Load six in my SA six shooter?

[HighValleyRanch]

Yes, I know all the rules about only loading five and one on an empty...
except for the ruger vaqueros and the blackhawks witht the transfer bars.
Are there any other authentic looking SA's that one can load six in.

But my hawes "western marshall" has a different setup. It does not have the firing pin on the hammer, but instead has an inertia type spring firing pin in a bushing. When the hammer comes down on it with enough force, the pin is propelled forward with enough force to set off the round.
So the question is, if i carried it with the hammer on the safety cock, (the notch right befor the half cock, would it be safe with a round in that chamber.
The safe cock is strong, I can't budge it by pulling the trigger or hammering on the hammer (with my hand), and it seems like the inertia firing pin would be safe even if the hammer were to fall from that position.

What'd you all think?

[Hawg]

I never hear of the load five and keep an empty under the hammer until I started reading it in gun rags back in the 60's. When I was young with my first SA(age 10)all the old timers told me to let the hammer down between chambers. That's what I did even with hammer mounted firing pins and I never had a problem. Not advising you to do that it's just what I did.

[CraigC]

Prudence dictates that we do not trust the safety notch. Colt's and Old Model Rugers have them too so it is nothing new. Five beans in the wheel, period.

Are there any other authentic looking SA's that one can load six in.

The Taurus Gaucho and Beretta Stampede have traditional half-cock action but with the added transfer bar. Far as I know they are the only traditional single actions that can be safely carried with all six chambers loaded.

[Hawg]

Newer Ubertis have a safety notch activated hammer block safety. I don't know how well it works. None of mine have it.

[JohnKSa]

But my hawes "western marshall" has a different setup. ...

What'd you all think?

What does the manufacturer say?

[Jim Watson]

Does that Hawes really have an inertia firing pin or just a frame mounted floating firing pin like current S&W DAs?. With the hammer all the way down, does it protrude? If so, then the safety notch is all you have, and that isn't enough.

[CraigC]

What does the manufacturer say?

Hawes, are you serious? These guns have been out of production for many years. They are setup just like an Old Model Ruger with the frame-mounted firing pin but with a traditional half-cock action. It's wise to trust age old wisdom and writings of the last 100yrs. Better to be safe and sure, rather than satisify some 'need' for that one extra shot.

[HighValleyRanch]

never hear of the load five and keep an empty under the hammer until I started reading it in gun rags back in the 60's. When I was young with my first SA(age 10)all the old timers told me to let the hammer down between chambers. That's what I did even with hammer mounted firing pins and I never had a problem. Not advising you to do that it's just what I did.

I tried that, and the cylinder is free to rotate, so would not trust that method to work. If the cylinder rotated into lockup, it would be the same as having a round chambered with the hammer on it.

Both of you are correct:

Does that Hawes really have an inertia firing pin or just a frame mounted floating firing pin like current S&W DAs?. With the hammer all the way down, does it protrude? If so, then the safety notch is all you have, and that isn't enough.

Just took the cylinder out, and you are right. It's just a floating firing pin that protrudes when the hammer is down, so probably not inertia as I though.

And CraigC is right. Hawes hasn't been around for a while.
This was a JP sauer and sons made in Germany, imported by Hawes around the 1970's. Bought it at a gun show in the mid 80's for 125.00. Out shoots any other clone I've ever shot, including Uberti's, vaqueros, blackhawks, etc.
All the finish is worn off, like my other shooters, but it would be one of the last to go! Only reason why I'm looking for another is either the extra round, or higher caliber over .357
HVR

[JohnKSa]

Dunno if this helps...

http://www.e-gunparts.com/productsch...ERN%20MARSHALL

Found a couple of links about problems with unintentional discharges with this firearm:

http://www.claralaw.cpda.org/om_isap...=Document_Case

http://www.gunowners.org/op0404.htm

[HighValleyRanch]

Now I'm so afraid of my hawes that I'm going to lock it up in the safe so it won't go after me!

Thanks for the links, very interesting reading, but I will be sure to only load five in the cylinder after reading those articles.

[Jim March]

The Hawes is not a "six up" gun.

The Ruger New Vaquero is one of three "transfer bar safety" guns that look like a classic Colt and have similar heft/feel, but are 100% safe for six-up carry.

The others are the Beretta Stampede (the whole series, including "Marshall" and "Bisley" variants) and the Taurus Gaucho.

The Gaucho has been getting a lot of reports as to lack of reliability. My take is, avoid at all costs.

The Beretta is a very decent gun, at least as good as the Hawes and probably better. Beretta bought Uberti recently so this is a recent-vintage Uberti with a Beretta-designed safety grafted in. Sometimes you get good deals on these via CDNN or others and if you're on a budget, consider it.

But overall, I think the Ruger NewVaq is the best of this breed. It's compatible with a lot of parts from the rest of the Ruger product line - mine wears a lower-slung SuperBlackHawk hammer as I don't believe in cocking with the off-hand thumb. It has coil springs throughout.

The Beretta and Taurus have one "advantage": the loading drill remains pure to their 1873 Colt heritage. You load on the half-cock, likely the same as your Hawes. The Ruger loads with the hammer fully down, doesn't even HAVE a half-cock. Opening the loading gate frees the cylinder while locking the hammer - it's a safe, fast and effective system. In the original Colt SAA loading drill you touch the hammer twice between running dry and firing post-reload - with the Ruger system you touch it once (to cock it for firing post-load).

There's one more gun to consider. Ruger did a limited run of a gun called the "50th Anniversary 357 Flattop" built on the same SAA-class frame as the New Vaquero. All other post-'73 Blackhawks/Supers/OldVaquero/etc. are built on a 44Magnum-class heavier frame. The "50th 357" is basically the NewVaq with adjustable sights, available only in 357, only in blue, only with a 4.68" tube. If you can live with those limits and want an adjustable-sight SA, the 50th 357 is a damn fine gun.

Both "mid frames" (NewVaq and 50th 357) are showing excellent quality control - some of the best guns Ruger has ever made and with better average accuracy than more or less the entire rest of the Ruger product line, SA or DA (or auto for that matter). With *maybe* the auto 22s being more accurate on average...

[tplumeri]

Well, maybe i'm missing the point here (wouldnt be the first time!) but i dont see the problem having all six rounds in the cylinder. I have a vaquero and a blackhawk that i shoot cowboy stuff with. you know, ping pong balls with the 32-20 vaquero , tennis balls with the 357/9mm blackhawk.
always keep six in the cylinder. no way the gun will fire unless you cock the hammer and pull the trigger.
now, if youre talking about carrying a gun half cocked......well my dear old dad told me never go off half cocked.
jmho
tom

[CraigC]

Bring the sixgun to half cock, open the gate, load one chamber. Skip one chamber, then load the next four chambers. Bring the hammer to full cock, then let it down. It will be over the empty chamber. Just in case you didn't already know.

Well, maybe i'm missing the point here (wouldnt be the first time!) but i dont see the problem having all six rounds in the cylinder.

THAT is the difference between a New Model Ruger (post 1973) and a traditional single action like the Colt Single Action Army and its replicas, Colt percussion revolvers and replicas, Old Model Rugers, S&W's, Remingtons, Merwin-Hulberts, etc.

[tplumeri]

OK, let me be the first to admit that i am stupid. Having said that, i still dont see the need to carry a single action with an empty cylinder.
i only carry rugers. is there an inherant flaw in the "real" single action revolvers (colt etc...) that makes them dangerous to carry with the full 6 shots?
im not trying to be an ass, i just dont understand.
thanks for your patience
tom

[JohnKSa]

is there an inherant flaw in the "real" single action revolvers (colt etc...) that makes them dangerous to carry with the full 6 shots?

I'm not sure it's a flaw, but it is a design limitation. Yes. They can fire if the hammer is bumped while it's down on a loaded chamber.

The newer Ruger single action revolvers (and some of the other newer designs) have safety features that prevent this from happening.

You're ok with your Ruger as long as it's the newer design (not a 3 screw model) or has been modified by the factory.

[Hawg]

The original sa's had a hammer mounted firing pin. Let the hammer all the way down and the firing pin rests on the primer. There is a safety notch but common consensus says the notch is easily broken and theoretically could be broken by a fall or a tee limb or whatever. Later guns have a frame mounted firing pin but same deal applies. Personally I think it's all B.S. and the likelyhood of it ever happening is about on the same ranks as winning the lottery. I've been carrying sa's for 38 years and always let the hammer down between cylinders on hammer mounted pins and bp revolvers and used the safety notch on frame mounted pins. Now I may blow a hole in my leg tomorrow you could drive a Mack truck through but if I do it's my problem and nobody's fault but my own. Remember always load five and keep an empty under the hammer.

[HighValleyRanch]

Thanks Jim March for the info.
I am starting to understand the difference between the NW vaqueros and the old ones. The only gripe is the the new model .45 LC can't handle the heavy buffalo bore stuff, and only the wimpy cowboy loads, which as in other thread we agreed are not even up to the stuff of the .357.
That they changed to a smaller frame must be why they no longer make the vaquero in the .44 mag. A friend father has one, bisley model and it must be the old model in stainless.
So I will never find a sheriffs model in .44 mag????

[Laz]

I'll second Jim March. I have mostly Rugers but do have a Beretta Stampede Marshall (short-barreled version) and it's a beauty of a revolver. Beautiful fit and finish and shoots very well. The Ruger's manual of arms is better IMO because it doesn't require lowering the hammer over a live round as does the Beretta if you carry six in. Of course, once you have safely lowered the hammer, the Beretta is perfectly safe to carry with six.

[joab]

I'm not sure it's a flaw, but it is a design limitation.

It's a flaw
But it was corrected by Ruger in 1973
A limitation would imply that it is something that must be accepted in order to have a functioning firearm

[CraigC]

It's a flaw

That depends ENTIRELY on how you look at it.

Personally I think it's all B.S. and the likelyhood of it ever happening is about on the same ranks as winning the lottery.

So why do you think Ruger redesigned the action? There are plenty of cases of people having negligent discharges because they loaded all six. If you do any amount of reading about single actions, it all becomes readily apparent.

The only gripe is the the new model .45 LC can't handle the heavy buffalo bore stuff, and only the wimpy cowboy loads

Unfortunately a fairly common misconception but it tends to keep people out of trouble. No, it can't handle those heavy "Ruger-only" loads that typically approach 30,000CUP but it is not limited to "cowboy" loads. Those "wimpy cowboy loads" are not even loaded to industry standard pressures. They're about 200fps slower than the original blackpowder loads. Again, sticking your nose into some reading material will reveal .45Colt loads for the venerable Colt SAA that push a 260-270gr cast bullet to 1050-1100fps. Effectively pushing the .357's nose in the corner. Anything safe in the Colt is safe in a New Vaquero.

[44 AMP]

I don't like to hear people refer to the Colt system as a "flaw". It implies that Colt knew better, but built a defective system anyway. I seriously doubt this was the case. Colt designed the best system he knew how. Because someone else later (taking Colt's design as a starting point) figures out how to improve it doesn't mean it was flawed.

Like the new Winchester and Marlin rifles with pushbutton safeties, older guns are not "flawed" because they lack a more recent safety system. One simply must accept the limitations of the original designs, and use them in the manner the designers intended. Flawed implies defective, and those old guns are certainly not defective. More limited than modern designs, sure. Less forgiving of incorrect handling, sure. But flawed? No. If your gun breaks because of bad metalurgy, that is a manufacturing flaw. If every gun of a design breaks in a certain way because the metal isn't thick enough, or the right alloy, that is a design flaw. Function in a manner allowed by the design (even if undesirable) is not a flaw. You could call it a deficiency, or a drawback, or even an undesirable feature, but not a flaw.

The idea that anything less than the most perfect design is flawed is something found only in the minds of greedy lawyers, who have found a way of looking at things that obligates someone to pay for someone else's stupidity as long as a judge can be convinced to agree. Ruger redesigned their SA revolvers as a result of a lawsuit, brought by an individual who suffered injury while loading/unloading one of their revolvers in the cab of a (moving IIRC) pickup truck. I think they won (I no longer remember) but the redesigned their guns anyway. Ironic that it was 100 years after the introduction of the Colt SAA. Wonder where the "flaw" was all that time?

[Laz]

I suspect that in the days when most people used SA revolvers for personal defense, people probably used the rule of 5 most of the time, but if they thought trouble was immanent most likely stuck number six in there. I think I would.

[joab]

That depends ENTIRELY on how you look at it

As a shortcoming that is easily correctable?. Pretty much defines flaw to me

Interesting that it took 100 years for the "flaw" to be "corrected"

Yes it is
Even more interesting that it took many lawsuits to get it done, even after the technology was known to exist

Colt designed the best system he knew how

Back then

Like the new Winchester and Marlin rifles with pushbutton safeties, older guns are not "flawed" because they lack a more recent safety system.

The old guns had an adequate safety already, new does not always mean better and better does not always mean necessary

The idea that anything less than the most perfect design is flawed is something found only in the minds of greedy lawyers

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't let nostalgia blind me to some of the inherent flaws of "the good old days"
Sometimes there's a reason why they don't make them like that anymore

Any gun that cannot be safely used to it's full potential as manufactured is flawed when there is an easy fix available to make it right

But it's fine some people like the flaw, makes em feel like a real cowboy

Ruger redesigned their SA revolvers as a result of a lawsuit, brought by an individual who suffered injury while loading/unloading one of their revolvers in the cab of a (moving IIRC) pickup truck.

Actually they agreed to fix the flaw to settle many lawsuits
And to be fair the Ruger design did not follow the original
The recessed chambers made it more unsafe because you couldn't lower the hammer between rounds anymore, which is the way it was taught back then as has already been pointed out

[CraigC]

And to be fair the Ruger design did not follow the original

Since when do Rugers have recessed chambers?

The old guns had an adequate safety already, new does not always mean better and better does not always mean necessary

Exactly! The same could be said of traditional single actions.


I disagree with the notion that traditional single actions are a flawed design. They have been around since the 1830's and did not change until the New Model Ruger in 1973. There are still thousands and thousands of traditional single actions produced every year. There are still many shooters that won't own a New Model Ruger. The "flaw", if there is one, is in the shooters. Shooters that are either ignorant of proper sixgun handling or have some sort of aversion to leaving one chamber empty. The problem did not arise from a defect in the guns, it was the shooters' ignorance/negligence that led to the injuries and subsequently, the lawsuits. Lawyers are always standing by to save the idiots from themselves.

If you want to talk about flaws let's discuss your much-vaunted New Model. The chambers don't index properly for loading. When you hear the click, you have gone too far. That is a design flaw. There is a certain amount of creep built into the action that is required for proper function. It can be minimized but not removed entirely. That is why the New Model will never have the light and crisp trigger action of the older designs. That is a design flaw. The transfer bar itself is a thin, cast part. It is known to break after serious use. Many cowboy action shooters carry spares for this reason. That is a design flaw.

So you see, we can sit here and pick them all apart and for what? No good comes of it. I own over a dozen of each design and love and accept them for what they are. Strengths and weaknesses alike. Each has an appeal all its own. If one doesn't appeal to you that's fine, you're not required to buy them.

[44 AMP]

Any gun that cannot be safely used to it's full potential as manufactured is flawed when there is an easy fix available to make it right

Apparently there is some difference of opinion about what constitutes "full potential" and "easy fix". And what is "right"?

I don't own any original Colt style SAs, all mine are new model Rugers. I consider them a superior product to the Colt SAA (and clones). But that doesn't mean I consider the older design "flawed". Just not as advanced. And like a lot of things, there are certain steps that must be taken to ensure safety and proper operation that need not be done with a different design. Again, not a flaw, just a different and more restrictive operating system.

Ruger's "easy fix" required redesign of the entire lockwork, and while it can be retrofitted to older Rugers (which was part of the settlement agreement), it was not what I would consider an "easy" fix.

We are arguing semantics here, but I just don't see how one can rightly say that any design which stops short of what you or I consider perfection, but obviously was satisfactory to the designer is "flawed". That is a judgement call that we are not qualified to make. By that reasoning anything and everything that can be, or has ever been inproved was flawed.

Are we someday going to be told that steel framed firearms are flawed because they are not made of plastic? When they get caseless ammo to be a viable commercial product are we then going to hear that cased ammo is flawed? Are muzzleloaders flawed because they are not breechloaders? Just because something is not the most current, up to date innovation dies not mean it if flawed. Cuting edge technology 100, or 200 years ago is not flawed, simply not as advanced as today. Will the technology of today be flawed 20, or 50 years from now? Outmoded, or obsolete, archaic even would be better, and more accurate terms, but flawed implies defective, and while not as easily capable as more modern designs, he older designs still fuction as well as they ever did, which is more than well enough to do the job they were intended to do. The fact that people can use, misuse, and abuse a thing in such a manner as to hurt themselves or others is not a flaw in the object. A knife is not flawed because you can cut yourself if you are clumsy. Not the fault of the tool. Fault of the user. Period.