Transfer bar safety or hammer-mounted firing pin

[JustinL]

I've been thinking of buying my first snub-nosed revolver and am unsure about buying a new one with a transfer bar safety or an older one with the old-fashioned hammer-mounted firing pin. Are the former really that much safer than the later of the two? If I get one with the hammer-mounted pin, would I really need to carry it with an empty chamber? Thanks for the advice.

 

[Loomis]

Depends on how old it is. Some firing-pin-on-hammer guns have a built in safety mechanism, and some don't.

I really have no idea where the cut-off year happened or even if there is a well defined cut-off year. But if I had to guess, I'd say it was in the late 1960s. There will no doubt be others responding here that know more than I.

 

[Old Fuff]

Colt offered a positive hammer block in its double-action revolvers starting around 1908. Thereafter they were safe to carry fully loaded.

Smith & Wesson introduced a similar hammer block in 1945, and thereafter they to were safe to carry fully loaded. Prior to that some models did have a hammer block of sorts, while other models didn't I carry pre-1945 Smith & Wesson's with the hammer down on an empty chamber. Not always necessary, but I tend to be careful.

All ruger revolvers (with the exception of first generation Single-Six and Blackhawk models) have frame-mounted firing pins and transfer bar safeties.

Don't confuse hammer blocks with transfer bars. They both do the same job, but they do it differently.

 

[rcmodel]

Are the former really that much safer than the later of the two?

NO.
As Old Fuff already covered, all DA revolvers made since WWII or before, by S&W, Colt, Ruger, or Taurus, as well as most other obscure foreign brands I can think of, are completely safe to carry fully loaded.

All early S&W DA's had a rebound slide that blocked the hammer, and those made after the 1940's also had a hammer block safety added which blocked the hammer in a second place.

The only DA guns you need to carry with an empty chamber are very old S&W & Colt's.

And all Colt SAA's, early Ruger SA's, and most of the Colt SAA Italian clones.

rcmodel

 

[dagger dog]

Iver Johnsons" Hammer the Hammer" ad campaign always comes to mind when the rebounding hammer is in discussion. I believe some of their ads were in print in the early 1900's!

 

[tuna]

My vote is for the older one with the hammer mounted firing pin. You're getting a firearm that has probably already been broken in, has some character to it and will be at a discount (probably) compared to the new one - especially if you point out all the "character" to the dealer.
And (this point is debatable) you're going to get a better gun by buying an older one than a current lawyer gun.

 

[Jim March]

If the hammer-block safety is of a good type (as stated, in S&W that means post-WW2) then it's as safe as a transfer bar.

The difference is in trigger pull and reliability. The hammer-block setup can run a lighter mainspring as there's fewer parts (less friction) in the ignition cycle. So the trigger can feel "sweeter", although a transfer-bar setup can be quite good.

The transfer-bar system is *usually* more reliable. The hammer-mounted firing pin is somewhat vulnerable to breakage, esp. if dropped while cocked.

My guns are transfer-bar based.

 

[Old Fuff]

Iver Johnsons" Hammer the Hammer" ad campaign always comes to mind when the rebounding hammer is in discussion. I believe some of their ads were in print in the early 1900's!

But their hammers didn't rebound, and in fact they invented the transfer bar safety in 1896 (Patent No. 566393).

 

[JustinL]

Wow, thanks for the help. I appreciate it.