Questions regarding Colt's design choices for SAA

This is not a ".44 vs .45" query.

In the era of percussion cap lock revolvers, Remington's 1858/63 series of 44s (nominal .454-inch) had an effective method of allowing the hammer to rest between chambers and caps. Colt's method to achieve a safe hammer position worked but was much less durable. When Colt created its Single Action Army series, it chose such an inefficient method to allow the hammer to rest safely that the "safe" method became hammer down on empty chamber - in effect, creating a five-shot revolver.

At last to the question. Had Colt incorporated any effective safe hammer position - safety device - with a five-shot chamber, would any sort of powerful 44 (nominal .429-inch) revolver cartridge have had sufficient popularity to survive? I specifically include Winchester's 44-40. And what might have been history had such a safety device been incorporated within Colt's six-shot cylinder configuration?
***
I ask these questions because Freedom Arms' Model 97 is a slightly more petite version of the Single Action Army with five-shot cylinder and safety device that achieves the safe hammer rest with more sophisticated method/lock work than is necessary. The result of such configuration allows this revolver to use safely smokeless powder loads that are unsafe in Single Action Armys. . . . Perhaps part of an answer might be that black powder allowed safe use of six-shot cylinder's chamber wall thickness? But that does not really address the hammer safe position issue.

ALL of Freedoms instructions say to leave an empty chamber under the hammer. The hammer block or transfer bar system is not to be trusted.
Only the Ruger single actions and the BFR's are to be trusted with all chambers loaded. Double actions are different, not included here.
Yes, the hammer rest between chambers worked just fine and I do not know why it went away. Even the Ruger Old Army has it.
Freedom chose to go with a super complicated machining process to bypass the Ruger patient and it is not safe.
Be aware that a Freedom or the center hammer rest can fire if the hammer is snagged enough to rotate the cylinder and the hammer falls. The Ruger system MUST have the trigger pulled.
I had a Freedom 97 here that had a part wear in a few hundred shots so that I could push the hammer with my thumb and it pushed the firing pin forward.

Interesting query, Naphtali.

My own rather cynical opinion of the issue is that Colt had a pretty firm grip on revolver market share at the time of the SAA's development, and didn't see a critical need to refine their mechanism past the antecedant caplock models. Smith & Wesson had their top-break 44 and 45 caliber variants on line by the 1880s, and in some ways these were a superior design for pistol fighting. But the 45 Colt and 44-40 caliber in the SAAs were significantly more powerful than any of the calibers S&W was chambering. Basically, I believe Colt just rested on their laurels, and didn't see a real need to up the ante. The company continued to do so into the 20th Century in several respects, until S&W caught up and overtook them and Ruger stepped on their throats. S&W's simpler and more durable D/A lockwork, plus Ruger's burly construction largely beat down Colt. Add on the transfer bar safety in the Blackhawk series........poor Colt!

To some degree, Colt seems to have re-invented themselves of late. I recently fondled a new-series blue steel Commander at a local shop, and that critter was VERY well-made. Their SAA variants are expensive, but put up in the original calibers--a good thing indeed. Their AR-15s are EXCELLENT. So, the company isn't building a whole lot of things, but seem to be getting right the things they are taking on. Ya get yer butt kicked hard enough and often enough, maybe you'll absorb the lessons the market offers ya.

Solamente mi dos centavos, amigos.

I always wondered why market forces did not push some sort of development of a maens to cayy a fully loaded SAA. Heck they had them on the cap and ball models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naphtali

In the era of percussion cap lock revolvers, Remington's 1858/63 series of 44s (nominal .454-inch) had an effective method of allowing the hammer to rest between chambers and caps. Colt's method to achieve a safe hammer position worked but was much less durable.

---

It wasn't just Remington. I have an 1883 S&W double-action revolver in .38 S&W (short) caliber. It also has the indentations on the back face of the cylinder between the cartridge rims. The firing pin on the hammer rests easily in that indentation. Pulling the hammer back or pulling the trigger back will rotate it to the next primer. Simple, effective.

Me and a friend were just talking about Colts. I started the conversation with I think the Colt New Frontier is a much MUCH more handsome revolver then the Ruger Blawkhawk could ever be. I said with a change of metal, tweak the frame a little, that Colt could have taken the marker with a 44 magnum chambering. All steel revolver, no crummy aluminum grip frame or ejector housing....a far nicer revolver.

Now as to the safety notch on the hammer I always thought that was put there if your thumb slipped to catch the hammer before striking the primer. I've been told it was never a safety to carry the gun on. Same thing on the lever actions of that period.

Another thing about safeties. He11, back in those days you stood a good chance of your horse killing you.

Colts percussion system with it's small pins on the cylinders rear was not safe. Wear and tear rounded off the pins which wern't large to begin with and the cylinder could be rotated under the hammer. The Remington system with deep generous notches between chambers was a far superior system. I suspect that with the coming of the cartridge (and wide cartridge rims) era space became a permium on these guns and a safety system simply hadn't been thought of yet. The transfer bar pretty much makes the issue moot. The first to utilise that system (I believe) was the Charter Arms revolver way back in the sixties. Of course it's used in some form or another by many today, even the Colt Cowboy used it.

Colt himself was a prominent innovator. We have to remember that his pistols were the FIRST commonly available, "popularly" priced repeating firearms in history, meaning accessible to the general public. The guns underwent a great deal of tweaking in the percussion years, and a lot of the tweaking was done as a result of feedback from the users. The number of models between 1836 and 1873 illustrates this.

The users themselves created methods of using the guns safely and efficiently. Most notable among the user creations was the practice of carrying the hammer down on an empty chamber, which THEN became the recommended way to carry safely. I'm sure there were plenty of un-intentional discharges when carrying "six beans in the wheel". Saint Elmer referred frequently to ADs with fully-loaded Colt single-actions which resulted from stirrups slipping off saddle horns when rigging a horse. The stirrup would strike the hammer spur, and.....

Colt as a company suffered (and suffers) from long periods of inertia. Ruger updated the single-action in strength, power and affordability, but still retained the old ignition system which is unsafe with six rounds loaded. An expensive legal problem resulted in Ruger's current transfer-bar mechanism, which is safe with six in the gun.

I certainly agree with Joe about the "safety notch". A fully-loaded old-style revolver which falls and lands on the hammer spur is VERY likely to shear the notch or trigger tip and fire the round under the hammer. As to the relative looks of the New Frontier vs. Ruger..... my jury is still out, or maybe hung. It's certainly slicker in appearance in some ways. One more example of Colt sleeping at the switch. They could have done SO much better, in so many ways.

I've never owned a Single Action Army, although I did once have a Frontier Scout .22 (which fired in the holster one day). The high cost and ancient chamberings of the SAA caused me to buy Rugers, the first being a standard Blackhawk 7.5" .44 Magnum. Whatever shortcomings that design may have had, and they were NOT important to me, they were corrected in the Super version. I still cherish my Old Model Super after forty years!

From personal experience with the .44 using cast bullets on big game, I simply don't need any more "power". Full penetration is routine with 250-grain-plus cast bullets, even on moose and bison. If I wanted to use jacketed bullets for such critters, I MIGHT consider one of the newer cartridges, but I honestly don't think so.

This is a nice looking revolver. Also look at the close up of the frame and tell me if it was made of the same steel as Ruger that it would hold up like a Ruger. Ruger done an awful lot of copying.
http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/im...10ec810890.jpghttp://www.collectorsfirearms.com/im...67f8e90ef2.jpghttp://www.collectorsfirearms.com/im...47146729d5.jpghttp://www.collectorsfirearms.com/im...0084baa5be.jpg

Trouble is that Ruger showed Colt at least 7 years prior that an adjustable sighted single action had a huge following. Going back to the original thread. The Colt safety notch on the hammer was new on the 1873 model and in theory, should have been better. Trouble was that in practice or "the field" its shortcommings were soon noticed. Colt probably never changed it system back then as word of mouth of the 5 shot carry, less lawyers and newer positive lock actions on the New Service, police positive and official police revolvers were coming of age. People are funny, the buyer still wanted to hear 4 distinct clicks when cocking a single action Colt. People still will pay more for a pre-1973 Ruger that is un-altered also and live with the resting under an empty chamber situation. Colt's low priced cowboy model from 1999 to 2003 had the Ruger designed transfer bar and 3 clicks but evidently didn't sell well enough or profits were too small to warrant continued production. No doubt today, that the 1873 single action made by Colt is a grandfathered design and its future rests on the fact the buyer will read the manual and/or will have heard to only load 5 for carry.

Welcome, one and all, to Joe's Gun Porn & Boolit Emporium. Hijo, la!--that's a handsome roller.

Al you made me spray my coffee all over the monitor!!!! As my friend in Tulsa would say "That's a New Orleans *****'s gun". Funny he has a nickel plated 2nd generation SAA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smkummer

Trouble is that Ruger showed Colt at least 7 years prior that an adjustable sighted single action had a huge following. Going back to the original thread. The Colt safety notch on the hammer was new on the 1873 model and in theory, should have been better. Trouble was that in practice or "the field" its shortcommings were soon noticed. Colt probably never changed it system back then as word of mouth of the 5 shot carry, less lawyers and newer positive lock actions on the New Service, police positive and official police revolvers were coming of age. People are funny, the buyer still wanted to hear 4 distinct clicks when cocking a single action Colt. People still will pay more for a pre-1973 Ruger that is un-altered also and live with the resting under an empty chamber situation. Colt's low priced cowboy model from 1999 to 2003 had the Ruger designed transfer bar and 3 clicks but evidently didn't sell well enough or profits were too small to warrant continued production. No doubt today, that the 1873 single action made by Colt is a grandfathered design and its future rests on the fact the buyer will read the manual and/or will have heard to only load 5 for carry.

---

The problem with the Cowboy Model Colt was that it wasn't a Colt. By that I mean it wasn't the old true Colt. It may have looked like one but it was internally different.

Now as to the safety or lack there of. Back in those "old" days, before cars, people were more active and they rode horses. There's part of the big problem...horses. Getting on your horse pistol falls out of the holster, boom. Riding the horse and a tree branch partly thumbs the hammer back, boom. The stirrup thing was already mentioned, boom. Today we would still have dropping the gun. Colt had target sights way back, before Ruger ever dreamed of making a firearm. Smith had them for quite some time too. So don't say adjustable sights weren't accepted. Colt just missed the boat and laid on their laurels with what they had, which by the way was made on ancient machinery. If you think about Ruger stole and improved upon most the things Colt invented on the single action...Bisley grip, the hammer on the Bisley, adjustable sights. Ruger to me was a copy cat. Don't get me wrong I love some of his guns. A true designer was Browning, Colt was in a way too.

I think that people miss some of the point of the half cock.

It allows for easier timing and to tighter tolerances so that you don't get a notch burr or a drag line on the cylinder. I think Power Custom sells a half cock adaption for Rugers if you ever want to tighten one up. But there is no point to the conversion without it. Coarse that is a hole separate argument too.

I have a line bore Ruger built with a half cock function.

Look at any Ruger that is used in SASS and you will see the drag line. You will also see the Ruger owners who go on so much about how great the gun is sending them all the country having them converted to be like a Colt. There is no doubt that Rugers are strong made guns. I attented the LEO school they have but why do you think they made them smaller like the real Colts and USFA's. They are very good at being copy cats. I hade a 1841 31 cal. pocket Colt. The safety notch on the cylinder worked quite well and never caused a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bass Ackward

I think that people miss some of the point of the half cock.

It allows for easier timing and to tighter tolerances so that you don't get a notch burr or a drag line on the cylinder. I think Power Custom sells a half cock adaption for Rugers if you ever want to tighten one up. But there is no point to the conversion without it. Coarse that is a hole separate argument too.

I have a line bore Ruger built with a half cock function.

---

John,

You made the post so now explain in detail how the half cock makes for a tighter gun and easier timing??? :coffee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarMetal

John,

You made the post so now explain in detail how the half cock makes for a tighter gun and easier timing??? :coffee:

---

Do I have to know everything? I don't know. That's why I had it built instead of doing it myself.

Jim Stroh called me and asked if he could put in the half cock and that was the reasons that he listed. My lock up has no movement tight, no end play, and no drag line after 15 years.

Works, so I thought it worth reporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bass Ackward

Do I have to know everything? I don't know. That's why I had it built instead of doing it myself.

Jim Stroh called me and asked if he could put in the half cock and that was the reasons that he listed. My lock up has no movement tight, no end play, and no drag line after 15 years.

Works, so I thought it worth reporting.

---

Well dag nab it. I want to know John [smilie=b: and here I thought you did. Gosh