Why don't revolvers have safeties? - Page 3

**JohnKSa** · October 17, 2015, 04:15 AM

Let's stick to revolvers and safeties and leave the personal exchanges to private messages.

gyvel · October 17, 2015, 08:57 PM

This is about all that's germane to safeties on revolvers:

(1) The original mechanical design of "modern" revolvers goes back close to 200 years. At the outset, no one felt it was necessary to include a mechanical manual safety in the design.

(2) Those revolvers that have safeties seem to have been predominately European, where revolver philosophy differs somewhat from American. The few that I have seen seem to come at the request of certain police agencies (Singapore, Hong Kong, France). There have been a few examples of German 11mm Reichsrevolvers observed.

(3) The few safeties that have been included in revolver design only seem to block the mechanism when the hammer is at rest. There are NO safeties (that I know of) that render the action of a revolver inoperable when cocked. (Edit: Jim Keenan pointed out that the Webley-Fosberry had a manual safety that could be applied when cocked. I had forgotten about that.) As I mentioned earlier, it is assumed that, when the revolver is cocked, it is meant to be used instantaneously if necessary.

Pond, James Pond · October 18, 2015, 06:20 AM

Thanks for the summary, Gyvel.

That Webley you referenced appears to fit with what I was thinking could have evolved.

It seems there were some people who wanted the option of carrying a DA/SA revolver, in SA mode, but doing so safely in the same manner that some do with semis today.
If there hadn't been any demand whatsoever, I guess the Webley would not have come into being.

Nonetheless, clearly it is not a practice that caught on and I suspect the reasons in post #2 go some way to explaining why: you'd be back to DA for all remaining shots anyway...

**44 AMP** · October 18, 2015, 11:13 AM

The Webley Fosberry Automatic Revolver is a truly unique design.

The general appearance is close to other Webleys, but the function is radically different. IT is, in effect a SA semi automatic pistol, that uses a revolver cylinder instead of a box magazine.

Which it why it has a safety. It LOOKS like a revolver and part of it is a revolver, but the rest of it isn't. What it actually is, is a semi auto pistol that manually feeds and ejects the rounds (break action revolver style).

When you fire it, the upper frame assy (hammer, cylinder & barrel, etc) recoils on the lower frame assy (trigger and grip). This action rotates the cylinder to the next chamber and cocks the hammer.

It is classified as a revolver, but it really isn't one in the usual sense. Never very popular, and long out of production. It was long out of production when it got mention in The Maltese Falcon, as the gun used to murder Myles Archer, Sam Spade's partner.

A unique design, and a complete dead end.

gyvel · October 18, 2015, 11:47 AM

As a side note, there was a similar design produced briefly in the U.S., the .32 S&W Union revolver. It was designed and sold by Charles Lefever (a son of Daniel Lefever) from 1909-1912. It used the same physics/mechanical principles as the Webley Fosberry, but more closely resembled a contemporary S&W, Iver Johnson or Harrington & Richardson top break revolver. Ironically, unlike the Fosberry, it had no manual safety.

gyvel · October 18, 2015, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Thanks for the summary, Gyvel.

That Webley you referenced appears to fit with what I was thinking could have evolved.

You're very welcome. Don't know if you looked or not, but one of my earlier posts in this thread has a picture of a Mk IV .38 with the crossbolt safety.

The only type of "practical" manual safety on a modern revolver that I could see would entail a small button installed through the trigger that would physically block the trigger from being pulled when the gun was cocked. Use of the trigger finger would quickly disengage it, but it is still another motion to perform to prepare for shooting, and I would think it would be prone to being easily disengaged accidentally were the revolver "carried cocked and locked."

**44 AMP** · October 19, 2015, 11:53 AM

A couple of points to consider, about why a manual safety (safety lock, either lever or button or...) isn't found on revolvers in general...

It comes from the history of firearms development. Once you go past the original matchlocks, to some system where the gun is cocked, then fired its about all the same.

They are all "single action" systems. Once the gun is cocked, one action, pulling the trigger, fires the gun.

With a few exceptions, until you get to the later 1800s, everything had an exposed "hammer". One that had to me manually cocked for each shot. It was always your decision when to cock the hammer.

Repeating arms complicated this a bit, but not all that much as designs like the Henry/Winchester lever guns, and many others had a provision for "safe" carry via the half cock hammer position. The small degree of risk lowering the hammer to half cock was considered acceptable until the later 20th century, when the old designs were revamped to include an additional safety (often a button).

And, with the lever guns, like revolvers, it was up to you to decide when you cocked the gun for its next shot. An additional safety lever simply was not felt to be needed or useful.

Semi autos changed that. Semis "automatically" cock the gun, during the reloading cycle. You don't get to decide when it is needed, it is always done automatically by the gun.

This is where a manual safety becomes most important. With a manually operated repeater, once you fire the chambered round, the gun is totally safe and inert until you make it ready again. There is no live round in the chamber and its not cocked, until you make it so.

If you don't need or want to shoot again you don't actually need to do anything to or with the gun. With a semi, that's not an option. Once you fire the round that you put in the chamber, it puts another one in, and recocks the gun in the process. SO you are "hot" automatically, and if you aren't going to shoot again, you need to so something to make it safe.

Design philosophies differ over which kind of safety is better, active / passive, and user opinions differ even more about what is "best". What is universally recognized is that on a semi auto there is a need, not just a use, for some kind of safety.

While not universal, the overwhelming majority does not recognize a need for a safety on a revolver.

Pond, James Pond · October 19, 2015, 03:40 PM

Thanks for the walkthrough on the parallel evolutions of the two platforms. Makes a lot of sense when you say it like that, especially the "by choice" and "default" nature of the gun being hot following a shot fired.

mapsjanhere · October 19, 2015, 04:08 PM

The first large number revolver with a safety was probably the German Reichsrevolver. As reloading required pulling the cylinder axis and use it poke the spent cartridges out of the lose cylinder that makes sense; you didn't want to lose any rounds to accidental discharges

.

Kosh75287 · October 19, 2015, 05:50 PM

Why don't revolvers have safeties?

Perhaps because they're difficult enough to shoot well, without them (unless you're Jerry Mickulek)?

Branko · October 20, 2015, 06:47 AM

Personally, shooting single action revolvers I never saw the need for a safety. You have to cock the gun to shoot, and that is a very conscious effort. Single actions are wonderful for their simplicity. You pull it and cock it at the same time and you're ready. No "fiddling" with the gun.

Semiautos are simply different. You wouldn't carry one without a safety in the same way you wouldn't carry a single action with a cocked hammer.

Prof Young · October 30, 2015, 09:34 PM

My Heritage single action 22 LR six shooter has a safety.

Live well, be safe
Prof Young

tipoc · October 30, 2015, 10:50 PM

Quote:

My Heritage single action 22 LR six shooter has a safety.

A number of single action revolvers have, in the recent period, been required by law in some places to have safeties. So they do. This is a development of the last decade or two.

tipoc

lewwallace · November 13, 2015, 07:53 PM

No has mentioned the Webley MkIV 38 Singapore Police Force(SPF) Came w/a crossbolt safety and some 50's imports had some installed. An early solid frame Webley 'Holster' model had a primative flat spring frame safety too!

October 17, 2015, 04:15 AM	#51
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 24,973	Let's stick to revolvers and safeties and leave the personal exchanges to private messages. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

October 17, 2015, 08:57 PM	#52
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	This is about all that's germane to safeties on revolvers: (1) The original mechanical design of "modern" revolvers goes back close to 200 years. At the outset, no one felt it was necessary to include a mechanical manual safety in the design. (2) Those revolvers that have safeties seem to have been predominately European, where revolver philosophy differs somewhat from American. The few that I have seen seem to come at the request of certain police agencies (Singapore, Hong Kong, France). There have been a few examples of German 11mm Reichsrevolvers observed. (3) The few safeties that have been included in revolver design only seem to block the mechanism when the hammer is at rest. There are NO safeties (that I know of) that render the action of a revolver inoperable when cocked. (Edit: Jim Keenan pointed out that the Webley-Fosberry had a manual safety that could be applied when cocked. I had forgotten about that.) As I mentioned earlier, it is assumed that, when the revolver is cocked, it is meant to be used instantaneously if necessary. __________________ As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE Last edited by gyvel; October 17, 2015 at 09:17 PM.

October 18, 2015, 06:20 AM	#53
Pond, James Pond Senior Member Join Date: July 12, 2011 Location: Top of the Baltic stack Posts: 6,079	Thanks for the summary, Gyvel. That Webley you referenced appears to fit with what I was thinking could have evolved. It seems there were some people who wanted the option of carrying a DA/SA revolver, in SA mode, but doing so safely in the same manner that some do with semis today. If there hadn't been any demand whatsoever, I guess the Webley would not have come into being. Nonetheless, clearly it is not a practice that caught on and I suspect the reasons in post #2 go some way to explaining why: you'd be back to DA for all remaining shots anyway... __________________ When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.

October 18, 2015, 11:13 AM	#54
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	The Webley Fosberry Automatic Revolver is a truly unique design. The general appearance is close to other Webleys, but the function is radically different. IT is, in effect a SA semi automatic pistol, that uses a revolver cylinder instead of a box magazine. Which it why it has a safety. It LOOKS like a revolver and part of it is a revolver, but the rest of it isn't. What it actually is, is a semi auto pistol that manually feeds and ejects the rounds (break action revolver style). When you fire it, the upper frame assy (hammer, cylinder & barrel, etc) recoils on the lower frame assy (trigger and grip). This action rotates the cylinder to the next chamber and cocks the hammer. It is classified as a revolver, but it really isn't one in the usual sense. Never very popular, and long out of production. It was long out of production when it got mention in The Maltese Falcon, as the gun used to murder Myles Archer, Sam Spade's partner. A unique design, and a complete dead end. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

October 18, 2015, 11:47 AM	#55
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	As a side note, there was a similar design produced briefly in the U.S., the .32 S&W Union revolver. It was designed and sold by Charles Lefever (a son of Daniel Lefever) from 1909-1912. It used the same physics/mechanical principles as the Webley Fosberry, but more closely resembled a contemporary S&W, Iver Johnson or Harrington & Richardson top break revolver. Ironically, unlike the Fosberry, it had no manual safety. __________________ As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE Last edited by gyvel; October 18, 2015 at 11:54 AM.

October 19, 2015, 11:53 AM	#57
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	A couple of points to consider, about why a manual safety (safety lock, either lever or button or...) isn't found on revolvers in general... It comes from the history of firearms development. Once you go past the original matchlocks, to some system where the gun is cocked, then fired its about all the same. They are all "single action" systems. Once the gun is cocked, one action, pulling the trigger, fires the gun. With a few exceptions, until you get to the later 1800s, everything had an exposed "hammer". One that had to me manually cocked for each shot. It was always your decision when to cock the hammer. Repeating arms complicated this a bit, but not all that much as designs like the Henry/Winchester lever guns, and many others had a provision for "safe" carry via the half cock hammer position. The small degree of risk lowering the hammer to half cock was considered acceptable until the later 20th century, when the old designs were revamped to include an additional safety (often a button). And, with the lever guns, like revolvers, it was up to you to decide when you cocked the gun for its next shot. An additional safety lever simply was not felt to be needed or useful. Semi autos changed that. Semis "automatically" cock the gun, during the reloading cycle. You don't get to decide when it is needed, it is always done automatically by the gun. This is where a manual safety becomes most important. With a manually operated repeater, once you fire the chambered round, the gun is totally safe and inert until you make it ready again. There is no live round in the chamber and its not cocked, until you make it so. If you don't need or want to shoot again you don't actually need to do anything to or with the gun. With a semi, that's not an option. Once you fire the round that you put in the chamber, it puts another one in, and recocks the gun in the process. SO you are "hot" automatically, and if you aren't going to shoot again, you need to so something to make it safe. Design philosophies differ over which kind of safety is better, active / passive, and user opinions differ even more about what is "best". What is universally recognized is that on a semi auto there is a need, not just a use, for some kind of safety. While not universal, the overwhelming majority does not recognize a need for a safety on a revolver. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

October 19, 2015, 03:40 PM	#58
Pond, James Pond Senior Member Join Date: July 12, 2011 Location: Top of the Baltic stack Posts: 6,079	Thanks for the walkthrough on the parallel evolutions of the two platforms. Makes a lot of sense when you say it like that, especially the "by choice" and "default" nature of the gun being hot following a shot fired. __________________ When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.

October 19, 2015, 04:08 PM	#59
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	The first large number revolver with a safety was probably the German Reichsrevolver. As reloading required pulling the cylinder axis and use it poke the spent cartridges out of the lose cylinder that makes sense; you didn't want to lose any rounds to accidental discharges . __________________ I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.

October 19, 2015, 05:50 PM	#60
Kosh75287 Senior Member Join Date: October 15, 2007 Posts: 820	Why don't revolvers have safeties? Perhaps because they're difficult enough to shoot well, without them (unless you're Jerry Mickulek)? __________________ GOD BLESS JEFF COOPER, whose instructions, consultations, and publications have probably saved more lives than can ever be reliably calculated. DVC, sir. انجلو. المسلحة. جاهزة. Carpe SCOTCH!

October 20, 2015, 06:47 AM	#61
Branko Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2015 Location: Croatia Posts: 188	Personally, shooting single action revolvers I never saw the need for a safety. You have to cock the gun to shoot, and that is a very conscious effort. Single actions are wonderful for their simplicity. You pull it and cock it at the same time and you're ready. No "fiddling" with the gun. Semiautos are simply different. You wouldn't carry one without a safety in the same way you wouldn't carry a single action with a cocked hammer.

October 30, 2015, 09:34 PM	#62
Prof Young Senior Member Join Date: August 21, 2007 Location: Illinois - down state Posts: 2,404	Heritage has a saftey . . . My Heritage single action 22 LR six shooter has a safety. Live well, be safe Prof Young

November 13, 2015, 07:53 PM	#64
lewwallace Member Join Date: June 15, 2015 Posts: 29	safeties No has mentioned the Webley MkIV 38 Singapore Police Force(SPF) Came w/a crossbolt safety and some 50's imports had some installed. An early solid frame Webley 'Holster' model had a primative flat spring frame safety too!