• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Safety on Pietta 1851 Navy

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jtmattison

70 Cal.
Joined
Mar 17, 2004
Messages
4,686
Reaction score
8
My wife broke down and let me open my birthday present early.
I read the manual and was surprised to see it has a safety of sorts. Little pins located on the rear of the cylinder, between the nipples, that when the hammer is rested there keeps the cylinder from rotating, thus preventing the cap from being accidentally struck.
I was rather impressed by this because I read earlier in the manual you should always carry a revolver on an empty cylinder.
The safety pins are a pretty sweet feature IMO.

HD
 
The safety pins were used by Colt on his guns as your instructions mention and Remington milled notches in the rear of the cylinder between the chambers for the nose of the hammer to sit in.

While both of these methods do work, they are not foolproof.

Because most people enjoy target shooting, plinking and hunting with their cap and ball revolvers they really don't have a real need for having 6 loaded chambers.

Although some people like the idea of having all 6 chambers loaded, no one can argue that having just 5 chambers loaded and the hammer resting on the unloaded chamber is the safest way of all to keep their loaded pistol.
 
HD, a few weeks ago there was a pretty lengthy discussion here about the relative safety of carrying a loaded revolver with the hammer resting on the "safety pins" vs. carrying with the hammer resting on an empty cylinder. Perhaps you can go back and find that topic. Emery
 
with the pistol holstered and strapped closed it's safe to carry 6 loaded. I suppose in brush more care is neccessary.
 
I shoot my guns in competition where the matches are 5 shot matches. I remove a nipple and don't load that chamber and rest the hammer on the nippleless notch.
 
Mike you have the best idea. Only need 5 shots for target work. In the brush if you hang your hammer on anything all the pins and notches you have won't stop the cylinder from rotating and then you have a live cylinder under the hammer. Best is to keep the hammer tyed down until you are ready to shoot.
Fox :hatsoff:
 
Well let's walk through this. Right now I'm looking at my Colt 51 in a slim Jim holster.I can't even see the cylinder because the holster comes up too high. Now I'm trying to pull/cock the hammer, I'm putting quite a bit of pressure on the spur of the hammer and it won't cock, the cylinder is too tight against the holser to rotate. OK now I have the gun out of the holster with the hammer in a cylinder notcher, absolutely can't rotate. Hammer now on the pin, can't rotate. Now I am LIGHTLY bushing the spur of the hammer with one hand while trying to rotate the cylinder, still can't do it. So....I'd say you would need a pretty hard push against the spur of the hammer while at the same time trying to rotate the cylinder to cause enough rotation to have the hammer accidentally come down on a cap AND all this going on while the gun is out of the holster. If the gun is out of your holster- it's probably in your hand so how can all this acciendtal brushing of the hammer take place?Okay, now on to the Colt 1873 Peacemaker. Right now its in the holster. Again, I can't see the cylinder. Now I am hitting the spur of the hammer and there is nothing to stop any forward motion, if that hammer is over a live round my hitting of the spur could cause the gun to fire. If I fell backwards and if the spur hit some furniture or a wall or a door frame, the gun could fire if there is a live round under the hammer. Enough said, only load five on a Peacemaker.
 
Same with my 1851 in my holster. I can't even budge the hammer while it's in there.

I feel perfectly safe carrying it fully loaded, hammer on the pin.

HD
 
Actually,with all the legal liabilities and extra manufacturing cost involved ,I'm somewhat surprised the manufacturer decided to make such an authentic copy.I have some colt style revolvers that have the pins and a couple that do not.It took a little research and finally looking at an original 1858 Remington to see how the safety on those guns worked.Now that was an easy addition.Keeping on chamber unloaded is far and away the safest method.Best regards,J.A. Post script:Be certain sure to check to see that the pin correctly seats into the hammer slot.Some of the pins on my revolvers were not uniform in length allowing the cylinder to rotate and the hammer to fall,not with alot of force but enough to raise my eyebrows.
 
Along those same lines, if your going to rely on those pins on your Colt (assuming it has them) be sure to do as Jack suggested and check the fit.

This is important especially on used guns because if the former owner dry fired his gun on some ill fitting nipples, they could easily pound the face of the hammer which could "close" the slit in the hammers face down so it no longer fits over the pins.
 
crockett and Hunting Dawg,

If you haven't read the link that Zonie posted above I suggest you do so.

The issue is not pulling back the hammer and/or rotating the cylinder while the gun is in the holster (read my answer to Poor Private near the end of that thread, where I respond to Keller's points). There is a rarely occurring but entirely possible scenario that can occur when putting the gun in the holster (especially possible with a tight fitting holster like you describe). Yes, it's rare, in fact very rare, and unlikely. But, it can and has happened. Is that one extra bullet worth the remote but still possible chance of a round ball in the leg?

As I said in the other thread: it's not about whether I'm right and you're wrong. It's about thinking about what we're doing and being as safe as possible. And there is no question that, from the physical design of the gun that carrying on empty is less likely (and thus safer) to result in an inadvertent discharge than carrying with all chambers loaded and the hammer down on a between chamber pin/notch. And where a bullet in the leg is the price, more safe, even a tiny bit more safe, matters.
 
Something else to consider here is the fact that this practice of leaving the hammer on an empty chamber is nothing new, but was developed by the old-timers back in the day. No less an authority than Wyatt Earp espoused the practice, and he learned it from the "old-timers" of his day. These people lived and died by the care they gave their guns, and, IMO, there is just no greater authority as far as handling these ancient weapons are concerned.

You may think that leaving the hammer on a pin is safe, but the old-timers didn't and consequently developed safer means of carrying the gun. Remember, an accidental discharge only has to happen once, and you could take out your foot, or your leg, or possibly the kid walking next to you. There is no "coolness" factor involved with these guns; they are real, potentially deadly weapons that must be regarded with the respect they deserve. Why take the chance of creating a dangerous (and irreversible) situation when there is no need to do so?

I mean, seriously; the Comanches are more interested in running their casinos than in raiding the settlements, these days. What are you afraid of?
 
J.S. Colt said:
No less an authority than Wyatt Earp espoused the practice,

Where do you get this information from? I never heard of load five til I read it in gun rags back in the 60's. All the old timers told me to let the hammer down between chambers and that was for cartridge guns too. Worked well for me for many years and thousands upon thousands of rounds both C&B and cartridge.BTW I've seen quite a few old guns that were found in barns(found one myself) or dug up somewhere. All I have seen that were lost loaded were fully loaded.
 
From his autobiography "Wyatt Earp, Frontier Marshal", as told to Stuart Lake sometime in the mid 1920s:

"I have often been asked why five shots without reloading were all a top-notch gunfighter fired, when his guns were chambered for six cartridges. The answer is, merely, safety. To ensure against accidental discharge of the gun while in the holster, due to hair-trigger adjustment, the hammer rested upon an empty chamber. As widely as this was known and practiced, the number of cartridges a man carried in his six-gun may be taken as an indication of a man's rank with the gunfighters of the old school. Practiced gun-wielders had too much respect for their weapons to take unnecessary chances with them; it was only with tyros and would-bes that you heard of accidental discharges or didn't-know-it-was-loaded injuries in the country where carrying a Colt's was a man's prerogative." (Bold and italics are mine -J.S.)

I'm not quite as nice as Mykeal, so I'll give it to you straight: I think quite a few folks on this thread are trying to give out some pretty useful information regarding gun safety and the potential for mis-hap. You can listen and be safe, or you can be macho and continue endangering yourself and others around you. It's your choice, but I'll tell you this: I sure wouldn't want to be around when your gun goes off.
JMHO.
 
I got my first C&B when I was 12. I carried it and used it almost every day til I was 15. That included huntin water mocassins on the river and playin cowboy in the woods with live ammo. Runnin, jumpin, shootin, fallin. You know the drill. I'm 51 now and have NEVER had an AD with any of them. I'm not against anybody being safe. I just do not believe it was done by the average gun carrier back in the day.
 
Mykeal: Now I am ALWAYS interested in learning something new and if I am wrong on the six for a percussion gun then I'll be the first to admit it. I have never heard about the potential accident that could occur by holstering a percussion gun with the hammer on the pin.
Once again I have my '51 out and I am putting it into the tight fitting slim jim holster. My finger is on the trigger, pulling the trigger back but it is a single action so nothing is happening. Now I am twisting the gun pretty forcefully- trying to make the cylinder move- as I holster the gun and I can't get the cylinder to move. As far as the hammer catching on the holster as the gun is put in the holster, I have pushed the gun forward trying to get the top of the hammer to catch but I can't do that. As far as the spur of the hammer catching, once again the spur doesn't contact the holster, so I can't do that- the spur would have to catch on a jacket or clothing, etc. It seems to me we are sort of going into the "it's possible" scenario. If the hammer really gets pulled back hard- by accident- you could almost claim even if the hammer was on an empty cylinder, the gun could still rotate and fire on the next chamber.
As I said before, I agree the deep cut in the percussion cylinder is more fool proof than the pin, and I am assuming any responsible gun owner makes sure the pin fits. Gun owners should also inspect the notches on the hammer and the nose of the trigger, etc for potential wear and dangerous function- that's all part of the game. And, I still agree on a Peacemaker, keep the hammer on an empty cylinder, the Peacemaker is a totally different situation.
 
What does "hair trigger adjustment" have to do with anything when the hammer is down and the revolver is in the holster? And didn't Earp once suffer an accidentental discharge when his Colt fell out of its holster while he was sitting in a barroom? Stuart Lake also got the "Buntline Special" story rolling--and folks are still trying to sort that one out.
 
Yes, we are going into the "it's possible" scenarios. That's what safety is all about. The rigorous safety analysis starts with a determination of the consequences of an event, then progresses to the calculate the likelihood of the event occurring. Safety, or 'safe enough' depends on the combination of the severity of the consequence and the likelihood of occurrence. The most serious consequences require the lowest probability of occurrence. And any change in the sequence of events that lowers that probability is deemed necessary.

In this case, the ultimate consequence of an unintended firearm discharge is death. Nothing is more serious than that. We must take every opportunity to reduce the likelihood of an inadvertent discharge.

So, we carry in a holster, a good, strong holster that covers and contains the gun so that, if it doesn't totally eliminate snagging the trigger and hammer it at least makes it very, very unlikely. Good.

And when the gun is out of the holster we're very diligent about not pointing it anywhere that someone could be hurt if it went off. Good.

But how about the transition? How about, if we are holstering the gun for the 10,000th time, a very familiar action that has never, ever caused a problem before, we lose focus or are distracted somehow and miss the holster, or catch the hammer on our belt or pocket? Yep, could happen. Has happened.

Now, let's look at the two scenarios: 6 loaded and the hammer down on a between-chamber safety notch or pin, and 5 loaded with the hammer down on an empty chamber. Many seem to think, and I take it from your posting that you are one of them, that these two conditions are equivalent from the safety standpoint. Unfortunately, that's not true.

6 loaded, hammer on between-chamber safety notch/pin: In this case the bolt is resting on the surface of the cylinder, between stop notches. The only thing keeping the cylinder from rotating is the hammer in the notch/on the pin. It is a positive, firm lock, but it's a single condition. If the hammer is pulled back a very few degrees it clears the notch/pin and the cylinder CAN rotate. It's not being forced to rotate by the hand, as the hammer has not moved enough, but there is nothing preventing movement caused by some outside influence, like rubbing on the holster or belt loop or some other article of clothing. From the rest, between-chambers, position the cylinder only needs to rotate 30 degrees to come to a loaded chamber, and at that point the bolt will drop into the cylinder stop notch and the cylinder will stop, in battery. There is little likelihood that the hammer will reach the half cock position as it did not move very far before the cylinder reached the battery position. All that's needed now is for the hammer to drop on the loaded chamber when the snag clears, and since it is under mainspring tension it will surely do so. Bang.

5 loaded, hammer down on empty chamber: In this case the cylinder is prevented from rotating by two things: the bolt resting in a cylinder stop notch and the hammer on the nipple. In order for the cylinder to rotate here the hammer has to move much farther back than in the between-chamber case; it needs to move far enough for the hammer cam to retract the bolt from the stop notch. In addition, the cylinder must rotate twice as far - 60 degrees - before it comes to the next chamber and the bolt drops into the next stop notch, leaving a loaded chamber in battery. The hammer, under mainspring tension, may fall on the loaded chamber, but it's also much closer to the half cock position than it is in the between-chamber scenario, so the possibility that it will enter that position is higher.

I'm not trying to argue that one condition is safe and the other unsafe; what I'm saying is that the 5 loaded, hammer on an empty chamber case is, by the physical design of the action, measurably SAFER than the 6 loaded, hammer down on between-chamber safety notch/pin. And the SAFER status, given the dire consequences is a better choice.

Is it 10% safer, or 1%, or even 0.1%? I don't know. But even at 0.1%, it's better. Is it possible to be safer by somehow eliminating any possibility of snagging the hammer? Sure it's possible. But, how sure can you be that EVERY snag possibility is TOTALLY eliminated? Seems to me it's easier to just make the safer choice in carry method.

And by the way, the "it's never happened to me or anyone I know in millions of hours of carrying a gun" argument is an illogical fallacy: the post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy.
 
I'm sitting here shaking my head that people are even defending the practice of carrying with all chambers loaded. Accidents have happened, and there is a safer alternative. Just because it hasn't happened to someone, doesn't make it a safe practice.

I learned to shoot muzzleloaders back in the mid '70's. I was taught to load directly from the flask. I had done that for thousands of shots and never blew myself up. I only learned that it's an unsafe practice a few years ago. I immediately switched to loading from a measure, and you'll NEVER hear me defending the practice of loading from a flask "because I didn't blow myself up". The fact that competitions ban loading from the flask tells me that it has happened often enough to be a safety concern, yet I didn't blow myself up doing it.

Nascar's Dale Earnhardt was very outspoken against the new helmet restraining device. In one statement, he said something like "I've been in hundreds of crashes and I haven't pulled my brainstem out". He went on to a fatal crash, where he did indeed "pull his brainstem out". Just because it hasn't happened to you yet, doesn't mean it won't, or that it won't happen to someone else.

If there's a safer alternative, why fight against it? Why not JUST ADOPT IT?
 
Back
Top