1873 revolver question

[Thumbcocker]

I know it is standard practice to load Colts and clones with 5 rounds hammer resting on an empty chamber. My questions are

1. Was this the practice when the revolvers were in military use? And if so

2. Why would the government issue a weapon that was unsafe when fully loaded?

It seems that if the contracting agency i.e. the army told Colt " great pistol but fix it so our troopers don't get shot when something hits the hammer " Colt's response would have been "we are on it."

John Browning took several tries to get the 1911 the way the government wanted it. So what was the deal with the 1873?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[USSR]

I imagine they were so happy to have a gun capable of firing so many rounds at once and reload so quickly, that they were willing to overlook that.

Don

[Thumbcocker]

Some precussion revolvers could be carried safely fully loaded.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[KCSO]

The Army carried the guns in a FLAP holster with the hammer covered and the gun on the safety notch. There was no problem when carried that way, the problem arose with the civilian holster and strong side carry. Although I'll bet a few of the guns dropped on the barracks floor might have went bang.

[Thumbcocker]

I was looking for references to the manual for the Colt but haven't been able to find any.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[GOPHER SLAYER]

There is nothing quick about loading the 1873 Colt. You load one at a time and unload one case at a time. The S&W could be unloaded all at once. The problem with the S&W was the cartridge. The S&W 45 case was a little shorter than the Colt's 45. The Army asked S&W to make their case and chamber a little longer but Daniel Wesson was just too stubborn to comply. The Army did not want to stock two kinds of pistol ammo so S&W lost out. The Army also felt they owed Colt a lot for all the help they got during the war. Colt kept the Army well supplied with pistols during the conflict. Also, the Colt factory had burned, Colt had died leaving his widow to manage the factory. She gambled everything on the new pistol and cartridge. The Army just couldn't let her down. When it comes to reloading the Colt 1873 pistol it really isn't a problem, at least in movies, I have seen heroes shoot as many as a dozen rounds without loading.

[smkummer]

I am guessing the “new” safety notch on the hammer seemed like an improvement over the safety nibs on the percussion revolvers. Maybe not enough real world testing before the design was included with the new 1873. Not all dropped guns fired. Back then if someone shot themselves in the foot or other places, they would been considered negligent. It appears users and real world experiences over time might have beat Colt into recommending only loading 5. Does someone know when colt recommended only 5?

[GOPHER SLAYER]

Wyatt Earp was sitting in chair in one of the Dodge City saloons when his pistol fell out of the holster, hit the floor and went off. Fortunately no on was hit. He apparently had loaded all six rounds.

[USSR]

There is nothing quick about loading the 1873 Colt. You load one at a time and unload one case at a time.

Uh, the revolvers it replaced were percussion guns. The Colt SAA was comparably fast.

Don

[Petrol & Powder]

To address the questions:

1. Was this (loading 5 rounds and resting the hammer on an empty chamber) the practice when the revolvers were in military use?
I suspect it BECAME the practice with use. The people that work with potentially dangerous tools tend develop and adopt safety procedures on their own.

2. Why would the government issue a weapon that was unsafe when fully loaded?
Thumbcocker - You should know that attempting to apply logic to the government is pure folly.
I suspect the government didn't perceive the issue as a "safety" problem, assuming they even detected the issue to begin with.


John Browning took several tries to get the 1911 the way the government wanted it. So what was the deal with the 1873?
That was 25+ years later, perhaps they (the ordinance dept) were beginning to take safety a bit more seriously by then ?

[alfadan]

From my understanding of frontier army life, most of it was incredibly boring with little to do. No arms we're carried and were stored away. I imagine when on patrol where action was anticipated, they loaded all 6, as a revolver falling on the hammer was the least dangerous thing they could face and, well, guns are dangerous. Just my opinion as these details seem to be sorely lacking

[Outpost75]

The pre-WW2 S&W hammer block was deemed fine until negligent discharges occurred on naval ships dropping revolvers down hatches, striking the deck below, or falling out of aviator vests while disembarking from an open hatched Daughtless...

I know from personal experience that a cocked and locked M1911 dropped onto a steel flight deck striking on the muzzle from a height of ten feet will discharge every time, but that the none fire height is only 4 feet.

[Texas by God]

The first cowboy who had the stirrup fall on his Colts hammer when saddling his horse probably adopted the " five beans in a wheel" loading method (and possibly a limp) soon thereafter.....

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[leadeye]

We all tend to see things in the past through today's or more recent history's lens. Early Colt autos like the 1902 and Pocket Hammer had no safety at all other than a half cock notch. It's just the way it was, Colt later released the 1903 Hammerless, a completely different gun, but it had a safety. The 1873 had it's issues and I think people just found a work around like they always do, so the five and an empty just evolved from this.

[rintinglen]

In 1871, when work began on the SAA, there were no other revolvers that were truly safe if the hammer was lowered on a loaded chamber. True, many cap and ball revolvers had pins or notches that the hammer nose could engage, but a stout blow could still fire the gun, if the hammer was let down on a capped cylinder. The various continental revolvers of that era were no better than the Colt. In December of 1872, Captain John R. Edie of the Bureau of Ordnance examined the new Colt and one of the things he noted was the safety notch on the hammer which made it safer than the Older (by a year) 1872 open top revolvers then being issued. It was more reliable than either the 1872 or S&W Number 3. The S&W was also less accurate and was considered needlessly complex, having "too many parts" for use in the field by ordinary troopers. (The officers of the day looked pretty far down their noses at the enlisted men.)

Now the Colt was primarily a cavalry arm. Speedy reloading was not particularly a necessity, most charges consisted of one or two shots fired as the mounted trooper swept through the enemy, and for hand to hand work, the sabre was still at the ready. Reliability, durability and ease of maintenance were considered the strong points of the Colt. The safety notch was considered adequate, especially when coupled with the full flap holsters used in those days.

It is a mistake to put too much emphasis on the military's use of the gun for Colt's prosperity. Colt sold about 8 SAA or Bisleys to the general public for every one the U. S. government bought, and at a 20% higher price. And at the same time, they were making about a quarter of million of other firearms: New Line, Lightning, Thunderer, 1878, New Model Navy, not to mention shotguns and slide action rifles. Colt was a very well run business in the later part of the nineteenth century.

[Dan Cash]

Back in the day, there were so many things that could kill you like falling off or being kicked by a horse, buggy wrecks, food poisonings, blood poisoning from minor cuts, a cold that turns into pneumonia and on and on, that 6 in a single action was scarcely a blip on the yet to be invented radar.

[country gent]

The colt was way ahead of the other and with the military flap holster was pretty safe those holsters were some heavy leather. Open topped holster or carry in a pants or chapps pocket was a different story. The requirements and people were different then to. Few firearms had safeties, most were dependent on a half cock notch. The high walls actually cocked on opening the breech. The other was the notches and springs were heavier and didnt release as easily.

the forst passive saftey was introduced in the early 1900s with the transfer bar

[missionary5155]

And hey where else would you want to carry your last dollar ?

[Prairie Cowboy]

I suppose that:

1) the officer who carried one would not have regarded the loss of one shot much of a problem and so left one chamber empty.

2) the cartridge Colt wasn't much different from the percussion models that it replaced, apart from being a breech loader, so they didn't regard it as being any less safe.

My own opinion is that those who wanted to adopt the 1911 were being met with stiff opposition from the traditionalists who did not want to adopt anything but a revolver.
So they continually demanded changes, hoping that it would just go away.
Also, for the same reasons, they kept demanding standards of reliability that no revolver had ever been required to meet.
But some concerns with parts breakage were genuine, and better steel parts were developed as a result.

With the 1873, I think that everyone in the military was happy from the beginning.
It was a traditional revolver, yet a breech-loader.
It was more reliable, stronger, more powerful, and easy to load.
And, it fit in the same holsters as the percussion revolvers, saving money. :mrgreen:

[GasGuzzler]

Not all people agree they're unsafe on six so the rest is moot.

[sharps4590]

It was 1873 for cryin' out loud. Not 2020....or even 1920. Need to keep things in proper context. There was no OSHA, people didn't sue, and win, because of their own stupidity and as others have mentioned, there was at least 10,000 other things more dangerous to life and limb than how many cartridges you carried in the cylinder of your Colt SAA.

One could ask why there was no lap/shoulder belts and air bags in a 1936 Ford. At their respective times in history I'm confident both were considered safe.

[Petrol & Powder]

Not all people agree they're unsafe on six so the rest is moot.

There's also people that think the world is flat. There's no need for every single person to agree upon an issue in order for the issue to be real.
We need not establish an absolute consensus that the model 1873 is unsafe to carry with all 6 chambers loaded.


Colt did include a safety notch that would (in theory) hold the firing pin off the primer. However, a blow to the hammer could still result in the gun firing, even when this safety was used.
The practice of carrying the revolver with the hammer down on an empty chamber developed and it was a failsafe method.

The OP's questions were:
1. Was this (loading 5 rounds and resting the hammer on an empty chamber) the practice when the revolvers were in military use?
2. Why would the government issue a weapon that was unsafe when fully loaded?
3. John Browning took several tries to get the 1911 the way the government wanted it. So what was the deal with the 1873?

The U.S. Military used the 1873 Colt for well over 25 years and even brought the SAA back into front line service when the replacement handguns were found to be lacking. So for the question, "Was the practice of loading 5 rounds in play during the military's use of the 1873 Colt"? - The answer is certainly YES. Was it official policy ?- I don't know. Specifically when did the practice appear? - I don't know.

For the question of, "Why would the government issue a weapon that was unsafe when fully loaded"? - I don't believe the army (I'm guessing "the army) would be officers in the ordinance department?) perceived the model 1873 to be inherently unsafe.

As to why the 1911 incorporated multiple safeties, I think Prairie Cowboy has a good theory. There was a lot of development that led up to the model 1911. Changes were made to prototypes and earlier models, with safeties added and other improvements made before the final model was adopted. Even then, there came a revision with the A1 model later.

[35isit]

I still carry my modern revolvers with an empty under the hammer when hunting or hiking. If I feel I'm in a threatening situation I definitely have all holes filled.

[Texas by God]

And hey where else would you want to carry your last dollar ?"Burial money"!
I remember Ruger ads for the New Model single actions in 1972 mentioning this.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

[Larry Gibson]

In the Army manual "Description And management Of The Springfield Rifle, Carbine And Army Revolvers dtd 1874" it states after loading the chambers with cartridges "close the gate and bring the hammer to the safety notch". Nothing is mentioned about loading only 5 cartridges and resting the hammer down on an empty chamber. The revolver was carried in a flap holster which protected and prevent the mishaps that occurred with civilian open top holsters leading to the loading of only 5 cartridges. The Army continued to load 6 cartridges throughout the use of the SAA in service.

BTW; the revolver was used extensively during cavalry engagements, most often in lieu of the sabre. The revolver proved much more efficient than the sabre in mounted battle during the Civil War and was used more extensively as the war progressed. Many of the "raiders" didn't carry sabers but carried several revolvers regardless of what the movies portray...... Once the repeating carbines became common with cavalry units they replaced the revolver with the development of "skirmishing" tactics. However, the revolver was still carried and used.

[Thumbcocker]

In the Army manual "Description And management Of The Springfield Rifle, Carbine And Army Revolvers dtd 1874" it states after loading the chambers with cartridges "close the gate and bring the hammer to the safety notch". Nothing is mentioned about loading only 5 cartridges and resting the hammer down on an empty chamber. The revolver was carried in a flap holster which protected and prevent the mishaps that occurred with civilian open top holsters leading to the loading of only 5 cartridges. The Army continued to load 6 cartridges throughout the use of the SAA in service.

BTW; the revolver was used extensively during cavalry engagements, most often in lieu of the sabre. The revolver proved much more efficient than the sabre in mounted battle during the Civil War and was used more extensively as the war progressed. Many of the "raiders" didn't carry sabers but carried several revolvers regardless of what the movies portray...... Once the repeating carbines became common with cavalry units they replaced the revolver with the development of "skirmishing" tactics. However, the revolver was still carried and used.

I wondered what the manual said. Thank you.

[bedbugbilly]

The Army and the Government have logic??? LOL LOL LOL

Why would a government agency issue Colt SAA that shot 45 Colt and then turn around and = possibly due to supply or cheaper cost - turn around and issue a revolver that could not shoot the 45 Cot but instead, required the 45 Schofield? Until they got their act together, chan you imagine the looks on the faces of the officers when they received supplies of 45 Colt cartridges when the troops under theif command were carrying S & W revolvers that required the 45 Schofield cartridges? SNAFU as the saying goes.

As far as the safety issue of 6 over 5 - does that even get addressed in a manual of the day? I''m just curious if it does as I have never run across any reference to it but there may be something out there. Personally, one can only put themselves in the place of a trooper who runs the risk of being engaged suddenly. If it was me, I would want 6 instead of 5. Especially when my only other firearm was a single shot 45/70 Springfield carbine. And . . perhaps the carrying of 5 or 6 was dictated by the commanding officer?

I have a Uberti Colt clone 45 SAA and I carry on an empty chamber because that was the way I was taught to carry it - and for today's purposes, most of us aren't about to be engaged with "hostiles". Still, in most cases, I would feel safe carrying with 6 with the hammer in the safety position.

I do remember reading a supposedly first person account - I'm sorry I can't name the source and I don't remember if it was a magazine article or in a book. It told about a group of trailheads who were gathered in a saloon - drinking of course. Someone got the bright idea of tacking a playing card to the ceiling and each of the fellows sitting around the table, took turns with their Colt revolvers - the put the hammer on a loaded cylinder, pointed the barrel upwards towards the card and then quickly struck the hammer on the table edge - causing the cartridge to fire. The one who came closest to the card was declared the winner. In today's world, no one with a lick of common sense would do this but he, it was called the "wild west" for a reason.

I think the question of if a trooper carried 5 or 6 in his revolver is an interesting question. If someone comes up with a Army manual or similar to document it, please post it.

[rintinglen]

The only reason the Schofield got any play was that Major (later LT. Col.) Schofield, who had designed the revisions of the S&W (and patented them), used his influence as a fairly high ranking cavalry officer to persuade the Chief of the Ordnance Department to purchase some 8,000+ in 1874 and 1876. They reportedly were not a great improvement over the Colt and were not as reliable, being prone to jamming when reloaded on horse back when empty cases might slip under the extractor star, and being somewhat more costly. Add in the refusal of S&W to modify their firearm to use the longer 45 Colt Cartridge, which was already in the supply chain, and the Army high command saw no reason to waste any more scarce resources on a revolver that offered an advantage that nobody wanted. They were declared surplus and sold out of service in 1880, with several hundred being purchased by Wells Fargo, who had them cut down to 5 inch barrels and issued them to guards on important or valuable shipments.

[Larry Gibson]

bedbugbilly

The Army and the Government have logic??? LOL LOL LOL

Yes, the Army has logic. Many officers and NCOs over have a lot of logic [based on my observations and studies of the 245 year history of the Army along with my own 42 years in the Army]. All the lessons learned and tactics have/are all captured in manuals. Many things that are done seem illogical to those who do not understand nor bother to read the manuals. There are and were many officers and NCOs that failed to read the manuals and therefor were/are prone to do some illogical things....even some pretty stupid things. In todays Army there is a task, condition and standard listed in manuals for everything that is done.....even on digging a cat hole for example.

As to our current government having logic? I would have to agree with you there........

"Why would a government agency issue Colt SAA that shot 45 Colt and then turn around and = possibly due to supply or cheaper cost - turn around and issue a revolver that could not shoot the 45 Cot but instead, required the 45 Schofield? Until they got their act together, chan you imagine the looks on the faces of the officers when they received supplies of 45 Colt cartridges when the troops under theif command were carrying S & W revolvers that required the 45 Schofield cartridges? SNAFU as the saying goes."

Contrary to popular opinion the original cartridge was not the 45 Colt cartridge of a 250 pumpkin ball bullet over 40 gr of BP. That was the civilian load. The Army used a 230 gr bullet over a bit less powder. The logistical problem of the Schofield revolver not taking the military 45 SAA cartridge was identified very early on. Another problem most don't realize was the early original 1873 issue Colt revolvers would not chamber the 45 Schofield cartridge either as the rim was too large in diameter. The Arsenals then produced in late 1873 the 45 Government cartridge [oft incorrectly called a "45 short Colt". It was not a "short" 45 Colt and there never was a 45 "Long" Colt. There was the 45 Schofield cartridge, the 45 Government cartridge and the 45 Colt Cartridge. The 45 Government cartridge was the same length of the Schofield cartridge with the rim diameter of the 45 Colt. Thus it could be used with complete inter changeability in both revolvers. The 45 Government was an inside primed case (Bene' primer) with 28 gr of BP under a 230 gr bullet. The 45 Government cartridge was the general issue cartridge from late 1873 to the end of the SAA service. The "SNAFU" as mentioned was a rare occurrence and immediately resolved.

"As far as the safety issue of 6 over 5 - does that even get addressed in a manual of the day? I''m just curious if it does as I have never run across any reference to it but there may be something out there. Personally, one can only put themselves in the place of a trooper who runs the risk of being engaged suddenly. If it was me, I would want 6 instead of 5. Especially when my only other firearm was a single shot 45/70 Springfield carbine. And . . perhaps the carrying of 5 or 6 was dictated by the commanding officer?"

No, I have never seen this issue raised in any manual of the day. Also I have read many actual AARs (After Action Reports) written during the day including many by Ordnance Officers assigned to inspect and report on such annually and after some major engagements with "hostiles".. such as By Captain Michalis, US Ordnance who wrote numerous reports following the LBH battel and others through 1878. You are correct in that it would, indeed, be illogical for an officer to disregard 1/6th or his soldiers firepower by having them load only 5 rounds in the SAA. I've had the same "discussion" with numerous NCOs and officers who insist only 28 rounds be loaded in a 30 round magazine (or 18 in a 20 rounder back in the day) for use in M16s. Did I mention "stupid things"?

"I have a Uberti Colt clone 45 SAA and I carry on an empty chamber because that was the way I was taught to carry it - and for today's purposes, most of us aren't about to be engaged with "hostiles". Still, in most cases, I would feel safe carrying with 6 with the hammer in the safety position."

I have two Uberti SAs and I also carry only 5 rounds in them even though one does have the internal hammer block so 6 can be safely carried (Artillery Model). The reason I do is because I carry them in open top holsters.

"I do remember reading a supposedly first person account - I'm sorry I can't name the source and I don't remember if it was a magazine article or in a book. It told about a group of trailheads who were gathered in a saloon - drinking of course. Someone got the bright idea of tacking a playing card to the ceiling and each of the fellows sitting around the table, took turns with their Colt revolvers - the put the hammer on a loaded cylinder, pointed the barrel upwards towards the card and then quickly struck the hammer on the table edge - causing the cartridge to fire. The one who came closest to the card was declared the winner. In today's world, no one with a lick of common sense would do this but he, it was called the "wild west" for a reason."

Sounds straight out of a dime novel of the day...... I doubt any owner of such a saloon would allow (they usually had bouncers with big double barreled shotguns) holes getting shot in the ceilings......but it's a good story.......

"I think the question of if a trooper carried 5 or 6 in his revolver is an interesting question. If someone comes up with a Army manual or similar to document it, please post it."

Me too! Petrol & Powder was adement the soldiers did only carry 5 rounds in their SAAs. perhaps he could tell us his reference?

[Der Gebirgsjager]

How can any of us say? We weren't there in 1873. Well, maybe a couple of us were just kids then....

My point is this: At the time the 1873 Colt was brand new. It had the impressive safety notch. The accidents hadn't happened yet. Colt made it with 6 holes, didn't he? Fill 'em up...that's one more Injun. Until any accidents happened there wasn't any need to take safety measures. By 1898 (Span-Am War) the 1873 was only 25 years old and was already being replaced by the double action .38s. They brought it back only reluctantly to shoot Moros with in the Philippines. As some of us know, Line Officers and Ordnance Officers blame "accidents" on operator error and lack of training, not the equipment. The Army very likely never had a 5 round policy.

DG

[Petrol & Powder]

In the Army manual "Description And management Of The Springfield Rifle, Carbine And Army Revolvers dtd 1874" it states after loading the chambers with cartridges "close the gate and bring the hammer to the safety notch". Nothing is mentioned about loading only 5 cartridges and resting the hammer down on an empty chamber. The revolver was carried in a flap holster which protected and prevent the mishaps that occurred with civilian open top holsters leading to the loading of only 5 cartridges. The Army continued to load 6 cartridges throughout the use of the SAA in service.

..........

Thank You Larry. That sheds some light on what the 1874 manual stated.

However that doesn't address any possible future revisions of the manual, nor does it shed light on the evolving common practices.
And that passage in the 1874 manual doesn't prove that the common practice remained the loading of all 6 chambers throughout the service life of that weapon. It does show that the army at least initially considered the safety notch to be an adequate safety.

The full flap holster certainly would provide good protection and security for the revolver - when the revolver was secured in the holster. A full flap holster would not prevent all possibility of a blow to the hammer.

I think it would be safe to say the army did not initially recognize the danger of failure of the safety notch (whether from inadvertent impact or wear) but I don't believe a broad conclusion about the later common practices can be drawn from a passage in an early manual.

In any event, that's more information than we had to start with, and good source for that information.

Thank You.

[Bigslug]

The half-cock notch was a thing on flintlocks, caplocks, and pretty much EVERY SINGLE-ACTION HAMMER-FIRED LONG GUN OR HANDGUN IN EXISTENCE up until the advent of transfer bars.

I'm not sure why all the fuss is specifically thrown at the Peacemaker, unless maybe it's because it's about the only handgun holdover from that era left in widely circulated replica form. I think all of the hysterical wetting of pants around the loading of six is due to it not operating like the modern options the historically uninitiated are familiar with.

I see it as similar to the hysteria against the need to pull the trigger on a Glock to take it apart - both are only a problem when carelessness, complacency, or ignorance of the system come to the party.

Similar also is the "Israeli method" of carrying all semi-autos with a chamber empty until needed. Given that Israel started up their military with a hodge podge of different WWII leftovers, they needed a generic institutional workaround to specific-model ignorance.

They're GUNS folks - they're SUPPOSED to be dangerous. In addition to what we now regard as the four primary gun safety rules, we should probably add "learn the model in question"

[USSR]

Similar also is the "Israeli method" of carrying all semi-autos with a chamber empty until needed.

It's not just the Israelis. Seems to be the carry mode for most overseas countries. When I was in the war zone in Ukraine in 2019, the Ukrainian armed forces did this as well.

Don

[Outpost75]

British Army practice was also to carry semi-auto pistols with hammer down on empty chamber unless enemy contact was imminent, in which case either cocked and locked or empty chamber with cocked hammer to ease cycling were indicated. Soviet Red Army practice with TT pistol was the same.

When I was at Ruger in the 1980s we did drop tests with Colt SAs as well as Blackhawks, and the SA if carried with hammer in first notch, backing off hammer about 1/10", NOT the half-cock notch, hammer fall was not sufficient to fire a chambered round until the drop-fire height was sufficient to shear the safety notch off the hammer, which, required about an 8 foot drop striking directly upon the hammer spur, onto a hard surface such as a 1-inch steel plate backed up by 4 inches of reinforced concrete.

A six-foot drop onto a 80 Shore Durometer rubber mat backed by reinforced concrete would not fire more than 10% of the time, those occurring ONLY if the safety notch sheared from the hammer.

[35 Whelen]

The half-cock notch was a thing on flintlocks, caplocks, and pretty much EVERY SINGLE-ACTION HAMMER-FIRED LONG GUN OR HANDGUN IN EXISTENCE up until the advent of transfer bars.

I'm not sure why all the fuss is specifically thrown at the Peacemaker, unless maybe it's because it's about the only handgun holdover from that era left in widely circulated replica form. I think all of the hysterical wetting of pants around the loading of six is due to it not operating like the modern options the historically uninitiated are familiar with.

<snip>

They're GUNS folks - they're SUPPOSED to be dangerous. In addition to what we now regard as the four primary gun safety rules, we should probably add "learn the model in question"

Excellent point here. For countless generations folks have hied off into the woods with loaded chambers in a myriad of rifles and shotguns with "half-cock" safeties and never gave it a second thought. I'm can't quite figure out why SA revolvers are different. Legend maybe? Or "We've always done it that way.", maybe?

Recently I needed a replacement hammer for an old '94 Winchester whose hammer spur had been broken. Off to Gunbroker I went and to my utter amazement, I found two hammers with damaged safety notches.

https://i.imgur.com/cjvgdyJl.jpg https://i.imgur.com/pZiI3Hdl.jpg

Does this mean we should carry long guns with empty chambers?

I've read about Wyatt Earp's incident with his revolver as well as the cowboy in SIXGUNS who, while saddling his horse, dropped a stirrup on the hammer of his Colt, discharging his 32-20. But for all we know these revolvers weren't making use of the safety notch. I can see where the safety notch on a Colt SA could possibly be defeated perhaps if it were struck with a hard enough blow, but if you study the design, that'd be the alignment of the hammer, the safety notch and the sear, I think it'd be quite difficult, especially where revolvers made with modern metals are concerned. If you've ever seen one of the old Colt SA hammers with a damaged safety notch, it's fairly obvious that this damage occurs when someone has the hammer in the safety position and pulls the trigger which shears the small piece of metal at the notch.

https://i.imgur.com/OrlmvVFl.jpg

I bought a 1st Generation Colt a few years ago whose hammer was damaged in this way. Many 'smith's who specialize in SA revolvers are well versed in repairing this type damage and have prices for the repair on their websites, so I'm sure it's quite common.

I carry and hunt with Uberti SA's quite a lot and have always loaded six. All but one of them have the ingenious hammer block. I keep thinking that one day I'll load one of my SA's with a primed case, pull the hammer back to the safety notch and wail on it a bit with a rubber mallet, but that little test never seems as important as casting, loading and shooting.

35W

[GasGuzzler]

There's also people that think the world is flat. There's no need for every single person to agree upon an issue in order for the issue to be real.
We need not establish an absolute consensus that the model 1873 is unsafe to carry with all 6 chambers loaded.
I didn't ask for a consensus. In fact, I implied the opposite.


Colt did include a safety notch that would (in theory) hold the firing pin off the primer. However, a blow to the hammer could still result in the gun firing, even when this safety was used. The practice of carrying the revolver with the hammer down on an empty chamber developed and it was a failsafe method.
Fail-safe? Except when one needed the 6th shot to survive an incident requiring the firearm in the first place. The likelihood of needing six rounds is higher than shooting oneself.



The OP's questions were:
1. Was this (loading 5 rounds and resting the hammer on an empty chamber) the practice when the revolvers were in military use?
2. Why would the government issue a weapon that was unsafe when fully loaded?
3. John Browning took several tries to get the 1911 the way the government wanted it. So what was the deal with the 1873?
My answers are:
1. Moot
2. Faulty logic. It's not unsafe to the point of discussion
3. Apples to oranges comparing a auto-loader to a single action revolver. Take the focus away from Browning and the Army and consider the differences in the firearms.

[Petrol & Powder]

GasGuzzler wrote: "I didn't ask for a consensus. In fact, I implied the opposite. "

Here are your exact words, "Not all people agree they're unsafe on six so the rest is moot."
You were not asking for a consensus but you certainly stating that a consensus didn't exit. What you were implying was the lack of a consensus meant the issue didn't exist.
Not every single person needs to agree there is a problem in order for the problem to be real.



GasGuzzler also wrote: "Fail-safe? Except when one needed the 6th shot to survive an incident requiring the firearm in the first place. The likelihood of needing six rounds is higher than shooting oneself."

Fail Safe refers to the prevention of an accidental discharge. Resting the hammer on an empty chamber is a fail safe in terms of SAFETY; it has nothing to do with the ammunition capacity of the gun. Nor does it have anything to do with how much of that potential capacity one chooses to use.

[Petrol & Powder]

35 Whelen brings up some excellent points.

The SAA has a half cock, a "safety" notch and a full cock notch. The safety notch (which is a bit of a misnomer) is designed to hold the hammer/firing pin far enough back that the firing pin will not be resting on the primer. In theory, it is a good idea. In practice, there seems to be some good evidence that it can fail.
Those failures may be due to wear, poor fitting of the parts or breakage; the cause of the failure isn't very important.

Because there appears to be some potential for failure and tragic consequences - a solution was devised. That solution is the practice of loading 5 rounds and resting the hammer on an empty chamber. That practice gives up a little bit of capacity in exchange for a lot of safety.

Some people seem to think that 6th round is the difference between living and dying. Of course there are two ways to look at that 6th round.
Will it be the round that you need to save your life OR will it be the round that takes your life?

[Thumbcocker]

Old Iver Johnson ads had the slogan "hammer the hammer" with an illustration of a small hammer striking the hammer of one of their revolvers to toute the safety of their revolvers.

[Larry Gibson]

"Burial money"!
I remember Ruger ads for the New Model single actions in 1972 mentioning this.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

Put a dollar bill in the empty chamber then shoot five rounds of BP loaded cartridges......... see what's left of the dollar bill.......

[Larry Gibson]

"Some people seem to think that 6th round is the difference between living and dying. Of course there are two ways to look at that 6th round.
Will it be the round that you need to save your life OR will it be the round that takes your life?"

Pretty much the same type of arguments as to why the handgun itself is not needed by soldiers or the bayonet. Having been to the "farm" and back with both I simple can say; "those who needed that extra sixth round and didn't have it are not here to tell us, while those who never needed that 6th round are." Same applies to the bayonet.....those who needed and didn't have aren't here to tell of the importance......

[Outpost75]

"Some people seem to think that 6th round is the difference between living and dying. Of course there are two ways to look at that 6th round.
Will it be the round that you need to save your life OR will it be the round that takes your life?"

Pretty much the same type of arguments as to why the handgun itself is not needed by soldiers or the bayonet. Having been to the "farm" and back with both I simple can say; "those who needed that extra sixth round and didn't have it are not here to tell us, while those who never needed that 6th round are." Same applies to the bayonet.....those who needed and didn't have aren't here to tell of the importance......

Maybe the Brits had the right idea? Six rounds AND a bayonet!

274488

[Petrol & Powder]

Larry, That's well spoken.

[jrmartin1964]

The 1874, 1887, and 1898 editions of the U.S. Ordnance Department "Description and Rules" manual are available for viewing and PDF download from the internet, and all three state the following instructions for loading the Colt's Army Revolver, Caliber .45:

"TO LOAD THE REVOLVER. Hold the revolver in the left hand, muzzle downward. Half-cock it with the right hand and open the gate. Insert the cartridges with the right hand. Close the gate and bring the hammer to the safety-notch. Keep it there until the revolver is to be fired."

So, from 1874 until at least 1898 there was no change in the Ordnance Department's opinion and directions regarding how the Colt revolver was to be loaded and carried. Of course, there is no direct instruction as to how many cartridges were to be loaded, but seems having the hammer at the safety-notch would be pointless over an empty chamber.

In addition, during this same time period from 1873 to 1898, military issue ammunition for the Colt (and S&W) Army revolver came in packets of not 10, but 12, cartridges. This only makes sense if the intent was to load the revolver in multiples of six.

The evidence is that, so far as the military was concerned, the Colt revolver was, indeed, a "six-shooter" from its very adoption in 1873 at least through the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Jim

[GOPHER SLAYER]

Uh, the revolvers it replaced were percussion guns. The Colt SAA was comparably fast.

Don

Well, I guess you could have pointed out that the 1873 Colt was much faster to load and shoot that the old flint lock muzzle loader. The S&W American was must faster to load and unload than the Colt 1873.

[Larry Gibson]

From the after action reports it would seem the Schofield was also impractical to attempt to reload during mounted combat as such were close range engagements. Much more practical to reach for a 2nd revolver or the sabre if available.

[USSR]

Quote Originally Posted by USSR View Post

Uh, the revolvers it replaced were percussion guns. The Colt SAA was comparably fast.

Don


Well, I guess you could have pointed out that the 1873 Colt was much faster to load and shoot that the old flint lock muzzle loader. The S&W American was must faster to load and unload than the Colt 1873.

The troops weren't carrying flint lock pistols or S&W American revolvers. They were issued the 1860 Colt cap and ball percussion revolver prior to the adoption of the 1873 Colt SAA, and I suspect they were happy to receive the 1873.

Don

[Petrol & Powder]

OK, just asking because I don't know,
"The 1874, 1887, and 1898 editions of the U.S. Ordnance Department "Description and Rules" manual are available for viewing and PDF download from the internet, and all three state the following instructions for loading the Colt's Army Revolver, Caliber .45:"

Was anything revised in the later editions or were they just republications of the earlier edition?

And again, because I don't know, is there any indication as to the common practice was as opposed to what was written in the manual ?
(we all know that manuals are rarely the last word on how things actually happen).

[rintinglen]

Actually, they were carrying a hodgepodge of Richards conversion Colts, S&W No.3 Americans, Converted Remington 1863's and Single Shot Remingtons. I strongly urge everybody interested in this period to hit up your library for a copy of E. C, Ezell's Handguns of the world. It covers the period from 1870-1945 and is extremely interesting, with quotes from original evaluators and users.
My personal take is the the The Cavalry loaded six rounds. The "load one-skip one-load four more" practice was a civilian response that really didn't come into widespread use until the U.S. Army was issuing DA revolvers in the 1890's.

[35 Whelen]

35 Whelen brings up some excellent points.

The SAA has a half cock, a "safety" notch and a full cock notch. The safety notch (which is a bit of a misnomer) is designed to hold the hammer/firing pin far enough back that the firing pin will not be resting on the primer. In theory, it is a good idea. In practice, there seems to be some good evidence that it can fail.
Those failures may be due to wear, poor fitting of the parts or breakage; the cause of the failure isn't very important.

Not really a misnomer as Colt refers to it as the "safety notch" in the SAA owners manual (http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/colt_single_action_army.pdf).

This subject comes up frequently and I've yet to see any evidence, much less "good" evidence, that the safety notch failed and caused a discharge. In fact everything so far is anecdotal, at best. Maybe there is evidence out there but no one wants to present it....?


Because there appears to be some potential for failure and tragic consequences - a solution was devised. That solution is the practice of loading 5 rounds and resting the hammer on an empty chamber. That practice gives up a little bit of capacity in exchange for a lot of safety.

I used to teach Hunter Education here in Texas, and one of the things that stuck in my mind was our manuals description of a firearm safety- "A safety is a device designed to prevent a firearm from discharging." So yes, as with any man-made device there is potential for failure.

Loading 5 is a clever solution, but the best solution is awareness, and the most effective firearm safety lies squarely between our ears. Awareness would surely have prevented Mr. Earp's revolver from falling out of his holster and the cowboy in Mr. Keith's book from dropping a stirrup on the hammer of his revolver. IMHO, transfer bars and loading five are ways that simply allow us to be more careless and to lower our guards...and to help prevent firearms companies from being sued as Colt was 50 or so years ago.

Some time back on another forum a gentleman related an experience in which he accidently dragged a loaded SA revolver, an old Herter's, if memory serves, off the shelf of his gun safe as he was pulling another firearm out. The loaded revolver, whose hammer was on the safety notch, fell from the shelf of the safe some 4'-5' landing on the hammer whereupon it discharged and shot the unlucky fellow through the foot. Several pages of finger-wagging and armchair quarterbacking followed as well as diatribes on just how dangerous loaded SA revolvers are. So, was the revolver at fault and the safety notch to blame? Absolutely NOT. The poor fellow who carelessly dragged the revolver out of the safe was 100% to blame. The only thing an empty chamber under the hammer or a transfer bar would've accomplished would be to enable and enforce his carelessness.


Some people seem to think that 6th round is the difference between living and dying. Of course there are two ways to look at that 6th round.
Will it be the round that you need to save your life OR will it be the round that takes your life?

Good point and honestly there are some shooters, probably many in fact, who have no business carrying loaded firearms.

35W

[onelight]

To carry 5 or six in a traditional single action to my way of thinking is a choice based on the circumstances .
Not many today going to choose a SA for combat or LE duty . In the thousands of hours I have carried handguns in vehicles walking and riding motorcycles and ATVs working at construction hunting and hiking everything a person does on a daily basis for years . The biggest threats I have encountered are people driving into me in my truck , slipping on ice slipping in gravel and sliding down a steep bluff I once passed under a big cedar tree that had grown over a sidewalk and a cinder block fell out of it on my head knocked me cold. The point is accidents happen , I have had plenty that were my fault and plenty that weren't in my 67 years . Not to mention the number of defective or worn out and broken gun parts I have seen on both new and old guns . If I have a transfer bar or hammer block like a S&W I load six if it's a safety notch I will load 5 unless I know I am fixin to charge the enemy :) and I don't see that happening. The most likley threat to me is daily life , and it's distractions.
Not the same for someone that is a combat soldier or LE.
Fortunately we get to make our own choices at least in the civilian world.

[jrmartin1964]

In an appendix to the 1889 printing of Capt. S. E. Blunt's "Instructions in Rifle and Carbine Firing for the United States Army", entitled "Pistol Firing, Dismounted and Mounted", it is clearly stated that such practice was conducted with the revolver loaded with FIVE cartridges, repeatedly stating "five shots each", "fire five cartridges", "firing five shots", "one run, five shots", and "two runs, five shots".

Work on this publication was begun, under direction of the Chief of Ordnance as early as 1883, and was approved by Secretary of War, Robert T. Lincoln, Feb. 3, 1885. The 1889 revision is the third edition of Capt. Blunt's work, and was approved in Dec. of 1888. The 1885 edition does not mention the number of shots to be fired, and I do not currently have access to the second (1886) edition.

I'm not sure if this clears things up, or only further muddies the waters. But it appears that, by 1889, revolver practice... on foot and on horse... was conducted with five cartridges loaded.

Jim

[Petrol & Powder]

jrmartin1964 - Thank You for posting that research.

[jrmartin1964]

jrmartin1964 - Thank You for posting that research.

Petrol & Powder - Thank you, for inspiring me to dig a bit deeper. 👍

Jim

[Der Gebirgsjager]

That's really some good research, Jim. Could be that they'd decided 5 was a safe number, but could be that shooting groups of 5 is easier to score. 100 is divisible by 5, but not 6.

If your research should go back as far as when the 1860 C&B revolver was issued, I've wondered for a long time if the Army's drill and loading procedure involved anything other than powder, ball, and cap--- such as a wad or grease.

DG

[AZ Pete]

with C&B revolvers the hammer rests in a notch between nipples, for safe carry.

[Tar Heel]

The military services did not nor does not have troops walking or riding around with loaded firearms. When combat was imminent, firearms were then, and now, loaded. Therefore loading 6 was the norm when the fight was planned for the morn'. The gunny called out "lock and load" when inbound in a helo to the LZ. That is when we locked a magazine in place and chambered (loaded) the first round. We only carried loaded guns when a fight was in the air.

No self respecting cowboy carried an 1873 or any revolver for that matter in the way the Hollywood cowboys do. Most were cased. When called for by the potential bad hombres encountered on the trail, a cross-draw holster was the most efficient method of carry and in fact, most actual pictures of bronc busters shows this carry method. Were I to carry one mounted, for a potential confrontation with bandit's, I would load 5 and empty chamber the 6th. Since I have yet to run into any banditos on the range firing line, I load 6 when shooting my six guns. When I leave the range, it's unloaded. Odds are I won't be bushwhacked by desperadoes on the way home.

[Larry Gibson]

That's really some good research, Jim. Could be that they'd decided 5 was a safe number, but could be that shooting groups of 5 is easier to score. 100 is divisible by 5, but not 6.

If your research should go back as far as when the 1860 C&B revolver was issued, I've wondered for a long time if the Army's drill and loading procedure involved anything other than powder, ball, and cap--- such as a wad or grease.

DG

Most certainly the reason as the number of rounds to fire in any match, training or qualification course most often had little to do with the round capacity of the firearm but with the intent of the stage of fire. Note even todays military courses of fire with the handgun the stages and thus number of rounds loaded have little bearing on the 15+ magazine capacity of the handgun. Even back in 1911 with the M1911 the stages still used 5 rounds in the magazine. Same with rifle matches, training and qualification.....

[Larry Gibson]

"The military services did not nor does not have troops walking or riding around with loaded firearms. When combat was imminent, firearms were then, and now, loaded. Therefore loading 6 was the norm when the fight was planned for the morn'. The gunny called out "lock and load" when inbound in a helo to the LZ."

Perhaps the Marines didn't [as per the reference to "gunny"] didn't/doesn't but the Army does. Our rifles, MGs and handguns were always loaded when outside the wire or on guard duty in a hostile area whether walking or riding around. On aircraft that's why all muzzle were down. Was that way in Viet Nam, Republic of, and up through my tour in Iraq in '04-05 and all the other places I was deployed to in between.

[Tar Heel]

"The military services did not nor does not have troops walking or riding around with loaded firearms. When combat was imminent, firearms were then, and now, loaded. Therefore loading 6 was the norm when the fight was planned for the morn'. The gunny called out "lock and load" when inbound in a helo to the LZ."

Perhaps the Marines didn't [as per the reference to "gunny"] didn't/doesn't but the Army does. Our rifles, MGs and handguns were always loaded when outside the wire or on guard duty in a hostile area whether walking or riding around. On aircraft that's why all muzzle were down. Was that way in Viet Nam, Republic of, and up through my tour in Iraq in '04-05 and all the other places I was deployed to in between.

As were ours Larry. Last week at Fort Bragg, I didn't see too many troops running around with loaded guns. In fact, no guns were evident at all. Back at Camp Lejuene, our rifles were in the armory. When outside the wire, we were loaded to the teeth.

My point is that when no threat of combat is imminent, there is no need to load up or carry the firearms. Troops in the late 19th century did not go to church with loaded guns or ride around post with loaded guns. But you know that.

Back in the day we all had full magazines too. Not at all like your Army guys with your single bullet. :-)

[jj850]

I know it is standard practice to load Colts and clones with 5 rounds hammer resting on an empty chamber. My questions are

1. Was this the practice when the revolvers were in military use? And if so

2. Why would the government issue a weapon that was unsafe when fully loaded?

It seems that if the contracting agency i.e. the army told Colt " great pistol but fix it so our troopers don't get shot when something hits the hammer " Colt's response would have been "we are on it."

John Browning took several tries to get the 1911 the way the government wanted it. So what was the deal with the 1873?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk



Kind of makes you wonder how much has changed. Colt1873 (don't drop it) Sig Pxxx (don't drop it)