Is there any reason to have an empty cylinder under the hammer in a modern handgun such as the S&W mtn gun?

Nope

Absolutely none at all. There's been a hammer block that slides back and forth in the older Smith's for years. In the hammer down position, the block sits between the hammer and frame. I've seen some of the newer Smiths' that have the firing pin in the frame and no hammer blocks. Maybe they've found that mechanical advantage of the mechanism "in rest" position prevents the hammer movement unless the trigger is pulled or having the hammer cocked in single action.

Not with todays guns. I carry all my fully loaded.

quote:

Originally posted by nordrseta:
Nope

No and nope.

I'm not going to say it, I'm not going to say it. OK, I will. Why does Freedom say to leave an empty chamber under the pin????? A 4 shot revolver no less. Don't they trust thier system? It looks good to me, not like the old Colt revolvers that would shear the trigger if dropped and fire. Of course the Freedom could break the trigger but it should not fire. I will stick with putting 5 shots in it. I put 5 in the BFR's and 6 in the Rugers and S&W's.
The only guns I consider unsafe for this are the old original Rugers and Colts and their copies.
It is hard to believe that Colt never upgraded the single action. Neither have any of the Colt clones.

I guess the same reason we have 15 pound triggers on some firearms and cross-bolt safeties on lever guns.... some lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
I guess the same reason we have 15 pound triggers on some firearms and cross-bolt safeties on lever guns.... some lawyers.

And some plaintiffs of course.

I've been gone from these forums for a while but did they ever figure out what happened to the guy that sued Freedom Arms for shooting himself in the leg? I think he said his coat caught the hammer and it slipped and fired?

For the record I have no problems with a full cylinder in a modern design, heck I often carry a 5 shot J-frame (649) for concealed carry and I carry all 5 loaded in it.

Sharps, I have many arguements about whether it is a hammer block or transfer bar. It STILL functions as a transfer bar, but is named different because of it's position. There is no way on earth for the hammer to fall past the half cock or safety notch unless the trigger breaks and the transfer bar or whatever you call it will NOT fire the gun. It is as safe as any system made.
The only way for the jerk to shoot himself is if he was holding back the trigger.
I would also like to know how it came out but remember, sometimes it takes 10 or more years to go through the courts so the lawyers can collect every dime possible. Some Judges work hard to ensure things are put off long enough for their buddies to get rich.

I don't doubt the safety of the Freedom Arms system, I just was curious if any more information had come out since the story broke. When I mentioned modern design I meant single actions as well as double, I have a New Model Blackhawk that I trust with all chambers loaded as well.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/06/02/ne...872572ed0081ff36.txt FA Court

Rabbit Creek,
Thanks for the link, that is the case I was thinking about. I guess we probably will never know exactly what happened.

I have the 97 here but not the 83. I thought the 83 has a transfer bar???

It is a hamer block not a transfer bar on the 83.. The 97 does incorperate a transfer bar.. When the 83 is fired the hamer hits the fireing pin not the bar, thus no transfer bar, we have covered this before......

OK, I only have the 97 here and my friend has the 83 at his house so I could not compare them. I don't own one myself, far more then I can afford.
I guess I got them reversed after getting dumped on here with guys telling me the 97 had the hammer block after I said it had a transfer bar. I can see the operation but had to quit making trouble. I took the entire revolver apart and put a 1-1/2# trigger pull on it and know how it works but was getting into arguments.
Thanks for getting me straight. I need to get his other gun here.

bfrshooter(aka 44man,et al): Maybe you OUGHT TO GO BACK AND REVIEW what you posted here in May '07 re: WARNING --Freedom Arms users..or are you trying to re-write history !!!

Don't have to, I said it was a 97 and had a transfer bar. The mistake I made at the time was posting the wrong model number for a .357 at first because it was not in my hands to look at. It was being sent back.
This gun has been repaired and my friend is happy. If you look back, it had a grossly oversized bore at near .360" It is now .357".
All is well, it was only me, not being familiar with them at the time.
So, just settle down!

idabull,

let that dead horse lie. This one was hashed rather well.

Old habits linger, and this one is a good one.
I also believe SASS requires it modern safety bars or no.

It is a lot safer than what the "Hunters Safety" course instructors told us to do here in Iowa (I just took the course on November 3rd).

Half cock on a loaded chamber. That way you will be sure to be careful. I very politly told the instructor that, if done on the wrong model, will cause someone to get shot. And is not the way to carry a holsterd weapon unless you are properly trained.

To make a long story short, the guy disagreed with me. He said that it was safer since "You never know if the empty chamber is loaded!"
He had been shot by an "empty" gun when he was a young man, and I decided to not make a big scene. But I did make him tell the class to always follow the manufacters reccomendations on the proper way to carry a loaded revolver. But I still missed that on the test!