Why don't revolvers have safeties?
- Thread starter Pond James Pond
- Start date
There are safeties, and then there are safeties. Passive safeties are all those mechanical things that keep the gun from firing unless in the proper firing grip and the trigger is pulled.
Drop safeties, firing pin blocks, grip safeties are in this category.
Active safeties are the levers buttons, switches, that you have to put on, and take off.
SOME DA/SA semis have a decocker only. Sigs one like this. Using the lever drops the hammer. The gun is ready to go with a DA trigger pull.
Many others have a combination safety & decocker. Walther, Mauser, some S&Ws, and many others do this. Putting the safety on drops the hammer, but leaves the safety "ON", so that a DA trigger pull will NOT fire the gun. TO make the gun as ready as possible, you put the safety ON, (dropping the hammer), THEN take the safety OFF, so it will fire with a DA pull.
There have been a few revolvers with safeties, some of them were the lever kind, some were not. One I recall was the "Swiss safe" system used on Hammerli SA clones. They used the special cylinder pin to hold the hammer off the full down position, to allow for safe carry of 6 rounds. Same safe condition as achieved by the Ruger transfer bar system, but more cumbersome and had to be manually activated and deactivated.
Another one was the short lived High Standard Crusader. Interesting large frame DA revolver, one of its features was a lever that was both the safety and the cylinder latch, depending on the direction it was moved.
Why no safety on most revolvers? Because its more risk than its worth.
SA revolvers must be manually cocked for each shot. hammer down, properly loaded for the design, they are about as safe as safe gets. Period.
DA revolvers with the hammer down are very safe, these days, we have learned from experience and improved things over previous eras designs. The long, heavy DA pull serves adequately to prevent accidental firing, so a safety lever only really adds the risk of it being ON at the worst possible moment.
Its also a matter of design philosophy, and what the market will buy. Browning thought a grip safety alone was enough on a semi auto pistol. Some of his designs reflect this. He was also big on giving good customers what they wanted, despite his personal ideas, which is why the 1911 had both a grip safety and a thumb safety.
IF asked, why not a safety on a DA revolver, most of us would answer (in our heads, at least) because it would be barking stupid!, if we were honest.
Indeed, no revolver I know of with a safety lever has lasted long on the consumer market. The grip safety ones like the S&W "lemon squeezer" are another matter. There is an actual degree of utility to those.
And, don't get me started on the French, and their ideas of firearms design! If they could figure out a way to get a magazine disconnect safety on a revolver, I'm sure they would demand it! 
Drop safeties, firing pin blocks, grip safeties are in this category.
Active safeties are the levers buttons, switches, that you have to put on, and take off.
SOME DA/SA semis have a decocker only. Sigs one like this. Using the lever drops the hammer. The gun is ready to go with a DA trigger pull.
Many others have a combination safety & decocker. Walther, Mauser, some S&Ws, and many others do this. Putting the safety on drops the hammer, but leaves the safety "ON", so that a DA trigger pull will NOT fire the gun. TO make the gun as ready as possible, you put the safety ON, (dropping the hammer), THEN take the safety OFF, so it will fire with a DA pull.
There have been a few revolvers with safeties, some of them were the lever kind, some were not. One I recall was the "Swiss safe" system used on Hammerli SA clones. They used the special cylinder pin to hold the hammer off the full down position, to allow for safe carry of 6 rounds. Same safe condition as achieved by the Ruger transfer bar system, but more cumbersome and had to be manually activated and deactivated.
Another one was the short lived High Standard Crusader. Interesting large frame DA revolver, one of its features was a lever that was both the safety and the cylinder latch, depending on the direction it was moved.
Why no safety on most revolvers? Because its more risk than its worth.
SA revolvers must be manually cocked for each shot. hammer down, properly loaded for the design, they are about as safe as safe gets. Period.
DA revolvers with the hammer down are very safe, these days, we have learned from experience and improved things over previous eras designs. The long, heavy DA pull serves adequately to prevent accidental firing, so a safety lever only really adds the risk of it being ON at the worst possible moment.
Its also a matter of design philosophy, and what the market will buy. Browning thought a grip safety alone was enough on a semi auto pistol. Some of his designs reflect this. He was also big on giving good customers what they wanted, despite his personal ideas, which is why the 1911 had both a grip safety and a thumb safety.
IF asked, why not a safety on a DA revolver, most of us would answer (in our heads, at least) because it would be barking stupid!, if we were honest.
Indeed, no revolver I know of with a safety lever has lasted long on the consumer market. The grip safety ones like the S&W "lemon squeezer" are another matter. There is an actual degree of utility to those.
And, don't get me started on the French, and their ideas of firearms design!
If they could figure out a way to get a magazine disconnect safety on a revolver, I'm sure they would demand it! Bob Wright
New member
As 44AMP mentioned, the "Swiss Safe" method introduced by Hammerli, does indeed work, but is about the most senseless, and useless, safety ever devised.
Even the most awkward of safeties is far better than the Swiss Safe. The Swiss Safe requires the user to hold the revolver in one hand (and not in a firing position grip) and depress the base pin latch while either pulling outward, or pushing inward, on the base pin. Not something you'd want to be doing in a tense situation. The only thing it was good for was getting it into the United States.
Bob Wright
Even the most awkward of safeties is far better than the Swiss Safe. The Swiss Safe requires the user to hold the revolver in one hand (and not in a firing position grip) and depress the base pin latch while either pulling outward, or pushing inward, on the base pin. Not something you'd want to be doing in a tense situation. The only thing it was good for was getting it into the United States.
Bob Wright
Because they are 'stupid' on Single Action and Double Action revolvers. Ugly is beside the point. Take the Heritage SA hammer block safety... Uggggh. I don't even like transfer bars really. Just another part that can fail (and I had a failure of this part just to hammer lesson home). The safety is supposed to be that space between the 'ears' we all have and some use.... If you don't know want to learn how to a use a firearm, leave 'em alone, but don't gimmick them up with safeties to dumb down a perfectly good tool. Ruger at least finally got rid of the hammer block lock that was hid under the grips of the Single Actions.... Anyway, that's how I think about safeties and revolvers!
If you want to 'add' an external lock or locks, well, that is up to the user, but leave the gun alone!
If you want to 'add' an external lock or locks, well, that is up to the user, but leave the gun alone!
Cheapshooter
New member
Because they don't need them!
The one big complaint I have with my Heritage Rough Rider. It's totally unnecessary, and looks stupid!
Bob Wright
New member
SIGSHR:
SIGSHR,
You are no better informed than I. A safety is a device that prevents the gun's firing when the trigger is pulled.
Bob Wright
SIGSHR,
You are no better informed than I. A safety is a device that prevents the gun's firing when the trigger is pulled.
Bob Wright
In some countries, like pre-WWI Germany, the law required revolvers to have safeties. Many revolvers of that period have them because they were made or sold in Germany.
FWIW, the Webley-Fosbery was not double action; it functioned basically like a SAO auto pistol in that it could either be carried cocked or with the hammer down, and the safety was intended for use in when carrying cocked or temporarily making the gun safe (as when controlling a horse).
Jim
FWIW, the Webley-Fosbery was not double action; it functioned basically like a SAO auto pistol in that it could either be carried cocked or with the hammer down, and the safety was intended for use in when carrying cocked or temporarily making the gun safe (as when controlling a horse).
Jim
Some DAO semi-autos didn't have safeties if I recall. I had a S&W 5946 which didn't have a safety. It was used by police departments (including mine) during the great revolver-to-auto migration of the 90s because it felt pretty much like a revolver, trigger pull-wise. Loved that gun, it was basically a 15-shot revolver.
Perhaps we need to define "safety" more precisely. The Colt and Remington cap and ball revolvers had half cock notches on their hammers and recesses on their cylinders to rest the hammer between chambers, the Colt and Remington
cartridge revolvers had half cock notches on their hammers. There is the story of the S&W quickly designing a hammer block safety for their DA revolvers during WWII after a fatal accident.
cartridge revolvers had half cock notches on their hammers. There is the story of the S&W quickly designing a hammer block safety for their DA revolvers during WWII after a fatal accident.
Pond James Pond
New member
The definition in my OP was that of something akin to the safety on a DA/SA semi.
People can and do carry, for example, a CZ75 locked and cocked. This is possible due to the safety.
By contrast, a DA/SA revolver would never be carried cocked as it cannot be locked.
I just wondered why a culture of locked and cocked revolvers had not evolved too.
Post #2 probably nailed it.
There was at one point. Then pistoleros decided it wasn't such a good idea.
Not too terribly long ago there was a period where the revolver hammer would be cocked, but the holster's strap passed between the hammer face & the frame as a kind of block. If the hammer fell the strap would prevent it from striking the primer.
Not too terribly long ago there was a period where the revolver hammer would be cocked, but the holster's strap passed between the hammer face & the frame as a kind of block. If the hammer fell the strap would prevent it from striking the primer.
jackmoser65
New member
They ALL have a safety, it's located between the user's ears.
Pond James Pond
New member
Yes, yes.
But this is about a mechanical safety which is as much about AD's as it is about ND's.
Your brain will not do anything to prevent an AD if you carry a revolver cocked IWB, and some jolt lets the hammer drop and sends a bullet through your pelvis....
Stephanie B
New member
I have a 6946, same set-up. As for centerfire autos, it's my favorite carry gun.
OTOH, if I find a 3953, that might change.