Why don’t most revolvers have manual safety but most pistol have?

[efeng9622]

I have a question for long time, but I haven’t got a satisfactory answer.

Why don’t most revolvers have manual safety but most pistol have?
Is revolver safer than pistol? A general pistol has manual safety and double action. Besides, I have to pull the bolt or cocking slide before I shoot it, but a general revolver has double action only or maybe single action . I haven’t known any reason which can show revolver is safer than pistol. But I believe there is the reason I don’t know because I hardly to see person to ask this question.

Thanks!

 

[B36]

All modern S&W and Colt DA/SA revolvers have safeties. They are passive, to prevent the gun firing if dropped.

Almost no DAO autos have manual safeties. They usually have drop safeties.

So many modern autos and revolvers are alike.

Is a revolver safer than an SA auto? Yes. The SA auto and even some of the DA autos have a much lighter DA trigger pull than does the revolver. ie the Glock with a 5lb trigger pull or lighter.

I'll stick with the round guns myself.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

The long trigger pull and (depending on the design) internal hammer block, rebounding hammer or transfer bar (all of these prevent firing if the revolver is dropped, thrown, etc.) act as "safeties," negating the need for an additional manual safety. All the rest of it depends on you.

There have been DA revolvers (mostly Smith & Wessons) produced with grip safeties, and I've heard of the Murabito and Magna-Trigger "safeties" (really more of a hidden weapon retention device), also for S&Ws. The Webley-Fosbery automatic revolver had a thumb safety, but was not DA.

It is a broad generalization to say that most sutoloading pistols have manual safeties, too.

 

[Fisherman_48768]

Revolver safeties then and now.

Until fairly recently revolvers utilized the safety located between the ears of the shooter. Somehow this safety has started to malfunction for lots of different reasons, mostly litigation and poor educations.

 

[JMag]

It could be said that many bottom feeder users need the extra safety as they are generally younger and dumber.

I would a more politically correct, wheelgunners understand that the most important safety is the one between the ears.

Yes, I own both so no flames...

 

[Ford Prefect]

Safteties were developed and added to guns that had a serious danger of being fired unintentionaly if left in a ready state.

For military arms, requiring the use of both hands to draw and chamber a round is not acceptable. They needed to be able to have the gun in a ready, but safe manner.

With the 1911 and similar autos you have two choices: either leave the chamber empty or chamber it and allow the saftey to prevent firing. If there was no saftey either the gun would go off easily or you would have to leave the gun in un-chambered, not in a ready state.

 

[ugaarguy]

Is a revolver safer than an SA auto? Yes. The SA auto and even some of the DA autos have a much lighter DA trigger pull than does the revolver. ie the Glock with a 5lb trigger pull or lighter.

Every gun is only as safe as its user; revolver or auto, SA or DA, makes no difference.

It could be said that many bottom feeder users need the extra safety as they are generally younger and dumber.

I would a more politically correct, wheelgunners understand that the most important safety is the one between the ears.

Yes, I own both so no flames...

This is some of the most blatantly ignorant generalization I've ever seen. This is The High Road, not the knock young shooters and auto owners road. Sorry bud, I'm in my mid twenties and you're dead wrong. I work in a gun shop I can't tell you how many times I've nearly yanked a gun out of a middle aged man's hand for sweeping the muzzle across my face or chest while his finger was on the trigger - so much for us stupid young guys. Revolvers also outnumber autos in my modest but growing collection.

Stupidity is not age exclusive, nor is wheelgun ownership. Get over it!

 

[B36]

ugaarguy--get over it--goodness gracious you are the one claiming to know everything.

I owned a full line gun store for 16 years--and in my experience, in general, the younger they were, the poorer the gun handling.

In general, the younger people have had their total gun training in front of a TV set, while at least a good percentage of the then over 45s had military training. As a result the younger people almost 100% put their finger thru the trigger guard when I handed them a handgun.

I agree a firearm is a thinking person's tool, but so are acetylene torchs.

 

[springmom]

ugaarguy--get over it--goodness gracious you are the one claiming to know everything.

I owned a full line gun store for 16 years--and in my experience, in general, the younger they were, the poorer the gun handling.

In general, the younger people have had their total gun training in front of a TV set, while at least a good percentage of the then over 45s had military training. As a result the younger people almost 100% put their finger thru the trigger guard when I handed them a handgun.

Well, in point of fact, he was claiming no such thing. He did point out that he has (probably as you have) had to deal with muzzle-sweeping and other unsafe practices.

The point is that talking down to young shooters or calling them "bottom feeders" is not High Road. And it isn't. If you go review Oleg's restatement of this forum's purpose, one of its major uses is reaching out to new shooters and people interested in firearms. Putting down new shooters, or young shooters, doesn't further that aim.

I was at the range twice this week: both times it was middle aged males' behaviors that caused me to yell "HEY! STOP!" One didn't know how to safety his weapon when time was called and so was racking the slide (with the barrel pointed toward me) to empty his gun. The other was showing his young son about shooting ( a good thing) but as he brought his revolver over for his son to shoot, muzzle swept me sitting ten feet away.

Stupidity doesn't have a demographic.

Springmom

 

[Kaylee]

politeness please.

 

[B36]

Springmom, let me put it this way--if I am going to look a the muzzle of a firearm that is unintentionaly pointed at me, I hope it is a revolver, rather than a Glock with a 3.5 to 5lb trigger and no external safety.. Perhaps the revolver will not go off if the pointer is startled.

Might want to get the opinion of some older firearms trainers concerning the number of AD/UDs happening with semi autos.

Years ago on NYPD the ratio was about 4 or 5 to one.

IMO all things equal, the revolver is a safer firearm.

Just the opinion of one old guy )

 

[ugaarguy]

goodness gracious you are the one claiming to know everything

If you would, please kindly point out where I made such a claim.

In general, the younger people have had their total gun training in front of a TV set, while at least a good percentage of the then over 45s had military training. As a result the younger people almost 100% put their finger thru the trigger guard when I handed them a handgun.

You're still generalizing. Again, I've seen poor gunhandling from people of all demographics, and it's about evenly spread out. Perhaps the large numbers of OEF, OIF, or ONE vets like myself have lead to more younger folks having better training and properly teaching their friends when they get out, thereby raising the average gun handling skills of younger folks.

if I am going to look a the muzzle of a firearm that is unintentionaly pointed at me, I hope it is a revolver, rather than a Glock with a 3.5 to 5lb trigger and no external safety.. Perhaps the revolver will not go off if the pointer is startled.

I don't wan't to look at the muzzle of any firearm that I'm not inspecting the bore on. Ohh, if I was looking at the muzzle of a firearm unintentionally pointed at me I'd hope it was an HK VP70Z with its looooonng and heeeaaavvy DA trigger pull instead of a Colt or S&W revolver with their smooooth DA pulls.

 

[R.W.Dale]

The point is that talking down to young shooters or calling them "bottom feeders" is not High Road.

Reading comprehension is key to sucess in life!

It could be said that many bottom feeder users need the extra safety

Bottom feeder is a reference to loading an automatic from the BOTTOM!

Please read before you type

 

[Cosmoline]

Back to the question..

The safety is on 1911 style SA semis simply because on followup shots they automatically chamber another round and cock the hammer. If SAA's did this the Peacemakers would have safety levers, too. Otherwise they'd be inherently unsafe.

The safety is on DA/SA style semis primarily as a backup, and unlike 1911 style SA semis it's not generally utilized as a carry condition. It's used when unloading the firearm on some pistols and also to make it safe in case the weapon must be moved before followup shots are made. The better designs such as the sigs utilize a decocker.

SA revolvers don't need a safety lever because you have to pull the hammer back each time, and carrying with the hammer back is NOT a proper carry position. Unless you're patently insane.

DA revolvers don't need a safety lever because they never go over to SA mode automatically as DA/SA pistols do. And if utilized in SA mode they function like SA revolvers. Some pistols function in a similar fashion to a DA revolver and are DAO. Glocks have a similar system, though it is unique in some respects.

The rare auto revolvers have safety catches because they index to the next chamber and cycle the hammer automatically.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Politeness, PERIOD. No "please" about it. Bickering, nattering, and childishness are NOT High Road behavior.

Cease it forthwith.

lpl/nc

 

[RPCVYemen]

Stupidity doesn't have a demographic.

SpringMom called it right. I have seen old folks and young folks handling weapons inappropriately. I have also seen folks that grew up in rural areas handle guns in a way that I don't wish to be around them.

I think that training - not age or other demographic - is critical. And people come trained (and untrained) in all ages and all kinds of backgrounds.

I have talked to people from time to time, and most folks seem very happy to learn something about safe weapon handling. Training folks seems like a better idea than calling them "younger and dumber". "Training" may be too formal - if you quietly point out what "muzzle sweeping" is, the reasons not to muzzle sweep are pretty obvious. Same with "finger on the trigger" issues. I don't talk down to people, or call them them dumb, and so far they have thanked me politely. For all I know they may say "grouchy old fart" when I am out of range, but they are polite ...

Mike

 

[springmom]

Quote:
It could be said that many bottom feeder users need the extra safety
Bottom feeder is a reference to loading an automatic from the BOTTOM!

Please read before you type

Always good advice. Here is the original quote, in its entirety.

many bottom feeder users need the extra safety as they are generally younger and dumber.

(emphasis mine).

It was an insult. I gave the quoted poster the mental credit for making something of a pun, although you may be right in that it was not intended as such. Either way it was still an insult. And insulting newbies, young 'uns, or anybody else, is not High Road.

Springmom

 

[R.W.Dale]

Well I don't know bout you guys but I was defiantly dumber when I was younger. I seriously hope that there aren't too many THR members who were smarter in their youth than they are now.

 

[springmom]

Well, that's 'cause you haven't gotten old enough. Just wait 'til you're my age; that mental agility of early adulthood will seem like a dream

But seriously, I don't think the issue was, does Joe Smith get smarter as he gets older, but rather "are people who are young by definition dumber than those who are older" to which the answer is NO.

We have a lot of young folks on this forum and assuming that people get semiautos with safeties because they are younger and dumber is probably not a great way to welcome, teach, reach out to, or even converse with, those people. Just my $.02.

Springmom the middle aged and middlin' intelligent

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Revolvers vs Pistols and Safety or Not

Autopistols perform three actions when firing:

1. they eject the spent shell casing;
2. they cock the weapon;
3. they strip and load the next round.

Revolvers perform one action when cocked prior to firing:

1. they advance the cylinder, bringing the next cartridge into battery, just prior to firing.

After firing, a pistol

1. has a round in the chamber;
2. is cocked.

After firing, a revolver

1. has a fired shell casing under the hammer;
2. is not cocked.

Consequently, since a pistol is "always ready" (or at least can be) it makes sense for it to have a safety. There are pistols that are not cocked after firing, and require a double-action trigger pull to cock & fire. For these pistols, a safety that keeps the hammer/striker from releasing would not be needed, only some kind of drop safety to prevent the firing pin from being forced into the primer during a drop.

Since a revolver is not "ready" in the same sense, requiring either a two-stage cocking/loading and firing action (single-action revolvers), or a longer & heavier trigger pull to accomplish the cocking/loading and firing, a safety (beyond possibly a drop safety) is not needed to prevent accidental firing [as from a "ready" condition].

Now, if you were in the habit of carrying a revolver cocked, with a round in battery under the hammer, then a safety to prevent accidental firing would make perfect sense.

In a revolver, the "safety" is the simple fact that it's not carried in a "ready to fire" condition as are most pistols.

I believe that answers the question.

Yes?

 

[B36]

Another factor is that the semi auto cannot be made safe without first removing the magazine, and then checking the chamber by operating the slide. In other words--the gun cannot be known to be safe just by looking at it.

A 360 around an uncocked revolver allows one to see if it is loaded or not.

You all carry on, I am back to my cave.

 

[efeng9622]

ArfinGreebly and B36,

Yes, I think your answers are pretty clear.

Thanks everybody here!