# Is it plausible to accidently shoot someone if you only see empty chambers on a revolver **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 13, 2013, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573 "2013-04-13T04:43:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/1 "2013-04-13T04:43:18Z")
I don’t know all the details of the story, but family legend has it that someone accidentally shot his wife - and a key part of the story as it was relayed to me was: “He thought the gun wasn’t loaded because all the chambers looked empty - there was a bullet under the hammer”. I assume in most cases you can see four of them - like in this photo: [http://www.123rf.com/photo\_8201447\_loaded-steel-revolver-caliber-38-isolated-on-white-background.html](http://www.123rf.com/photo_8201447_loaded-steel-revolver-caliber-38-isolated-on-white-background.html) Besides this not seeming like the best safety rule of thumb - is this even plausible? I don’t believe I have ever shot a real revolver, but if memory serves on toy guns - pulling back the trigger advanced the little spinning thing with the six rounds - and THEN the hammer falls firing the “bullet”/cap. Is that the way it works in a real revolver? Or does it depend on the model? Anyway - hope I made the question clear. I realize I might not be using the correct terms - “hammer?”, but hopefully you get the drift. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/2 "2013-04-13T04:50:26Z")
No. Assuming that the five (or four) other chambers had been verified empty, which is a brazen act of stupidity because it requires you to point the gun at yourself, the one under the hammer would be rotated away from firing position by virtue of the action, be it via the trigger in the case of a double action revolver or the hammer in the case of a single-action revolver. In other words, you are exactly right. Barring a broken pawl (the piece which engages a gear in the back of the cylinder to rotate it into the appropriate position) the “hidden” round would have moved to a non-firing position. ---
**Author:** ![Dag\_Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@Dag\_Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dag_Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/3 "2013-04-13T04:59:21Z")
It depends on if the revolver was already cocked or not. Cocking the gun, that it, pulling the hammer back, is what turns the cylinder. In a double action revolver (which is shown in your link) the gun can be fired in two ways (hence the term ‘double action’). Manually pulling the hammer back (with your thumb) cocks the gun, but doesn’t fire the gun (pulling the trigger fires the gun). But the bullet will already be in line with the barrel, so if the other chambers in the cylinder are empty it would look like the gun was unloaded, even though there is a live load in firing position. In this mode, the trigger pull is relatively short. Now, a double action revolver can also fire by simply pulling the trigger without using your thumb to pull the hammer back. What happens is that the trigger pull in this mode is much longer, as the pulling of the trigger cocks the hammer, **advances the cylinder** , and fires the gun. In this case, the bullet will be visible on one side of the barrel before the gun is fired, so if you looked at it you would know it was loaded. ---
**Author:** ![Dag\_Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@Dag\_Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dag_Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/4 "2013-04-13T05:07:52Z")
That being said, in order for my first scenario to work, the gun would have to be in an already cocked position before the husband picked it up, and that would be an very unusual condition to find a revolver in. ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/5 "2013-04-13T05:11:25Z")
Thanks - both of you - I didn’t want to base my suspicion at the story solely on my knowledge of toys. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/6 "2013-04-13T05:30:20Z")
I think it would depend on the gun and whether all the holes are visible. Something like [this](https://www.google.com/search?q=revolver+types&client=firefox-a&hs=wlZ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=CO1oUZXpO4ei2QWE74D4DQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1047&bih=458#imgrc=em8ZpxELDdx-HM%3A%3BN12bHteN00qphM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.armchairgunshow.com%252Fot53-pix%252Fcr-781.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.armchairgunshow.com%252FotsCM_Merwin_Hulbert.htm%3B864%3B371) one blocks some of the view both front and back. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/7 "2013-04-13T07:16:40Z")
Not a gun-owner; but I believe the English ( or maybe European ) belief is that every gun is to be treated as loaded: a visual inspection is not enough. Obviously it’s different in America, where armed intruders are a constant danger, but over here it would only be loaded exactly when it is desired to shoot, and not put away with ammunition inside. Also you’re told never to point it at people in fun. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2013, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/8 "2013-04-13T08:35:20Z")
> [@DataX](#): > > I don’t know all the details of the story, but family legend has it that someone accidentally shot his wife - and a key part of the story as it was relayed to me was: > > “He thought the gun wasn’t loaded because all the chambers looked empty - there was a bullet under the hammer”. I assume in most cases you can see four of them - like in this photo: > > [http://www.123rf.com/photo\_8201447\_loaded-steel-revolver-caliber-38-isolated-on-white-background.html](http://www.123rf.com/photo_8201447_loaded-steel-revolver-caliber-38-isolated-on-white-background.html) > > Besides this not seeming like the best safety rule of thumb - is this even plausible? > > I don’t believe I have ever shot a real revolver, but if memory serves on toy guns - pulling back the trigger advanced the little spinning thing with the six rounds - and THEN the hammer falls firing the “bullet”/cap. > > Is that the way it works in a real revolver? Or does it depend on the model? > > Anyway - hope I made the question clear. I realize I might not be using the correct terms - “hammer?”, but hopefully you get the drift. The cocking operation is meant to rotate the breach one position, and the operator has seen that next position is empty. Therefore by correct operation it the next squeeze of the trigger should then let the hammer come down toward an empty breach. But its far too easy for that to go wrong. Defect, fouling (foreign material ), or operators error, depending on the model and maintenance- back yard repairs, repairs with parts from a different model . the chances may vary. Guns are to be assumed to be deadly to family and friends. There are far too many “accidents” to have them in the homes and suburbs. ---
**Author:** ![Pinmin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@Pinmin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pinmin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/9 "2013-04-14T00:40:17Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > Not a gun-owner; but I believe the English ( or maybe European ) belief is that every gun is to be treated as loaded: a visual inspection is not enough. Same in the U.S. - [see rule #1 here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety) ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/10 "2013-04-14T00:55:27Z")
Yes, Americans love playing Russian Roulette and “yee haw” all the time while shooting, Yosemite Sam style… We only know Safety as a type of Dance. Old-school revolvers used by “cowboy types” were rather touchy and could go off. Many carried them with -1 round, e.g. the Single Action army would have 5 chambers filled instead of 6. With modern guns, them going off when you drop them is a mostly Hollywood invention. Many firearms have a manual safety button. But they also have many other types like drop safety which aren’t immediately apparent just by looking. Wikipedia says that this started being standard for single actions in the 1970s. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/11 "2013-04-14T01:05:35Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > Not a gun-owner; but I believe the English ( or maybe European ) belief is that every gun is to be treated as loaded: a visual inspection is not enough. > [@Pinmin](#): > > Same in the U.S. - [see rule #1 here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety) One suspects friend **Claverhouse** was having a bit of fun at the expense of his American cousins. ETA: Anyway, wikipedia is a Brit site, innit? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/12 "2013-04-14T04:40:28Z")
A famous English case where a man killed hos best friend because neither understood how a revolver operates. [R v Lamb](http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Lamb.php) ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/13 "2013-04-15T00:34:51Z")
Many pistol manufacturers are now making [hammer-less, double-action revolvers](http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=off&sa=N&hl=en&biw=1392&bih=737&tbm=isch&tbnid=bEyCglTP6edS5M:&imgrefurl=http://sgcusa.com/handguns/s-w-revolvers/38-special/s-w-442-38-2-hammerless-blue.html&docid=6EQdBODFLgo6jM&imgurl=http://sgcusa.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/M/4/M442_SW162810.large.jpg&w=1000&h=753&ei=7UlrUfaCM5Ol4APj2oCQCA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:85&iact=rc&dur=1015&page=1&tbnh=180&tbnw=239&start=0&ndsp=15&tx=137.60000610351562&ty=85.40000915527344) (the hammer is internal). Makes sense because unless you’re target shooting, the movies be damned, you’re \*never \*going to cock a revolver before shooting it in any self-defense scenario. And with that being the case you should get used to it when target shooting too. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/14 "2013-04-15T00:39:27Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Many pistol manufacturers are now making [hammer-less, double-action revolvers](http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=off&sa=N&hl=en&biw=1392&bih=737&tbm=isch&tbnid=bEyCglTP6edS5M:&imgrefurl=http://sgcusa.com/handguns/s-w-revolvers/38-special/s-w-442-38-2-hammerless-blue.html&docid=6EQdBODFLgo6jM&imgurl=http://sgcusa.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/M/4/M442_SW162810.large.jpg&w=1000&h=753&ei=7UlrUfaCM5Ol4APj2oCQCA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:0,s:0,i:85&iact=rc&dur=1015&page=1&tbnh=180&tbnw=239&start=0&ndsp=15&tx=137.60000610351562&ty=85.40000915527344) (the hammer is internal). Makes sense because unless you’re target shooting, the movies be damned, you’re \*never \*going to cock a revolver before shooting it in any self-defense scenario. And with that being the case you should get used to it when target shooting too. True, training one way does not mean that the skill will transfer. But really, for that reason but mainly because a hammer can catch when you draw it. A disadvantage is that DA and DAO semis usually have a stiffer trigger pull for safety, but that can affect accuracy if you aren’t used to it. ---
**Author:** ![Hermitian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hermitian/32/470_2.png) [@Hermitian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hermitian)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/15 "2013-04-15T15:55:01Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > ETA: Anyway, wikipedia is a Brit site, innit? I don’t know how to characterize the nationality of a website. The Wikimedia Foundation was in Florida, then moved to San Francisco. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/16 "2013-04-15T17:54:33Z")
> [@Hermitian](#): > > I don’t know how to characterize the nationality of a website. The Wikimedia Foundation was in Florida, then moved to San Francisco. WM based in SF/LA, California. WP founded by two Americans. WM run by an American and a Canadian. Not much UK unless one considers it to belong to everyone or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/17 "2013-04-15T19:35:48Z")
Are you sure it was a revolver, and not simply a pistol? With an “automatic pistol” (which, technically, is a semi-automatic) such as the Colt-45, there can be a round in the chamber but the clip empty. So, you can check the clip, find it empty, re-insert it, and then fire a round. There may be subsequent automatics where it’s not possible to eject the clip and reinsert one with a round in the chamber, but my experience is only of the old WWII issue Colt-45, and I’m pretty darn sure it was possible to do it, with those. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > No. > > Assuming that the five (or four) other chambers had been verified empty, which is a brazen act of stupidity because it requires you to point the gun at yourself I don’t understand this. Normally, to check a revolver for ammo, you pop the cylinder to the side, where you can see all the chambers (usually 6, but I’ve seen 5). No pointing at oneself required. No way you can do this and then fire a round, if all chambers are empty. The alternative is to rotate the cylinder while it’s still housed, in which case you’d have to point it at yourself, but why would anyone do that? Regardless, you always treat a weapon as if it’s loaded, unless it’s disassembled to the point that it’s impossible to fire. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/18 "2013-04-15T19:39:36Z")
In any case, I think you have it right: pulling the trigger rotates the cylinder, so the round that’s fired wouldn’t be the one beneath the hammer. Unless, however, the hammer had already been pulled back (rotating the cylinder, just as if you’d pulled the trigger to do it – I believe). Of course, it would take a real brain surgeon to look more or less down the barrell of a cocked revolver, as in your picture. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/19 "2013-04-15T19:42:38Z")
Oops, never mind my “I don’t understand” above. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573/20 "2013-04-15T20:01:50Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > There may be subsequent automatics where it’s not possible to eject the clip and reinsert one with a round in the chamber, but my experience is only of the old WWII issue Colt-45, and I’m pretty darn sure it was possible to do it, with those. There are some which can’t be fired without a magazine inserted. AFAIK they’re all modern design, though. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand this. Normally, to check a revolver for ammo, you pop the cylinder to the side, where you can see all the chambers (usually 6, but I’ve seen 5). No pointing at oneself required. No way you can do this and then fire a round, if all chambers are empty. Some revolvers, particularly older single actions, have a fixed cylinder. The only time you’d remove the cylinder is to clean it, as it takes a bit of effort. Rounds are loaded one at a time through a loading gate that opens. My Nagant M1895 does that. It’s free spinning though, you just spin it through all 7 rounds. And don’t reinsert the cylinder by popping your wrist to the side like in the movies. Bad! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-plausible-to-accidently-shoot-someone-if-you-only-see-empty-chambers-on-a-revolver/655573.md?page=2)