This is a discussion on Hammer time? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Yeah horrible thread title. I apologize.
But seriously I'm curious if anyone here buys into the "A hammer will just get snagged"/"You'll never actually fire ...
May 9th, 2005 10:01 PM
Yeah horrible thread title. I apologize.
But seriously I'm curious if anyone here buys into the "A hammer will just get snagged"/"You'll never actually fire a single action shot" theory.
When I was looking for a pocket gun, I decided quickly that I wanted a "Get the #### off of me" piece that could come flying out of a pocket in a hurry. The shooter in me wanted the 637 but I elected to go with the hammerless 642 for fear of a hammer catching the pocket if the draw was done at a weird angle or sloppily under stress.
But for other modes of carry, I don't feel bobbing the hammer is particularly useful or necessary. Yeah people SAY you'll never get the opportunity to use a single action shot in a real encounter, but no one can really know that. I can draw and cock in a fluid motion pretty easily and I bet most of you can too. I honestly feel if you have a good holster and are using IWB or OWB carry, a traditional hammer is fine if not preferable because it gives you another option.
I see concealed or shrouded hammer designs as being most useful for deep cover carry, or carry in odd positions. It also makes a heck of a lot of sense for a BUG.
What do you guys think? This viewpoint is of course a bit revolver centric but traditional DA/SA pistols and 1911s have protruding parts that can catch as well. The principal can be applied to almost any firing platform.
May 9th, 2005 10:01 PM
May 9th, 2005 10:10 PM
Tell ya the truth ive never put much though into it ... everything i buy has a hammer in a wheelie and if i but the ruger sp 101 ive been looking at it will to
May 9th, 2005 10:14 PM
1952 - 2006
I think this would be a consideration only if you don't adjust your stlye of clothing to fit the gun you're carrying. I never considered having a hammer on a gun to be a problem. I carried a 6" S&W 686 (The one P95 now owns) for many years in a shoulder rig (I also carried it "Mexican carry") and never had a problem snagging.
Heroes are people who do what has to be done, when it has to be done, regardless of the consequences
"I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the ******** are and can kill them."
DE OPPRESSO LIBER
May 9th, 2005 10:19 PM
May 9th, 2005 10:24 PM
Honestly QK If I could have bought one for less than $400, I'd have purchased a 638.
It really wasn't worth the extra money to me to have the shrouded hammer, and the price I got on the 642 was right.
That is true about the possibility of an action job. I had forgotten about that. Trouble is a lot of gunsmiths simply refuse to touch J frames.
May 9th, 2005 10:30 PM
You're concerned about snagging your spleen (again), aren't you?
I like the DAO 5-shot Smiths, as the 640, the 642, the 442 and the 342.
Not a lot of precise work needed with tools like that at social distances. And snaggin' a firearm, even for a moment while drawing to save your life, might be the window of time that your aggressor needs to kill you.
May 9th, 2005 10:43 PM
May 9th, 2005 10:45 PM
When carrying the SP-101 I was never worried about spur snagging - and it never did. With OWB set up as use it - it is a non-issue.
That said - most all practice was D/A - but I do like the option for S/A - cock piece and take deliberate aim - good chance of very accurate results if needed.
OTOH - my M28-2, has had trigger job, chamber mouth chamfers and hammer bob - and it is creamy smooth for D/A - so S/A hardly enters the mind.
Guess it all depends on the gun but - a hammer spur is no prob to me - if pocket carry tho - then different matter probably.
Odd thing - I have never, ever , yet - found the shrouded hammer Smiths, to be other than butt ugly!! Just me - no digs against 642 owners etc. LOL.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
May 9th, 2005 10:48 PM
Honestly that kind of distance is exactly what I had in mind when I bought the thing. Speed of presentation and ease of use were vital.
When I do static shooting at the range I practice with it at 7 yards exclusively. I have gotten better with it and I can get most shots in the 5 point area, but I think 7 yards is stills 2 yards over its practical real world range, at least in my hands. I try to shoot it a lot as it's the gun I am most likely to have with me.
My grandfather could nail a pop can at 50 feet with such a gun, but not me.
May 9th, 2005 10:49 PM
Oh I agree. They do look odd.
Originally Posted by P95Carry
May 9th, 2005 10:49 PM
Who Made Them There Grips
Who Made "Them There" S&W J~Frame Grips that had the "built in" hammer shroud as part of the grips?
I wonder if they are still being made?
May 9th, 2005 11:31 PM
I have a smith with an internal hammer. It is a back-up pistol chambered in .357. I got it so that my wife (who is less combat minded than myself) would have a truly simple to operate gun. No slide to rack, no hammer to snag or cock. It is just point and shoot.
As time has progressed, I have come to the conclusion that there is no real advantage for an internal hammer on a revolver. With practice, and I mean consistent practice, it is possible to effectively train yourself to cock the first round as you bring the gun up without losing time. This will give you a more accurate first shot, which is all-important. Not possible without an external hammer.
If you are drawing from a holster, hammer snag is likely an over emphasized possibility. We are practicing our draws from concealment, aren't we?
The only real advantage I see with an internal hammer is if you are firing from inside of a pocket, and you have to worry about the guts of the garment fouling follow-up shots.
Other than that, I personally consider the exposed hammer to allow for accurate SA shots.
Anyway, your mode of carry, and the express purpose of the weapon is what should guide your decisions.
May 10th, 2005 05:26 AM
For pocket type carry, I prefer a hammerless snub if I'm going the revolver route. It's personal choice and what has worked for me in the past. I don't expect an Olympic grade trigger on my COM monster - DAO it's good enough for me to pop a silhouette on a draw & fire out to 15m consistently without fail, and enough to engage someone who starts shooting first in the same situation at least half the time out to 25m.
Under actual stress, I draw the Sig much, much faster. The snub will come out only if I must do something that's in its particular forte or the world has just gotten very, very ugly.
Driver carries less than $45 worth of remorse.
May 10th, 2005 08:44 AM
For pocket carry, the "hammerless"/internal hammer (a la 442/642) makes sense for an additional reason; one less place for lint & dust to collect. My experience with the shrouded-hammer models (both S&W and an old Colt with the add-on shroud) was that the recess around that hammer was like a lint magnet. The 642 has no holes or gaps there!
I try to keep my carry piece clean, but that was a definite headache for pocket carry. Other carry modes render this a much less important factor to me.
May 11th, 2005 09:16 AM
Maybe it's just me. i won't own any weapon that doesn't have a hammer. Not a wheelie or a slide slammer.
Gun control is hitting what you aim at
By Skippys in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: January 9th, 2011, 02:38 PM
By aedinius in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: July 16th, 2010, 10:44 PM
By MBtech87 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: September 28th, 2009, 11:28 AM
By ArmyCop in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: March 15th, 2006, 05:52 AM
By Element in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: November 27th, 2005, 05:21 PM
Search tags for this page
bud's j frame hammer shrouds
owb hammer time
Click on a term to search for related topics.