Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jun 26, 2017 16:38:59 GMT
I am interested in buying cowboy-style revolvers (e.g. Colt Army/Navy, S&W Schofield, etc.), except double-action & chambered for a modern round (e.g. .357 mag, .45 ACP, .44 mag, etc.).
Does anyone make something like this?
I am well aware of companies like Uberti who make high quality reproductions of these classic handguns, but I'd love to find something more broadly functional, with easier to find ammunition, while maintaining the beautiful old design aesthetics.
|
|
|
Post by SandStormZA on Jun 26, 2017 17:03:03 GMT
It's not Double Action, as far as I know, but you should check out the Ruger Vaquero. Ruger has quite a big variety of revolvers.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 26, 2017 19:08:04 GMT
Why not look into 19th century double actions? There were a bunch of them and they were extremely popular. Granted, these Colt lightening revolvers command a premium: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_M1877But there are lemon squeezers from a bit later in the 19th and early 20th that can be had for next to nothing. Usually chambered in .38 S&W (not special). And there are the Nagants of course, as well as an array of European double actions from the period. Weird rounds on those though. The Ruger historically-inspired lines are all single action to my knowledge. But they can hold six with the transfer safety bar, and are very nice. You don't actually lose much going to single action only. When you factor in recoil they're as fast as a double action for the average user.
|
|
Alan Schiff
Registered
Manufacturers and Vendors
Posts: 464
|
Post by Alan Schiff on Jun 28, 2017 7:58:39 GMT
I haven't seen or heard of any centerfire double-actions with the styling of the older single-actions. The early double-actions could definitely be called cowboy guns, since they're still pre-1900. There's the m1877(aka Rainmaker .32, Lightning .38, and Thunderer .41), which was popular at the time but has a weak mainspring and, I've heard, break relatively easily. Also, not chambered in modern rounds and some people would not want to actually shoot an antique. Next came the 1878 "double action army," which is similar, and then the 1892 "new army/navy" and which looks like your standard double action with no under lug.
High Standard used to make a double-action SAA lookalike called the Double Nine, but it only came in .22lr.
With practice a single-action really isn't much slower than a double-action. A lot of the modern replicas come in normal chamberings like .38, .357, and .44 in addition to the original .45. I myself have a Colt SAA in .357.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 11:57:35 GMT
I have an antique Colt Thunderer, and the double action trigger is extremely long and slow. The trigger spring is very fragile and when it breaks (notice I said when it breaks, not if it breaks,) you're back to single action anyway. If anyone made a modern reproduction, I'd advise against buying it. Mechanically, it's a horrible design.
The Ruger Vacquero can be had with similar styling to the 1877 model. Frame is a bit bigger, but with the birdshead grip, and chambered in .45 LC.
|
|
|
Post by stopped1 on Jun 28, 2017 12:48:17 GMT
The closest thing I can think of is a Webley with bird's head grip in 455. Problem is ammo is hard to come by. DO NOT BUY the 45ACP conversion, those frames are not mean to withstand 45 pressure.
The small frame MKIII also looks cow boyish and comes in 38S&W (not spl), and a number have been bored out to accept 38spl Wad cutter rounds too, it is safe enough to shoot those 38 target load and the hollow base of the WC bullet seals up nicely when going into the oversized the barrel.....
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"
Posts: 609
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jun 28, 2017 18:51:41 GMT
I would say Colt as well for an "authentic" reproduction. WARNING though, single action revolvers if dropped while the hammer is cocked WILL go off!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 20:31:17 GMT
I would say Colt as well for an "authentic" reproduction. WARNING though, single action revolvers if dropped while the hammer is cocked WILL go off!! That particular problem persisted well into the 20th century with most guns where an external hammer could rest on a chambered round, including many semi-autos (M1911, I'm looking at you!). Colt and S&W both had a half-cock notch to hold the hammer off the chambered round, but it was still possible for a sharp blow to the hammer to touch one off (hence the expression, "going off half-cocked.") Safest option was to leave an empty chamber under the hammer, so the old style six shooters were functionally five-shooters. If you really want to something to carry, go with a modern transfer-bar system. My recollection of the Ruger system is that you have to physically pull the trigger back while the hammer falls to engage the transfer bar. Other wise, no bang. I think modern S&W uses a similar system.
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"
Posts: 609
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jun 28, 2017 20:49:01 GMT
I would say Colt as well for an "authentic" reproduction. WARNING though, single action revolvers if dropped while the hammer is cocked WILL go off!! That particular problem persisted well into the 20th century with most guns where an external hammer could rest on a chambered round, including many semi-autos (M1911, I'm looking at you!). Colt and S&W both had a half-rooster notch to hold the hammer off the chambered round, but it was still possible for a sharp blow to the hammer to touch one off (hence the expression, "going off half-cocked.") Safest option was to leave an empty chamber under the hammer, so the old style six shooters were functionally five-shooters. If you really want to something to carry, go with a modern transfer-bar system. My recollection of the Ruger system is that you have to physically pull the trigger back while the hammer falls to engage the transfer bar. Other wise, no bang. I think modern S&W uses a similar system. Leaving a chamber empty IS the way they used to do it!! Hollywood ALWAYS F's that fact up! I learned that like 4 years ago watching Hickok45 on YouTube, how did YOU learn that? 😉
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 21:30:20 GMT
That particular problem persisted well into the 20th century with most guns where an external hammer could rest on a chambered round, including many semi-autos (M1911, I'm looking at you!). Colt and S&W both had a half-rooster notch to hold the hammer off the chambered round, but it was still possible for a sharp blow to the hammer to touch one off (hence the expression, "going off half-cocked.") Safest option was to leave an empty chamber under the hammer, so the old style six shooters were functionally five-shooters. If you really want to something to carry, go with a modern transfer-bar system. My recollection of the Ruger system is that you have to physically pull the trigger back while the hammer falls to engage the transfer bar. Other wise, no bang. I think modern S&W uses a similar system. Leaving a chamber empty IS the way they used to do it!! Hollywood ALWAYS F's that fact up! I learned that like 4 years ago watching Hickok45 on YouTube, how did YOU learn that? 😉 I'm an old guy, I lived it. Actually, I started handgun shooting in the '60's, and there still a lot of much older handguns around. It was normal safety procedure to keep the chamber empty. We had a saying, there are two types of pistoleros, those who've had an unintentional discharge, and those haven't had one yet.
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"
Posts: 609
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jun 29, 2017 1:41:40 GMT
You're only as old as you feel! I've actually seen guys shoot themselves in the leg, even with all the internal safeties guns nowadays have. A great firearms instructor I had about 15yrs ago told me the best safety a conscientious person can have is the one between their ears. Hahaha I'll be honest, after 20 years of gun handling I've had two accidental discharges. However, neither were pointed AT or even NEAR anyone. It can happen to the best of us......just no strafing! 😉
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 29, 2017 16:42:45 GMT
The empty chamber rule is essential for any traditional Single Action Army or similar firearm. The post-70's Rugers have been made with the transfer safety bar that removes the pin from the hammer and makes carrying six safe. There were quite a few law suits over that issue, and even Freedom Arms got tagged because of it. You've got to know your firearm. In fact I think knowing your firearms is the missing fifth essential rule of gun safety.
Interestingly, the earlier cap and ball colts have a spot to rest the hammer between the caps, but this isn't possible with the SAA.
|
|
Ramses1079
Member
“Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum"
Posts: 609
|
Post by Ramses1079 on Jun 29, 2017 21:34:49 GMT
The empty chamber rule is essential for any traditional Single Action Army or similar firearm. The post-70's Rugers have been made with the transfer safety bar that removes the pin from the hammer and makes carrying six safe. There were quite a few law suits over that issue, and even Freedom Arms got tagged because of it. You've got to know your firearm. In fact I think knowing your firearms is the missing fifth essential rule of gun safety. Interestingly, the earlier cap and ball colts have a spot to rest the hammer between the caps, but this isn't possible with the SAA. I saw an OLD 9-shot black powder revolver that had the "rest" for a half-cocked hammer.....I wish I had saved the picture, it was QUITE the dinosaur!
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jul 4, 2017 20:45:42 GMT
Anyone here with Uberti revolver experience, I have large hands? I've handled a couple of the Cattleman SAA with standard plow handles, and my last two fingers hang off the bottom. Does anyone have any experience with Uberti's other handle styles? I'm wondering if they might be a better fit. I'm particularly curious about the Colt Bisley and the S&W Schofield replicas.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jul 5, 2017 21:04:33 GMT
I think the loose pink finger is endemic with SAA style grips. IIRC Elmer Keith addressed this and other issues by creating a hybrid using the Bisley back frame on the SAA to make the No. 5. Someone should produce that, but to my knowledge you have to get it custom made. Though it looks like I could be wrong! lipseysguns.com/the-ruger-44-special-is-the-perfect-blend-of-classic-and-function/My wallet just winced
|
|
|
Post by stopped1 on Jul 6, 2017 0:05:49 GMT
Anyone here with Uberti revolver experience, I have large hands? I've handled a couple of the Cattleman SAA with standard plow handles, and my last two fingers hang off the bottom. Does anyone have any experience with Uberti's other handle styles? I'm wondering if they might be a better fit. I'm particularly curious about the Colt Bisley and the S&W Schofield replicas. I owned a cattleman in 44mag (not traditional yes I know) and wasn't impressed with the rifling, hammer/sear and lock work were rough as hell.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jul 6, 2017 2:06:59 GMT
If I got one, it would probably be one that Cimarron has imported and worked over with a new hammer/mainspring/trigger. They are based close by in Fredericksburg, TX. I really want a Schofield, but top-breaks are stupid expensive.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 6, 2017 10:37:40 GMT
Concerning chambered rounds, I have a US Army NCO manual from WWI that says to leave a chamber empty under the hammer of a revolver, and those were all DA revolvers, too. They would have been the pre-positive safety Colt revolvers. But more surprisingly, it also says to chamber a round with the .45 auto and then to lower the hammer. Personally, I feel a .45 automatic is perfectly safe carried that way and just as easy to cock the hammer as it is to flick off the safety. But that requires elaboration.
It isn't that it's likely to go off with the hammer down on a chambered round. The problem, obviously, is in lowering the hammer. But everyone knows how dangerous firearms are, so you're already as careful as you can be and should be about to do it with no problem. But these comments apply only to the full-size Government Model (only the army had 1911s, civilians were sold Government Models). The hammer on a Commander model isn't suitable for either easy cocking or safe de-cocking. The safety on the early models wasn't that big, which is why I say it's just as easy to cock the hammer. Another problem with hammer down, loaded chamber is that since you wouldn't want to store your pistol like that, it would mean you'd have to regularly go through the same procedure every day. That's true for cocked and locked. These comments also only apply to Colt. Some single-action automatics do not permit hammer down on a chambered round because the firing pin protrudes.
The first reproduction single actions appeared in the 1950s, a long time ago. I think they were used in movies right away. You might call them "original reproductions."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 12:19:12 GMT
Concerning chambered rounds, I have a US Army NCO manual from WWI that says to leave a chamber empty under the hammer of a revolver, and those were all DA revolvers, too. They would have been the pre-positive safety Colt revolvers. But more surprisingly, it also says to chamber a round with the .45 auto and then to lower the hammer. Personally, I feel a .45 automatic is perfectly safe carried that way and just as easy to rooster the hammer as it is to flick off the safety. But that requires elaboration. It isn't that it's likely to go off with the hammer down on a chambered round. The problem, obviously, is in lowering the hammer. But everyone knows how dangerous firearms are, so you're already as careful as you can be and should be about to do it with no problem. But these comments apply only to the full-size Government Model (only the army had 1911s, civilians were sold Government Models). The hammer on a Commander model isn't suitable for either easy cocking or safe de-cocking. The safety on the early models wasn't that big, which is why I say it's just as easy to rooster the hammer. Another problem with hammer down, loaded chamber is that since you wouldn't want to store your pistol like that, it would mean you'd have to regularly go through the same procedure every day. That's true for cocked and locked. These comments also only apply to Colt. Some single-action automatics do not permit hammer down on a chambered round because the firing pin protrudes. The first reproduction single actions appeared in the 1950s, a long time ago. I think they were used in movies right away. You might call them "original reproductions." The problem with the original M1911 design is its inertial firing pin. When dropped muzzle down on a hard surface with a chambered round, it's pretty easy to generate enough force to fire off the round. Colt Series 80 models added a firing pin safety to address this issue, but that still leaves over half a century of production out there unmodified. Here's a link to a Youtube vid showing the problem. Note that in the video comments the guy who made the video said the gun was cocked-and-locked, and the hammer did not fall. Force of the impact alone was enough to cause the gun to fire. There are also a lot of threads on various gun forums about the problem. For any of you guys who carry a 1911 type, I strongly recommend the firing pin safety. The M1911 is a great design, but that's not to say it can't be improved on in a hundred years.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 6, 2017 13:29:35 GMT
I stick to my comments and my opinions but it makes no difference to me what you carry or how you carry it. I do, however, strongly recommend not dropping your gun.
|
|