f> Why didn't Bill R put a transfer bar in the ROA? - Page 2 - Ruger Forum

Ruger Forum

Why didn't Bill R put a transfer bar in the ROA?

This is a discussion on Why didn't Bill R put a transfer bar in the ROA? within the Black Powder forums, part of the Firearm Forum category; Originally Posted by bunnyhugger Are you serious.? TBs are a great safety invention. And a great way for a company to avoid lawsuits. True, Ruger ...


Go Back   Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Black Powder

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old January 14th, 2016, 06:05 AM   #16
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Montana
Posts: 117
CaliforniaKid is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnyhugger View Post
Are you serious.? TBs are a great safety invention. And a great way for a company to avoid lawsuits.
True, Ruger starting installing TBs to avoid lawsuits and to protect certain people from hurting themselves. Apparently you are one of the people it was designed to protect.



CaliforniaKid is offline  
Advertisements
Old January 14th, 2016, 06:17 AM   #17
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 2,338
Ale-8(1) will become famous soon enough
Personally, I don't see any reason why it COULDN'T be done. The firing pin would have to be designed to provide the proper impact on a percussion cap, and the mounting for said firing pin would obviously have to accommodate this new pin design. Probably take a different firing pin spring. Could possibly use a centerfire Blackhawk's hammer and transfer bar, but a dedicated design should be possible if these "standard" parts just don't work.

This would be a fun design workup. I spent over 40 years doing such work and see no problem at first glance with this one.

The question of "why hasn't it already happened?" would be that Bill didn't want to do it and since his passing the company hasn't seen fit to devote the design and tooling costs to make it happen.

Is it necessary? YMMV

JMHO

Ale-8(1) is online now  
Old January 17th, 2016, 01:12 PM   #18
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N. Calif
Posts: 2,524
firescout will become famous soon enough
I still fail to see any usefulness of a hammer transfer bar mechanism on a percussion cap-and-ball revolver...
firescout is offline  
 
Old January 18th, 2016, 05:37 AM   #19
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 2,338
Ale-8(1) will become famous soon enough
Firescout, why do you say this? Do you mean that a transfer bar is useless on all revolvers or just on the percussion cap-and-ball variety in particular? If the latter, why?

Ale-8(1) is online now  
Old January 18th, 2016, 05:17 PM   #20
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N. Calif
Posts: 2,524
firescout will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale-8(1) View Post
Firescout, why do you say this? Do you mean that a transfer bar is useless on all revolvers or just on the percussion cap-and-ball variety in particular? If the latter, why?

First off: why was the transfer bar mechanism developed for the Ruger SA revolvers?
firescout is offline  
Old January 19th, 2016, 06:28 AM   #21
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 2,338
Ale-8(1) will become famous soon enough
It was in response to a number of lawsuits Ruger endured as a result of "unintended discharges" and associated injuries. The feature was included in the original design of the double-action Security Six family and all other revolver designs since. It was also offered as a free retrofit to the Old Model single-actions, with the exception of the Old Army.

I do not argue the "necessity" of the feature one way or another. It did serve the purpose of very likely preventing many more such "accidents", and it demonstrated that Ruger felt a responsibility to his customers, making the lawyers happy.

As I said, only Mr. Ruger could argue why he didn't pursue it with the Old Army.

Ale-8(1) is online now  
Old January 19th, 2016, 08:17 AM   #22
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: WV
Posts: 127
Ken OCarbre is on a distinguished road
No matter how many mechanical safeguards are installed the best safety for a firearm resides between your ears. No doubt about it. If you cannot use it perhaps finding another hobby is in order.
Ken OCarbre is offline  
Old January 19th, 2016, 09:19 AM   #23
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 4,356
ExArmy11b will become famous soon enoughExArmy11b will become famous soon enough
A transfer bar would NOT work in a cap and ball revolver, and here's why.......

When the hammer strikes the cap, it must also "seal" the chamber so that gases don't blow back through the nipple vent hole. And, when cocking the hammer for the next shot, the accepted technique was to point the revolver upward so the popped cap can fall away, and not into the action thus jamming the gun.

This is the reason why original percussion revolvers had very heavy mainsprings, also, it takes a lot of force to pop a percussion cap.

The firing pin, like on a Blackhawk, would not have the ability to both pop a percussion cap and also seal the nipple. An improperly sealed nipple can also cause chain fires, again, which a transfer bar firing pin could not do.
ExArmy11b is offline  
Old January 19th, 2016, 09:43 AM   #24
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 2,338
Ale-8(1) will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExArmy11b View Post
A transfer bar would NOT work in a cap and ball revolver, and here's why.......

When the hammer strikes the cap, it must also "seal" the chamber so that gases don't blow back through the nipple vent hole. And, when cocking the hammer for the next shot, the accepted technique was to point the revolver upward so the popped cap can fall away, and not into the action thus jamming the gun.

This is the reason why original percussion revolvers had very heavy mainsprings, also, it takes a lot of force to pop a percussion cap.

The firing pin, like on a Blackhawk, would not have the ability to both pop a percussion cap and also seal the nipple. An improperly sealed nipple can also cause chain fires, again, which a transfer bar firing pin could not do.
The design would not be identical to that on a conventional centerfire gun. It would have to take into account the requirements you point out. It's not a simple parts swap, but a functional design problem. Challenging, perhaps, but totally possible nevertheless.

Ale-8(1) is online now  
Old January 19th, 2016, 11:36 AM   #25
 
caryc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,198
caryc will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwinters View Post
I do not use any single action without a transfer bar. I own a couple of 3 screws as collector items but not as shooters and will not use a non transfer bar gun as a shooter.
If you load an old model Ruger three screw with 5 rounds what exactly is unsafe about it?

Please be specific in your answer. There is nothing unsafe about Rugers three screw guns if you use a little common sense.

A three screw Ruger loaded with 5 rounds and the hammer resting on an empty chamber is EXACTLY as safe as a transfer bar gun. You tell my why it is not. I'll bet you won't even answer this one.
caryc is offline  
Old January 19th, 2016, 01:15 PM   #26
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N. Calif
Posts: 2,524
firescout will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by firescout View Post
First off: why was the transfer bar mechanism developed for the Ruger SA revolvers?
The Ruger transfer bar mechanism was developed to safely allow all six chambers to be loaded and carried with the hammer down on CARTRIDGE single-action revolvers. Before this, and with other Colt SAA-style cartridge revolvers, safe carry entailed loading five chambers and resting the hammer on the empty chamber.

The original 19th century percussion cap-and-ball revolvers had safety notches between the cylinder nipples, which allowed for all six chambers to be fully loaded and capped, and the hammer to then be brought down to rest on one of the six safety notches, thus allowing safe carry with 'all six' loaded.

When the first cartridge revolvers were developed from the percussion revolver, the size of the case heads did not allow for the safety notches to remain. Thus the need to only 'load five' for safe carry with the hammer down.

As also mentioned earlier, the percussion revolver's hammer nose helps to maintain the chamber 'seal' by blocking the nipple passage after firing the cap.

So, a transfer bar mechanism is neither needed for safe carry, or desireable for proper function for a percussion revolver.
firescout is offline  
Old January 19th, 2016, 01:33 PM   #27
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N. Calif
Posts: 2,524
firescout will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale-8(1) View Post
...The feature was included in the original design of the double-action Security Six family and all other revolver designs since. It was also offered as a free retrofit to the Old Model single-actions, with the exception of the Old Army...
The transfer bar mechanism on Ruger DA revolvers is design feature integral to the safe function of their revolvers. Smith & Wesson DA revolvers, designed many years prior to Ruger DA designs, use a different mechanism (hammer block/rebounding hammer) to achieve the same function (keep the hammer nose/firing pin off the cartridge primers). Both designs can be safely carried with all six chambers loaded and the hammer down.

The Old Army percussion revolver was designed along the same lines as 19th century cap-and-ball revolvers, with the cylinder safety notches for the hammer nose. What worked back then, is still safe today. It was likely that Ruger considered a blackpowder shooter to be an 'enthusiast', and thus more apt to recognize and use the safety feature of the revolver.
firescout is offline  
Old January 19th, 2016, 02:36 PM   #28
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 4,356
ExArmy11b will become famous soon enoughExArmy11b will become famous soon enough
+1 the Old Army is a "hobby" gun or an enthusiasts gun, the average "Joe Blow" looking for a field gun or a plinker isn't going to choose a cap and baller. The transfer bar was implemented to idiot proof the guns for the guy who shoots 50 rounds a year, so he doesn't put a .357 through his foot because he's too dumb to learn how to use his new revolver. Back in the 1870's when cartridge revolvers came about in numbers in this country, if you shot yourself in the foot by resting the hammer nose on a live round, oh well, you were just an idiot. By the 1970's idiots were starting to get lawyers and sue manufacturers, because now idiots have "rights". If people practiced muzzle disclipline they wouldn't be shooting themselves or other people through careless firearms handling.

Maybe, also the fact that in about 43 states the Old Army isn't even legally a transferrable firearm, you just buy them like you'd buy a pair of boots, you just have to be 18. When the Old Army was designed it was probably all 50 states. Thus, maybe the reason it was "exempt" from safety requirement. Like how you can buy a muzzleloader that doesn't have a "Safety", but it's legally required for cartridge weapons.

If you don't like transfer bars then you can just own and shoot non-converted Old Models, no big deal......or buy any of the millions of repop Colt clones that have hammer mounted firing pins, or even a genuine Colt thumb buster if you want the real deal.

Ruger designed the Blackhawk as a cheaper alternative to Colts because Spaghetti Westerns had people wanting thumb busters but people didn't want to pay for Colts in the 1950's. I wonder how many "real" incidents there were of people shooting themselves with Old Model Blackhawks, probably only a handful. But that's all it takes.
ExArmy11b is offline  
Old January 19th, 2016, 06:39 PM   #29
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: america
Posts: 16
bunnyhugger is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ol Boy View Post
Transfer bar would not could not work on a old army, look at one it is obvious and you don't need to be an engineer to see what I mean.
Of course it could be done. The rear of the cylinder would have to machined differently so the nipples were not as exposed, but that's not a big deal.
bunnyhugger is offline  
Old January 19th, 2016, 06:42 PM   #30
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: america
Posts: 16
bunnyhugger is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken OCarbre View Post
No matter how many mechanical safeguards are installed the best safety for a firearm resides between your ears. No doubt about it. If you cannot use it perhaps finding another hobby is in order.
That's like saying we don't need seatbelts in cars - people should simply be more careful.

TBs are not necessities but they're a good feature.

Last edited by bunnyhugger; January 19th, 2016 at 06:55 PM.
bunnyhugger is offline  
Closed Thread

  Ruger Forum > Firearm Forum > Black Powder

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Ruger Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The transfer bar California Kowboy Ruger Single Action 8 November 11th, 2013 02:40 AM
help with transfer bar guns54 Gunsmithing 2 January 4th, 2008 04:38 AM

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List
Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Ruger Forum. All rights reserved.
Ruger Forum is a Ruger Firearms enthusiast's forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Sturm Ruger & Company Inc. of Southport, CT.