.38/.357 exposed or shrouded hammer?

[76shuvlinoff]

I have been struggling trying find a carry gun for my wife. She is definitely comfortable with the 4" Ruger SP101 she has for a bedside piece and when range shooting. I guess my question is, as far as stubbies go, what is most popular, a shrouded or exposed hammer??

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Popular doesn't matter, what does your wife want?

 

[milemaker13]

For carry, most would say shrouded hammer because the exposed hammer can hang up on clothing etc when drawing.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have both. I like a shroud if available.

 

[SteadyD]

I prefer shrouded hammers for carry. If you and your wife don't have any experience with the very light snubbies offered by Smith and Wesson or Ruger, just be advised that they have sharp recoil when compared to a SP101. Good luck to you.

 

[ray15]

The typical reasoning is that the hammer spur can only get caught when drawing the weapon and single action isn't desirable in a short-range self-defense scenario anyway. If shooting double-action isn't her thing I'd consider a small striker-fired autoloader.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I prefer shrouded hammers for carry. If you and your wife don't have any experience with the very light snubbies offered by Smith and Wesson or Ruger, just be advised that they have sharp recoil when compared to a SP101. Good luck to you.

The recoil of my LCR 38 spl feels a lot like my SP101 with 357 mag loads

 

[Sistema1927]

Concealed hammer. S&W 642 or 442 are very good carry revolvers, or if you want to "push the boat out" get her a Kimber K6S.

 

[CZ9shooter]

My carry gun has hammer. I have not experienced any snagging issues, but I carry it on my hip. If I was gonna tuck it away in something like a pocket then a totally concealed hammer would be my choice. Mostly for a snag free draw, but also to help keep lint or other garbage out of there a bit better than a shrouded hammer.

And yes, tiny lightweight revolvers can be a bit uncomfortable to shoot, especially with some of the loads meant for defensive use. I'd be sure you let her try one before you buy it. My wife hates mine even with relatively mild plain-jane loads. She hasnt touched the gun in years.

 

[mavracer]

I prefer no hammer on my carry revolvers.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I also have both and a shrouded hammer is easier to draw. It's not hard to draw with an exposed hammer though, just place your thumb over the hammer. That's what I do when I carry a M36.

 

[Varminterror]

Just a point of terminology here, as there seems to be a bit of confusion - there are 4 types of revolver hammers, and two of them are being confused in this thread:

Exposed hammers = 2 types, conventional spurred DA/SA and spurless or bobbed DAO --> think about the SP101 models, some DA/SA, some DAO

Internal DAO hammers = exactly as the name implies, the hammer is internal --> think LCR or 642

Shrouded DA/SA hammers = exposed hammer with "shrouds" on each side, partially concealing the hammer but allowing it to be thumbed for SA fire --> S&W 638

Folks confuse themselves and call INTERNAL hammer models "shrouded," but they're not. They're internal.

For a dedicated carry revolver, I do favor shrouded hammers, I like the idea of being able to thumb the hammer during load development, but LOVE the idea of having a snag-proof revolver, especially one which could be fired inside a pocket or bag or in contact with other fabric without risk of catching or pinching. Just aren't enough of them out there these days, so more often I settle for an internal hammer, or a DA/SA spurred gig.

I prefer no hammer on my carry revolvers.

That's a new one on me, what makes it go bang?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I don't think anyone was confused here. Do you really feel the need to not-pick the difference between an internal hammer and a shrouded hammer when I'm sure you knew exactly what the OP was asking?

 

[Varminterror]

I don't think anyone was confused here. Do you really feel the need to not-pick the difference between an internal hammer and a shrouded hammer when I'm sure you knew exactly what the OP was asking?

The OP asked for opinions, and if you read my post, the difference between a true shrouded hammer and what is being incorrectly called such above is relevant in regards to my opinion. I don't really enjoy internal hammer revolvers, since I don't really enjoy DAO's. I do, however, strongly favor shrouded hammer models.

So what would you like for me to say here? Would you have me follow convention above and say, "I don't like shrouded hammer revolvers because I much prefer shrouded hammer revolvers," Does that make sense?

The fact lots of people get something wrong doesn't make it right, AND the difference between the two IS relevant for my opinion - for which the OP is asking.

However, since your shot across my bow reveals that you seem to have a particular disdain for NITpicking...

 

[ArchAngelCD]

However, since your shot across my bow reveals that you seem to have a particular disdain for NITpicking...

Exactly what I mean. The auto-correct changed "nit" to "not" and you just had to point it out. You made my point for me.

Have a good evening Sir, I didn't mean to upset you by telling the truth.

 

[Ironicaintit]

I thought the nits Varminterror picked was a good clarification.

So anyways, my wife has a spurless SP101 that she loves. She loves the feel (with hogue grips) and much to my chagrine (and pride), she can outshoot me with it.
However, after we bought it she said she was thinking of carrying in her purse because the way she dresses makes on body carry a pretty big hassle, and she thought she could fire it from within her purse (keeping it concealed all the while, never removing it from the bag) but that's a bad idea, since there is still an external hammer that would invariably be obstructed by "stuff".

So while the lack of a spur makes it draw smooth as silk, if your wife was considering such a plan as off body carry in a purse or whatever, an internal hammer would be the only way to go.

Aside from that..... Which model does she shoot best? Get that one.

 

[bannockburn]

Always have had a "thing" for S&W J frames with a shrouded hammer. First one was a nickel plated Model 38. Great for pocket carry, especially late at night when I use to take the dog for a walk and lived in a kind of sketchy neighborhood. Next one was an all stainless Model Model 649 followed some time later by an alloy framed Model 638, both of which I still have.

 

[cfullgraf]

I thought the nits Varminterror picked was a good clarification.

I agree, good clarification. An internal hammer and a shrouded hammer are not the same although they accomplish some of the same goals.

I prefer an internal hammer J-frame for pocket carry. To me, it seems just a bit trimmer than the exposed or shrouded hammers. The pre-357 Magnum framed internal hammer guns are even a bit more trim due to the shorter cylinder. My 357 Magnum Model 60 is a "beast" when compared to my early 38 Special only Model 60.

Also, the internal hammer guns are bit more closed up than the others reducing places for dirt and lint to get into the action. But, I'll agree this is probably a minimal thing.

But, having single action capabilities is nice for load development and careful aiming when time is available and the need dictates.

II guess my question is, as far as stubbies go, what is most popular, a shrouded or exposed hammer??

Any of the actions will perform well. Get the one that suits your needs.

I prefer no hammer on my carry revolvers.

This concept probably stems from when S&W called their internal hammer revolvers "Safety Hammerless" revolvers.

 

[Spats McGee]

When I carry a revolver, it's an LCR. Internal hammer, chambered in .357 M. I carry it with .38 Special, and find recoil to be very tolerable.

 

[Demi-human]

Owning a Smith Airweight with a full hammer, I would now buy one with a shroud. I like to use single action at the range, but my tummy doesn't like the hammer the ninty nine percent of the time I'm not shooting it. The shrouded one with just the small pad to operate the hammer, if one wishes to, seems the best of both worlds.

However, with the shroud or missing the hammer, they just don't look quite right.

I suppose that doesn't matter, if one is alive after it's use. I have two other small ccws, but the Smith always goes with me anyway. And I'm not really a revolver guy, it's the only one I own.

 

[Fiv3r]

If I'm not carrying a single action revolver, then I prefer a bobbed/shrouded/internal hammer.

I had a 642 with the internal hammer, but I could never shoot it well. I shoot the steel framed LCRs better than the ultra light aluminum frames be they Smith or Ruger. All of my SP101s have had full hammers, but they rode on my hip.

I'd be fine either way, honestly.

 

[mavracer]

This concept probably stems from when S&W called their internal hammer revolvers "Safety Hammerless" revolvers.

Nah, I actually intended to type hammer spur and noticed my mistake right off. I considered fixing it but decided to leave it to see how long it took for someone to catch it.
I'm glad I let varmintterrior have a shot at me lol.

 

[The Evangelist Cowboy]

I prefer an exposed hammer, even for pocket carry , doesn't take much to train by placing your thumb over the hammer and drawing it out.

 

[chicharrones]

I started with a snubnose with a hammer spur, but it didn't take me long to prefer spurless hammers, internal hammers, or shrouded hammers due to my own draw-from-pocket experiences.

 

[chicharrones]

Also, the internal hammer guns are bit more closed up than the others reducing places for dirt and lint to get into the action. But, I'll agree this is probably a minimal thing.

I've noticed people that have less lint issues have their clothes dry cleaned, line dried, or have a clothes dryer with an excellent lint removal system.

My clothes dryer does not have an excellent lint removal system, so my guns get very fuzzy in short order.