If a transfer bar breaks the gun won't go bang. If a frame mounted firing pin sticks it won't rotate you'll know there is a problem or it wont move and hit the primer. If this new fangled firing pin mechanism sticks in the hammer in the outward position it will contact the primer even without the user knowing. I've heard too many complaints and seen too many of the hammer block safeties taken out of the Uberti hammers to trust something similar but more complicated that can work just the opposite as intended should it fail.
It's unlikely to happen to you or me or most anyone on a board like this because we clean and disassemble guns regularly. I've seen too many rusty guns and poorly cared for guns floating around auctions and gun shows, guns shops, etc. of guns coming from estates and such and know that is not the case with a large portion of gun owners. Unfortunately many guns sit around and get neglected.
In my opinion this has opened Uberti up to some serious lawsuit the first time one fails. At least if someone uses a gun improperly causing harm it can be argued the users fault but in this case the entire blame will be on the designer of a faulty mechanism. It may or may not happen but give these guns a few years and see what happens when a huge number of those guns are floating around that haven't ever been cleaned and rust forms inside. Until then it's wait and see but I wouldn't want to be responsible for marketing such a thing.
Cliff, while I see "some" merit in your thought process, the idea that a revolver is dangerous isn't new and is definitely dangerous in the hands of someone ignorant in its operation. Kinda like someone buying a straight shift car and complaining not knowing how to use it. Personally, if I am going to own a revolver, I don't want one that will fail on the side of "won't fire"! There goes my life, a loved ones life, whatever . . . pulling the trigger and hearing " click" instead of boom sounds like a nightmare to me. I would argue that a lawsuit exists if a life is lost because of a failure . . . it goes both ways.
The S.A. in question uses a system that will only work with the trigger pulled. Likewise, (but different operation) Glock uses a trigger mounted safety. I'll be honest here because I don't own any Glock firearms but I'm not sure how many accidents happen because the trigger safety gets stuck or "gummed up". They are still in existence . . . The spring and plunger mounted in the hammer of the S.A. in question isn't a new concept. Ruger has used it since the 50's even though it's for a different operation. Using the spring and plunger as a sort of firing pin " disconnect " so to speak isn't all that new either. Semi auto pistol typically use a disconnect , some lever action rifles . . . so things can (and do) get gummed up/dirty worn . . . all kinds of things can happen and the owner should understand his/her weapon.
Back to the S.A. in question, when loaded, the hammer will go all the way down to rest on the frame. I think a good practice with this revolver would be to check the firing pin function regularly by pointing the empty revolver up and watching the firing pin move in and out of position as you pull and release the trigger. If the firing pin is somehow "binding" and is in the forward position, you won't see the normal movement. Pulling the trigger just far enough to allow the half cock notch to not engage after loading, won't allow the pin to move forward - which I believe is the reason for ftf reports from the cowboy community. It's more than likely a technique problem using this particular setup ( finger totally off the trigger when the hammer reaches the frame). Others say they've had absolutely no problems at all.
In conclusion, I would say this is as sound as pretty much any other "safety" system in use (though I really really liked the block system Uberti had for so many years). As most of "us" would say, the best "safety" is the one between your ears!
Mike