Is it ok to load all chambers in a Revolver?

[coldestcanuck]

S&W use a hammer block system. There is a block in the mechanism that will not allow the pointed hammer to protrude thru the frame unless the trigger is pulled. It's a very positive system. the hammer doesn't lock, it is blocked.

Not only. I mean, Smith & Wesson's revolvers had a hammer-mounted firing pin until the 1990s, just for example. Nice pointy thing on the hammer, hole in the frame it goes through, big soft primer on the other side. Sure the hammer has a lock in the rest position, but parts can wear, and accidents sometimes happen to apply much more force to the hammer than anticipated.

You should NOT leave the hammer down on a chambered Tokarev pistol, because it moves freely in the down position, and the firing pin is long enough to contact the primer. Use the half-#### safety notch, or carry it un-chambered.

 

[silverfoxdj]

It's actually better to load all chambers. That is a Rimfire .22LR
You don't want to load it cowboy style, five rounds and an empty
chamber under the hammer, in case your horse's trot or canter
is too abrupt. Because if you load five and do not start at the correct
chamber or count up to five shots fired, your 6th trigger pull will have
the hammer's striking pin hit an empty chamber's rim and, with time,
will do damage to the gun.

Good point..

 

[red_bailey]

S&W use a hammer block system. There is a block in the mechanism that will not allow the pointed hammer to protrude thru the frame unless the trigger is pulled. It's a very positive system. the hammer doesn't lock, it is blocked.

Oh, I'm not worried about it at all, I know the hammer block is in there. I was just pointing out the common mis-conceptions that revolver safeties are relatively new, and that designs such as pointy hammers are long obsolete. Still won't ‘hammer the hammer’ like Iver Johnson suggests; parts can wear or break, sometimes forces can be much higher than designed for, and you should never *rely* on any safety mechanism.

And which S&W? They didn't use the hammer block safety until WWII.

 

[dan belisle]

Nope. The original Colt SAA and some clones allowed the hammer to reside through the frame. If the gun fell inertia could drive the cartridge back against the firing pin. My El Patron has a safety notch about a quarter inch off the frame where I can rest the hammer as a safety precaution. If I don`t use it and rest the hammer against the frame I could experience a round going off if the gun were to fall as the firing pin extends past the frame and rests on the cartridge primer. This is the reason Ruger went with the transfer bar system. S&W DA revolvers with the firing pin on the hammer use a different system where the hammer at rest is not fully down and the firing pin does not extend past the frame. If the gun was dropped and the hammer hooks broke you can get an AD.

With SAA guns you still see lots of folks loads one, skip one as a method of loading five rounds in their guns.

Take Care

Bob

Neither of my Colt SAA's have a firing pin that protrudes through the frame at rest. They are capable of being forced there, however, either by the mainspring or an external force. - dan

 

[Canuck44]

Dan what generation are the Colts? My El Patron when the hammer is at rest against the frame has the firing pin extended past the frame and virtually touching the cartridge primer. The gun is equipped with a safety catch that you can set the hammer on. This holds the hammer back about 1/4" off the frame and as a result the pin does not get exposed. This is not the half notch that releases cylinder for reloading. I believe the El Patrone is patterned off the 1st Gen SAA Colt but I could be wrong. My gun would not be carried by any one with six rounds in it if the safety notch was not there. Dropping the gun from any height were the revolver landed in such a way as to have the cartridge slam against the firing pin would cause an AD.

Take Care

Bob

 

[dan belisle]

Both are second gen SAA's . - dan