They call it Russian Roulette, or ‘Hussar’s Roulette’. link, and the Russian wiki as well, just for laughs: here
Are any pistols prone to slamfires? Seems to me I’ve only heard of it happening in rifles, in particular the SKS.
I just finished an experiment where I loaded one chamber of my Ruger Super Redhawk .44 magnum with a live round, spun the “well-oiled” cylinder, and pushed the cylinder back into place gently (without snapping it).
I DID NOT PULL THE TRIGGER OR AIM THE WEAPON AT ANYTHING WHICH COULD BE INJURED, I MERELY NOTED WHERE THE BULLET ENDED UP.
I numbered the chambers from 1-6, with 1 being in-line with the barrel, and proceeding counter-clockwise from there as it would appear with the gun pointed at a target. That is, if you point the gun at a target, 1 is in-line with the barrel, 2 is the first cylinder to the right, etc.
I did 200 clockwise spins, and tried my best to move the cylinder up without turning it. The results.
Position Times
1 (barrel) 20 (0.100)
2 25 (0.125)
3 35 (0.175)
4 (bottom) 38 (0.190)
5 41 (0.205)
6 (death) 41 (0.205)
My gun beat the odds of 0.167. It’s obviously cursed.
Although I don’t know of any pistols that are prone to repeating slam-fires the way a (dirty) SKS is, any pistol with a one-piece firing pin can potentially slam-fire if you drop the slide on a chambered round (i.e. insert the round through the ejection port and release the slide, as seen in countless Hollywood movies). Many cheap pistols without a firing pin blocking safety can discharge if the muzzle or hammer is struck with sufficient force. The same is true for most .22LR pistols, which typically don’t have such safeties.
Let me be the first to say how awesome it is that you own a Super Redhawk, and understand how to properly handle the gun (i.e. push the cylinder in place rather than violently snapping it, Hollywood style). You are some gun enthusiast’s dream girl.
Second, just for the education of those not familiar with the operation of revolvers, permit me to point out that pulling the trigger causes the cylinder to rotate one chamber (typically counterclockwise from the perspective of the shooter) while cocking the hammer before dropping it, such that a round that is initially in line with the barrel will be shifted one chamber away.
I’m not clear from your description whether you removed the bullet between spins or not, but the statistical disparity between shots may well be due to an imbalance of friction in the bearing surface of the extractor rod and forward crane. Although the weight of one loaded chamber will definitely cause an imbalance, I would not expect it to dominate the final position of the cylinder, and especially not to an order of magnitude difference.
Stranger
I assumed he’d pulled the trigger on purpose but made a mistake with the safety (i.e., thought it was safe when it wasn’t.)
I wonder if the woman new.
“ok honey what about this one is the safety on or off?”
“It’s off.”
“Nope, it’s on, see?”
BANG
:eek:
I believe playing Russian Roulette with a magazined pistol rather than with a revolver is called Polish Roulette… 
Re: Jackknifed Juggernaut (post #16) – Deer Hunter was a movie. 'Nuff said. As others are mentioned, all the discussion of physics is nullified by the fact that your not supposed to wait for the chamber to finish spinning… And even if you did wait, you’d have to be holding the gun horizontal or nearly so for your idea to even have a chance of being true.
Re: the discussion of Scylla’s second post – I believe his intention was to check the gun rather than fire it – And you’d still want to use an inert weight there. Gun Safety 101:
Loading a gun (of any sort) with live ammunition (yes, including blanks) should be done only if you reasonably believe you may need to fire it
Pointing a gun at any person, animal or object should never be done unless you absolutely intend to fire the gun and to hit the target
would be a fairer challenge if someone was simultaneously hunting you too.
Similar to what a cop friend of mine was taught: “Don’t point it at something you don’t want to shoot, and don’t shoot anything you don’t want to kill.”
Is there is a real disparity, as opposed to random deviations due to finite sample size (akin to getting 110 heads in 100 fair coin-tosses by chance)? For death versus the other possibilities, the p-value by a binomial test is 0.15, which is not statistically significant. However, a chi-squared test of equality among outcomes gives a p-value of 0.039. The only value that is individually significantly different from 1/6 is 20/200 for “barrel”. So it looks like things are unequal, but the individual probabilities should be taken as rough estimates.
I anxiously await the results of the full experiment with 5000 spins.
Actually, it’s called the “Itzik Game”. Or was that after your time?
Sure, but in this case it’s kind of hard to divert attention from the culpability of the wielder, since it’s pretty abundantly clear that the primary cause, by far, was a case of terminal stupidity. If it was “I was cleaning my gun but it just went off and accidentally killed my wife”, then the objection that guns don’t “go off” would be a reasonable one, but I don’t see what purpose is served here by such an objection.
After my time, I guess. Or just not popular in the Air Force.
As an aside, it took me an inordinate amount of time to google the explanation of the “game.” Looks like Israeli bloggers are really good about saying “It’s a game with guns, sort of like Russian Roulette, and I’m not going to tell you how it’s done!!!” – which I find both amazing and gratifying.
So I can’t ever go shooting for fun? I mean I don’t NEED to go target shooting. And I can’t ever carry unless I 'm believe I’m going to need to shoot someone?
And that should be 'unless you are, as far as you know at the time, OK with firing the gun and hitting the target. ’ Otherwise, if you (or a cop) were to pull a gun on someone, and it turned out they did not need to be shot, you’d be required to kill them anyway.
Plus you’d never be able to dryfire.
,
I don’t get where I said that? I thought it was obvious that I accept target shooting as a “need to fire” in the wider sense of “need.”
And that should be 'unless you are, as far as you know at the time, OK with firing the gun and hitting the target. ’ Otherwise, if you (or a cop) were to pull a gun on someone, and it turned out they did not need to be shot, you’d be required to kill them anyway.
[/quote]
I’ll accept your correction here 
I think you’re getting me wrong – I’m not a rabid anti-gun person. Most Israelis aren’t. I am pro gun-control, in the sense that I think guns should be licensed and tracked, unlike what I perceive to be the prevalent attitude among many American gun enthusiasts – but I’m not anti-gun in general. I owned a hand gun (licensed and registered) until a few years ago a relic of my Military days.
Not sure what you mean by this, but I’ll assume it, too, is covered by your corrections to my poorly constructed thoughts.
Certainly no evidence, but I recently read a Jack Reacher novel in which Lee Child repeats the “legend” that with a well-maintained quality gun the odds are far better than 6:1 due to the weight of the bullet. I believe the revolver in question was a Colt Anaconda, but I know nothing of guns.
I did not remove the bullet from the cylinder each time, instead I typically let the chamber with the bullet rotate to the bottom position each time.
Ha! Not likely; I have things to do.
I didn’t say you were. But you seem to think there’s something wrong, or unacceptably dangerous, about keeping a gun loaded when you are not going to fire it, as if it might ‘go off’ by itself.
Dry firing is pulling the trigger on a gun that is unloaded or loaded with snap caps (dummy rounds). Of course it should only be done with the gun pointed at a safe target or in a safe direction - just in case it isn’t really unloaded.
Note that I didn’t explain it myself.
In the U.S., the phrase “gun control” is used almost entirely in a context meaning sharply restricting the availability of firearms and especially handguns: who may own or carry them, where it is lawful or unlawful to carry them, and what classes of weapons may be broadly banned. You evidently meant the phrase in a much more neutral way which might be paraphrased “gun regulation” (if that hasn’t become a codeword for partial or total prohibition of guns). Unfortunately those who believe in gun ownership have become paranoid- arguably rightly so- about anything that might be considered the first step of a “slippery slope” towards the possible abolition of firearms.