I’ve owned a few Colt da/sa revolvers over the years and could never understand the cylinder release design. Has always struck me as rather clumsy.
I will add that I’m left-handed if that enters into it.
Any thoughts?
Thanks, Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is clumsy to have to pull it backwards. There are several designs that are more ergonomic.

Edit to add - I don't think this makes any difference to 95% of revolver shooters.

__________________
protocalldesign.com

It doesn't bother me at all, but I'm no Jerry Miculek either.

Just a matter of getting used to it. The S&W push release does seem more natural though. Ruger uses a button…Dan Wesson has the release in front of the cylinder which doubles as the front lockup but also seems slower and more unnatural to any other.

FWIW...

Back in the heyday of revolvers, I shot on our depts pistol team. We traveled and shot combat competition year around.

These guys lived, breathed and practiced fast loading revolvers day in day out. Cost of equipment and ammo was not a concern. Cost was no object. Whatever it took was taken.

In all those years, in all those matches, I never saw a single Colt revolver, ever. I may recall two Rugers.

Take it with a grain of salt. But it's a fact.


,

__________________
Death? Smile back...

Works fine, so does S&W. What's the real or imagined problem with Colt?

Then there's Korth, with the cylinder release next to the hammer:



On the original Ratzeburg Korths it is to the right of the hammer; on the later Lollar Korths to the left.

It is remarkable as to how versatile the human thumb is.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

The S&W cylinder release is certainly easy to use, and can be figured out by almost anyone without help.

The Colt cylinder release is actually slightly easier to use once you learn how, at least for a right-hander, but the proper method is nowhere near as obvious. Massad Ayoob advised me to pull the latch back with the inside of the right thumb, at the knuckle. For me, it works, and is at least as easy as the latch on an S&W.

__________________
Formerly Model520Fan

I would guess the double action stacking might be a major factor.

"Back in the heyday of revolvers, I shot on our depts pistol team...." "In all those years, in all those matches, I never saw a single Colt revolver, ever. "

Back in the heyday of bullseye before semiautos took over, you could have seen plenty of them.

Back in the day…Colt all but ruled in bullseye shooting where single-action shooting was the norm. Double-action shooting such as PPC or other so-called “combat” shooting disciplines was where S&W shined.

The basic reason Jerry Miculek chose S&W was the Smith action reset the trigger faster than Colt or Ruger.

Colt probably designed their cylinder release long before with the obsession with speed became a thing.

__________________
Release the Kraken

Just imagine where we’d be at if we didn’t have opposable thumbs. Handguns would be almost impossible to shoot, load, or even make. Cell phones would be useless until they invented voice activated dialing. Texting and driving would be totally out of the question, unless you were a teenaged girl. Peterson handwriting would be impossible.

__________________
Waiting For The Sun.

If you shoot Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers regularly, you never give a thought to the cylinder releases being different. I would guess those who seldom shoot Colt revolvers are the ones that claim to notice the perceived awkwardness of the Colt cylinder release.

I seem to remember Colt advertising from the 40's 50's where they specifically market the fact that their cylinder rotates clockwise into the frame so the cylinder would not pop out as opposed to S&W spinning counterclockwise as a possibility. Not that I know this was ever a real problem.
I can't speak as to the original design but I know pre WW2 if S&W advertised UP, then Colt advertised DOWN. I could see and add company saying, accidentally pulling back the latch is less likely and is safer as to not accidentally pop the cylinder, as a police officer would be concerned about.

I would ask, why would you shoot a Colt? As mentioned above, for double action shooting, the S&W revolver reigns supreme. What else matters?

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I am a died in the wool S&W guy that owns some Colts and Rugers.......When Ruger put the "push button" release on the security six.....He had designed the best cly. release button ever......Just push it in.....Nothing simpler than that.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

I seldom shoot double-action, much preferring Bullseye-style shooting. Many of my revolvers have never been fired double-action, at least by me.

That's okay isn't it? We all have different shooting interests.

I bet the OP can't dance either............

__________________
Expect no quarter.

There are good techniques for both the S&W and the Colt. There are also good techniques for the Dan Wesson and the Ruger. Learning them takes repetition.

Each revolver manufacturer makes different releases. While I do prefer the S&W style, the Colt pull back style is not objectionable to me. I own a bunch of Colts and since I am right handed it releases easy for me so I never really gave it much thought.

Agreed. The windshield wiper and washer controls on the two vehicles I drive regularly are on different sides. That's just the way those machines work. Is the S&W vs Colt cylinder latch debate any different?

__________________
Release the Kraken

Marching was a challenge also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't shoot any Colts anymore but there was a point in time past that I had quite a few that I shot, along with S&W's. I never noticed it was a problem. Not for casual sporting use. I guess I could see it would be a problem if you wanted or needed to speed-load.

Especially during Bay Watch marathons. How else would you hold the remote or your… beer.

I never had an issue with working the cylinder release on a Colt or S&W, but I think pushing forward is more intuitive.

__________________
213th FBINA

I own mostly S&Ws, but there are some Colts and Rugers in there too. I'll admit that once in a while I have pushed when I should have pulled. But it only takes about a half second and I correct it.
Actually, out of the three, I like Ruger's push button.
Its no big deal to me. They all work.

Kevin of course I have multiple thoughts on the subject besides the left handed thing.

If you learned handgun shooting on a S&W the Colt method is backwards. But if you learned on a Colt the S&W is backwards.

Its just a Training Issue. Today I prefer the Kimber or Ruger cylinder release.

I was on our Police Departments PPC Team and the last nine years I was the Team Captain.

I think S&W had a lock on PPC Competition since the 1960s. A retired Captain I knew was a co-owner of a S&W Distributor. So we were S&W only as were most agencies then. A few Departments still were strictly Colt and a few even issued Python revolvers.

In the 1970s as a cop I heard a story of a Midwest lawman who drew his S&W revolver and dumped the rounds when he accidently push against the cylinder release. Supposedly his widow sued S&W. Today I think we would call that an "Urban Legend".

Personally as a cop I always carried a Colt Detective Special as my BUG in my left front pocket.

What happened with Colt was when Penn-Texas purchased the company in the late 1950s and then morphed into Colt Industries they milked Colt Firearms for the M16 contracts and ignored the commercial side of the company and allowed them to become less competitive in law enforcement sales. In fact...they all but left Colt's carcass on the side of the road while getting fat on military sales. S&W was hungry and snagged the majority of law enforcement sales...then allowed Ruger to do it to them then Beretta and Glock did the same to Ruger.

While Colt is on firm financial ground now and becoming more of a force in the market again...it was a close-run thing for a long time.

A big stink over nothing.
Who cares?

On duty, we could only carry issued Smith model 64's.

Our pistol teams could shoot whatever they wanted in competition. The Association rules required the revolver to be factory available and unmodified and 6" or less in barrel length. You could change the grips but that was about it.

We had an argument (protest) when a guy showed up with the new Smith 686 with the adjustable front sight. Turned out it was a production item and would be allowed.

All the best shooters soon purchased them. I stuck with my 6" model 19 as I shoot the K frame pretty well. Plus, I was about to starve on my low pay.

I was shooting expert with my 64. My Dad was impressed with my shooting. One of the proudest days of my life was when my Dad bought me the model 19 for competition. I still have it.

During this timeframe, I also shot Bullseye and Steel Challenge on the weekends. Not degrading Colts, but I can't recall any of them in those matches either.

Of course, in those days I was a rookie kid. I asked my Captain why there were no Colts in any of the matches. His reply was "Colts are for collectors, Smiths are for shooters."

Again, just reflecting back. I shot a Python not too long ago on a rapid fire course and impressed some of the folks at the range. I loved it.

EDIT: Circa 1990, we were invaded by Glock. It ruined everything. But that's another story.

,
,

__________________
Death? Smile back...

VERY TRUE...........

__________________
S&W Accumulator

I almost bought a used Colt Cobra as my first revolver. But instead opted for a police trade in Smith and Wesson Model 64.

So the die was cast. I have never owned nor wanted to own a Colt since I bought the 64. And in my mind the Smith versus the Colt cylinder release question is a no-brainer. The Smith release is easier to master IMHO and quicker for IDPA and PPC.

Give me a Colt and I'll sell it as quick as I can to someone who likes them.

Attached: My current 64 snubby.

Attached Images

Model 64.jpg (105.5 KB, 15 views)

My first centerfire revolver (bought the weekend after I turned 21 - most guys bought liquor) was a Model 15 Dan Wesson .357 with an 8" barrel. This would have been 1978 and I think I paid $185 for it, at Southwest Shooter's Supply in OKC. I still have it along with extra barrels ranging from 2" to 15".

As a plinker I didn't really care about speed reloading so the Dan Wesson was no problem for me. It seemed (and still seems) very natural to hold the gun in my right hand, wrap my left hand around the cylinder and frame using my left thumb to pull down the latch, push the cylinder open with my middle two fingers, and hold the gun upright that way and use my thumb to eject empties (usually into my waiting right hand, or into a container.)

Still holding it with my left hand I would then use my right hand to reload the cylinder, typically picking up two cartridges at a time. Then put my right hand back on the grip and close the cylinder with my left hand, and continue shooting. Almost always single action because I was more interested in careful aimed shots, and double action just seemed inherently inaccurate.

I used that Dan Wesson a lot in the early 1980s when I started shooting IHMSA metallic silhouettes, before graduating to a .44 Magnum - a 10" Ruger Super Blackhawk, of course. I'll mention that the Dan Wesson cylinder also turns clockwise (like a DA Colt and most single action revolvers) so when I first started using Smith & Wessons, the cylinder turning counter-clockwise seemed to me backwards and dumb.

In the years since then I have acquired all manner of different DA and SA revolvers including Colt, S&W, Ruger, and lots of others as well as semi-automatics. I just do whatever is needed to operate them, although sometimes I can get confused and might try to open the right side loading gate on a DA revolver, or even try to eject a magazine.

The Colt pulls to the rear as it only has to pull the locking bolt back and out of the rear of the cylinder to unlock the cylinder.
No spring loaded Center pin with forward lockup as on the S&W that needs to be pushed forward by the thumbpiece to unlock the cylinder from the frame.

Just a simple design difference and the way to handle it.

I don't see either as one big advantage or disadvantage over the other.
Use it.

Colt revolvers have no front cylinder lock as it's unnecessary. Since the cylinders turn clockwise into the frame there's no tendency for the cylinder to open during double-action shooting and split lead. A larger rear locking pin does the job.

S&W (and others with a counter-clockwise cylinder rotation) require both a front and rear locking pin to keep the cylinder from opening slightly during double-action shooting. The Smith M&P in its first year of production had no front locking pin...and an unsupported ejector rod...until problems found the front pin was necessary.

Both designs work and work well. Just two different methods of accomplishing the same goal.

My pre–WW II Colt Official Police .32-20 has more visible sights than my S&W .32-20s, so I shoot it better. Plus, I seldom do DA work with it.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!