S & W DAs of the late 1800s - The Firearms Forum

Blue Tiger · 08-05-2010, 07:45 AM

Often when someone says a gun has no safety they mean it has no external safety. Did the S & W DAs of the late 1800s have internal safeties? And why did they have such gigantic triggers and why only 5 shots in the case of the
.38s?

oscarmayer · 08-05-2010, 07:58 AM

some of their early double action did have a grip safety ( lemon squeezer) they also now produce the model 40 with the same device. as for the 5 shot vs 6 shot i would think it was a way to reduce size. the trigger guards were big to aid a gloved hand to be able to better operate the gun if needed.

Blue Tiger · 08-05-2010, 10:47 AM

So you're saying most had no safeties at all, like the SAAs. What was the thinking behind that?

oscarmayer · 08-05-2010, 11:28 AM

less lawyers in the good old days, no reason to have a safety installed on a revolver now , the long trigger pull is the safety it takes a deliberant act to make the gun fire. as for a SAA type yes the triggers are touchy but the hammer is the safety, don't shoot until you pull the hammer back . it takes the action of cocking to make it go off. there are countless examples of guns with out safetys even some automatics are double action only . why do you think a safety is needed on a revolver ?

Blue Tiger · 08-05-2010, 02:08 PM

It provides an extra layer of security and cuts down on the no. of ADs. It's a redundancy system--if there's human error, the safety compensates. Even lo-vel airguns have safeties, usu. cross-bolts. But while we're on the topic, do you believe the thumb safety on the 1911 is superfluous?

oscarmayer · 08-06-2010, 04:14 AM

having been trained in the use of a 1911 exstensivly and having carried a browning hi-power for well over 30 years yes the safety is superfluous and anyone who has trained will tell you the best safety is the one between your ears... a safety to my way of thinking is to make someone i might be handing my gun too feel safe. as for a safety on a revolver the concept is totally with out merit.

grampawmike · 08-06-2010, 11:09 AM

Blue Tiger, just wondering if you are playing the 'devil's advocate', or are you sincerely interested? Your question indicates to me that you may be unfamiliar with the actual operation of handguns. As oscarmeyer states, in effect, training in firearm safety and the operation of firearms is a necessity for anyone that is going to handle such a piece of machinery. As to "accidental discharges...... 'there ain't no such thing'!! There are NEGLIGENT discharges........caused by NEGLIGENCE......ie. failure to adhere to the cardinal rules of safe gun handling. I don't care whether the firearm has a safety or not.....it will not override an uninformed or careless person's proclivity to injure themselves or others by mishandling a firearm. As oscarmeyer also says........safety is between the ears and in the hands of the individual handling the firearm. You can't protect an idiot from himself. In my 35 years of law enforcement experience I have seen far too many idiots. JMHO Mike

Alpo · 08-06-2010, 11:17 AM

"Devil's advocate" is a nice way of putting it. I was thinking more of "fishing from a moving boat".

grampawmike · 08-06-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alpo

"Devil's advocate" is a nice way of putting it. I was thinking more of "fishing from a moving boat".

At this point I was trying to be somewhat courteous. Mike

Blue Tiger · 08-06-2010, 03:12 PM

Oscar Mayer,

The problem with manual safeties is that I sometimes forget to put them on fire. I think the thumb safety is unnecessary on the 1911, and I will leave it on fire, but there are many who would disagree, probably most. Anyways, thanks so much for the inf.

I will ignore the comments of grandpawmike and Alpo, they're not making any sense.

grampawmike · 08-06-2010, 04:24 PM

Blue Tiger: Alpo and I were commenting on the possibility that, by your comment's, you may be "trolling" ie. asking a question or making a comment which, by it's nature, would ultimately elicit inane or useless commentary........strictly for the amusement of the initiator. As to your comment re: 'forgetting to put them on fire', I would refer you to my comment re: training and the operation of your firearm. As to a negligent discharge......I stand by my statements. JMHO Mike

jondar · 08-07-2010, 07:59 AM

Although I do have a Colt 1911, have carried it, and shoot it at the range occasionally, I have never really looked into the history of it. Am I not correct that when John M. Browning first designed this pistol there was no thumb safety? He apparently saw no need for it. The thumb safety, IIRC, was added at the insistence of the military before they would accept it for issuance to the troops. This is my opinion and not to be confused with facts.

08-05-2010, 07:45 AM	#1
Blue Tiger V.I.P. Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Quebec Posts: 57	S & W DAs of the late 1800s Often when someone says a gun has no safety they mean it has no external safety. Did the S & W DAs of the late 1800s have internal safeties? And why did they have such gigantic triggers and why only 5 shots in the case of the .38s? __________________ Political "correctness," shows that "liberal left" is an oxymoron. -->

08-05-2010, 07:58 AM	#2
oscarmayer Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Contributor Posts: 2,387	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s some of their early double action did have a grip safety ( lemon squeezer) they also now produce the model 40 with the same device. as for the 5 shot vs 6 shot i would think it was a way to reduce size. the trigger guards were big to aid a gloved hand to be able to better operate the gun if needed.

08-05-2010, 10:47 AM	#3
Blue Tiger V.I.P. Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Quebec Posts: 57	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s So you're saying most had no safeties at all, like the SAAs. What was the thinking behind that? __________________ Political "correctness," shows that "liberal left" is an oxymoron.

08-05-2010, 11:28 AM	#4
oscarmayer Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Contributor Posts: 2,387	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s less lawyers in the good old days, no reason to have a safety installed on a revolver now , the long trigger pull is the safety it takes a deliberant act to make the gun fire. as for a SAA type yes the triggers are touchy but the hammer is the safety, don't shoot until you pull the hammer back . it takes the action of cocking to make it go off. there are countless examples of guns with out safetys even some automatics are double action only . why do you think a safety is needed on a revolver ?

08-05-2010, 02:08 PM	#5
Blue Tiger V.I.P. Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Quebec Posts: 57	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s It provides an extra layer of security and cuts down on the no. of ADs. It's a redundancy system--if there's human error, the safety compensates. Even lo-vel airguns have safeties, usu. cross-bolts. But while we're on the topic, do you believe the thumb safety on the 1911 is superfluous? __________________ Political "correctness," shows that "liberal left" is an oxymoron.

08-06-2010, 04:14 AM	#6
oscarmayer Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Contributor Posts: 2,387	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s having been trained in the use of a 1911 exstensivly and having carried a browning hi-power for well over 30 years yes the safety is superfluous and anyone who has trained will tell you the best safety is the one between your ears... a safety to my way of thinking is to make someone i might be handing my gun too feel safe. as for a safety on a revolver the concept is totally with out merit.

08-06-2010, 11:09 AM	#7
grampawmike V.I.P. Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Mojave Desert, CA Posts: 194	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s Blue Tiger, just wondering if you are playing the 'devil's advocate', or are you sincerely interested? Your question indicates to me that you may be unfamiliar with the actual operation of handguns. As oscarmeyer states, in effect, training in firearm safety and the operation of firearms is a necessity for anyone that is going to handle such a piece of machinery. As to "accidental discharges...... 'there ain't no such thing'!! There are NEGLIGENT discharges........caused by NEGLIGENCE......ie. failure to adhere to the cardinal rules of safe gun handling. I don't care whether the firearm has a safety or not.....it will not override an uninformed or careless person's proclivity to injure themselves or others by mishandling a firearm. As oscarmeyer also says........safety is between the ears and in the hands of the individual handling the firearm. You can't protect an idiot from himself. In my 35 years of law enforcement experience I have seen far too many idiots. JMHO Mike Last edited by grampawmike; 08-06-2010 at 11:24 AM..

08-06-2010, 11:17 AM	#8
Alpo Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: NW Florida Posts: 8,664	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s "Devil's advocate" is a nice way of putting it. I was thinking more of "fishing from a moving boat". __________________ Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy, and taste good with catsup - George of Lod, Year of Our Lord 297 I always take precautions. Beware the Evil Bullet Fairies.

08-06-2010, 03:12 PM	#10
Blue Tiger V.I.P. Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Quebec Posts: 57	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s Oscar Mayer, The problem with manual safeties is that I sometimes forget to put them on fire. I think the thumb safety is unnecessary on the 1911, and I will leave it on fire, but there are many who would disagree, probably most. Anyways, thanks so much for the inf. I will ignore the comments of grandpawmike and Alpo, they're not making any sense. __________________ Political "correctness," shows that "liberal left" is an oxymoron.

08-06-2010, 04:24 PM	#11
grampawmike V.I.P. Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Mojave Desert, CA Posts: 194	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s Blue Tiger: Alpo and I were commenting on the possibility that, by your comment's, you may be "trolling" ie. asking a question or making a comment which, by it's nature, would ultimately elicit inane or useless commentary........strictly for the amusement of the initiator. As to your comment re: 'forgetting to put them on fire', I would refer you to my comment re: training and the operation of your firearm. As to a negligent discharge......I stand by my statements. JMHO Mike

08-07-2010, 07:59 AM	#12
jondar V.I.P. Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 458	Re: S & W DAs of the late 1800s Although I do have a Colt 1911, have carried it, and shoot it at the range occasionally, I have never really looked into the history of it. Am I not correct that when John M. Browning first designed this pistol there was no thumb safety? He apparently saw no need for it. The thumb safety, IIRC, was added at the insistence of the military before they would accept it for issuance to the troops. This is my opinion and not to be confused with facts.