside.”

Thank you Pat, this is great. I did some more looking, and the Wichita Beacon article suggests that Wyatt Earp, at least in 1876, did at least on ONE occasion carry on the hammer safety notch, while NOT in anticipation of a gunfight.
Now whether that was typical of him (or others in the 1870's) , or just a freak incidence, remains an open question.

Earp had in fact admitted that it happened when his biographer Stuart Lake asked him about it, and in a note asked Lake to leave out “the little affray with the chair.”
When Lake’s Wyatt Earp, Frontier Marshal did come out a few years later, Earp was emphatically quoted in it as saying "professionals would never carry a live round under the hammer of a single-action revolver."

That said I would be very cautious taking anything from Stuart Lake's "biography" as truth. I don't doubt that Wyatt Earp had this ND incident, since it is recorded in the newspapers. But whether he said those actual quoted those exact words in Lake's biography, I would be more skeptical.

Stuart Lake has been known to add "color" to many other biographies or stories he wrote, most famously, Wyatt Earp 12-inch "Buntline special" - which Stuart Lake writes about extensively in Earp's "biography" does not appear to ever have been ordered from the Colt factory, at least until 1892.



Not to mention Stuart Lake's timeline of Wyatt Earp receiving the Buntline Special from Ned Buntline with four other lawmen in 1876 (including Bill Tilghman and Neal Brown) would have occurred before Tilghman or Brown were deputized.
Here's a very well researched article by the Kansas Historical Society examining the actual primary evidence for and against the existence of the buntline special:
https://www.kshs.org/p/wyatt-earp-and-the-buntline-special-myth/13255

So if Lake was willing to dream up the existence of whole new kind of firearm, and include it in multiple stories, I don't put it past him to put a sentence or two into Wyatt Earpy's mouth. At least when it comes to historical accuracy, I like to take things from Lake's biography with several large spoonfuls of salt.

 

[Pat Riot]

So if Lake was willing to dream up the existence of whole new kind of firearm, and include it in multiple stories, I don't put it past him to put a sentence or two into Wyatt Earpy's mouth. At least when it comes to historical accuracy, I like to take things from Lake's biography with several large spoonfuls of salt.

I cannot argue with that logic. Reporters then were as bad if not worse than reporters now.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

So an individual back in those days who’s life might just hang on having that one shot left would actually turn a six shooter into a five shooter. My self, I find that rather hard to believe.
And the rather slow process of reloading a percussion revolver would make that even more unlikely.

Howdy

Cap and Ball revolvers had no so called 'safety cock' notch on the hammer. There was only the half cock notch, which allowed the cylinder to be rotated for loading, or the full cock notch.

Anyone who has ever fired one of these revolvers knows that.

The reason is Colt cylinders had pins in the flat area between nipples and a corresponding hollow on the hammer for the hammer to rest on when the cylinder was positioned so the chambers were not lined up with the bore. In fact, some of the early 1860 Colts had 12 cylinder locking slots on the cylinder, instead of the normal 6, so the hammer could be lowered 'between chambers' and the bolt would rise and lock the cylinder in place, 'between chambers'.

The Remington 1858 Cap and Ball revolver had slots machined into the cylinder between the nipples so the hammer nose could rest in the slots, preventing the cylinder from rotating.

Here is a photo of a Pietta Colt 1860 Army replica cylinder on the left and a EuroArms 1858 Remington replica cylinder on the right. The pins between nipples can be seen on the Pietta cylinder, the slots between chambers can be seen on the EuroArms Remington cylinder.






With these Cap & Ball revolvers there was no need for a 'Safety Cock' notch on the hammer, they were safe to carry fully loaded when the hammers were resting on the safety devices machined into the cylinders.

It was only with the advent of cartridge revolvers that the 'Safety Cock' notch was introduced onto the hammers.

 

[Kleanbore]

So, it was Earp. I now remember the story.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Now whether this was recommended by other manufacturers (S&W, Forehand&Wadsworth, or Iver Johnson), or in common practice in the 1890's with other top-break revolvers, I have yet to see any concrete documention speaking one way or another. But since at least one company recommended it, I suspect it was more common practice back in the 1880's-1890's. Because if H&R was the only company that designed a six-shooter that could be carried with 6 shots - instead of 5 shots and 1 empty chamber - I'm sure they would have spent a ton of money advertising that feature!

Howdy Again

With the large frame (#3) Smith and Wesson Top Breaks, the rims were too close together to allow a firing pin to placed between the rims to prevent the cylinder from turning. Just like with the photo of the Colt SAA cylinder I posted earlier. Trust me on this, I just tried. The rounded tip of the firing pin will ride up over the bevel of the rims and the cylinder can easily be turned.

This is a photo of a 2nd Model Russian loaded with five spent rounds of 44 Russian brass.






With the Schofield model, with its larger diameter brass there was even less space between rims and the result is the same. A firing pin resting between the rims does not bottom out on the cylinder and does not prevent the cylinder from rotating.






I have not tried yet with the smaller 38 or 32 caliber Smiths, I suspect it might work since they were all five shooters and there was probably more space between rims for a firing pin to rest.

That experiment will have to wait for another day.

 

[CraigC]

"It is well known that when the occasion arose, Wayne and others in moviedom had Colt SAAs that sometimes fired as many as 20 shots without a reload."

I don't know why people are so hung up on this. I always figured the average movie watcher does not want to watch a two minute reload every five or six shots.

 

[bannockburn]

Reinz

There may be more validity to John Wayne’s words about loading five than is given. Keep in mind that he hung out a lot with Wyatt Earp in those early days of movie making. He questioned Wyatt quite a bit about the “old days”.

I can remember reading somewhere that in his early days working in the motion picture business, John Wayne use to hang out with a number of former cowboys who worked for the studios as stunt men and wranglers. One "trick" he picked up on was having a .45-70 round inserted into one of the loops halfway around on the backside of his cartridge belt. Supposedly this was done so a cowboy would know, without having to look, that when he ran into the .45-70 cartridge, that he was running out of ammo on that side of his gun belt!

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy One More Time

Going through my collection of books, I came across this reprint of the manual of Army Revolvers and Gatling Guns, originally published by the National Armory at Springfield Massachusetts in 1875.









On this page it clearly references a safety notch on the hammer.






The next page describes how to load the revolver. Second paragraph down, I'm too tired to type it out myself, you can all read it for yourselves. Notice it says to "bring the hammer to the safety notch: keep it there until the Revolver is to be fired."






Nothing mentioned about "load one, skip one, load four more, bring the hammer to full cock, and lower it on an empty chamber", which is the way those of us who shoot Colts (and replicas) these days always do it.

I will add, this is how the Army instructed troops to load the Colt Single Action Army in 1875. However, the SAA had only been in existence at this time for two years, the first contracts with the Army happened in 1873. Perhaps at this date Lieut. Col. Benton and Capt. Farley were not yet aware of the dangers of letting the hammer down on the 'safety notch' with a live round under the hammer.

By the way, this manual also covers the Schofield model.

It simply says to "swing the barrel open to its full extent, and place the cartridges in the cylinder".

It goes on with other stuff about the Schofield model, but that's all it says about loading it. Nothing about only loading it with five rounds.

As I believe I have stated earlier, I only load my original Smith and Wesson Top Break revolvers with five rounds, and I always lower the hammer on an empty chamber.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

.... I always figured the average movie watcher does not want to watch a two minute reload every five or six shots.

A lot of folks like THE WAY OF THE GUN because it shows the characters reloading under pressure in the big gunfight at the end of the movie.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I can remember reading somewhere that in his early days working in the motion picture business, John Wayne use to hang out with a number of former cowboys who worked for the studios as stunt men and wranglers. One "trick" he picked up on was having a .45-70 round inserted into one of the loops halfway around on the backside of his cartridge belt. Supposedly this was done so a cowboy would know, without having to look, that when he ran into the .45-70 cartridge, that he was running out of ammo on that side of his gun belt!

Yup. And some of us keep a 45-70 round in our gunbelts, just as an homage to the Duke. However I discovered long ago that filling the loops on my belt with 25 rounds of ammo makes it way too heavy to carry all day. I only have the 45-70 round these days, plus a few 44-40s in case I need to do a rifle reload. Need to get rid of the knife too.