Introduction: The End
In 1941, the single-action revolver died forever.
This was the year
Colt's Manufacturing ceased production of the Single Action Army, also
known as the Colt Model P or, more famously, as the Peacemaker.
Whatever one chose to call it, this single-action revolver represented
the archetype of the "cowboy gun" both in popular conception and
popular adoption: Over 370,000 were manufactured by the time wartime
ramp-up of 1911 production forced Colt to move the machinery used to
make Peacemakers to a parking lot, where exposure to the elements
reduced it to scrap. Sixty-seven years of the single-action revolver
(closer to 110 if you count black-powder revolvers) thus came to an
ignominious end in a pile of rusted junk.
Some might say it was only appropriate: By that point, the
single-action revolving pistol had been joined by the double-action
revolver and both single- and double-action semi-autos. In the face
of swing-out cylinders, high-capacity magazines, and fast-shooting
actions, the single-action revolver was clearly antiquated, outdated,
and every bit as much a lost cause as the decaying heaps of machinery
outside Colt's factory. Progress had marched on, and it was time for
the single-action revolver to join the flintlock, percussion pistol,
pinfire ammunition, and even Borchardt-style toggle-lock
semi-automatic actions. It would take its overdue place in the annals
of outdated technology, there to rest forever.
Fit only for hunting the dodo.
Twelve years later, forever was prematurely canceled and the
single-action returned.
Renaissance
Colt's, however, weren't the ones responsible for bringing back the single-action revolver; they had publicly
declared they would make no more Peacemakers, and as history shows us,
Colt's Manufacturing has a firm policy of sticking to their guns,
market forced be damned. But market forces would neither be damned
nor dammed: The emergence of the western in cinema and in broadcast
form on those newfangled "televisions" spurred public interest in
cowboy guns and demand for modern replicas. This demand went unmet by
Colt, but not by a man named Bill Ruger.
In 1953, Ruger introduced the 22-caliber Single-Six revolver based off
his patented improvements to the single-action design. Instead of
using flat (aka "leaf") springs, which were famous for becoming
work-hardened and breaking, the new design used coil and post springs
for all major components, along with a more robust and easily-tuned
timing and lockup mechanism. Later, these improvements would be
augmented with a loading gate, which prevented the gun from being fired
out of alignment, and a transfer-bar hammer safety permitting the gun
to be safely carried with the hammer down over a live round. These
changes fixed the primary flaws in the Colt design: a potentially
dangerous loading procedure, short mean time between failures, and the
inability to safely load the gun to full capacity.
Around the same time as Ruger came out with the Single-Six, a company
called Great Western started offering Colt replicas in classic
centerfire calibers, but they would eventually go out of business.
Ruger's single-actions only grew in popularity with the introduction
of the Blackhawk, a scaled-up version of the Single-Six in the modern
caliber of .357 Magnum. In 1956, Ruger even beat Smith & Wesson to
market with the first .44 Magnum handgun by putting a .44 Magnum
version of the Blackhawk on shelves before S&W's Model 29 even
shipped. (This was quite a coup, inasmuch as S&W and Remington
developed the round in what was supposed to be secrecy.)
In the time since the 1950s, more companies have jumped on the
single-action bandwagon, some offering replicas of classic
single-actions, others introducing variations on the Ruger design.
The renaissance in reproduction revolvers may be laid largely at the
feet of Cowboy-Action Shooting. (While some may deride the sport as a
Renaissance Fair with firearms, I grant it more respect than the SCA:
There's an upper limit to how fast Sir Gladyvayne Dragonne-Slayerre,
Knyghte of the Kinge's Legiones can waddle in pursuit of his tormentor
while flailing a blunt pole-arm, but Deadye Dan the Sedentary Cowpoke
has bullets.) Cowboy shooting aside, there are quite a few companies
manufacturing modernized single-actions: Ruger was the first and is
still the largest, but Freedom Arms and Magnum Research both do good
business selling modern single-action revolvers, as do numerous
boutique manufacturers. Single-actions are still selling--but why?
It's a puzzling question. Single-action cartridge revolvers are the
oldest handgun design that does not actually require stuffing powder
and lead balls into the gun preparatory to using it. As a weapon for
defense against human beings, they were obsolete before the 20th
century had even dawned, made so by S&W's Military and Police
double-action revolver (called the Model 10 in its updated form).
Given that a double-action revolver will do everything a single-action
does and many subsequent designs do things the single-action cannot,
why would anyone choose an archaic design?
The answer, of course, is for the very fact that it is an archaic
design. This is not a disingenuous answer, for many of the features
of single-action revolvers that betray their age also provide
noteworthy advantages. Clearly, there are disadvantages to
19th-century designs, but the disadvantages should be considered in
the context of the platform as a whole, not treated as just cause for
dismissing a viable handgun as useless. Not everything that's old is
obsolete, and single-action revolvers exemplify this principle.
Here's how they do it.
The Lockup
Revolver design is faced with a tricky conundrum: strength versus
reloadability. On one hand, the ability to shuck and reload an entire
cylinder at a time is a boon to speed; on the other
hand, designing a gun that doesn't come apart when fired isn't made any
easier by simultaneously requiring that it should come apart for
reloading. Top-break revolvers ran directly into this problem by
placing the latch in the exact location where the frame sustains the
most pressure during firing. S&W's swing-out cylinder design solved
the frame strength problem while providing all the reload speed of the
top-breaks, but this new design was not without issues of its own.
The swing-out crane introduces the possibility of lateral chamber
misalignment if not locked firmly in place during firing. S&W
revolvers typically lock at the rear and bottom of the cylinder,
although some early .44 Special "Triple-Lock" models also secured the
cylinder at the top of the crane. Placing a ball detent in that same
location is still a popular modification for those wishing to enhance
accuracy and extend the service life of guns shooting hot rounds.
Some double-action revolvers designed for powerful cartridges feature a
manual latch on the crane; examples of these include Dan Wesson
revolvers and Taurus' Raging Bull line.
Double-action revolver designers spend a lot of time ensuring that
swing-out cylinders stay put; single-action revolver designers go have
a beer because their job is already done. Single-action cylinders
rotate around the base pin, a cylinder of steel that passes through
both front and rear of a solid frame and is locked in place by a latch
or screw. The base pin must be removed in order to budge the cylinder
from its place in the frame. This level of solidity is a step down
from a locking bolt, but head and shoulders above every other
repeating mechanism. (Another nice bonus is that if a bullet jumps
crimp to the point that it locks up the cylinder, it's easy to remove the
cylinder and offending cartridges.)
I've been tossing around the term "single-action" pretty loosely; in
the above paragraph it's used as a synonym for guns made in the style
of the Colt Single Action Army, even though it could just as well be
applied to the S&W top-breaks or the black-powder arbor and wedge pin
designs immediately preceding the SAA. The syntactic sloppiness is
due to the fact that the SAA-style base pin lockup mechanism took
19th-century handgun technology by storm and continues to dominate the
state of the art for single-action revolvers, largely due to
its strength. When the Peacemaker was introduced in 1873, its
inaugural .45 Colt chambering was an immensely powerful round, pushing
out a 250-grain bullet at over 900 feet per second. Not since the
massive Walker Colt black powder revolver had a round this powerful
been chambered in a handgun, especially one so compact: The Walker,
designed to be used from horseback, weighed 80 ounces and measured 16
inches long, but the new SAA weighed in at roughly half that with
three inches less overall length. This was an astonishingly strong
gun for its weight, especially considering that the original SAA
frames were originally made of relatively soft wrought iron. The SAA
was strong enough to chamber rifle rounds of the time, and models were
chambered in .32-20, .44-40 (the ballistic equivalent to a hot, light
.45 ACP and wildly popular in those days), and .38-40. The last round
is worthy of mention all its own. Despite the ".38" in its name, the
.38-40 cartridge used a 40-caliber round and was loaded to almost
identical ballistics as the modern .40 S&W; in fact, it's possible to
fit a 10mm conversion cylinder to a single-action revolver chambered
in .38-40. When implemented with modern metallurgy in bulked-up
designs (a la Ruger and Freedom Arms), the single-action design
results in a strength:size ratio unmatched by any other repeating
handgun.
There's one more advantage to be found in the base pin design, and
that's accuracy. Although variations between manufacturers and guns
blur the distinction, single-action revolvers often have an accuracy
advantage over double-actions. This has nothing to do with the fact
that all single-actions are shot exclusively in single-action, but
with the consistent lateral cylinder support provided by the base pin.
Everything has a price, of course, and with this nice, solid base pin
comes the requirement of loading and unloading each round one at a
time. Although the ejector housing adds an attractive asymmetry to
the design of the gun, it's slow. Even at the time of its
introduction, reloading the Colt SAA took longer than S&W's top-break
revolvers, which had already been on the market five years. People in
the last quarter of the 19th century were more practical than
tactical, though, and chose durability and shootability over the
less-likely eventuality of having to perform a quick reload.
Durability wasn't the only selling point for Colt's single-action;
ergonomics also played a role.
Grips
The grip shape of Colt's single-action revolvers is one of their most
distinctive aspects. To the modern eye, it screams, "cowboy gun." To
the modern hand accustomed to straight-grip semi-autos, it feels a
little strange and awkward. Legend has it that the grip shape was
chosen because it was similar to a plow handle and would therefore
feel natural to the average man in those days; however, the
muzzle-loading single-shot pistols that preceded Colt's revolvers were
built with similarly rounded grips, so it could just be an
evolution of contemporary designs. Either way, many find single-action
grip too small and hard to hold very firmly.
This is exactly as it should be.
Semi-autos are rewarded for filling out the grip both vertically and
horizontally with high magazine capacity. Double-action revolvers
have to provide full hand support and a bump at the top in order to
provide a stable platform for the heavy double-action pull.
Single-action revolver grips don't need to be large because they don't
hold ammo and the trigger pull is light. They also don't need support
at the top or a shape conducive to an iron grip because they are
supposed to roll back in the hand under recoil. Revolvers can't avoid
the fact that the bore sits well above the hand, but single-actions
literally leverage that fact to increase the firing speed of the gun
and reduce felt recoil. Upon firing, the gun pivots around the two
fingers on the front of the grip while the backstrap, rounded as it is,
slides down the palm. Control is maintained, but the recoil fights
the heavy barrel and mechanically advantageous leverage point instead
of the bones and tissues of one's hand. When all this is done, the
gun perches at an awkward angle in the hand; however, the hammer,
which needs to be cocked again anyway, sits neatly in reach of the
thumb. Recocking and readjusting one's grip occur simultaneously.
The grip shape may feel awkward to some, but it's perfectly suited for
its platform. (This is another reason S&W's top-break single-actions
never took off: Cocking the hammer single-handed was just too awkward
for most.)
Although perceived recoil is incredibly subjective, most find that the
rolling motion of single-action grips alleviates a great deal of felt
recoil. Speaking from personal experience, I will not choose
anything but a single-action revolver for major magnum calibers.
Shooting factory .44 Magnum ammunition out of a S&W 629 with a
four inch barrel stings to the point that I can't shoot an entire
cylinder without pausing; it's bearable from the same model with a six
inch barrel, but working through an entire box is still a chore. Out
of a Ruger Super Blackhawk with a 5.5 inch barrel, the exact same load
is fun and easy to shoot and my only limitation on round count is how
much ammo I have on hand instead of how much ammo I can handle.
Plinking load.
Your experience may vary, of course, but I was pleasantly surprised at
what a difference just the shape of the grips made. The strength of
the single-action design makes it possible to shoot ridiculously
powerful supermagnum calibers out of guns far lighter than S&W's
X-frame revolvers, but the grip shape makes it possible to use your
hand afterward.
The Tactical Single-Action Revolver
This is a joke, of course, because single-action revolvers are not the
best choice for self-defense against humans. That's not the same as
saying that they're not suited for that purpose, just that there are
better alternatives. S&W double-action revolvers with swing-out
cylinders neatly solve all the defensive disadvantages of the
single-action revolver, and magazine-fed semi-automatic handguns
enhance reload speed and rate of fire even further. Given that
single-actions don't start displaying definite advantages over
double-action revolvers until one enters the realm of rounds far too
powerful for use against humans, why would anyone want to own one?
Short of nostalgia, there are still a couple reasons the single-action
revolver isn't dead. As mentioned above, single-actions aren't ideal
for defense against humans, but they will suffice. The human factor
dominates almost all technical considerations. Where single-actions
really offer an advantage over their double-action brethren, though,
is their fitness for carry in the wilderness. Here, the slight edge
in durability starts to become more pronounced, especially for one who
has a tendency to spend his time tumbling down rocky hillsides,
bouncing off trees, and fetching up in a stone-lined glacial runoff
stream. Additionally, the recoil-soothing attributes of the
single-action grip makes it less painful to practice with loads
capable of ensuring that a bear is very angry by the time it starts to eat
you.
The viability of handguns for defense against wildlife is
dubious at best; without proper shot placement, even the most massive
handcannon is insufficient. This is where the accuracy of
single-action shooting backed by plenty of practice offers an
advantage. While it is possible for one to choose to cock the hammer
of a double-action revolver in the face of a charging grizzly, it's
not as easy to do (mentally or physically) when there is a faster,
albeit less accurate, alternative. For those who suffer no accuracy
impairment from shooting in double-action mode, this isn't a
consideration; for the rest of us, though, it's another point in favor
of the single-action revolver.
Finally, there's rate of fire. Taking our hypothetical handgunner
capable of single-action accuracy while shooting double-action and
amending him to include the ability to maintain this level of accuracy
while shooting as fast as he can pull the trigger, he still needs to
deal with recoil. (If we also assume that he recovers from .44 Magnum
recoil like shooting a .22, then we might as well suppose he can beat
up a grizzly bare-handed and the question of his gun choice becomes
irrelevant.) Most people's rate of fire is limited by recoil,
especially so when shooting powerful calibers. Given that
single-action revolvers are recocked during recoil recovery, their
rate-of-fire limitations become smaller and smaller as recoil goes
up.
Conclusion
Single-action revolvers are enjoying a renaissance fueled in equal
parts by cowboy action shooters and people who enjoy creating
ludicrously powerful handgun rounds. In a sense, the single-action
revolver today is split into the past and the future, as one can buy a
replica of a design first produced over a century ago from the same store
that offers an updated version of the exact same design chambered for
the most recent development in projectile technology.
For all the discussion about the history, technology, advantages, and
disadvantages of the single-action revolver, I've neglected to mention
one minor attribute: They're fun. Some of the most enjoyable shooting
I've done has involved a Ruger Single-Six, a box of .22 Magnum ammo,
and several unlucky cans at the base of the 25-yard berm. The
aesthetics and ergonomics of single-action revolvers are unique and
wonderful, ranging from elegant historical reproductions to heavy
modern chunks of stainless steel capable of containing rifle-like
pressure. Loading and unloading is slow, but the process is not
unenjoyable and the time taken makes each carefully-placed shot
special. Magdumps and full-auto may hold some appeal, but
single-actions remind one of the significance of sending a chunk of
lead downrange.
I wrote this article because my own research into single-action
revolvers revealed to me an entirely overlooked category of firearms.
Like many others, I eschewed single-actions without serious
consideration of pros and cons, dismissing them as obsolete without
stopping to ask if they actually were. Over time I've come to realize
the extent to which I was wrong, as well as the degree to which my
offhand assessment is correct. But being right without any reason is
just luck; better to have the facts, even if they don't change your
opinion. Whether you love, hate, or just don't care about
single-action revolvers, I wanted to share the pros, cons, and history
of these amazing guns in the interests of informing some opinions or,
just maybe, changing one or two.
Opinions and technologies change with the times, but the single-action
revolver remains in both classic and modernized forms. Although it
has been joined by newer technologies, it has been supplanted by
none. It's relevance may be dimmed and applicability limited, but the
single-action revolver endures.
|