Colt, revolver cylinder release

[Kevin G]

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

 

[Protocall_Design]

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.

 

[Bullet Bob]

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

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

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.

 

[WardenRoss]

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.


,

 

[rockquarry]

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

 

[Onomea]

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.

 

[Rustyt1953]

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

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

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.

 

[ralph7]

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.


,

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

 

[Bullet Bob]

"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.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

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.

 

[LVSteve]

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

 

[jeffrefrig]

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

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.

 

[rockquarry]

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

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.

 

[daddio202]

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.

 

[StrawHat]

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 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

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

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.

 

[rockquarry]

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

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.

 

[357larry]

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