Lever action cross bolt safeties

D

deanf

New member
Based on a few posts I've read, they are ill regarded here. No one really says why.

What's wrong with them? I know all the business about "the only real safety is the one between your ears" and all that. What's mechanically wrong with them? Was there no safety on lever guns way back in the olden days?:p

I've no agenda with this question. I only have experience with the cross-bolt on my Marlin 1894S. I'm just curious.
 
"Was there no safety on lever guns way back in the olden days?"

Well, there was the half-cock notch, of course. On the 94, a little pin protruded through the bottom of the receiver; the lever had to be "squoze tight" to push this pin up to unblock the trigger.

Art
 
My 1894S has the half-cock. No squozing required.

I guess I've never really figured out what it's for. To keep the hammer away from the firing pin, so as to avoid a discharge after an accidental blow to the hammer?

The few times I've carried the piece with a round in the chamber, it's been with the hammer all the way back, and the cross-bolt safety on.
 
Deanf,
The cross bolt safety is a legal liability solution to a non-existent problem. They add needless complexity to a simple action. If you want to defeat it, put a 1/4" O-ring on it in the "off" position. That way you won't accidentally knock it on safe.
 
Deanf,

If you want to disable the crossbolt safety as Yanus suggested, be sure afterwards that if you carry it with a round in the chamber you do it on half-cock.
 
I can see that the cross-bolt safeties might be aesthetically unpleasant, but has anyone really ever knocked one off safe? The one on my 1895SS is pretty darn stiff.

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, and I recognize that no one actually has said that they come off "SAFE" easily. My personal feeling (in response to deanf's original question) is that folks just don't like A) the way they look, and B) the implicit assumption by the liability lawyers that we consumers are so irresponsible that we all need to have dribble bibs knotted around their necks and secondary and tertiary safeties on guns that were perfectly fine without them.

Personally, I don't mind it being there (doesn't really get in the way), but I sure don't think anyone's out of line for feeling insulted or aesthetically annoyed.
 
I actually mentioned this in a different post on SmartGuns.

The stated problem people have with it is that it's ugly and it can be accidentally activated. The former I agree with, the latter I don't. Every one I've handled has been so stiff that the odds of it getting accidentally activated are beyond slim. I think the real reason people don't like them is that it feels more like a negative move in response to anti-gunners (ie a concession) than a positive move for firearms design.

Taking two steps back, what's wrong with an extra safety device? If you don't want to use it, don't. But it's there if you want it. If some USRAC design engineer forty years ago (in less litigous times) had said "ya know, why don't we just throw a cross bolt safety in the receiver in case someone wants to use it" he probably would have been considered a pretty smart guy for giving us an extra option for safety. But since it was obviously introduced in response to liability concerns we rebel against it. Sometimes good results come from bad beginnings. Just my thoughts...
 
I've got a totally different take on the cross bolt safety. It has very little to do with looks. IT IS A GET KILLED SWITCH!!! The main advantage to a lever action is ease of carry. The perfered way to carry one is in condition 3. That means on an empty chamber. When you need to shoot while pulling up to the shoulder chambering the rifle all in one motion is the perfered method. If the rifle is being carried in big thick bear country or following a wounded Lion, Grizz, Buffalo, you name it, in close cover then the rifle should be chambered and the hammer set back half or quater cock (also known as saftey on). Any big bore lever gun that is modified for use on dangerous game has the cross block saftey removed post haste. Murphy's law dictates that if one needs the rifle fast and a cross block saftey is installed sure enough it'll be on and the shooter will get tasted, mauled, ground up, stomped, or generally molested in some way. The cross block safety was designed for sunday afternoon tourist shooters at the direction of some industry lawyer to make lever actions a little more liability proof in a court of law. they do not however belong on the rifle of a serious hunter/ shooter.
 
The cross bolt safety was put on because the half cock on lever action rifles has the same potential problem as that on single action revolvers and 1911 type pistols. If the rifle is dropped or struck in such a manner as to impact the hammer hard enough, the thin sear that is holding the half cock will fail and allow the hammer to go forward and fire the gun.

Is this a "lawyer" answer to a non-existent problem? Probably, or at least a very infrequent problem.

Anyone choosing to remove or disable the safety can do so, but should at least understand why it is there.

Jim
 
Safty problems

I don't know about the marlin version but the winchester definately does put itsself ON when you least expect it. I can's count the times i dropped rounds in a CAS amtch becouse the damned thing pushed itself on while at the table. The marlkins may be a bit harder to appily thus not as easily engaged unknowing. But the Winchester is a accident waiting to happen. If I ever hunt with it that safty WILL be disabled.
I am not the only one this has happened to and I have seen it on others marlins (especially the marlin "cowboy" models.)
 
Level of training makes a BIG difference, too. I have a Marlin 336 and was still hunting for deer in thick eastern woods several years ago. Came upon three of them, big does, at about 20 yards. Brought the rifle to my shoulder and squeezed the trigger... CLICK!! I had forgotten to punch off the safety. I had been carrying the rifle with a round chambered, safety on, trigger at half cock. Needless to say, the deer went bounding off and I felt about 10 shades of stupid.

In hindsight my method of carry did not fit the conditions of the hunt and the level of training I had achieved with the rifle. I had not trained myself to offsafe and go to full cock in one fluid motion.

When next I still hunt, I will carry in condition 3 and chamber a round as i bring the rifle to my shoulder, just as H&H,hunter described. Personally, I believe this is much easier than remembering to offsafe and go to full cock while shouldering a rifle. I will have the rifle in condition 3 and safety off, and hope that the safety does not get activated as I work my way through the woods.

Just my 2 cents...
 
As usual, Jim Keenan is right on the money. Cross bolt safetys are definitely lawyer inspired. A product is considered defective in design if there is a safety measure which could have been included but wasn't. :mad: Hence, the prudent manufacturer would follow their counsel advice to incorporate it into the design.

I own several Marlins and a Winchester and got them all used. I cringe at the thought of the newer cross bolt safety.
 
I am confused. When the hammer is down on my 1894P, you can't operate the safety. It is a brand new rifle. Has something changed?

Dave
 
Dave,
The cross block safety on your new 1894 is made to keep the hammer from making contact with the firing pin. It will not engage with the hammer down, you must first pull the hammer back and then you can engage the safety. I hope that helps your confusion.
 
Thanks H&H. So, if I understand things right, the half cock is good because the hammer does not rest on the firing pin. However, it is bad because the safety can accidentally go on. On the other hand, you can carry the gun with a round in the chamber and the hammer all the way down. The safety then will not accidentally go on. However, the gun could go off if jarred.

Does that sum it up?
 
If some USRAC design engineer forty years ago (in less litigous times) had said "ya know, why don't we just throw a cross bolt safety in the receiver in case someone wants to use it" he probably would have been considered a pretty smart guy for giving us an extra option for safety.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can agree with that. I tend to think that if the "Putz button" had been indroduced 40 years ago, it would have been removed 39 years ago because nobody would have bought the ugly things.




Pretty poor design IMNSHO. The only way to engage them is to fiddle around with a loaded rifle with it's hammer fully cocked. For a left handed shooter, using one is akward at best, just plain dangerous at worst. That plus it just makes a hideous crater marked surface out of the beautiful flat reciever on a '94. Both my Trapper Winchester's have em, but thankfully my wife's 9422 Trapper and my Marlin Cowboy II don't.
 
Dave,
You've pretty well got the idea. a lever action should NEVER be carried with a round chambered and the hammer down. If you do that some day you will get an accidental discharge. The cross block safety can be engaged after the hammer is cocked to keep the rifle from firing. The cross block safety just started to be installed on lever actions in the last few years due to liability concerns. All lever actions that I know of still have a half or quarter cock safety built into them as well (thats the original safety system). I won't own a lever action with a cross block safety for the above mentioned reasons and my 1895G has had it removed. If you look at any of the custom big bore lever guns that are starting to see use in Africa or Alaska for dangerous game you will notice that the cross block safety is removed as well.
As before mentioned the best way to carry a lever gun is with the chamber empty when you need it lever in a shell on the way up to your shoulder.
 
Problem with cross bolt safeties on a lever: You don't operate 'em.....Mr. Murphy does.

Ashley refers to this feature as a "Get Killed Switch". Having done some work with a lever action over the past months, I heartily agree. Give me a modern hammer safety and a half cock position. If I fail to cock on the way to the shoulder, shame on me....I deserve to be dinner!
Rich
 
I consider myself lucky in that I bought my Winchester Trapper(.45 Colt) before the safety was included, what an ugly piece of crap to hang on a rifle.

Now the reason I'm posting is that "somewhere" on the net I've seen a safety eliminator kit(Maybe at Sixguns .com?) that ensures that the safety is never on when it should be off. It also is supposed to look a little better than having the safety in place. I've seen no pictures or anything just read about it, if you really hate the way yours looks you might want to check around and see if you can locate the manufactuer.

Don in Ohio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top