WHY,,Colt and Remington only load 5???

[willy]

I don't understand why Colt and Remington both put safety features on their cap and ball revolvers to make them safe to carry six rounds..But when they came out with their 73 and 75 cartridge revolvers they were only safe to carry 5 rounds..Why didn't they make them safe for 6 round carry?

[Abilene]

It is possible to carry six and some folks do by resting the firing pin between two rims.  It could be that the ease and speed of reloading with cartridges made it less important for the manufacturers to try to make it possible to safely load six.  Even the modern reproductions (of the Colt design, anyway) have complicated the guns a fair amount (transfer bars, telescoping firing pins, etc) to try to accomplish this, so it apparently isn't quite as simple as it would seem.  Them's my guesses. 

[Coal Creek Griff]

I suspect that the intent of the original design was to load six and use the first  hammer notch for carrying the gun.  Unfortunately, there are just way too many examples of how that turned out to be a dangerous practice.  I'm just guessing, however.

CC Griff

[Advertising]

[willy]

I was thinking just a simple extra locking bolt cut out on the cylinder would have made it safe to carry with six rounds..
How much trouble and grief would that have saved.

[Blair]

Colt does experiment with an extra stop notch on the cylinder with the cartridge conversion. These become known as "twelve" stop notch cylinders. The extra notches between the normal notches serve as safety stops to carry all six chambers loaded with the hammer locked between the chambers.
My best,
 Blair

[Coffinmaker]

I don't actually have a definitive "because" for your "Why."  You see, I wasn't there.  Nope, not present nor accounted for.  Was nowhere to be found.  Wasn't even a gleam.  I digress.

Six guns (you know why) originally (Cap Guns) had a little stud (no, not Sean Connery) between chambers and a corresponding little slot in the hammer face, upon which to rest the hammer (you knew this....right!).  Simple and effective.  Six up was no problemo.

Then, along came the cartridge guns.  Suppositories, more or less.  Where the little slot in the hammer face should be ...... TA DA ...... Firing Pin.  What to do, what to do, what to do ..... Dunno.  Firing pin inna way of everything.  Then the Ah Ha moment.  Just rest the firing Pin between the rims of the Suppositories.  Simple and effective.  Except ..... it's still possible to turn the cylinder under the firing pin.  Why would you do that??  Pretty stupid.  But we needed a better way.  Simple.  An empty chamber, Hammer down on the empty, and the cylinder is locked.  Can't shoot yourself inna foot (yes you can, it's just harder).

Now .... as a point in case.  Whoops, "Case in Point" the modern iteration of the self-contained Cartridge Conversion Cylinder (R&D) has an excellent solution.  Large bore R&D cylinders are only 5 shooters.  Only wussies, wimps, and the blind need six you see.  Those cylinders have an added bolt notch for each chamber.  The cylinder rotates, the bolt is allowed to rise into the "safety" slot and all is well.  Well ..... Or Is It???  It is an effective and elegant solution.  Not only that, it also meets SASS requirement for five shot cylinders to be loaded full up.  Cool.  Only one drawback.  Just one tiny little glitch.  Timing.  The Hand must be carefully timed to run the R&D cylinder.  Once properly timed ..... marvelousness will happen

Oh, wait, the OP wanted to know why safe 6 up carry wasn't included in the original design of the "Six Shooters" of the day.  Well, actually, I don't have the faintest idea what that little detail was ignored.  No Clue.  Wasn't around to ask the question either.  So ... in all fairness, your guess is as good as mine.  Burma Shave !!

[Dave T]

There was a thread running not long ago on the ColtForum.com about this very subject. The consensus was that the SAA was intended to be loaded with 6 rounds and carried by the military in a full flap holster, considerably alleviating much of the risk of the gun falling out and onto the hammer (kaboom). I also read over there that Colt tested this at some time in the past and decided it took 35# to snap off the skinny little tip of the trigger/sear (kaboom).

The conclusion of that discussion (Colt Forum) was you could go ahead and load 6 if you were: brave; daring; or stupid. Opinions were about evenly mixed on those three. Some said if you were faced with a serious problem and all you had was a Colt style single action, go ahead and load 6, and God be with you. The rest of the time load one, skip one, load 4, hammer back and down...and be safe.

Dave

[Professor Marvel]

Thank you DaveT -
that makes a lot of sense....

My Dear Coffin -
all your points are valid, as is the concepts posted by Abilene and Blair....

At some point, the extra notches were discarded, why we may never know... but we can suspect the economics of extra precision work...

but additionally, I believe wasn't there some interference trying to set the firing pin down between rims on certain cartridges?

once Colt settled on the frame and cylinder dimensions, with the tooling of the day, a change-up to accomodate a larger cylinder
(such as the Rogers and Spencer  which, btw will actually accept a Ruger SBH cylinder) would be very pricey ....

[PJ Hardtack]

Colt does experiment with an extra stop notch on the cylinder with the cartridge conversion. These become known as "twelve" stop notch cylinders. The extra notches between the normal notches serve as safety stops to carry all six chambers loaded with the hammer locked between the chambers.
My best,
 Blair

Yeah, and these were famous for breaking through the notches cut over the chambers ........

[Professor Marvel]

Yeah, and these were famous for breaking through the notches cut over the chambers ........

Ah, thank you my good PJ - if my little grey cells ever knew that, they forgot!

prf mvl

[Coffinmaker]

Ah yes.  Today even, In the Uberti iteration of the Open Top, the cylinder slots, even though shallow (comparatively) are deep enough that often a 45 Colt cylinder will spit the little piece of steel at the bottom of the slot out into the ether.  Never mind the gun and the cylinder will continue to function just fine  even if you can see brass at the bottom of the slots.  Doesn't seem to matter.  It might have consequences in an "iron" cylinder, but no biggie in a modern steel cylinder.  EXCEPT:  I have always personally felt, the chamber walls in a 45 Colt Uberti Open Top were/are just too thin for that cartridge.

[willy]

Yeah, and these were famous for breaking through the notches cut over the chambers ........

But the extra safety notch wouldn't be over a chamber but between the chambers..

[Blair]

willy,

You are correct. The 1860's were bad about the primary stop notches braking out on the conversions, whether they were "twelve" stop cylinders or not. The rebate cylinders/frames on the 1860's made the breech end quite a bit smaller in dia. This is also where the stop notches were cut and this over the chamber area. All of the streamlining of the 1860 was done to make a large caliber revolver much lighter with the newer better quality steel (not iron) of the older large caliber revolvers.

As CM suggested, the timing on the twelve slot revolver had to be very good, or the stop could not properly/reliably engage in the safety slots. I believe this is why Colt stopped doing them.
My best,
 Blair 

[Cliff Fendley]

I suspect that the intent of the original design was to load six and use the first  hammer notch for carrying the gun.  Unfortunately, there are just way too many examples of how that turned out to be a dangerous practice.  I'm just guessing, however.

CC Griff

This ^^

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

I don't understand why Colt and Remington both put safety features on their cap and ball revolvers to make them safe to carry six rounds..But when they came out with their 73 and 75 cartridge revolvers they were only safe to carry 5 rounds..Why didn't they make them safe for 6 round carry?

  They do (or at least did)-

 

 

 Those ingenious little doo-hickies below the firing pin are pivoting hammer blocks used on Uberti's 1873 revolvers as well as 1875 and 1890 Remingtons. When the hammer is drawn back to the first click or safety notch, a rod in the top of the notch is depressed and in turn pivots the block out which prevents the hammer, were it to be struck, from falling further. It is a great design. For the life of me, I don't know why people ignore or don't acknowledge this safety device. Maybe because it's small and goes unnoticed? But our litigious society demands that we are no longer required to think or maintain situational awareness, thus enters retracting firing pins and transfer bars so we can mindlessly fill cylinders with cartridges and not have to worry about things like not maintaining control of our firearms or dropping a stirrup on the hammer when we're saddling ol' Dan. 

  I own four Uberti's with said hammer and they work great. The only flaw I've found is the design is that it dictates a smaller cam on the hammer, which can throw the timing off a bit, causing the bolt to rise a smidge early. This happened with two of my revolvers. The solution was as simple as installing a Wolff bolt/trigger spring. Not only was the timing corrected, but in both cases a cool 1 lb. was removed from the trigger pull.

  Another little known- Foreign firearms manufacturers are required to demonstrate that firearms can be dropped from a certain height, fall on the hammer and not discharge before they can be imported. (Ironically, domestic manufacturers are not) I'll try to find that info.

  Does anyone else find it amusing that we obsess over tiny little things like this, yet think nothing of talking on the phone or putting ketchup on our fries while guiding a 7,000 lb. vehicle down a crowded road at 75 mph? 

[Good Troy]

  Does anyone else find it amusing that we obsess over tiny little things like this, yet think nothing of talking on the phone or putting ketchup on our fries while guiding a 7,000 lb. vehicle down a crowded road at 75 mph? 
[/quote]

Yes...Why are there no warnings printed on cell phones concerning hazards of using while driving?  Why is there no safety feature to prevent the use in a moving vehicle?  Me thinks more folks die as a result of distracted driving than accidents with firearms.

[willy]

  They do (or at least did)-

 

 

I know they do now,,,But I was talking about back in the 1870's..

[Cholla Hill Tirador]

I know they do now,,,But I was talking about back in the 1870's..

   Sorry man....didn't mean to take your post down a bunny trail.

 CHT

[Coffinmaker]

I seem to be missing something here.  I have NEVER .... EVER .... seen any sort of "safety" device on ANY Colt OEM SAA hammer   The only thing Colt ever did was build a flaky Transfer Bar gun.  The only "in hammer" safety doo dads were from Uberti.  the only original reason for those was to pass the stupid "drop from a stepladder" test.  NO domestic made SA Replicants was ever required to pass the test.  Pietta has built a transfer bar gun and Ruger is famous for their transfer bar gun.  Of course, there is the school of thought with those rabid CAS Fast Guys, the Ruger transfer bar should be removed and the hammer welded up to emulate a Colt.  Taking the safest SA revolver on the planet retro fitting it to Colt specs seems kind of ...... um ...... Stupid??  Especially when most of those guns retain the spring pin in the base pin to operate the transfer bar. (Mumble Mumble Mumble)