S&W model 3/schofield with transfer bar?

Uh, the OP mentioned the Ruger transfer bar. :confused:

(like the new vaquero when compared to the colt saa)?

I didn't make a general statement about hammer blocks. My comments about the hammer block are in regards to the Schofield replicas. I didn't know I had to specify that my comments were specific to the Schofield in a thread asking about Schofields. You guys are the ones confusing the matter with irrelevant talk about S&W DA's. Like I've said several times now, on the Uberti Schofields and Russians, when the hammer is all the way down, the firing pin will contact the primer and it WILL discharge if dropped on the hammer. The hammer block is only there to prevent discharge if a cocked Schofield is dropped. It ain't for carrying it six up.

Newsflash, it's 2013 and people still actually USE designs from the 19th century. I just finished making a new holster for my Schofield. For what? For carrying it loaded. Won't do me much good if it ain't loaded. I shouldn't have to explain that A LOT of people use Colt SAA's (and replicas), leverguns and even muzzleloaders (gasp!) and carry them loaded. I haven't hunted with a cartridge gun in five years.

If you're suggesting that carrying a Schofield replica with a fully loaded cylinder due to a cheesy safety mechanism like Uberti's hammer doohickey, you're the only one. :rolleyes:

IMHO, there's been a whole lot of unnecessary noise in this thread.
 
Last edited:
newfrontier45 said:
I'm all about proper terminology but I think we all know that we're referring to replicas.
No, we don't all know that. I'm not trying to be perverse, I just happen to be a technical writer and literal-minded, so when someone asks about "S&W Model 3" I assume he's asking about a S&W Model 3. If he wants to ask about reproductions of the S&W Model 3 made by other companies, he should ask about reproductions of the S&W Model 3 made by other companies.
 
Do any companies make a S&W model 3...?
You're a "technical writer and literal-minded" and you can't infer from the original question that he's asking about companies other than S&W currently making (not "made", which would be past tense) them???

My God guys, you sure can take a very simple question with a very simple answer and WAAAAAAY over-complicate it. :confused::confused::confused:
 
No, we don't all know that. I'm not trying to be perverse, I just happen to be a technical writer and literal-minded, so when someone asks about "S&W Model 3" I assume he's asking about a S&W Model 3. If he wants to ask about reproductions of the S&W Model 3 made by other companies, he should ask about reproductions of the S&W Model 3 made by other companies.

In post number 7 on this thread I admitted my mistake, clarified my purpose and apologized for the confusion. As a tech writer do you go back to colleagues who make mistakes after they have corrected themselves just to stick it to them some more? I'm guessing not unless you pride yourself in being unprofessional.
 
BigMikje349 said:
In post number 7 on this thread I admitted my mistake, clarified my purpose and apologized for the confusion. As a tech writer do you go back to colleagues who make mistakes after they have corrected themselves just to stick it to them some more? I'm guessing not unless you pride yourself in being unprofessional.
I was not correcting you, I was responding to the gentleman who unilaterally proclaimed that we all knew what your original post was asking. I simply pointed out that he should not presume to speak for everyone, since he is "he," not "all of us."
 
Back
Top