Indians For Guns

This is an interesting video - thanks for sharing.

One thing I notice, this new revolver has not incorporated the hideous safety lever used on the IOF models.

You should note (as this is a very important personal safety issue) that in the video, starting around 0:47, the presenter pulls the trigger. When the hammer drops and he lets go of the trigger, you can just barely see the hammer "rebound" back a slight amount.

The original design of Webley revolvers had a "rebound lever" (I'm not sure that's what the British called it) that brings the hammer back slightly. This feature in the mechanism draws the hammer back in a normal, uncocked state, so that the hammer's firing pin is not resting on the primer of a loaded chamber when the revolver is loaded and closed.

The old Single Action Army Colt "cowboy guns" did not have this feature, and for that reason, this revolver and many others were always loaded so that the firing pin rested over an empty chamber, preventing an accidental discharge if the hammer was struck when a live round was chambered underneath it.

Even though the rebound lever does draw the hammer back, double action revolvers of this type (Webley, Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc.) were still not safe to have a loaded round under the hammer. The angle of the rebound lever against the bottom of the hammer was such that, if the hammer were struck sharply, it could still be pushed forward and discharge a round underneath it.

I suspect that IOF put the safety lever on their revolver to prevent this, but I think that IOF uses a modification of the original Webley and Scott lockwork, so I cannot be sure of what is going on inside of it.

Back around 1905, Colt came out with a modification of their lockwork that raised a block, so that, unless the trigger was pulled which pulled the block down and allowed the hammer to completely fall against a round in the chamber, the block prevented the hammer from completely falling. This is the difference between the Colt Police Model and the Colt Police Positive Model.

The same lockwork was incorporated in the big frame Colt New Service and the medium frame Colt Army Special (forerunner to the famous Python) about this time.

Smith & Wesson had no such feature, and still depended on the angles of the rebound bar and hammer to keep the hammer away from a loaded round in the chamber. This was insufficient. There is a record of a sailor being killed during WW2, when a loaded Smith & Wesson dropped to the deck and discharged.

Sometime after this, at least after WW2, Smith & Wesson also incorporated a positive locking method, 40 years after Colt introduced theirs, that would positively prevent such accidental discharges, and all Smith & Wessons are made this way today.

This is why I have said that a properly made revolver does not need a safety. A properly designed revolver is capable of being loaded in all chambers without fear of an accidental discharge if the hammer is struck. This technology is over 115 years old, and there's no excuse for not having it, nor is there any excuse for putting a clumsy safety lever on the side of a double action revolver made today. A properly made revolver has a positive, blocking safety that prevents accidental discharge designed into its lockwork.

"But, but, but, . . ." I know some will say. I'm only describing the mechanical operations of double action revolvers here. How and what anyone might do with such information is their decision, but one's personal situation doesn't change the properties of a revolver. Guns fire and bullets fly, whatever one's feelings and intentions may be! I say this only to provide information. How a person chooses their own course of action and procedure to remain safe is their own decision.

I have personally seen an iof revolver fall to the ground and get discharged. A bloke was getting out of his car after parking it and the revolver fell and fired. This was on a very busy road. I saw pieces of the tarmac fly off. Fortunately no one was injured.

Thank you for the explanation timmy.

Peacefulguns wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:29 pm

I have personally seen an iof revolver fall to the ground and get discharged. A bloke was getting out of his car after parking it and the revolver fell and fired. This was on a very busy road. I saw pieces of the tarmac fly off. Fortunately no one was injured.

Thank you for the explanation timmy.

IMHO in this incident as per your statement, shows that person must have kept his revolver cocked. Unless and until a revolver is cocked it cannot discharge even in a dream.

veeveeaar wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:57 pm

Peacefulguns wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:29 pm

I have personally seen an iof revolver fall to the ground and get discharged. A bloke was getting out of his car after parking it and the revolver fell and fired. This was on a very busy road. I saw pieces of the tarmac fly off. Fortunately no one was injured.

Thank you for the explanation timmy.

IMHO in this incident as per your statement, shows that person must have kept his revolver cocked. Unless and until a revolver is cocked it cannot discharge even in a dream.

Then there is a lot of dreaming going on. What I have said is fact and can be easily understood by an examination of designs. When the hammer is sitting over a live round, a blow to the hammer, uncocked, can, in some designs without a positive block, fire the round in that chamber.

It is not true, for some revolvers, that it cannot go off unless cocked, whether in a dream or reality.

veeveeaar wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:57 pm

IMHO in this incident as per your statement, shows that person must have kept his revolver cocked. Unless and until a revolver is cocked it cannot discharge even in a dream.

If you hit hard on the hammer of iof revolver while the hammer in not cocked, it will go off. There is no safety feature in iof revolver that can prevent the hammer to go forward and stop it to hit the firing pin if it were to fall on hard surfaces and the hammer takes a hard hit.

The safety lock on iof revolver prevents the hammer to get cocked/ go back if the safety is in the 'on' position but it doesn't prevent the hammer to go forward.

The best way to avoid firing of iof revolver due to falling is to keep one chamber empty (the chamber that is aligned with the barrel)

Vineet wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:38 am

The safety lock on iof revolver prevents the hammer to get cocked/ go back if the safety is in the 'on' position but it doesn't prevent the hammer to go forward.

Vineet, thank you for that explanation. I have never handled an IOF revolver, nor have I seen a diagram of its lockwork, so I have never been able to understand exactly what goes on inside of them. I do understand that they were (are?) a copy of the old Webleys, but also that some or all now used a modified lockwork. Somewhere, I had read that they used some Smith & Wesson principles in this, which I would guess would be using a rebound bar instead of a lever, as in the original design. I would further guess that doing so makes the action cheaper to make and tune for the factory, but this last part is only my conjecture.

What you describe for a safety really riles me! It can thus be no more than a joke, and as useless as a wart. I'm sure that there are some who think that, by using that safety, they are safe.

Vineet wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:38 am

[The safety lock on iof revolver prevents the hammer to get cocked/ go back if the safety is in the 'on' position but it doesn't prevent the hammer to go forward.

Thanks for the clarification Vineet. So, the safety is designed to prevent intentional firing, rather than unintentional discharge.

Wow, this is vital information . I bought an old .32 iof revolver just to have something on my licence, till such time Jindal or Glock are available . I do keep the aligned chamber empty.

Thanks Vineet.

Anyone aware of present status.. did see photos of their facility & revolver a while ago in Facebook..

I have a strong suspicion that the new arms manufacturers like Webley and Scott, Glock etc., etc, are simply testing the waters of Indian gun buffs . They are keeping the gun entusiasts on tender hooks without giving any concrete information about their procducts, time of release, specifications , time frames , prices etc and mocking at our gun freeks who are worshipping the brands and praying like to be fathers at the corridors of a maternity ward. IMHO if they are playing with the emotions, of the Indian gun enthusiasts , and if they don't deliver, they are commiting a big mistake by their sarcastic suspense for whatever reason, they will pay the price .

Even if every handgun owner in the country chose to replace his gun with a new one , just check how many Webleys, Glocks , Sig Sauer have the potential to be sold !!!!

I don't think they'll go this far just to play with emotions. These are truly unprecedented times and I won't be suprised if the permissions that are hard enough to secure for these guys just became over the top harder.

Priorities have changed big time and arming citizens prolly isn't in the policy maker's things to do right now. All the same, though. I think the best thing to do is forget about them and worry about purchasing a Glock, Webley or Taurus when we actually see them at our respective city's shops.

On a side note, I wonder if there is any benefit in buying a Webley over an IOF revolver. It is using the same age-old design. One may be better off buying an IOF and saving a lot of money.

Very true. IMHO I think many will realise this very soon.

I think blokes at Ordnance factory are purposely delaying the proof testing,so that they can sell tad bit more of they're revolvers, desperately trying to save their face