We’ve all heard about how the Winchester 1897 is capable of slam fire, but is that really a useful feature? Or is it just a cost-saving safety hazard? Well, Matt Haught of Sym-Tac consulting and I are at the range today to find out…
Bolt Action Rifles
2-Gun Action Match: Mosin & Nagant vs Trapdoor & SAA
No vintage photo today – instead I have a vintage rifle match! I’ve had had a bunch of people asking to see a Mosin-Nagant in one of these matches, and decided to oblige – but […]
Select-fire Rifles
Colt CK901: An AR in 7.62x39mm for the Yemeni Military
Colt developed this rifle, the CK-901, for the Yemeni military in 2014 – which appears to be the only buyer they have found for it since. The rifle is basically an AR-15 chambered for 7.62x39mm, […]
Prototype
RIA: Colt 1907 Trials Pistol
The Colt 1907 was one of the significant developmental iterations of the design that would eventually be adopted as the Model 1911 by the US military. This pistol began as John Browning’s Model 1900 in […]
Omitting a disconnector (using a simple hammer / trigger FCG like an SA revolver) wouldn’t create slamfire capability; just useless and annoying hammer follow.
The animation on C&Rsenal’s 1897 video shows there is clear disconnection as the action pivots the sear out of alignment with the trigger, reconnecting only when coming into battery – comparable in effect to an “auto sear” in a hammer-fired full auto.
There are a lot more differences than just the disconnector on those two. A good comparison would be an 870 and a Model 12 made in 1960 or so with the same barrel lengths and capacity. Neither ported of course. Add to that a shooter that is proficient with both. As for all the talk about safety….wow. Unless a firearm goes bang when it shouldn’t then the proper use of it is entirely the responsibility of the operator. Great effort anyway Ian. Thank you for what you do.
Ithaca 37s had the capability ( the way JMB intended)until 1975. All 37s manufactured after that had the disconnect redesigned into them.
Was there any prior lawsuit launched due to presence of said feature inside Ithaca Model 37?
“(…)all heard about how the Winchester 1897 is capable of slam fire(…)”
Were U.S. soldiers aware of that in 1917? Was such disclaimer placed in manual or textbook used in 1917? If no is there any evidence that any U.S. soldier in 1917 detected such possibility and if yes was such information propagated?
I have an old Ward’s Western Field in 20 Gauge (built on a 12 Gauge frame) inherited from a grandparent, which also has no disconnector and will slam fire. I’ve tried it a couple of times, just to see what would happen, but would not want to try using it that way for self defense.
Had an early 50s production Ithaca model 37. The slam fire would always catch me off guard the first day of dove season. Seemed yo me to be more of a safety concern than any sort of benefit
Capstick promoted the slamfire ability with his Model 12. Against a charging animal he said it was an advantage.
I had once bought a longer barreled winchester 1897 from a fellow who said he found the slam fire useful for follow up shots rabbit hunting. Quite sadly I unwisely parted with the gun before I could really test this.
I used an original Model 1897, 28″ barrel, improved cylinder bore, inherited from my father, as both a duty gun and for trap shooting. I did find that the ability to instantly fire a second shot by simply pumping the action made doubles in trap easier than it probably should be under the rules.
The major limitation of the 1897, of course, was that small, slippery pump. Most pump shotguns since then haven’t really had ones that were any better designed, except ones like the 870 shown here. Larger forearms tended to be very slick, mainly for “looks”. Smaller ones tended to copy the 1897 or Model 12 forearm because “tradition”.
I doubt that most shotgunners have ever known that that skinny forearm, with the grooves that are the only thing you can actually get a semi-solid grip on, date to the very first commercial pump action shotgun, the Spencer Model 1882;
https://warisboring.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Image0000716-e1537823452353-970×350.png
The first version and second version (top two) had very small “pump” handles. The third version (bottom) was introduced in 1890 to alleviate the obvious drawbacks of same.
It’s ironic that it took about a century for designers to figure out how the “pump handle” of a shotgun should be shaped to properly fit a human hand. As opposed to just looking elegant.
clear ether
eon
The U.S. Navy SEAL teams during the Vietnam War were reportedly in favor of the older-model Ithaca 37 shotgun because the ability to rapidly cycle and fire it by holding the trigger down and working the foregrip enabled them to rapidly dispense a large amount of firepower in tight situations such as a close quarters ambush. Creating a very loud, immediate and massive distraction with psychologically and potentially life-threatening consequences for the enemy may have been just as important as actually hitting them directly when it came to breaking up and tactically altering said situation. The input of any former SEALs with this type of experience would be invaluable.
Just a thought, I would like to have seen a set of runs done with the trench gun where the slam fire was not used but normal single shot trigger pull used if this is practical.
This would have given us a direct comparison between the slam fire and controlled shot on the same gun and comparison to a modern weapon.
This would allow us to see if slam-fire gave any advantage to a user of the same weapon and how much advantage a modern weapon had under the same conditions,
“Farm boys” had single barrel shotguns, at $5 or so apiece. The ’97 was four times the price, approaching $20. That’s about a thousand dollars worth of current purchasing power, a cheap new car was $500.
’97s weren’t cheap hand me downs until the 1960s.