Why carry with empty chamber?

[Onward Allusion]

I know that with modern revolvers, it's fine to carry with all cylinders filled due to the transfer bar design. With the older revolvers where the firing pin is integrated with the hammer, conventional wisdom will say to keep the first chamber at the breechface empty, unless there is an internal safety that backs off the hammer (and even then . . .)

However, why wouldn't all chambers be loaded in an old design revolver? Why can't the hammer be dropped BETWEEN the two cartridges??? Similar to the NAA's notch design? I did this on one of my old C&R pieces and it works fine. There's no way that the cylinder can rotate by itself unless the trigger is pulled or hammer is brought back. Even if the gun was dropped on its hammer, the gun will not go off because the firing pin is resting the cylinder not resting on the primer of a cartridge. The rims of the cases on each side of the firing pin blocks the cylinder from rotating due to the firing pin.

Thoughts?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The only reason it is recommended (that I can think of) is that it is a lot easier to load five and leave the empty chamber under the hammer than it is to fully load six then lower the hammer w. firing pin between chambers.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

You can get away with this with smaller calibers, like 357 Mag/38 Special, but with large caliber rounds, like 45 Colt, there is not enough space between the rims for the firing pin to sit deep enough to stay put. Give a little bit of spin to the cylinder, which is by definition out of battery, and the cylinder will turn, forcing the firing pin up out of the gap.

The place where the firing pin would rest is by definition the narrowest point between the rims. You can see that the tip of this SAA firing pin is simply too wide to rest down between adjacent rims. It will rest on the bevels of the case rims, which will help force it up as the cylinder rotates. Trust me on this, I have tried it.

 

[rcmodel]

And it won't work with a Colt SAA in .45 Colt.
And probably a true to spec Italian clone.

Not enough room between the rims for secure cylinder locking.
You can hand turn the cylinder and drag the firing pin right over the rim & primer until THR locking bolt drops.

Rc

 

[Onward Allusion]

You can get away with this with smaller calibers, like 357 Mag/38 Special, but with large caliber rounds, like 45 Colt, there is not enough space between the rims for the firing pin to sit deep enough to stay put.

Didn't realize this. Good to know. Thx

 

[Old Fuff]

In addition:

All hand ejector (cylinder swings out to the left side) revolvers:

Made by Colt since 1908

Made by Smith & Wesson since 1945

Made by Ruger (All)

That are in their original condition and have not been tampered with...

Are safe to carry with a fully loaded cylinder.

Doesn't matter if the firing pin/hammer nose is mounted on the hammer or in the frame.

 

[jrdolall]

Because my grandfather told me to. I have no idea why he told me to do it but I took him at his word.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well depending on what the revolver was, maybe during Grandpa's day he was right. Also there is something to the old saying, better safe then sorry.

 

[BSA1]

O.A.,

You are merely discovering what old timers knew. It works very well with my 32-20 SAA but there is little reason to carry six.

 

[Steve C]

To make cap and ball revolvers safe to load all six chambers the makers devised a method to rest the hammer between the loaded cylinders. On the Remington 58's there is a notch to retain the hammer on Colts there where pins in between the cylinders that engaged a notch in the hammer.

When Colt made the 1876 there was no provision for the hammer to rest between the cylinders and if it was rested there a drop that struck the hammer could break the firing pin rendering the gun useless. The logical method for carry was to let the hammer rest on an unloaded cylinder. The shooter could simply load the extra round if they felt the immediate need for six rounds or when shooting the gun at the range.

 

[David E]

The large thingee that rotates is called the CYLINDER.

The holes bored into the cylinder are called CHAMBERS.

Calling things by their proper name avoids confusion.

 

[MedWheeler]

The large thingee that rotates is called the CYLINDER.

The holes bored into the cylinder are called CHAMBERS.

Calling things by their proper name avoids confusion.

Yeah, I caught one of the anecdotes in "The Armed Citizen" once that stated a would-be victim "emptied all six cylinders" at his assailant... I doubt he was standing there swapping cylinders into and out of an old cap-n-ball or something!

 

[GBExpat]

To make cap and ball revolvers safe to load all six chambers the makers devised a method to rest the hammer between the loaded cylinders. On the Remington 58's there is a notch to retain the hammer on Colts there where pins in between the cylinders that engaged a notch in the hammer.

When Colt made the 1876 there was no provision for the hammer to rest between the cylinders and if it was rested there a drop that struck the hammer could break the firing pin rendering the gun useless.

Very interesting info, thanks for sharing it!

BTW, it was obvious to me, at least, that the chamber/cylinder OOPSes was just a Brain F*rt.

Now I will test my google-fu in searching for some close-up pics of the rear of those old cap&ball cylinders.

 

[bergmen]

I have a Cimarron 1872 Navy Open Top in .38 that I sometimes place the firing pin between rims:



It does place the firing pin in some jeopardy but I'm aware of it and I'm careful while handling. What I don't like is the cylinder will get marked by the cylinder bolt as it rests between recesses when you do this.

Dan

 

[Kernel]

When the hammer is between two chambers, the tip of the hand resting on the ratchet is the only thing keeping the cylinder from rotating. If subjected to a sideways shear it's not a real robust part, nor a very positive engagement.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Because my grandfather told me to. I have no idea why he told me to do it but I took him at his word.

No offense, but sometimes granpa didn't know what he was talking about, just like today.

What I don't like is the cylinder will get marked by the cylinder bolt as it rests between recesses when you do this.

The bolt resting against a stationary cylinder is not going to make a mark. If you rotate the cylinder with the bolt bearing against it, then you can initiate a rub mark.

When Colt made the 1876 there was no provision for the hammer to rest between the cylinders and if it was rested there a drop that struck the hammer could break the firing pin rendering the gun useless.

The Single Action Army was introduced in 1873, not 1876.

Sorry, can't help it, sometimes the school marm in me takes over.

 

[Jim K]

The idea of dropping the hammer between rounds was common in the old days, but it should be noted that the firing pins on the old Colt SAA's were more pointed than the ones on modern Colts or clones. Even so, cylinder rotation is pretty easy with the .45 Colt; with .44-40 or other calibers, the firing pin will usually prevent unintentional cylinder rotation.

FWIW, in spite of well placed concern in the modern era, Colt really did intend the SAA "safety notch" to be used to carry the gun safely, and old time instructions bear that out. The safety notch was made as a safe substitute for the safety pins on the percussion guns. For many guns, the half-cock notch was intended as, and was used as, a safety notch. John Browning did not employ any other safety on his hammer guns and put a manual safety on the Army pistol (which became the 1911) only because it was demanded by the Army.

Jiim

 

[Onward Allusion]

David E
The large thingee that rotates is called the CYLINDER.
The holes bored into the cylinder are called CHAMBERS.
Calling things by their proper name avoids confusion.

Read the rest of the post. It was a typo. I'm pretty sure those of us who know the difference knew what I was referring to.

 

[stubbicatt]

I know of one gentleman I met at a IPSC match who had a limp. He is or was a law enforcement officer who, being a southpaw, carried on the left. I asked about the limp. He told me that his Glock discharged when he was exiting a vehicle, somehow got twisted up in the seatbelt or something. I don't remember many of the details, but I do remember that the bullet traversed the length of his leg and it took surgeons and physical therapy to right the issue, and it wasn't certain that he would walk again.

So. For myself only, when it comes to auto pistols, I don't carry with one up the spout. With modern revolvers, I do not have this same concern.

YMMV.

 

[BSA1]

Another wonderful piece of Old West trivia (or myth) is cowboys carried their burial money in the empty chamber.

 

[StrawHat]

Hard to shove a silver or gold coin in the chamber.

 

[gym]

It would have been just as easy to harm oneself by having to chamber a round under the pressure of someone shooting at you, "especially being a LEO". No offense, he just had an accident.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It would have been just as easy to harm oneself by having to chamber a round under the pressure of someone shooting at you, "especially being a LEO". No offense, he just had an accident.

If one is going to harm oneself by "having to chamber a round under pressure", then he's gonna harm himself regardless, what with talking about revolvers and all. Single Action necessarily involves cocking the gun manually, which rotates the cylinder, regardless of whether or not there is a round under the hammer. Double Action does it automatically with the trigger pull under the same circumstances.




As for the question brought up about resting the hammer/pin between cartridges...well, I suppose people will forever be improvising alternate methods of "safety", whatever they may be. But though it can be argued to be "safer" with all six cylinders loaded, it's NOT a "safety".

The cylinder isn't "locked" in this position, which means the cylinder will attempt to rotate, only being stopped by the firing pin on the hammer. This has the potential to put lateral stress on a narrow, hardened firing pin, which it wasn't designed for.

Also, take a good, hard look at the firing pin on the hammer and the rim of the cartridges. Neither of them are perfectly square...the cartridge rims are slightly rounded, as is the tip of the firing pin on the hammer. Given these physical characteristics, this means that relying on a rounded tip pin between two rounded edged cartridges probably isn't the best engineering design with respect to the intended effect.

One of the major concerns with the older SAA revolvers, which this whole debate...errr..."revolves" around has to do with an unintended discharge of such a revolver if the hammer is struck with a cartridge under it...such as a dropped revolver or a revolver which may be struck during work while wearing it. Placing the pin between cartridges may prevent such a thing from happening...but the impact of the pin (designed to withstand impact against a soft primer) against the steel cylinder during such an event may result in a damaged firearm that will not function at all when needed.

And severe physical jarring of such an impact may cause the pin to "skip" out of position between cylinders as well, resulting in a cylinder that will lock up in it's naturally condition...cylinder aligned under the hammer pin.


All this assuming, as others have already pointed out, that the pin will even fit between the cartridges on a given revolver anyway.


Safety, however, is not absolute...it's relative. In others words, "safe as compared to something else". Carrying such a revolver with the hammer down on an empty chamber is arguably "safer" both in terms of accidental discharge AND potential for damage to the revolver than it would be to carry it with the hammer down between cylinders.


All I have to say for others, since I cannot control their actions, is "choose wisely and with understanding".

As for me, I'll carry any SAA I get with the hammer down on an empty chamber.

 

[Jim K]

Yep, safety is relative. I have read a bit about "The Old West" and the folks who inhabited it and I get the distinct impression that many of them lived dangerous lives and were more concerned about getting the other guy than on worrying about safety. Also, gun accidents (and other accidents) were common and taken for granted as part of everyday life (or death).

The same is true of wartime. I once described how British soldiers "made" ammo for their .380 revolvers by staking the rims of 9mm Parabellum rounds. I was denounced for describing an "unsafe" practice. Another time, a poster asked what happened to the empty cases from a WWII fighter plane's machineguns. When I said they fell down a chute and dropped to the ground, folks were horrified, since someone on the ground could have been injured! I guess the bombs being dropped didn't hurt anyone.

Jim

 

[StrawHat]

Yep, safety is relative. I have read a bit about "The Old West" and the folks who inhabited it and I get the distinct impression that many of them lived dangerous lives and were more concerned about getting the other guy than on worrying about safety. Also, gun accidents (and other accidents) were common and taken for granted as part of everyday life (or death).

The same is true of wartime. I once described how British soldiers "made" ammo for their .380 revolvers by staking the rims of 9mm Parabellum rounds. I was denounced for describing an "unsafe" practice. Another time, a poster asked what happened to the empty cases from a WWII fighter plane's machineguns. When I said they fell down a chute and dropped to the ground, folks were horrified, since someone on the ground could have been injured! I guess the bombs being dropped didn't hurt anyone.

Jim

Unforunately, many tend to judge old practices by todays standards.