My Experiment.....

B

Bob Wright

New member
I sure don't want to make anybody mad, but I performed this experiment just to satisfy my on mind on the subject of carrying six rounds in a single action revolver.

I loaded six rounds of empty cases into my Ruger Blackhawk (Three Screw) .44 Special and my Uberti Flat Top Target in .45 Colt. My cases were once fired Mag-Tech .44 Special, and Starline .45 Colt.

I loaded the revolvers then lowered the hammer so the firing pin was indexed between cartridge rims. My first objection to this becomes apparent, the cylinder locking bolt is pressed, under spring pressure, against the side of the cylinder. This itself sort of set my teeth on edge.

Using my thumb and fingers, I applied pressure trying to rotate the cylinder. Using considerable force, I was unable to rotate the Ruger's cylinder. I was satisfied that this could be considered a safe carry.

The Uberti was a different story, however. Only slight pressure was applied and the cylinder clicked into battery position, resting over what would have been a live primer. Definitely unsafe with this revolver.

The difference becomes clear when the guns actions are considered. The Ruger has a coil mainspring, the Uberti a flat mainspring. The coil mainspring exerts even pressure when the hammer is at rest. The flat mainspring is "relaxed" and places little tension on the hammer at rest, so that the rotation attempt lets the cartridge rim push against the firing pin and cam the hammer back slightly, enough to complete rotation.

As was displayed previously, a Colt with additional slots in the cylinder would probably lock the cylinder in place.

Mainspring tensions may vary, this was only two revolvers and one batch of cartridge cases.

My conclusion: I'll continue with the empty chamber under the hammer.

Bob Wright
 
It's a valid test, but also consider that on the three-screw Ruger, only a very slight backwards pressure on the hammer would allow the cylinder to rotate.

I carry my NewVaq357 daily in a high-ride crossdraw rig. It would be perfectly possible for my left sleeve to catch on the hammer and move it a bit. Not a full cocking stroke mind you, but enough to shift the hammer - and move the gun itself enough to roll around the cylinder.

Add a bit of cylinder rotation to a bit of hammer travel and you're set up for a boom.
 
Well, if you need more than 5 rounds you could always carry two guns. It's claimed that when Jesse James went to pull a Robbery he'd carry as many as 9 revolvers, some on him and the rest on his horse.
 
It is probably not a good idea to carry the .45 SAA or an exact clone that way, because there is not enough room between cartridge rims for the firing pin to rest full down. With other cartridges, like .44-40, it is more feasible.

Today with legions of lawyers swarming through the streets seeking whom they may devour, the hammer down on an empty chamber is best. But in the old days the firing pin between cartridge rims was a reasonably safe way of carrying a fully loaded revolver. (The "$20 in a chamber" and other such nonsense were inventions of Colt's lawyers to try to convince Colt customers to keep their toes and to keep Colt unsued.)

Jim
 
Jim, how would you have a "boom"? On all "New Model" Ruger single actions, you have to pull the trigger to raise the transfer bar into position for the hammer to hit the fireing pin.
 
My conclusion: I'll continue with the empty chamber under the hammer.
Click to expand...
This begs the question: For what purpose? Carrying for hunting, or do you actually carry a single-action for self-defense? If you are at the range for shooting, I do not see how loading six instead of five would be a problem.

According to Elmer Keith, the big problem with Colts was that the cowboys would hook their stirrup on the saddle horn when tightening the girth, when they pulled up, the stirrup would be jostled off the horn and drop on top of the Colt's hammer, igniting the primer. I do not know what saddle and stirrups Kieth used but all the times I pulled up on the strap to tighten the girth, my stirrup never came off the saddle horn. Keith was so short, I doubt if a saddle stirup could have ever hit his Colt hammer anyway.
 
This begs the question: For what purpose? Carrying for hunting, or do you actually carry a single-action for self-defense? If you are at the range for shooting, I do not see how loading six instead of five would be a problem.
Click to expand...

I carry a Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special, an old Three-Screw Model, every day, thus:

100_0172.jpg


As to hunting, I don't hunt so much anymore, but did practice the same type of carry during deer season with my Super Blackhawk, also a three-screw.

As to the range, habits instilled long ago of five shot strings still abide with me. Strings of five, or ten shots, are easier to score, and cartridges blocks in the boxes are five across, so it keeps the box neater.

And, that's just the way I do it!

Bob Wright
 
As to stirrps slipping off the saddle horn, not all saddle horns are made for roping, and some are very slight projections, and the wide wooden stirrups will slip off without much jostling.

Bob Wright
 
I
carry a Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special, an old Three-Screw Model, every day,
Click to expand...
I had a .44 Mag. Ruger, 3-Screw, 5-inch barrel, Flat Top that burned in a fire. Wonderful gun...I have never forgiven Ruger for going to the transfer-bar and pins; the three-screws were the best. But, I do not remember any .44 Specials being made in that era. Do you mean that you shoot it as a .44 Special but it is acutally a magnum? Or is it a custom gun, or there were .44 Specials being put out by Ruger then?
 
But, I do not remember any .44 Specials being made in that era. Do you mean that you shoot it as a .44 Special but it is acutally a magnum? Or is it a custom gun, or there were .44 Specials being put out by Ruger then?

dahermit
Click to expand...

Forgive me for not explaining better. My .44 Special is an old Three-Screw .357 Magnum Blackhawk converted by Dave Clements to a .44 Special.

Bob Wright
 
This also raises another question: given the problem being discussed, did anyone ever just make a SA revolver with only 5 loadable chambers? That is, with the space for the 6th chamber simply left unbored in the cylinder. I can't recall ever seeing such a critter, but my experience with SA's is limited.
 
There have been a couple true dedicated 5 shooters, but they were oriented with the chambers evenly spaced. It gives more metal around the chambers for heavy loads. Freedom Arms 454's are made that way. I've also heard they recommend only loading 4 rounds.

Wouldn't be much reason to leave a blank chamber on a six round layout. If one wanted/needed that last round, I'd sure want it available, even if I didnt carry it fully loaded at all times.

I have tried the firing pin between the rims on a couple Colts. I had the cylinder turn when carrying them on several occasions before I gave it up. This was with a 44 spl and a 45 Colt in Colt Single Actions. The holster was a half flap type that covered the hammer well, and fairly snugly.

The 44-40 has the same size rim as a 45, or very close to it. I don't believe there's any real improvement in that regard. It may work out with a 38/357, but the 44 spl didn't work well for me.
 
This also raises another question: given the problem being discussed, did anyone ever just make a SA revolver with only 5 loadable chambers? That is, with the space for the 6th chamber simply left unbored in the cylinder. I can't recall ever seeing such a critter, but my experience with SA's is limited.
Click to expand...

Not in historical times. Recently though some of the cartridge conversion cylinders for reproduction percussion guns like the 1858 Remmington clones are set up that way. Kurst Konversion cylinders I *think*, might have been R&D?

But it's not a period-correct modification.
 
Kirst has their .45 Colt cylinders set up for five shots and a blank space but I think that's because the .44 cylinders aren't quite big enough for six .45 chambers. Their .38 conversions are six shot. R&D(Howell)got around the five shot deal by boring the chambers at a slight angle. Original Remington conversions were also five shot but were .46 caliber.
 
I think thickice's question has been answered.

Regardless, folks in the old days really did carry single actions that way, with the firing pin down between rounds. While I have no problem with urging SA owners today to load only five rounds, the old timers would be darned reluctant to sacrifice a round they might need because of safety concerns they didn't have and would not have cared about. And I am pretty sure they didn't give an hoot in hell about what folks in 2012 were going to think about it.

Jim
 
Regardless, folks in the old days really did carry single actions that way, with the firing pin down between rounds. While I have no problem with urging SA owners today to load only five rounds, the old timers would be darned reluctant to sacrifice a round they might need because of safety concerns they didn't have and would not have cared about. And I am pretty sure they didn't give an hoot in hell about what folks in 2012 were going to think about it.
Click to expand...

I's be glad to read the historical accounts of people carrying that way. I've read a fair bit, but haven't seen it. I'm not aying it never happened, but from what I've read, I'd guess it was pretty rare. Again, I'd be glad to see the historical reference, if there is any.

Most of the rest of the post is speculation. And it certainly wasn't anything to do with Colts lawyers regarding people carrying 5 rounds in their guns. If I'm mistaken, I'd be glad to see references to that was well. They'd have to go an awful long ways back to account for the habit of carrying 5 rounds. It certainly wasn't universal, but I beleive more common than not. Some found out it can be a hazard carrying 6. To say nobody cared about a hazard is pretty silly, especially when its simply a guess and speculation.

I don't have as much issue with the difference of opinion as I do some of the statements made about it.
 
load 5 leave one empty

As long as you've brought up kirst and R&D converters I really want one for my 1858 Remy .44 . any one have one in 45ACP or 45 LC they'd like to hook me up. I'm already loading for the 45ACP . I have a 1858 old army .44 made by Pietta. Come on guys some one has to have one they can sell me. I want to start having some fun with an old time wheel gun.
 
Quincunx said:
This also raises another question: given the problem being discussed, did anyone ever just make a SA revolver with only 5 loadable chambers? That is, with the space for the 6th chamber simply left unbored in the cylinder. I can't recall ever seeing such a critter, but my experience with SA's is limited.
Click to expand...

That would sure be a game changer in Russian Roulette. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top