I've been involved in a long running debate on a forum with 2 other gun owners & a gun control advocate. I think the GA advocate is softening up a bit; he's gone from trashing guns to asking questions on safety, AD's especially. I think I am correct to tell him that all new DA revolvers have rolling block safeties, blocking hammer from firing pin until trigger is pulled. How far back have DA revolvers had that feature? Do any SA revolvers have it?
Rolling Block Safeties
- Thread starter ncpatriot
- Start date
Jim Watson
New member
I never heard the term "rolling block" applied to a revolver hammer block, but here goes:
Smith & Wesson DA revolvers got a hammer block early in the 20th century, I don't know what year, probably around 1905 if not sooner. It was not 100%, a Victory model dropped on a steel deck went off and shot a sailor in WW II. S&W redesigned the hammer block for positive operation in 1945 and have stayed with it ever since, even after moving the firing pin from the hammer to the frame.
Colt adopted the positive hammer block around 1908, seen in model names like Police Positive. They kept that design until 1969 (and beyond for the Python only) at which time they went to a transfer bar (see below) in the Trooper Mk III series and later guns.
Ruger DA revolvers differ. The S&W and older Colt designs block the hammer except when the trigger is pulled. Ruger Security Six and others have transfer bars like some of the older, cheaper guns like Harrington and Richardson. At rest, the hammer contacts only the frame. When the trigger is pulled the transfer bar moves into position to bridge the gap between hammer and firing pin, transferring the blow.
New Model Ruger SAs since 1973 have transfer bars and are safe loaded with six rounds. Old Models should be kept with the hammer down over an empty chamber like a real Colt SAA. Ruger will refit Old Models with transfer bars upon request or even if sent in for other work.
The Beretta Stampede SA and the unsuccessful Colt Cowboy have transfer bar actions.
Real Colt SAAs and faithful copies from Uberti, Pietta, and USFA do not and should be loaded with five. I think the Schofield repros have a hammer block but they still recommend loading only five. There were some Uberti SAs with a form of hammer block but I would not depend on it.
Smith & Wesson DA revolvers got a hammer block early in the 20th century, I don't know what year, probably around 1905 if not sooner. It was not 100%, a Victory model dropped on a steel deck went off and shot a sailor in WW II. S&W redesigned the hammer block for positive operation in 1945 and have stayed with it ever since, even after moving the firing pin from the hammer to the frame.
Colt adopted the positive hammer block around 1908, seen in model names like Police Positive. They kept that design until 1969 (and beyond for the Python only) at which time they went to a transfer bar (see below) in the Trooper Mk III series and later guns.
Ruger DA revolvers differ. The S&W and older Colt designs block the hammer except when the trigger is pulled. Ruger Security Six and others have transfer bars like some of the older, cheaper guns like Harrington and Richardson. At rest, the hammer contacts only the frame. When the trigger is pulled the transfer bar moves into position to bridge the gap between hammer and firing pin, transferring the blow.
New Model Ruger SAs since 1973 have transfer bars and are safe loaded with six rounds. Old Models should be kept with the hammer down over an empty chamber like a real Colt SAA. Ruger will refit Old Models with transfer bars upon request or even if sent in for other work.
The Beretta Stampede SA and the unsuccessful Colt Cowboy have transfer bar actions.
Real Colt SAAs and faithful copies from Uberti, Pietta, and USFA do not and should be loaded with five. I think the Schofield repros have a hammer block but they still recommend loading only five. There were some Uberti SAs with a form of hammer block but I would not depend on it.
Thanks for the info, I had my terminology mixed up a bit. The background info gives me good info to pass along to this guy. I & a few others have fought him tooth & nail on every argument he's made for several months. But now I think he is coming around & thinking a bit, willing to take another look. I reminded one of the other guys that this guy may have been raised by lib college professors, politicians, etc. We may be the 1st pro gun people he's ever discussed anything with. Some people can be amazing when they listen to others, out of their usual circles of friends.
Thanks for the info, I had my terminology mixed up a bit. The background info gives me good info to pass along to this guy. I & a few others have fought him tooth & nail on every argument he's made for several months. But now I think he is coming around & thinking a bit, willing to take another look. I reminded one of the other guys that this guy may have been raised by lib college professors, politicians, etc. We may be the 1st pro gun people he's ever discussed anything with. Some people can rethink issues when they talk with others, out of their usual circles of friends.
*Somehow, I entered this twice. System won't let me delete.
*Somehow, I entered this twice. System won't let me delete.
The hammer block safety (or the equivalent transfer bar) does prevent a revolver from firing unless the trigger is pulled. The main purpose is to prevent the gun from firing if it is dropped on the hammer. Many auto pistols have similar safeties, but many pistols also have manual safety devices that will keep the gun from firing even if the trigger is pulled.
In practice, very few "accidental" discharges are or would be prevented by safety devices. Most "accidental" gun discharges have the same cause as most automobile "accidents", operator error or carelessness. And the solution is the same - better education for most users and punishment in cases of utter recklessness.
Jim
In practice, very few "accidental" discharges are or would be prevented by safety devices. Most "accidental" gun discharges have the same cause as most automobile "accidents", operator error or carelessness. And the solution is the same - better education for most users and punishment in cases of utter recklessness.
Jim
I am currently in one of those crazy liberal professor college courses, and it's a government course none the less. He has no idea about half the things he's talking about, and spent the whole first week of class telling us that the entire U.S. Constitution is flawed (like most liberals, he would rather ignore it). I know that you are dealing with. It's so hard to argue with these people because they pretty much just dodge the facts and any valid points. I personally can't wait till the topic of the 2nd amendment comes up 
.
As far as your terminology, you likely heard of a "rolling block" rifle and confusing it with "hammer block" safety.
Typically, DA revolvers are some of the safest guns out there. Even though they lack a true safety, their long, heavy DA trigger pull means that it takes real effort to make them fire, meaning that an accidental discharge is almost never the guns fault.
. As far as your terminology, you likely heard of a "rolling block" rifle and confusing it with "hammer block" safety.
Typically, DA revolvers are some of the safest guns out there. Even though they lack a true safety, their long, heavy DA trigger pull means that it takes real effort to make them fire, meaning that an accidental discharge is almost never the guns fault.
I'm impressed that this guy is actually asking some valid questions. We've spent several months of him posting some crazy imagined scenarios that we "shoot full of holes" in no time. We've discredited his studies by leftist professors, etc. I think he's beginning to wonder if he's been told facts or fantasy. I appreciate him coming up with sensible questions. May be the first step toward a new 2A supporter. It's been known to happen.