A word on Taurus Security

Kalgalath · January 20, 2013, 10:20 AM

Taurus has implemented a transfer bar system on their revolvers.
The transfer bar mechanism prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled fully to the rear.

The last automatic I bought was a Smith and Wesson .40 cal, and overall It's a pretty decent hand gun. However there are two things I really despise about the weapon.
First and foremost, the only safety is on the trigger (I really hate that). Secondly, before you fire a second round the trigger has to be fully released to the starting point before beginning the next firing cycle.

It's just personal preference, I know, but these things really irk me.

What I want to know is, are there any of you who have the same issues as I do. And do you own a Taurus revolver with the transfer bar system?

Is there anyone who owns a Taurus with the transfer bar system who can't stand this feature?

Hate it?
Love it?
Don't notice?

Leejack · January 20, 2013, 10:39 AM

Transfer bars have been around for a long time.

I've owned 2 Taurus 85's and a 94, no problems with either.

What Smith are you talking about?

They do sell models with a manual safety if you prefer.

Trigger reset is another personal preference. No problems with Smith's here.

g.willikers · January 20, 2013, 01:12 PM

Are you sure it's the transfer bar travel that requires full trigger travel?
I just checked a couple of revolvers with transfer bars, and the transfer bar is well up in position, about half distance of the trigger pull.
But the hammer does not fall until the trigger is at full travel, just like every revolver I've ever owned, with or without a transfer bar.
What auto are you referring to?
One of the hammer fired ones, maybe.
They use a different type trigger design than striker fired guns, and can have a short take up that requires a nearly full release of the trigger.
Was your previous experience with a striker type?

James K · January 20, 2013, 01:21 PM

Sounds like a comparison of revolvers and auto pistols, not really a good comparison.

As to triggers, I know of no handguns (except full auto) that don't require that the trigger be released before pulling it to fire the next round.

I think Kalgalath had an S&W Sigma, a Glock type. When he talks about not having the trigger return all the way, he seems to be referring to a DA/SA auto pistol where the first shot is DA, but the next shots are SA so the trigger has a short return stroke. That is a function of the trigger mechanism of the pistol and has nothing to do with a transfer bar, which is used only on revolvers.

Jim

g.willikers · January 20, 2013, 01:28 PM

There's no forgetting the only dependable safety is the one between our ears.
Maybe the complaint about the trigger on the auto is that it's not like a Glock, with a short reset.
If his is a Sigma, and it's the copy of a Glock that got S&W in such a hassle, it's surprising that it doesn't have a similar trigger.
The Glock short reset is one of its best features.

lee n. field · January 20, 2013, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Taurus has implemented a transfer bar system on their revolvers.

No real news. They've had it for ages.

Ruger uses transfer bars, as well as Charter Arms. (I think Charter invented it, way back when.)

Quote:

Is there anyone who owns a Taurus with the transfer bar system who can't stand this feature?

Hate it?
Love it?
Don't notice?

I appreciate it. It's safe. I truly don't see why anyone would have an issue with the transfer bar system.

What alternative would you rather see used?

Budda · January 20, 2013, 04:48 PM

I thought Colt invented it.......I am pretty sure they did.

LWC · January 20, 2013, 05:59 PM

Nope it was Charter that invented it...
Taken from their website "Charter invented the hammer block transfer bar safety system used by almost every revolver manufacturer."

Budda · January 20, 2013, 06:35 PM

Nope. It wasColt...or Iver Johnson.....it was one of the two.....I forget which.

Python had it in 59'? I will have to go look.

Leejack · January 20, 2013, 06:38 PM

It was Al Gore!

mega twin · January 20, 2013, 06:39 PM

Iver Johnson had the "hammer the hammer" ad many years ago, but I don't know how it worked.

Kalgalath · January 20, 2013, 06:47 PM

it's a simple question series people

Does trigger safety options like what is used on the Glock and full trigger range release not sit well you?

If the answer is Yes please see question number two.

Question number two ... Do you own a Taurus revolver that has implemented the transfer bar system?

If the answer to this question is also yes, then what are your thoughts on the transfer bar system? Does it bother you in any way?

If you can't answer yes to the first two questions then please stop hijacking my thread.

spanishjames · January 20, 2013, 08:11 PM

Does the S&W .40 you bought have a hammer block? Some revolvers use hammer blocks instead of transfer bars.

lee n. field · January 20, 2013, 09:37 PM

Quote:

it's a simple question series people

Does trigger safety options like what is used on the Glock and full trigger range release not sit well you?

If the answer is Yes please see question number two.

Question number two ... Do you own a Taurus revolver that has implemented the transfer bar system?

If the answer to this question is also yes, then what are your thoughts on the transfer bar system? Does it bother you in any way?

If you can't answer yes to the first two questions then please stop hijacking my thread.

Two different systems, on two completely different types of handgun. Maybe if you could clarify what you're looking for.

OkieCruffler · January 21, 2013, 10:07 AM

So you don't like DAO pistols. There are other options.
I'm still confused on how a transfer bar could cause you issues.

dgludwig · January 21, 2013, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Nope. It wasColt...or Iver Johnson.....it was one of the two.....I forget which.

Python had it in 59'? I will have to go look.

I'm curious as to what you find out. Transfer bars and "hammer blocks" are two different concepts and I don't think Colt (or Iver Johnson) invented or first used (or maybe even ever used) the transfer bar safety system.

Quote:

Is there anyone who owns a Taurus with the transfer bar system who can't stand this feature?

Hate it?
Love it?
Don't notice?

As others have asked, what about the transfer bar system concerns you in any way? It has little or nothing to do with how quickly (or slowly) the trigger is re-set and the design has been used by many revolver makers over the past several decades without any problem that I'm aware of.

Ozzieman · January 21, 2013, 06:50 PM

If you can't answer yes to the first two questions then please stop hijacking my thread.
I think you should chill a little on that comment. You seem to be getting answers you don’t like. For one thing I’m not too sure when Taurus added the transfer bar under their hammer. I have a 445 that was built 20+ years ago that has it.
You say it irks you, why does it?
Why do you have a problem with the system since gun manufactures have been using it for decades? The way it functions is very simple, the transfer bar is in the up position with the hammer back and does nothing but remain up when the trigger is pulled, there is no feel or any indication its being used.
As far as the second why would you buy a gun that you “really despise”? And if it’s a double action there is nothing that the manufacture can do to shorten the reset point since you need the entire length to cock the hammer.
The Glock has a very good trigger as it’s designed to work. Yes I would love to have it work like a 1911 but then it would be unsafe to carry. Since as you put it the trigger is its only safety Glock did everything it could do to make it safe. Even though I do wish Glock offered a gun with a manual safety I still carry my 26 as is.
You’re asking several questions, one concerning revolvers and then changing to an auto then changing to a Glock.

Ifishsum · January 22, 2013, 02:07 AM

I own 3 Taurus revolvers, all with the transfer bar system. I've also shot a number of revolvers without it, and cannot feel a difference that I'd attribute to the transfer bar. Pretty much all DA revolvers I've fired do require the trigger to go most of the way forward before taking another shot; it's not because of the transfer bar. It doesn't bother me because I started on revolvers. Cocking the hammer and shooting single action will give you a better trigger pull than most any automatic though, and that's how I shoot 90% of the time.

bigghoss · January 22, 2013, 08:19 AM

I had a Taurus 605 and it was junk. The cylinder catch stuck on me several times and after some research I discovered this was a common issue as well as the company having a reputation for having a higher than normal failure rate and poor customer service. I sold it and bought a ruger SP101, the quality of the ruger is much higher.

Sevens · January 22, 2013, 03:40 PM

Quote:

If you can't answer yes to the first two questions then please stop hijacking my thread.

Welcome to the internet. You own NO THREADS on this forum.
You will NEVER own any thread on this forum. Start your own forum if you'd like such power.

I own a Taurus with a transfer bar system and it works perfectly well. I own a S&W revolver that has a firing pin attached to the hammer and it works well also. I have a Ruger single action that uses a transfer bar system and it works 100% properly all of the time.

Quote:

What I want to know is, are there any of you who have the same issues as I do.

Boy, I certainly hope not.

hAkron · January 24, 2013, 08:33 AM

My oldest S&W and Dan Wesson revolvers (1970's era) all have some sort of interrupter that block the full travel of the hammer if there isn't a finger pulling the trigger. This is good on a carry revolver because you don't want the hammer resting on the primer of a live round.

If you want an excellent short reset on a semi auto pistol, the 3rd generation steel S&W semi autos have a fantastic short trigger reset...as good, maybe better than the Sig Short Reset Trigger system. They also have a manul safety, and a magazine safety...of which I'm not a fan.

Carne Frio · January 24, 2013, 01:22 PM

I own both Glocks and Tauri. I am happy with the
Glock trigger system. I am also happy with the
transfer bar mechanism. Almost every revolver
I have has a similar one. I also haven't had any
misfires or been able to break any of them.

Dondor · January 24, 2013, 01:32 PM

I must be missing something about this entire question the OP is asking.

Transfer bars, to my knowledge, were implemented to allow the safer carrying of a revolver with regards to a firing pin being near the primer and striking the hammer causing a AD.

Revolvers sort of have to have that full trigger reset in order to advance the cylinder. Now I am unsure of how your Taurus works, but none of my revolvers will fire again until I reset the trigger. And by fire, I mean ignite a fresh round.

As far as your semiautomatic question or statement, most striker fired pistols lack an external safety such as is found on the JMB style of guns. That is not to say that there are not passive safeties on the inside as a firing pin block, that must necessitate a full trigger pull.

If you dislike the "trigger-only" safety, how do you get around that same feature on your revolver?

Personally, I like the transfer bar on my revolvers. I also like my Glock and its trigger safety system.

I subscribe to the "don't put your booger hook on the bang switch" mode of safety when I handle a firearm.

Again, I am not fully understanding what information you seek as you are in two different places with two different types of weapons.

Kalgalath · January 25, 2013, 08:36 PM

Ifishsum

Quote:

I own 3 Taurus revolvers, all with the transfer bar system. I've also shot a number of revolvers without it, and cannot feel a difference that I'd attribute to the transfer bar.

Thank you, that's kinda what i wanted to know.

ok .. it's not that i'm getting answers that i don't like. I'm not getting the answers to the question I'm looking for. I'll take the responsibility for this one and say maybe I'm not really communicating my concerns corectly. I'll try again.

I want to get a revolver but most of my experiences deal with automatics.

I'm looking at several different revolvers from Taurus and on the specs page they mention this transfer bar system.

I have had some negative experiences with trigger systems in the past with some automatics that i have owned, and i wouldn't want to make the mistake of spending money on a good revolver if i dont like the way it fires or feels because of this trigger system.

I'm looking for pros and cons of the transfer bar system, is there anyone that dislikes it, and why?

I've heard several pros but no cons, and i wonder if there are any?

James K · January 25, 2013, 09:24 PM

OK, kiddies, quit arguing. The transfer bar system was invented by Andrew Fyrberg and assigned to Iver Johnson - patent 566393, granted Aug. 25, 1896.

The disadvantage of the transfer bar system compared with the hammer block is that the transfer bar is struck by the hammer every time the revolver is fired. The hammer block, on the other hand, is never touched by the hammer unless the hammer is driven forward with great force, overriding the rebound mechanism. The result is that on rare occasions the transfer bar breaks, rendering the gun inoperable.

Jim

January 20, 2013, 10:20 AM	#1
Kalgalath Member Join Date: January 5, 2013 Posts: 20	A word on Taurus Security Taurus has implemented a transfer bar system on their revolvers. The transfer bar mechanism prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled fully to the rear. The last automatic I bought was a Smith and Wesson .40 cal, and overall It's a pretty decent hand gun. However there are two things I really despise about the weapon. First and foremost, the only safety is on the trigger (I really hate that). Secondly, before you fire a second round the trigger has to be fully released to the starting point before beginning the next firing cycle. It's just personal preference, I know, but these things really irk me. What I want to know is, are there any of you who have the same issues as I do. And do you own a Taurus revolver with the transfer bar system? Is there anyone who owns a Taurus with the transfer bar system who can't stand this feature? Hate it? Love it? Don't notice?

January 20, 2013, 01:12 PM	#3
g.willikers Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 10,442	Are you sure it's the transfer bar travel that requires full trigger travel? I just checked a couple of revolvers with transfer bars, and the transfer bar is well up in position, about half distance of the trigger pull. But the hammer does not fall until the trigger is at full travel, just like every revolver I've ever owned, with or without a transfer bar. What auto are you referring to? One of the hammer fired ones, maybe. They use a different type trigger design than striker fired guns, and can have a short take up that requires a nearly full release of the trigger. Was your previous experience with a striker type? __________________ Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”

January 20, 2013, 01:28 PM	#5
g.willikers Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2008 Posts: 10,442	There's no forgetting the only dependable safety is the one between our ears. Maybe the complaint about the trigger on the auto is that it's not like a Glock, with a short reset. If his is a Sigma, and it's the copy of a Glock that got S&W in such a hassle, it's surprising that it doesn't have a similar trigger. The Glock short reset is one of its best features. __________________ Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”

January 20, 2013, 04:48 PM	#7
Budda Senior Member Join Date: November 7, 2011 Location: Earth Posts: 446	I thought Colt invented it.......I am pretty sure they did. __________________ ...They have the internet on computers now....-Homer Simpson-

January 20, 2013, 06:35 PM	#9
Budda Senior Member Join Date: November 7, 2011 Location: Earth Posts: 446	Nope. It wasColt...or Iver Johnson.....it was one of the two.....I forget which. Python had it in 59'? I will have to go look. __________________ ...They have the internet on computers now....-Homer Simpson-

January 20, 2013, 10:39 AM	#2
Leejack Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: The Alamo! Posts: 2,056	Transfer bars have been around for a long time. I've owned 2 Taurus 85's and a 94, no problems with either. What Smith are you talking about? They do sell models with a manual safety if you prefer. Trigger reset is another personal preference. No problems with Smith's here.

January 20, 2013, 01:21 PM	#4
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Sounds like a comparison of revolvers and auto pistols, not really a good comparison. As to triggers, I know of no handguns (except full auto) that don't require that the trigger be released before pulling it to fire the next round. I think Kalgalath had an S&W Sigma, a Glock type. When he talks about not having the trigger return all the way, he seems to be referring to a DA/SA auto pistol where the first shot is DA, but the next shots are SA so the trigger has a short return stroke. That is a function of the trigger mechanism of the pistol and has nothing to do with a transfer bar, which is used only on revolvers. Jim

January 20, 2013, 05:59 PM	#8
LWC Member Join Date: June 1, 2007 Posts: 16	Nope it was Charter that invented it... Taken from their website "Charter invented the hammer block transfer bar safety system used by almost every revolver manufacturer."

January 20, 2013, 06:38 PM	#10
Leejack Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: The Alamo! Posts: 2,056	It was Al Gore!

January 20, 2013, 06:39 PM	#11
mega twin Senior Member Join Date: August 15, 2006 Posts: 434	Iver Johnson had the "hammer the hammer" ad many years ago, but I don't know how it worked.

January 20, 2013, 06:47 PM	#12
Kalgalath Member Join Date: January 5, 2013 Posts: 20	it's a simple question series people Does trigger safety options like what is used on the Glock and full trigger range release not sit well you? If the answer is Yes please see question number two. Question number two ... Do you own a Taurus revolver that has implemented the transfer bar system? If the answer to this question is also yes, then what are your thoughts on the transfer bar system? Does it bother you in any way? If you can't answer yes to the first two questions then please stop hijacking my thread.

January 20, 2013, 08:11 PM	#13
spanishjames Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2010 Posts: 553	Does the S&W .40 you bought have a hammer block? Some revolvers use hammer blocks instead of transfer bars. __________________ Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable." -Sydney J. Harris

January 21, 2013, 10:07 AM	#15
OkieCruffler Senior Member Join Date: July 9, 2001 Location: Denison Texas on the banks of Texhoma Posts: 1,556	So you don't like DAO pistols. There are other options. I'm still confused on how a transfer bar could cause you issues. __________________ John A. Monroe, Never Forgive, Never Forget, Blood Pays Blood

January 21, 2013, 06:50 PM	#17
Ozzieman Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Northern Indiana Posts: 6,117	If you can't answer yes to the first two questions then please stop hijacking my thread. I think you should chill a little on that comment. You seem to be getting answers you don’t like. For one thing I’m not too sure when Taurus added the transfer bar under their hammer. I have a 445 that was built 20+ years ago that has it. You say it irks you, why does it? Why do you have a problem with the system since gun manufactures have been using it for decades? The way it functions is very simple, the transfer bar is in the up position with the hammer back and does nothing but remain up when the trigger is pulled, there is no feel or any indication its being used. As far as the second why would you buy a gun that you “really despise”? And if it’s a double action there is nothing that the manufacture can do to shorten the reset point since you need the entire length to cock the hammer. The Glock has a very good trigger as it’s designed to work. Yes I would love to have it work like a 1911 but then it would be unsafe to carry. Since as you put it the trigger is its only safety Glock did everything it could do to make it safe. Even though I do wish Glock offered a gun with a manual safety I still carry my 26 as is. You’re asking several questions, one concerning revolvers and then changing to an auto then changing to a Glock. __________________ It was a sad day when I discovered my universal remote control did not in fact control the universe. Did you hear about the latest study.....5 out of 6 liberals say that Russian Roulette is safe.

January 22, 2013, 02:07 AM	#18
Ifishsum Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,033	I own 3 Taurus revolvers, all with the transfer bar system. I've also shot a number of revolvers without it, and cannot feel a difference that I'd attribute to the transfer bar. Pretty much all DA revolvers I've fired do require the trigger to go most of the way forward before taking another shot; it's not because of the transfer bar. It doesn't bother me because I started on revolvers. Cocking the hammer and shooting single action will give you a better trigger pull than most any automatic though, and that's how I shoot 90% of the time.

January 22, 2013, 08:19 AM	#19
bigghoss Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2006 Location: Pueblo, Colorado Posts: 2,664	I had a Taurus 605 and it was junk. The cylinder catch stuck on me several times and after some research I discovered this was a common issue as well as the company having a reputation for having a higher than normal failure rate and poor customer service. I sold it and bought a ruger SP101, the quality of the ruger is much higher. __________________ I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.

January 24, 2013, 08:33 AM	#21
hAkron Senior Member Join Date: March 31, 2011 Location: Akron, Ohio Posts: 318	My oldest S&W and Dan Wesson revolvers (1970's era) all have some sort of interrupter that block the full travel of the hammer if there isn't a finger pulling the trigger. This is good on a carry revolver because you don't want the hammer resting on the primer of a live round. If you want an excellent short reset on a semi auto pistol, the 3rd generation steel S&W semi autos have a fantastic short trigger reset...as good, maybe better than the Sig Short Reset Trigger system. They also have a manul safety, and a magazine safety...of which I'm not a fan.

January 24, 2013, 01:22 PM	#22
Carne Frio Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2008 Location: Near Fairbanks Alaska Posts: 829	I own both Glocks and Tauri. I am happy with the Glock trigger system. I am also happy with the transfer bar mechanism. Almost every revolver I have has a similar one. I also haven't had any misfires or been able to break any of them.

January 24, 2013, 01:32 PM	#23
Dondor Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2006 Posts: 226	I must be missing something about this entire question the OP is asking. Transfer bars, to my knowledge, were implemented to allow the safer carrying of a revolver with regards to a firing pin being near the primer and striking the hammer causing a AD. Revolvers sort of have to have that full trigger reset in order to advance the cylinder. Now I am unsure of how your Taurus works, but none of my revolvers will fire again until I reset the trigger. And by fire, I mean ignite a fresh round. As far as your semiautomatic question or statement, most striker fired pistols lack an external safety such as is found on the JMB style of guns. That is not to say that there are not passive safeties on the inside as a firing pin block, that must necessitate a full trigger pull. If you dislike the "trigger-only" safety, how do you get around that same feature on your revolver? Personally, I like the transfer bar on my revolvers. I also like my Glock and its trigger safety system. I subscribe to the "don't put your booger hook on the bang switch" mode of safety when I handle a firearm. Again, I am not fully understanding what information you seek as you are in two different places with two different types of weapons.

January 25, 2013, 09:24 PM	#25
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	OK, kiddies, quit arguing. The transfer bar system was invented by Andrew Fyrberg and assigned to Iver Johnson - patent 566393, granted Aug. 25, 1896. The disadvantage of the transfer bar system compared with the hammer block is that the transfer bar is struck by the hammer every time the revolver is fired. The hammer block, on the other hand, is never touched by the hammer unless the hammer is driven forward with great force, overriding the rebound mechanism. The result is that on rare occasions the transfer bar breaks, rendering the gun inoperable. Jim