Recommended revolvers WITH A SAFETY (for pocket carry)?

One concern that I would have is that often people who don't have the strength to cycle the slide of a semi-auto also don't have the strength for the double-action trigger of a revolver. Budget for a trigger job right away.
 
mark056 said:
Sense or not, some people who I respect very much still keep the hammer on an empty chamber and the Army proscribed it for revolver carry when they issued .38's.
Click to expand...

When the Army issued 38s? When was that, like a hundred years ago? Carrying any modern revolver that has a hammer block with an empty chamber up is ridiculous. It does nothing to increase safety and reduces you available round count by 17%.

Look at it this way, If a Mfg thought that an external safety was necessary, wouldn't at least one mfg be adding them? Nobody does because it would just be redundant.
 
exodious said:
No. The "safe" way to carry old style revolvers was to have the hammer over an empty chamber, so that if it was dropped and landed on the hammer it couldn't accidentally set off the primer. Modern revolvers have internal safety mechanisms to address that very problem, and generally the firing pin is no longer part of the hammer. Modern firearms, in general, are very safe against accidental (vs negligent) discharges.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Expressed slightly differently it's because old style revolvers had hammers that ended with a firing pin that actually struck the primer. So if the hammer were struck sufficiently hard while the revolver wasn't cocked the pin could be jarred forward into the primer. As exodious says quite correctly above, modern firearms have safety mechanisms, (such as transfer bars), to keep this from happening. Modern revolvers except in very rare cases also do NOT have mechanical safeties per-se. The safety is in the deliberate double-action of the trigger pull.
 
I think the first step is some good instruction (maybe formal classes) and lots of range time. If you aren't comfortable enough in your abilities to carry a double action revolver with out a manual safety, you probably aren't ready to be carrying period.
 
7.62x39 said:
When the Army issued 38s? When was that, like a hundred years ago? Carrying any modern revolver that has a hammer block with an empty chamber up is ridiculous. It does nothing to increase safety and reduces you available round count by 17%.

Look at it this way, If a Mfg thought that an external safety was necessary, wouldn't at least one mfg be adding them? Nobody does because it would just be redundant.
Click to expand...

Actually it was as late as the 1990's and then again during the early stages of the Iraq War. Aviators were routinely issued .38's because they needed guns they could fire with one hand and since 1911's were carried in condition 3, you have to have 2 hands to rack the slide (yeah I know some fancy pistoleros can rack the slide with one hand)

Don't make with the wise. Female MPs carried .38's until the adoption of the M9 and a lot of units didn't get M9's until after Desert Storm.
 
whacko said:
You clearly have no clue how a revolver works do you?
Click to expand...
I meant to carry such that the first shot would fall on an empty chamber. Not that I would, but that is the only way I can think to somewhat replicate a safety.

I understand the confusion with SA'S being carried with 5 and the hammer on an empty chamber.
 
mark056 said:
Actually it was as late as the 1990's and then again during the early stages of the Iraq War. Aviators were routinely issued .38's because they needed guns they could fire with one hand and since 1911's were carried in condition 3, you have to have 2 hands to rack the slide (yeah I know some fancy pistoleros can rack the slide with one hand)

Don't make with the wise. Female MPs carried .38's until the adoption of the M9 and a lot of units didn't get M9's until after Desert Storm.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that leaving a chamber empty on a modern revolver is foolish and does nothing to increase safety. The only way that it could help in any fashion would be in a revolver without out a hammer block, that was dropped and landed directly on the hammer. It would do nothing to keep the gun from discharging were the trigger pulled.

That leaves the SAA Colt, which is what I was referring too when I said 100 years ago. The S&W model 10 and the M&P both have hammer blocks.
 
I'm going to make a gun that has a manual safety with three positions:

1. Fire
2. Safe
3. Extra safe

really, how can you disagree with EXTRA safe. These safeties go to eleven! Most just go to like ten but ours go to 11.



but seriously,

manual safeties require the user to turn on and off
automatic safeties work always--never turn off

modern revolvers have auto safeties built in. it's in there! safer than the old guns.

manual safeties (e.g. the on/off switch) do have their place like on long guns where you don't holster but would carry it loaded, like in hunting. But for revolvers the safest thing you can do is put it in a good quality holster that covers the trigger guard completely. Then LEARN and PRACTICE holstering so your finger is not on the trigger when you holster--that's surprisingly hard for some people that have bad habits.

S&W 38 for the win
 
Last edited:
Revolvers are pretty safe. My first carry gun was a dao revolver (sp101) because I was more comfortable with one.

This is the only revolver with a safety lever that I know of. Made in China for the police...only problem is getting one here.
1287753155.jpg



http://world.guns.ru/handguns/double-action-revolvers/ch/police-revolver-e.html
 
7.62x39 said:
Maybe so, but that still doesn't change the fact that leaving a chamber empty on a modern revolver is foolish and does nothing to increase safety. The only way that it could help in any fashion would be in a revolver without out a hammer block, that was dropped and landed directly on the hammer. It would do nothing to keep the gun from discharging were the trigger pulled. That leaves the SAA Colt, which is what I was referring too when I said 100 years ago. The S&W model 10 and the M&P both have hammer blocks.
Click to expand...

So now we go from making wise to being master of the obvious. Please get off the condescending platform and tell me something that I don't know okay bub? The model 10 had a revision of its hammer block when in 1944 a revolver supposedly went off when dropped on board a ship killing a sailor. Supposedly Doug Wesson came up with a new hammer block design in 24 hours. After that all Victory Models had the new block and the preface VS instead of V. The older ones were mainly retrofitted, but since I saw WW2 Victories in service as late as the late 80's ( no maybe so) the Army apparently didn't want to take chances. Also too don't waffle all branches of the Armed Forces used swing out DA revolvers from the 1890's until 1911. Of course revolvers were used in WW1 and WW2, Model 1917s, S&W Victories (WW2) and the Colt Commando (WW2) the official sidearm of the USAF from the early1950's to 1985 was the S&W Model 15 Combat Masterpiece revolver
 
I'm not sure why you keep trying to steer this thread from it's original subject and turn it into a history lesson.
I will say this one last time and I'm out, I have no more time to waste on such an inane subject.

Anybody who thinks that carrying a modern revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer is any safer is delusional.
In today's litigious society, if revolvers mfgs thought that a revolver required a safety, you can bet your ass that they would have one.
 
7.62x39 said:
I'm not sure why you keep trying to steer this thread from it's original subject and turn it into a history lesson. I will say this one last time and I'm out, I have no more time to waste on such an inane subject. Anybody who thinks that carrying a modern revolver with an empty chamber under the hammer is any safer is delusional. In today's litigious society, if revolvers mfgs thought that a revolver required a safety, you can bet your ass that they would have one.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to turn this into a history lesson I agree with your obvious and inane comments. I always carry 5 or 6 depending on the capacity of the revolver but you are obviously not well schooled and are coming off as something of a prig. There are those who for whatever reason like to have an empty chamber under the hammer just like there are those who are not comfortable carrying a 1911 or a Hi Power in Condition 1. The point is don't make stupid, patronizing comments about the .mil using revolvers when you don't know what the F you are talking about. Got it? We are thru and return to our regularly scheduled programming. If you really want to learn about recovers PM me and I will even let you shoot some of mine and I promise to be civil, more than you've been so far.
 
EddieCoyle said:
There's only one pistol I know that will meet your requirements.

A Beretta 21a Bobcat. It's a semi auto with a double action trigger and a safety, and it has a tip up barrel so the slide does not have to be racked.

Not the best gun for self defense, but I suppose it's better than a sharp stick.
Click to expand...
Was going to say a 950 - didn't know the 21a was da/sa
Now I need to add a 21a to replace the 950 I gifted.

Phone post: intelligence not included
 
exodious said:
No. The "safe" way to carry old style revolvers was to have the hammer over an empty chamber, so that if it was dropped and landed on the hammer it couldn't accidentally set off the primer. Modern revolvers have internal safety mechanisms to address that very problem, and generally the firing pin is no longer part of the hammer. Modern firearms, in general, are very safe against accidental (vs negligent) discharges.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A lot of the stories were passed down from old timers using antique revolver designs. One of my Ruger Blackhawks is like this. You load the first cylinder, skip the second, then load 3,4,5,&6. It has no transfer bar (mine was made in 1961) so you want the hammer resting on an empty cylinder. The risk was the hammer hitting the firing pin and setting off the primer. The "safety" was the half cock. My ohter Blackhawk is the newer design. It has a transfer bar and no half-cock.

So while I have no plans to CC a 1961 Ruger Blackhawk, the purpose of the history lesson is to clarify the reasoning behind carrying on an empty cylinder and why it's no longer needed, rather than simply saying "It's dumb".
 
Last edited:
Get her a ..22 WMR Ruger LCR and be done with it.

The reliability issues associated with rimfire rounds are mitigated by the firearm being a revolver. If there is a failure, another squeeze of the trigger will move the bad round out of position and a good round up to fire.

Don
 
Heath said:
Why not just find her a semi-auto that she CAN rack the slide on? If you are looking at .22lr as an option, I know the SR-22 I had barely took any effort to rack the slide. That gets you more rounds than a revolver and she can have her safety features too.
Click to expand...

The Ruger LC9 is also easy to rack, which is why I bought it for my wife. But, if you're absolutely going to use .22lr for self defense please get .40 grain solid points to enhance penetration because it's such an underpowered cartridge.
 
Kahrmine said:
The Ruger LC9 is also easy to rack, which is why I bought it for my wife. But, if you're absolutely going to use .22lr for self defense please get .40 grain solid points to enhance penetration because it's such an underpowered cartridge.
Click to expand...

Ronald Regan,and Robert Kennedy will tell you a different story about under power 22lr.
 
Smith and Wesson 351c...
here's why......
Light- really, really light.... 22 magnum- 7 shots...
The gun has a very heavy pull- like 15 pounds. It comes that way - something to do with the timing- the trigger has to be this heavy. I like mine in the pajamas. I know people say it isn't enough for self defense but a Hornady 22 mag is a pretty nasty round..... Just my opinion. My madre carries a S&W 642- likes it.
 
This is to the OP.

I've taught a lot of people to shoot, including a lot of women. Your error in this whole process is in that you simply accepted some irrational restrictions placed on your mother's firearm selection based on her relatively uninformed opinions.

The premise that she can't rack a slide is false.
The premise that a revolver needs a safety is false.

There is a reason no revolvers have safety's. They don't need them.

I don't want to get into the details in this post, but there are firearms that have easy to rack slides and holsters that will cover the trigger of a firearm (revolver or semi-auto) so that the firearm is effectively inert until it is removed from the holster.

Also, I've found that most women's difficulty with racking the slide can be eliminated by showing them proper form so that they use large muscle groups to move the slide back and the gun forward.

Don

- - - Updated - - -

Kahrmine said:
The Ruger LC9 is also easy to rack, which is why I bought it for my wife. But, if you're absolutely going to use .22lr for self defense please get .40 grain solid points to enhance penetration because it's such an underpowered cartridge.
Click to expand...

CCI Velocitor HP has proven to be a pretty amazing .22 when tested in ballistic gelatin.
 
I had surgery a few years ago on my left wrist, and it compromised the grip strength in that hand. I'm right-handed, so I typically rack the slide with my left hand. For comparison's sake--I cannot rack a S&W Shield in 9mm.

I have a Sig P238. It is absolutely easy to rack. It's a great defensive weapon if cocked-and-locked is okay. And it offers you the option to carry condition 3 if you need some time to get used to the idea...I did it for a few weeks.
 
The other thing to keep in mind is that for a given caliber the larger/heavier the slide is, the softer recoil spring the gun can use.

If she is planning to pocket carry, then we may have a problem. If she is planning to carry off body, then size is less of an issue, which allows for a gun with a softer recoil spring.

There are a half dozen ways to work this problem.

- - - Updated - - -

SimonPRC said:
I had surgery a few years ago on my left wrist, and it compromised the grip strength in that hand. I'm right-handed, so I typically rack the slide with my left hand. For comparison's sake--I cannot rack a S&W Shield in 9mm.

I have a Sig P238. It is absolutely easy to rack. It's a great defensive weapon if cocked-and-locked is okay. And it offers you the option to carry condition 3 if you need some time to get used to the idea...I did it for a few weeks.
Click to expand...

Simon, if your wrist is good enough to shoot the gun, its good enough to rack it in a pinch. I'm guessing that you aren't saying you couldn't rack the slide right handed, just that its more comfortable to do it left handed.
 

Similar threads

KelTec PR57 - Stripper Clip Fed Conceal Carry
Replies
4
Views
165
KBCraig
KBCraig
Revolver deep cleaning
Replies
7
Views
182
straightshooterjake
S
Looking for custom engraving on O/U shotgun
Replies
5
Views
93
tinhorn
tinhorn
300 blackout suppressor recommendations
2
Replies
30
Views
402
MC56
M
Gunsmiths for pistol slide and frame work
Replies
11
Views
420
DW357
DW357
Back
Top Bottom