Indians For Guns

Dear Friends,
Please guide me where I can get my IOF .32 revolver modified.I want to change its butt,and blue black polish done instead of cheap looking paint.Approx costand time????????? Address of any Gunsmith
sonuvecv

Posts: 7
Age: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:47 am
Location: Gwalior
Private message

good work takes good time , apprx 20 days

sonuvecv,

What the IOF revolver actually needs is

1.Trigger work (and in some cases)

2.Adjust timing

You and the vast majority confine themselves to cosmetics.

Also I would get rid of the stupid safety.

winnie_the_pooh wrote:sonuvecv,

What the IOF revolver actually needs is

1.Trigger work (and in some cases)

2.Adjust timing

You and the vast majority confine themselves to cosmetics.

Also I would get rid of the stupid safety.

Dear Sir,
Please elobarate why I need to adjust timing and trigger work,and safety catch is important why should I get rid of it.That would be very helpful Regards Digvijay

sonuvecv wrote:Dear Sir,
Please elobarate why I need to adjust timing and trigger work,and safety catch is important why should I get rid of it.That would be very helpful Regards Digvijay

1.The trigger pull is very heavy as the revolver comes from the factory.Makes it difficult to shoot it accurately

2.In some revolvers the timing is out.The the cylinder does not align properly with the barrel when you fire the revolver.Consequently some lead shavings and unburnt powder is ejected outwards.

3.A safety is there to prevent an accidental discharge,right? In case of a revolver the safety should be such that it prevents the hammer from going forward and hitting the primer with force sufficient to discharge the revolver.In the IOF/ webley revolvers the safety does not prevent the hammer from going forward if there is a sharp blow to the hammer.The only thing it does is that it prevents the trigger from being pulled by stopping the rearward movement of the hammer.Considering the necessarily heavy trigger pull of a revolver,it is inconceivable that it is going to go off unless some one deliberately pulls the trigger.In case you drop a Webley revolver even with the safety engaged and it falls on its hammer it is likely to go off.

The IOF revolver has a transfer bar safety which prevents it from firing unless the trigger is pulled.If you search on the internet in some of the better forums,even people far more knowledgeable in such matters have not been able to figure out what the purpose of putting the safety on the webley revolvers was.It was there only on the civilian/police versions and not on any of the revolver for the army.

The greatest advantage of a revolver is that it can be fired immediately after withdrawing from the holster.That is negated by having a safety that needs to disengaged when drawn from the holster.In the few seconds that a fellow has in case of a self defence situation,that will get him killed.Indians will happily buy a S&W/Colt etc without a manual safety but insist on it if it is a webley revolver or it's clone.

I'd like to echo Winnie on this point. In the USA, they do such things because of silly import regulations or because a manufacturer wants to avoid the expense of lawsuits resulting from negligent use.

A modern double action revolver is, as Winnie notes, designed with a hammer block or transfer bar mechanism (either is an effective means -- traditional S&W and Colt revolvers use a block, while Ruger uses a transfer bar, for instance) do not need a safety. Folks who are educated sufficiently know better than to go gadding about with such a revolver fully cocked.

And, as Winnie notes, the safety only blocks the trigger from being pulled. keeping the action from discharging then relies on the little sear notch and the sear's small surface. If one or both break, BANG goes the gun.

The Poles, in their design of the Radom "Vis" 9mm, and the Soviets with the TT-33, did not see the need for the safety at all, and these semi-autos did not have them. Sometimes these silly designs and regulations remind me of the man who wears a belt and suspenders simultaneously. Out in the West of the USA, we commonly know never to trust such a man, because he doesn't trust himself. There's something here that holds for handguns, as well, I think.

winnie_the_pooh wrote:If you search on the internet in some of the better forums,even people far more knowledgeable in such matters have not been able to figure out what the purpose of putting the safety on the webley revolvers was.It was there only on the civilian/police versions and not on any of the revolver for the army.

Due to import restrictions small handguns were not allowed to be imported into the United States unless they had some sort of additional safety. This forced Webley & Scott to install a (rearward) hammer block mechanism (the so called "safety") in their revolvers .Which year did this happened, I am not sure.

I found this info on present BATF website ......

A double action revolver must have a safety feature which automatically (or in a single action revolver by manual operation) causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge. The safety device must withstand the impact of a weight equal to the weight of the revolver dropping from a distance of 36" in a line parallel to the barrel upon the rear of the hammer spur, a total of five times.

Reference - http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5330-5.pdf

Surely the criteria have changed since Webley !

best,
Rp.

Doc,

You are way off in your reasoning/explanation.

I cannot tell you about S&W, but in the Colt Double Action Revolver lineup, Colt included a hammer block in their DA revolvers, starting in 1905 with the "Police Positive" model. This is the Colt small frame, or "D Frame" that is the predecessor of the Diamondback and Detective Special. The lock mechanism was based on the "Schmidt-Galand" system, invented by Belgians. In 1908, this same Schmidt-Galand action with a hammer block was incorporated into the new "Army Special" model, which Colt intended for military use. However, the M1911 was selected instead. This is Colt's "I Frame" and is the progenitor of the Official Police and Python models. Finally, in 1905, the hammer block was included in the "New Service" model Colt, which was the largest frame DA revolver, handling cartridges like the 45 Colt.

The way this works out is that the hammer will retract when the trigger is released and a blocking part will rise, preventing the hammer from being able to strike a round chambered beneath it. It is a completely reliable system.

I believe that the S&W system works similarly, but as I am not as familiar with them, I can't tell you when they introduced a hammer block and on which models.

Also, I can't describe to you how the hammer blocks work on actions like the DA Harrington & Richardson, Charter Arms, Dan Wesson, or Iver Johnson, or any of the Webley revolvers. This would be speculation on my part, but I'd expect that Taurus revolvers work similarly to the S&W revolvers, as there was a connection between S&W and the Brazilian company at one time.

The transfer bar system, such as is used by Ruger on their revolvers, works in an opposite manner. In this system, the hammer cannot hit the firing pin, as a thick extension of the hammer hits the frame above the firing pin unless a transfer bar is raised. The transfer bar is connected to the trigger in this system, so only when the trigger is pulled can the transfer bar lay on top of the firing pin and allow the falling hammer to depress it. This was used in the Ruger Double Action revolvers and a similar system was introduced in the single action revolvers, the first of which used the same lockwork as the original Colt Single Action Army.

My point here is that this safety technology is very old in the case of the hammer block and fairly old in the case of the transfer bar. The addition of another safety is not necessary, in my opinion, and just serves as another failure point. But because it makes the people who don't use guns, but make the laws, comfortable, that's what we have.

Dear Timmy,
Thanks. I learn a lot from your articles and replies and you are a polite man.Keep it up Sir.

I have IOF .32 revolver and I also faced the problem of heavy trigger. I opened the revolver and found that the spring which pushes the trigger was very rigid and compressed. I just reduced the length of spring by say 5 mm. Now the trigger pull is somewhat soft and I have fired more than 50 rounds without missing even a single shot.

maverickwebley wrote: I just reduced the length of spring by say 5 mm. Now the trigger pull is somewhat soft and I have fired more than 50 rounds without missing even a single shot.

You may eventually start experiencing misfires due to light strikes on the primer.Or you may not.