Why did cowboys leave an open chamber in their revolvers? I get lack of hammer safety...

>You guys realize that cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder, right?
No shit retard. You'd still have to remove the piece that is secured though before you could fire. It's easier to pull out and cock the hammer than to waste time fiddling with some shit you wedged into your gun.

Oh thanks. That's how revolvers work? Man this time I had it wrong. What happens if that piece of leather doesn't just "fall out"? You realize it could easily stick to the firing pin mounted on the hammer or get wedged in there especially if its been in the gun for a extended period of time?

You're relying on the chance that it will fall out and allow you to fire and not get snagged on the gun or get stuck from dirt, grease, what-have-you. Which is considerably stupid when 99% of the time you draw your pistol is to protect yourself.

A piece of padding held by tension alone would necessarily fall off when the tension is removed i.e. cocking the hammer.

>why not just use a piece of leather that will fall out?
>what happens if it doesnt fall out
>it will!

>falls out when hammer is budged
>secure
Pick a fucking side retard. It's not secure if just pulling the hammer back makes it fall out.

Will it? Even if it get wet or mud on it or dirt in it? You can 100% guarantee through test you've done I'm sure?

Seems like OP came for validation of his stupid idea instead of actually having a conversation.

Probably playing to much Red Dead 2

I'm very positive you're not the first to have this idea and that some human in history has probably tried it and got rightfully fucked up or killed outright.

I'm sure with all of your guys' infinite wisdom to project scenarios where it would randomly fail, there could also be a possibility of a concept where a piece of buffer could be used to work and reliably be removed when the action is worked. I'm fine being called a retard, but this cancerous attitude of contrarianism without good discussion is stupid. Fuck, I could think of something semi-attached to the hammer that would necessarily cause it to be removed upon cocking while using a very slight temporary adhesive, and that's a convoluted concept coming from me drunk on a Saturday night. I'd think that it would be easy enough to come up with a easy and doable solution when you only have a limited amount of rounds and reloading would take ages when your life is on the line.

But seriously, stop acting like a bunch of dicks.

>red dead 2
Its Red Dead 3 you total fucking NPC.

>say something stupid
>get called stupid and told why
>”you guys are being dicks”

Real gunfighters loaded all six, and MAYBE kept a piece of leather in between the hammer/nipple. Me personally, I load 5 and keep the hammer lowered on an empty chamber that has a rolled up 100$ bill placed inside. I consider it an old time honored tradition, because in my previous life I was an outlaw that rode out west.

Do you carry a gun? If you do would you be willing to increase capacity by lets say, 1-3 rounds to be fair, of that gun but at the cost of an increased risk of a malfunction over standard capacity magazine?

>Red Dead 2
>he didnt play Red Dead Revolver
>I can think of at least one example that I dare not elaborate on which certainly requires tools and products to manufacture that are only widely available in today's society and very scarce if at all existing in the late 1800s
>therefore, you are wrong

I don't care about being called stupid, but things like
just calling me a retard without an actual reason towards the main argument is stupid.

By the way, I just used google and found the real answer you useless faggots. It's because it was standard to carry extra pre-loaded cylinders that could be swapped in order, as opposed to more modern revolvers, so an extra round was pretty moot compared to the risk and pain-in-the-ass of the thing I originally proposed.

Even if I am an idiot, this discussion was worthless. Guess that's what happens when probably only one or two of the posters even own a black powder revolver instead of spewing shit about things they don't even know.

When the total capacity is six, and it takes ages to reload, and I was in a situation where I thought I would need to use it for my life? Yes. That being said, I already found the answer. Most just carried extra loaded cylinders.

>suggests a stupid idea
>gets called stupid and explained methodically why it's a bad idea
>focuses on being called stupid and not why it's a bad idea
You ever think maybe people call you stupid because you are and NOT for no reason?

Because you attack my character instead of giving me a reason it's stupid, dumbass. I don't give a shit about being called a retard, this is Jow Forums after all, but if you weren't also a retard I would think it would be reasonable to outline why I was stupid. Basically, your post proves my point. Either way, I realized that the lot of you were fucktards who don't own and have never used black powder revolvers, and just chirp like a gaggle off faggots, so I went elsewhere to find a good answer.

Fair enough. Don't fall for the Hollywood bullshit though because even back then they knew that rifles>>>>pistols. I mean the 1873 held what 15 rounds? Pistols were a secondary option even back then. If you were expecting a fight you brought rifle or you killed by a guy who brought rifle.

>gets spoonfed reason after reason why it's a bad idea
>you never gave me any reasons, you just called me names!
Thanks for reaffirming my post

Yep, mostly shotguns and rifles. By using the term cowboy, I already know it's a trope. Pretty much only outlaws and military men used revolvers, for differing reasons. Mainly because outlaws hit fast and hard and got the fuck out, and I guess same with cavalry.

J.E.B. Stuart loved the LeMat for cavalry action which had a 9 round cylinder around a 65 gauge shotgun. Likewise most of the confederates liked short-barreled shotguns for cavalry raiding action. Also another nice anecdote would be the Texas Rangers in the Battle of San Jacinto giving the US Army a crash-course in old-timey CQB. Make a breach, which could even be in the ceiling with a sledgehammer, and jump in with two revolvers blazing. I would guess that would be a good situation where you would go with all cylinders loaded.

>Battle of San Jacinto
Since this is an autism thread, I think you mean the Battle of Monterrey.

I don't I could pay someone to be such an example of what I stated. Bravo.

>ugh X were so dumb, why aren't they an enlightened weapons expert like me?

Attached: 1460350513132.png (1022x731, 643K)

Shit... you're right. I blame the Gears of War I was playing earlier.

>will this work
>no because ____
>I think it would
>well you're wrong because _____
>what about this
>again, no, because ______
>you guys are personally attacking me
it's impossible to help somebody who rejects it

Fill in the blanks champ, and maybe there would be a discussion. All I saw was that maybe it would be more thin, or maybe it wouldn't fall out, which could be mitigated. Not including the people who didn't know that cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder, but I digress. Either way, none were a rebuttal of the concept.

If you read the thread, I actually found the answer anyway. Because it wasn't worth the hassle and risk when you had a saddle of pre-loaded cylinders, which nobody stated. Like I said, this discussion was AIDS and gay.

>Herf derf muh dis-cuh-shun

welcome to Jow Forums ^o^

whatever you say feller.

Attached: FQEy6qD.jpg (777x960, 72K)

Good post, sure raises the bar.

The cylinder rotating after cocking has nothing to do with being drop safe. The cylinder won't advance unless it's cocked. Single-action revolvers will fire either when cocked and trigger pulled or uncocked when a sufficient amount of force is applied to the firing pin.

Modern revolvers and semiautos (SA, DA, and DA/SA) have a drop safety. That drop safety blocks the firing pin when the trigger isn't being depressed, preventing the force of an impact on the hammer from traveling to the firing pin.

Striker-fired semiautos do much the same but typically include a trigger safety instead (which blocks the trigger from moving and thus the striker from being released).

Attached: 1520483380393.jpg (631x637, 44K)

this is a dumb post