Snub Nose Carry Wheelgun Hammer Preference

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also have Xtra Power Wolff springs in all my I and J frame guns. Heavy trigger, but reliable ignition.
 
I also have Xtra Power Wolff springs in all my I and J frame guns. Heavy trigger, but reliable ignition.
LOL!! You say "I and J frame guns," and I think of these...

index.php

index.php
 
For same unknown reason (at least to me) I have always been attracted to the S&W partially shrouded Models 38, 49, 638, and 649. Something about that extended shroud of metal has always felt very comfortable and made the gun feel more manageable in my hand. Never a problem with that tiny bit of hammer being exposed either, even when I use to carry it in a coat pocket.
poKELn4.jpg
TyNf0Dv.jpg
 
What's the causal relationship?
I have seen it done incorrectly a few times, I have read about it here quite few. It seems to be both kitchen table and a few done by smiths. I would guess mass but don’t really know not having done it myself. I have seen it done properly and those always seem to retain at least a piece of the spur. I would never doubt someone who has done it and it works well. I just prefer not to mechanically modify a carry gun that is reliable. Like being your own mechanic you always worry about something not working reliably.
 
I've ground off several hammer spurs. All of the revolvers functioned just fine afterwards. I think the same energy is being delivered via the hammer from the spring either way.

If you just grind off the hammer spur Bubba-style and don't change anything else, it can still be fired SA if you really want to. Squeeze the trigger so that the hammer starts to rise, then you can cock it with your thumb even without the spur. I wouldn't recommend it, but it can be done, NP. Undoing it is the tricky bit.
 
An sw trigger through practice can be staged as such that you do not give up the accuracy that manually cocking an exposed hammer provides.

You can try this prone or resting and surprise yourself just how far it's now possible to reach out.

While I own both I must now admit a preference for hammerless revolvers in daily carry roles. With practice, it does everything I ask of it (except hold 15 rounds).
 
I've ground off several hammer spurs. All of the revolvers functioned just fine afterwards. I think the same energy is being delivered via the hammer from the spring either way.

If you just grind off the hammer spur Bubba-style and don't change anything else, it can still be fired SA if you really want to. Squeeze the trigger so that the hammer starts to rise, then you can cock it with your thumb even without the spur. I wouldn't recommend it, but it can be done, NP. Undoing it is the tricky bit.
This is absolutely true. I removed the SA pawl from this one when bobbing the (already broken) hammer to make it a true DAO. It won't cock single action at all but the DAO trigger is very nice and smooth, no staging, very little stacking.
index.php

I traded a 15rd. Star M30 magazine for this gun with no rear sight or grips and a broken-off hammer spur. Other than that, it was just rusty and scratched buy worked fine. It's been a good gun. Rossi's are pretty tough little revolvers.
 
Have a J Frame for EDC that has a shrouded hammer. There was not a prerequisite for this, the priority was a 6 shot 32 H&R J Frame. It is a 432PD but if I had stumbled onto the exposed hammer 431PD first, would have acquired it and used it for carry. That said if both were available to choose from I'd take the shrouded hammer version.
 
If I had to guess, reduced hammer mass.

The mass lost cutting off a hammer spur of a j frame sized DA revolver is miniscule. To measure it you’d need a scale that goes down to grains.

Back when I trimmed the narrow hammer spur off my Taurus 85UL the remnants were imperceptibly light. A dust bunny could have weighed more.

Same for my recently trimmed Charter Arms, which actually has a wider hammer thanks to the Charter Arms frame design.

I believe if a snub nose revolver doesn’t have light strikes before a spur is removed, it won’t have light strikes after the spur is removed.

Of course, if someone is pulling the hammer for a spur chop, they may be tempted to put in a lighter hammer spring. Which if true . . . well, reliability could then suffer.

Edit to add: From the exterior of an assembled revolver, the spur may look like the largest part of the hammer. Pulling the hammer out of the gun reveals how small the spur is compared to the whole part.

View attachment 1091503

View attachment 1091504
View attachment 1091505
 
Last edited:
I carry in a pancake holster so having a hammer is a non issue. If a long shot is needed I could cock the hammer. Odds are against that but never assume anything.
I make my own holsters -- pancake style with high leather on the side against the body, which makes hammer snags almost impossible. I add Kydex reverse-J hooks to make these holsters useable as tuckable IWBs and that's how I usually carry my Colt DS.
 
The subject line in the OP spoke of a carry snub--a defensive revolver.

We have discussed this at length more than once in the past. There is a reason why police service revolvers for some departments were at one time limited to DA only. It is one main reason why most knowledgeable people advise that civilian defensive revolvers for civilian defensive carry be limited to DA only.

That reason has more than one facet, but the important ons is to eliminate the possibility that a plaintiff or criminal prosecutor can argue that the light single trigger pull weight could have contributed to a negligent discharge under stress. We can train to not use the SA feature, but if it was available, we cannot show that we did not use it.

On the criminal side is often easier to get a conviction for the lesser charge of manslaughter than for murder. On the civil side, the burden of persuasion is much lower than it is for a criminal conviction, and a unanimous jury verdict is not required.

I do not want that argument in a self defense case.

My snub barrel revolvers do not have a single action option.

My five inch L-Frame does have both DA and SA capability.

Of course, depending upon the carry method, a snag-free handgun may have another advantage.
 
The subject line in the OP spoke of a carry snub--a defensive revolver.

We have discussed this at length more than once in the past. There is a reason why police service revolvers for some departments were at one time limited to DA only. It is one main reason why most knowledgeable people advise that civilian defensive revolvers for civilian defensive carry be limited to DA only.

That reason has more than one facet, but the important ons is to eliminate the possibility that a plaintiff or criminal prosecutor can argue that the light single trigger pull weight could have contributed to a negligent discharge under stress. We can train to not use the SA feature, but if it was available, we cannot show that we did not use it.

On the criminal side is often easier to get a conviction for the lesser charge of manslaughter than for murder. On the civil side, the burden of persuasion is much lower than it is for a criminal conviction, and a unanimous jury verdict is not required.

I do not want that argument in a self defense case.

My snub barrel revolvers do not have a single action option.

My five inch L-Frame does have both DA and SA capability.

Of course, depending upon the carry method, a snag-free handgun may have another advantage.
I think you are overthinking this. If you are in a situation where a shooting is justified it does not matter one iota whether you fired single action or double. If on the other hand you accidentally shoot someone because you pulled the trigger when you were not supposed to then you are kind of screwed single or double action. I can understand for safety purposes that you don’t want an accidental discharge resulting in someone being injured and opt for DAO, that again is preference, legal justification not so much.
 
I think you are overthinking this. If you are in a situation where a shooting is justified it does not matter one iota whether you fired single action or double. If on the other hand you accidentally shoot someone because you pulled the trigger when you were not supposed to then you are kind of screwed single or double action. I can understand for safety purposes that you don’t want an accidental discharge resulting in someone being injured and opt for DAO, that again is preference, legal justification not so much.
It’s all about the draw and shot placement at some point. The “only police should be allowed to have guns,” crowd is very good at throwing wrenches and coming up with reasons why no “civilian” should be allowed to have a gun because we’re just too stupid, too clumsy, too flighty, too this, that and the other thing. I have both a hammer revolver Colt DS and a hammerless Rossi in my desk right now. The Colt is dead stock but pushing a century old; the Rossi is a DA/SA that was modified to DAO. Could a crooked cop or bent prosecutor make the case that the modified Rossi with reloaded ammo makes it illegal for me to use it against a home invader? Sure. And if I don’t get a good (expensive) lawyer, they’ll easily railroad me into prison. It’s not right but it’s possible. I don’t let the fact that there’s crooked public officials stop me from doing what I think is right. Maybe I should but then wouldn’t that be knuckling in to tyranny?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top