Carrying on empty

[mykeal]

In another thread a reference was made to an article in the Jan/Feb issue of The Backwoodsman magazine in which Rusty Keller reportedly made a case for carrying a c&b revolver that was fully loaded (that is, all chambers were loaded).

Rather than hijack that thread to discuss the article, I decided to start another. Apologies to those that feel the subject has been sufficiently debated.

I don't get The Backwoodsman magazine, so I don't have the opportunity to educate myself on what Keller has to say. I would appreciate it if the poster would provide short synopsis covering the main points of Keller's reasoning.

In the mean time, I'll reiterate my thoughts on the subject.

In all the c&b revolvers that I'm aware of which feature a between-nipple pin or notch for carrying the gun with the hammer down, the bolt is not engaged in a cylinder stop notch when that position is utilized. It rests on the surface of the cylinder and is thus unable to prevent rotation of the cylinder. The only impediment to cylinder rotation is the integrity of the hammer on the pin or within the notch on the back of the cylinder.

If for some reason the hammer is raised off the pin or out of the notch the cylinder is free to rotate until the bolt drops into a cylinder stop notch. If the hammer is moved inadvertently, such as by being caught on the edge of the holster when being inserted into the holster, the cylinder can rotate to the next cylinder stop position, which is in battery, and the hammer would then fall onto a loaded (ie, capped and with powder and ball) chamber when it is released from it's fouled position on the holster edge. Bang.

In the case of using half-cock, the possibility of a worn sear (yes, faulty or missing hardening happens!) is all one needs to envision to see why this is not a safe position.

Is the likelihood that one will really need that extra shot so great that risk of ball in the leg or foot is acceptable?

 

[DanChamberlain]

I've never seen the need to have 6 ready shots in any of my C&B revolvers. I suppose it's a personal choice. Some personal choices are safer than others. I know someone who believes guns are dangerous...and he jumps out of airplanes! Another wouldn't let his kid own a gun...but he lets him do motocross!

Dan

 

[Blizzard of '93]

I suppose you're right - safety first and foremost. many times I've trekked the woods albeit carefully walking with a staff while hunting with my '58 Rem. loaded all chambers and hammer in the safety notch.
the ol' timers that faced life and death with their revolvers may have figured the risk was acceptable. many of their holsters were the full-flap type - that would minimize any snagging risk.

 

[Dave Rosenthal]

mykeal,

I read the other post on the other thread as well with mutual awkwardness :wink: . I too am puzzled as to why someone would even think about carrying in this manner. By the term "carrying" I hereby refer to the act of going out into the community or the woods for the purpose of hunting or self defense.

I say this because at every rifle or pistol club that I'm a member of (currently four!) the shooter isn't allowed to walk around with a loaded gun away from the actual firing line. Instead all shooters have to cap at the firing line ONLY! IF the shooter caps at the firing line only when the line is declared "HOT!", I don't have a problem with using all six chambers, provided that the revolver won't be holstered again until all six balls are shot, at which time the range can be declared "COLD!".

I feel that IF a shooter needs that sixth ball, it should be in the SECOND revolver also worn on the person, on the opposite hip. In this case a total of ten balls would be available . I could accomplish this by carrying my Walker on the strong side and my 3rd Model Dragoon on the weak side with the butt facing forward in a reverse or "cross-draw" manner. All that's required is the normal right-hand strong side holster that I currently have to be used on my left hip. As a professional photographer I am used to carrying heavy cameras all day long and enjoy distributing some of the weight evenly if possible, so carrying two huge Dragoons feels comfortable to me :youcrazy: . I even enter the rifle competition wearing my revolvers (empty, of course!) on most League days :shocked2: .

In closing, let me state that I have carried my .45 ACP in condition one (cocked & locked) for which said single action pistol was designed for. I'm very comfortable doing this, due to the safeties installed in the gun. Carrying a revolver with the caps on all six chambers is just asking for trouble, IMHO :nono: . Others may due as they wish :v

Dave

 

[Poor Private]

I am the guy who posted about Rusty Keller's article in "the Backwoodsman" entitled "five Shoots Aren't Enough.
I am goin to parphase what he wrote. So if I state something wrong about the article I apoligize before hand. If you want the whole article go buy the magazine at your local bookstore, there are tons more interesting articles in the magazine..

He states " none of the manufatures would have designed a 6 shot pistol unless they could safely be carried that way. these pistols were built in the approx. years of 1850-1870's, and later for cartridge pistols. For carrying, the CB pistols were designed to have the hammers lowered, so the striker rested on the base of the cylinder between the nipples. The force of the mainspring kept it firmly in place and safe to carry. Even dropping it would not result in an accidental firing because of the hammer manispring pressure.
Now move ahead 70 years. into the 1930's and 40's when the western novels and movies were popular. The authors probably knew some one who had one of these old pistols and carried them with 5 shots,and have the hammer on an empty. This was because by then the pistols were old and wore out, and the hammer spring no longer had the pressure left to keep them on the cylinder. If dropped these old guns could accidently fire a bullet. Hence the habit of leaving one empty.
And the habit has passed on.
Now for my personal view on why I carry all 6 loaded at a time. 1. I carry most of my pistols in a full flap holster so there isn't a way to accidently pull the hammer up. 2. The other pistols have either a snap down strap over the hammer, or a tie down thong. The pistols will not fall out of the holsters, and twigs, vines branches cannot pull the hammers back, if the straps or flaps are engaged. Also I feel if they only wanted 5 or 4 shots in the cylinder they would have used a blank, or dead chamber on the cylinder.

 

[Rikeman]

Great topic! I am a police officer so saftey is always important to me!

The first thing I would say, if something makes you uncomfortable, DONT DO IT!

I have a few friends that carry their modern semi-auto pistols without one in the tube.(none of them are cops) Certainly safer, but a bit useless if you are carrying for emergency situations! The gun is most safe left at home unloaded. :rotf:

I looked over my only BP revolver, my Walker. It has the pin in between cylinders. I played with the mechanism and my hunting holster. (I have only transported it empty up to this point to shoot at the range, and that is all from a bench.) All that being said, I would have no problem carrying my walker with all six loaded. The only situation I would carry a C&B revolver would be out hunting, and I would not worry at all about an AD.

My opinion is based totally on my gun and my holster. I have no issue with anyone wanting the added security of carrying on an empty cylinder. It is certainly an added security against an AD. There is risk in even handling a fire arm of any kind and most of the safety comes from the one doing the handling!


So I say again only do what you are comfortable and confident doing!

 

[mykeal]

Poor Private - thanks for the post. I live in a remote area; the 'local bookstore' is a drugstore magazine rack and they don't carry much except what the wife reads. The local library does not stock periodicals. The Backwoodsman is a great magazine and I'm just tardy in getting a subscription. I promise I'll do that soon.

I'm thankful you posted the synopsis, but disappointed in Keller's reasoning. The road to accidents is paved with "I thought of everything and it couldn't happen" and "if it wasn't good, they wouldn't have made it that way". There is also the famous, "it hasn't ever happened before, therefore it won't". Unfortunately, it has happened.

Here are my opinions on his main points:

none of the manufatures would have designed a 6 shot pistol unless they could safely be carried that way.

I know of no evidence to support that assertion. The 1830-70 pistol manufacturers were involved in new, untried designs. They had no historical experience with the safety of their new designs, and no formal safety engineering discipline to guide them. I'm not saying they ignored safety - the fact that they designed the pins and notches says that they were thinking about it. But that in no way says those designs were adequate. History says otherwise, as there have been accidental discharges involving guns with hammers down on those pins and notches.

The force of the mainspring kept it firmly in place and safe to carry.

Not true. Two amongst many exceptions: worn and/or poorly made mainsprings, and my earlier example of snagging on the edge of the holster. 1850 metallurgy was not up to today's standard, and even more importantly, quality inspection for material properties was almost nonexistent. Mainsprings weakened and others were poorly made. Even with a new, up-to-spec strong mainspring it is still possible to snag the hammer and pull it back enough to disengage the pin or notch while holstering the weapon. More on that later.

Now move ahead 70 years...carried them with 5 shots,and have the hammer on an empty. This was because by then the pistols were old and wore out, and the hammer spring no longer had the pressure left to keep them on the cylinder... Hence the habit of leaving one empty

Speculation, and incorrect. People had learned by experience over those 70 years that the practice was unsafe. It didn't just happen because mainsprings were wearing out. They could be replaced, after all, with much better made versions. The issue of weak mainsprings goes back to the original guns, and the practice of carry on empty began a lot earlier than 1940! Besides, as I have stated, weak mainsprings was not the only cause of accidental discharges.

I carry most of my pistols in a full flap holster so there isn't a way to accidently pull the hammer up. 2. The other pistols have either a snap down strap over the hammer, or a tie down thong. The pistols will not fall out of the holsters, and twigs, vines branches cannot pull the hammers back, if the straps or flaps are engaged.

I agree that holster design can go a long way towards making the practice safer. The full flap holster and the hammer strap (I use the latter) are excellent ideas and should be used. But the problems of the gun falling out of the holster or being snagged by branches, which are the scenarios those features mitigate, are not the only ones that can befall someone carrying with all chambers loaded. All you need to do is lose your focus and misplace the holster opening just a bit for the hammer to snag on your belt, the edge of the holster or your clothing and you've got a ball in the calf or ankle. The type of holster doesn't come into play here. I repeat - it has happened.

Also I feel if they only wanted 5 or 4 shots in the cylinder they would have used a blank, or dead chamber on the cylinder.

I have no idea what this statement means. Nobody 'wants' a dead chamber. We all 'want' the gun fully loaded - the argument that an empty chamber is useless in a gunfight is right on the mark. But sometimes you need to compromise your 'wants' with your needs.

I doubt if any of the above has convinced anyone to change the way they carry, although I would hope that if it saved someone from a nasty surprise that it was worth it. Unfortunately we'll never know - we'll only hear about those times it didn't work. Hopefully they'll be so rare as to not be noticed. I don't want someone to be convinced by having to deal with the consequences.

Again, Poor Private - thanks for the opportunity and your contributions to the thread.

 

[mykeal]

By the way, the point of all this is not to prove I'm right and you (Poor Private) and Keller are wrong. It's to get people to think about the issue and hopefully make an informed and thoughtful decision. The biggest tragedy would be if someone shot themselves in the leg because we hadn't discussed this and they hadn't thought about it. So, thanks again to everyone for participating.

 

[mazo kid]

Very interesting discussion here. I believe I will carry my C&B revolvers with one empty chamber when hunting or around the yard (we live in the boonies). When shooting at the range, I see no reason not to load all chambers at the bench, cap on the line, and discharge all chambers at that time. My $0.02 worth.

 

[Poor Private]

Mykeal,
a few quick questions. Wouldn't someone have to put thier pistol in thier holster with quite a a bit of force to cause a discharge? And if so wouldn't the spring need replaced because it took so little force to pull the hammer back? if it pulled back so lightly wouldn't it hit the caps so light as to not set it off. And if it does pull the hammer back all the way to discharge it, wouldn't it turn the cylinder to the next chamber and discharge that?
And regarding the blank chamber. I guess I didn't explain myself well. Lets see if i can do better. If there was a safety concern about the accidental discharge, and with the litigious society we have today, wouldn't the curent manufacturers have made one of the chambers blank/dud to especialy lay your hammer in?
With the blank chamber your turning a 6 shot pistol into a 5 shot. And in the case of the 5 shot .36 calibers turning them into 4 shooters?

 

[Rebel]

The current manufactured Colt copies don't have the pin between the chambers for the hammer to rest on. I guess that was there solution. If there is no pin then they must figure you need to put the hammer down on an empty chamber.

 

[crockett]

I'll throw in a few thoughts. I have done a fair share of reading and have probably four or five accounts of someone injured from his powder horn blowing up in his hand while reloading a muzzle loading rifle directly from the horn. I can't recall reading any actual accounts of injury from a C & B revolver slipping off the pin. The worry here is the hammer is inadvertantly pulled back and falls on a cap, while the gun is holstered. Well that's a lot of pulling back,a lot of cylinder rotation in a tight holster, just a slight movement wouldn't rotate the cylinder far enough to have the hammer over a cap. In any event thousands of C & B revolvers were carried loaded with all six. It wasn't until the cartridge Peacemaker came along that the "leave one empty rule got started, or at least that's my understanding.

 

[Poor Private]

This is nice, to have a discusion about arious practices without people yelling and screeming at each other. :thumbsup: Some other forums That I am on it gets so bad I can't believe these are civilized people!

 

[Blizzard of '93]

unfortunately there has been cuss-fights and so occur here - I'm not on everyday and seems I always missed the excitement - kind of glad I did.

 

[mykeal]

Wouldn't someone have to put thier pistol in thier holster with quite a a bit of force to cause a discharge?

Yes. Can that be done? Yes. Has it ever been done? Yes. Does it always cause a discharge? No. In fact, it's extremely rare.

And if so wouldn't the spring need replaced because it took so little force to pull the hammer back? if it pulled back so lightly wouldn't it hit the caps so light as to not set it off.

No. I'm assuming a fully spec mainspring; if you can pull the hammer back with your thumb then you can dislodge it from the pin/notch safety by snagging it on your belt as you start the barrel into the holster.

And if it does pull the hammer back all the way to discharge it, wouldn't it turn the cylinder to the next chamber and discharge that?

I've perhaps not been clear on the mechanism. Assume the hammer is down on a pin located between two nipples. The bolt is resting on the cylinder face between two cylinder stop notches. Pull the hammer back just enough to clear the pin. The cylinder is free to rotate because the bolt is not engaged in a cylinder stop notch and the hammer face is clear of the pin. However, the hammer movement will not cause the cylinder to turn as the hand is not fully engaged with the sprocket on the back of the cylinder. The cylinder will only turn if it's pushed by the side of the holster as the gun goes in; however, that is very likely to happen as the cylinder has nothing to keep it from moving, and it will rub on the holster as the gun slides in. How far will it rotate? Just until the bolt drops into the next available cylinder stop notch, or exactly 30 degrees on a 6 shot cylinder. With the bolt in a cylinder stop notch the cylinder is now in battery - there's a capped, loaded chamber under the hammer face. When it clears the obstruction that caused it to retract it will fall, under the mainspring load onto that cap, perhaps with enough force to ignite it.The hammer only needs to rotate a few degrees for this to happen; it doesn't need to go back to full or half cock.

And regarding the blank chamber...If there was a safety concern about the accidental discharge, and with the litigious society we have today, wouldn't the curent manufacturers have made one of the chambers blank/dud to especialy lay your hammer in?

Maybe. I can't possibly speak for what motivates gun manufacturers, especially when it comes to interpreting the activities of their lawyers. But that says nothing about the physics of the Colt SA design. The competence or concerns of their lawyers does not change how the mechanism works and the fact that the scenario I described CAN happen. It might say that they think the likelihood is small, but the physics are present nonetheless.

With the blank chamber your turning a 6 shot pistol into a 5 shot. And in the case of the 5 shot .36 calibers turning them into 4 shooters?

Uh, yeah, I know that. Not sure what that has to do with safety. If you need more than 5 (or 4) shots, carry another gun. Or a rifle. Ruger now makes a Mini-14 with a 20 round magazine. The LeMat is a 9 shot .44 cal revolver that holds at least 30 gr, with a 10th 20 gage round available. If you have problems with giving up one round perhaps there are better solutions.

 

[rebel727]

The current manufactured Colt copies don't have the pin between the chambers for the hammer to rest on. I guess that was there solution. If there is no pin then they must figure you need to put the hammer down on an empty chamber.

My Pietta 60 Colt made in 07 has them.

I never heard of load five til I started seeing it touted in gun rags in the late 60's. I was always told to let the hammer down between cartridges.

 

[Rebel]

Really? All the Piettas i have seen or bought have been without them for quite a few years now. Wonder if they started putting them back on again recently?

 

[rebel727]

I dunno but mine does. I'd take a pic but my camera is broke.

 

[Poor Private]

I guess I better not load my single shot kentucky caplock pistol then until I need that killing shot. Give me 20 seconds while that animal lies there in agony.(tongue in cheek)

 

[noworries]

The biggest tragedy would be if someone shot themselves in the leg because we hadn't discussed this and they hadn't thought about it.

Here is my worthless input.....if a person is so careless and/or reckless that he shoots himself in the leg then he deserves that injury. Safety should be first and foremost in your mind while handling firearms of any type but if you shoot yourself while holstering your weapon..... maybe if we stop trying to save every idiot from themselves they would die off and not breed more idiots. Finally, I have to agree with the dead chamber theory...it seems to me that if a gunmaker (150 yrs ago or now) felt it was so inherently dangerous to fully load the weapon then there would be a dead chamber to lower the hammer on.