revolver safety thread brought this old question to mind...

I'm a mod, and I'm ugly...no, wait, we aren't talking about that....:o
:D

And I don't know about the fanny pack. Belly pack, maybe..cause if I'm gonna fall on my butt, the last thing I want is a pound plus chunk of steel to land on, especially if it might wind up in the small of my back. :eek:
 
When I was a LEO, I carried both my Model 19 and my plain clothes Model 36 in Bucheimer Federal Man holsters. Those were made for a high right carry and were a thumb break type with a large paddle that released automatically when the hand dropped onto the gun. I have never had any other holster that was as good for retention while being very fast for a draw.

I have tried others (and did so at the time) but the Federal Man was always my favorite. The original company is long out of business, but it is too bad no one has chosen to pick up that design.

Jim
 
Quote:
The idea of carrying on an empty chamber is a holdover from days when revolvers used hammer spurs to strike the primer directly. Those days are long past. Modern revolvers use a transfer bar. This transfer bar only comes up in line with the hammer with a trigger pull. At other times, it rests down away from the hammer. You can carry with a round in the chamber cylinder with complete confidence


I was at the LGS just last week and they had a couple brand new revolvers wih fireing pins on the hammers.
 
I was at the LGS just last week and they had a couple brand new revolvers wih fireing pins on the hammers.
Click to expand...

What manufacturer is doing that? I can't believe those would ever pass the CA and MA drop tests.
 
I can't believe those would ever pass the CA and MA drop tests.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about the MA standards, but I know a little bit about the CA drop test, and S&W (and many others) had their guns pass the tests, back when they still made them with the firing pin on the hammer.

There are several ways, other than a transfer bar system that a revolver can be "drop safe". It depends on the design of the lockwork. Those guns that used to be made with the firing pin on the hammer, and are now made with a frame mounted firing pin were not changed because of any safety concerns.

I believe there were changed because today, there is some manufacturing advantage to the change. I don't know what it might be, cost must have factored in somewhere, I'm sure. Reducing the need for repair/replacement of the firing pin (cost savings) might have been enough. I have no idea.
 
^^^ if I were going to venture a guess it would be MIM hammers & or differences in hardening between the firing pins & the hammers, & relation to where they fit, or difficulties getting the hammer machined for the angular / radiused travel of the pin to the primer, in comparison to with the standard frame mounted firing pin, the angle strike of the hammer is much easier to deal with... or a combination of all above ???
 
Having children, and having taught children how to leave guns alone, part of that was satisfying their curiosity. So, they were handed the empty gun, and allowed to check it out.
As for the semiautomatic, they tried everything so a safety would be found and deactivated. The trigger was pulled multiple times.
The point is that on a revolver, and empty chamber won't do any good.
You're back to method of carry. You may not want the serpa holster. Sometimes debris can get caught in the button and lock it up, you cannot get the gun out. From your activities list, you may want to see if you can find a small flap holster. They aren't real fast, but not much slower than a strap retention holster, and definitely better protection for the gun. Even if you have to have it custom made, is $80 or so spent to keep a quality firearm safe and yours too much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top