Snub Nose Carry Wheelgun Hammer Preference

Fully-shrouded / hammerless is my revolver preference.
Seamless and smooth presentation from a coat pocket.

Guns with hammers tend to eat moth holes in my t-shirts. I prefer a shrouded hammer.

Bodyguard/shrouded is my choice! I have carried one for decades!
I’ve actually taken a few rabbits and squirrels with it in SA mode! At close range.

Shrouded is nice; I only have one, but I like it.

Hammerless is good.

If it has a hammer spur and I am going to start carrying it, I just grind off the spur.

There is no need for a hammer spur on a CC revolver IMHO. If Murphy (as in Murphy's Law) is already giving you such a bad day that you are getting mugged, he might as well throw in a snagged hammer spur while he's at it.

Ankle holster here, so anything works for me.

Shrouded/hammerless
Bobbed/spurless
If I plan to carry it I try to become proficient in DA with it.
I just don't like a protruding hammer on my carry guns.
I carry AIWB alot, a hammer digs into my belly, and I don't plan on cutting my leisurely beer drinking down, so I have to make sacrifices.

Blue Jays said:

Fully-shrouded / hammerless is my revolver preference. Seamless and smooth presentation from a coat pocket.

Click to expand...

Ditto on both preference and reason, and presentation applies to slacks pocket carry, too.

Not a snub nosed revolver nor a pocket one either but I have been carrying this one off and on. Quite a bit different from my normal EDC, a S&W Model 22-4 but uses the same speedloaders.


I shoot dao so the spur is not needed.


Kevin

Shrouded. I have all 3 options but like the shroud and the ability to fire SA if needed. Granted it’s rare but it’s an option.

On my CCW revolver I want it completely hammerless. I do not ever want to be tempted to thumb a hammer back in a CCW situations. Shrouded hammers IMHO are the worst thing you can chose for CCW. Nothing like a little bitty hammer to slip off of in a high tension situations.

wcwhitey said:

Shrouded. I have all 3 options but like the shroud and the ability to fire SA if needed. Granted it’s rare but it’s an option.
View attachment 1091160

Click to expand...

Same, I ground off the hammer from my carry gun, was snagging and eating my suit jacket liner.

Still preferred to be able to use the shortened hammer for single action though.

mcb said:

On my CCW revolver I want it completely hammerless. I do not ever want to be tempted to thumb a hammer back in a CCW situations. Shrouded hammers IMHO are the worst thing you can chose for CCW. Nothing like a little bitty hammer to slip off of in a high tension situations.

Click to expand...

That’s a training issue not a gun issue. You give up a good amount of utility with only DAO. That may be a personal preference which is fine. I can understand bobbing hammers for snagging reasons that makes sense although even with pocket carry that is not that big of a deal with a proper holster. I see too many guys bobbing hammers then spending time and money chasing light strikes. I am more worried about reliability than anything else. Train correctly and a shrouded hammer is not a liability.

My Model 31's spur is cut clean off, my Model 30 is cut half off (a little bit of checkering if needed to grab). I shoot both DA exclusively and have carried both for defense for many years.

wcwhitey said:

That’s a training issue not a gun issue. You give up a good amount of utility with only DAO. That may be a personal preference which is fine. I can understand bobbing hammers for snagging reasons that makes sense although even with pocket carry that is not that big of a deal with a proper holster. I see too many guys bobbing hammers then spending time and money chasing light strikes. I am more worried about reliability than anything else. Train correctly and a shrouded hammer is not a liability.

Click to expand...

I give up almost no utility for the CCW application. I cannot think of a situation where I would thumb the hammer back on a revolver in a CCW situation. Out to 50 yard, shooting unsupported, I shoot as well or better double action than single actions. I honestly can't remember that last time I thumb the hammer back on a revolver... The liability of having thumbed a hammer back and then not needing to shoot having to let that hammer down with all that adrenaline flowing is not something I choose to deal with. That situation only gets worst with a shrouded hammer. I keep it simple for CCW, all my CCW guns have as few things to manipulate as I can. No safety and no hammer to manipulate at a minimum.

My carry gun right now is a 386 Night Guard. It has an Apex Tactical DAO hammer installed. I have had no "light strike" problems in well over 1000 rounds of 38-44 reloads for practice and about 100 Buffalo Bore Heavy +P 38 Special 158g SWCHP-GC rounds, which is what I carry in it.

Dave

mcb said:

I give up almost no utility for the CCW application. I cannot think of a situation where I would thumb the hammer back on a revolver in a CCW situation. Out to 50 yard, shooting unsupported, I shoot as well or better double action than single actions. I honestly can't remember that last time I thumb the hammer back on a revolver... The liability of having thumbed a hammer back and then not needing to shoot having to let that hammer down with all that adrenaline flowing is not something I choose to deal with. That situation only gets worst with a shrouded hammer. I keep it simple for CCW, all my CCW guns have as few things to manipulate as I can. No safety and no hammer to manipulate at a minimum.

Click to expand...

Not saying your wrong, it’s your preference. I carried a 640 24/7 for 30 years and there was a few times that I missed not having a hammer. I have finished deer with a snub, popped a few snakes and once in a while just for fun it gives a bit of extra precision for that 25 yard soda can. My training is such that in a CCW situation if don’t think about a hammer or feel the need to use it. But as a utility I don’t see anything wrong with having one. It certainly is not a liability.

wcwhitey said:

I see too many guys bobbing hammers then spending time and money chasing light strikes.

Click to expand...

Was that the only modification done to those revolvers?
Was it a certain manufacturer/model?
A certain factory ammo?
I only have experience with the ones I've done, Ruger Six series and GP100's.
Bobbed
Dropped the hammer spring down to 12lbs.
Never had a problem, thousands of rounds.
No factory ammo, all reloads, some of them pretty worn plinking brass.

357 Terms said:

Was that the only modification done to those revolvers?
Was it a certain manufacturer/model?
A certain factory ammo?
I only have experience with the ones I've done, Ruger Six series and GP100's.
Bobbed
Dropped the hammer spring down to 12lbs.
Never had a problem, thousands of rounds.
No factory ammo, all reloads, some of them pretty worn plinking brass.

Click to expand...

Just from the posts here over the last year. It’s common. I have never done it or felt the need. I get a stock gun (for carry) and leave it that way! Some have done it with great success others not so much. YMMV

My PD’s armorers used to do a very nice job cleaning up broken Model 36 hammers that would occasionally break. Thy would just clean up the rough edge and apply some groves so the hammer could still be cocked but snag free. It was pretty slick and always seemed to work. Sort of what @Speedo66 did above. These armorers for decades only worked on revolvers by the thousands and were well schooled. I would never try it myself.

wcwhitey said:

Not saying your wrong, it’s your preference. I carried a 640 24/7 for 30 years and there was a few times that I missed not having a hammer. I have finished deer with a snub, popped a few snakes and once in a while just for fun it gives a bit of extra precision for that 25 yard soda can. My training is such that in a CCW situation if don’t think about a hammer or feel the need to use it. But as a utility I don’t see anything wrong with having one. It certainly is not a liability.

Click to expand...

If we are talking about a utility revolver than sure. Most of my woods/hunting/competition revolvers still have their hammer spurs, at least partially despite the fact I almost never use them. My CCW revolver does not nor would I chose to CCW one with an exposed hammer. In a CCW revolver I do see an exposed hammer as a liability both from a snag issue and from a thumbing a hammer back in a tense adrenaline situations. A shrouded hammer reduced the snag issue but make the thumbing the hammer issue even greater. If you can think of a real world CCW scenario were you would want to thumb the hammer back I would argue that simply means you need more double action practice.

@mcb I get it, it’s what you like. If I leave the house I have my 638 on me, used to be my 640. That included hunting, fishing, working simply everything. It is a utility tool. I started with a revolver as a duty gun with a hammer, off duty had a hammer. Transitioned to DAO everything not by choice but was fine with it, just trained with that system revolver and semi-auto. I completely get snag free, makes sense. I will tell you honestly that I have never pulled a revolver and automatically grabbed for the hammer. Quite a few of them were intense adrenaline filled situations. If I did it was intentional and for a reason. But that is how I was trained and never lost the DA mindset.
I also get why the DAO revolvers are so popular, simple point and shoot. Maybe it’s the right way to go for some, I having used both bought a Bodyguard style because of all the years of being mandated to carry the Centennial there were times that I wish I had a hammer. So when I retired the 640 for favor of an AirWeight I wanted it to have a hammer that I could use occasionally.

As we see more instances of people opening fire with rifles in public places, the possibility of needing precision at longer distances is getting more attention. My EDC piece has a bobbed hammer, for many of the reasons mentioned on this thread, but I'm not going to argue against the man who wants the ability to shoot S.A.

At least you asked this question better in this thread than you did in the email you sent me. And my answer here is the same as the answer I gave you in our emails.

"My 442 is concealed hammer and the 637 is exposed hammer and I like both. One is a good as the other".

I use either one equally well. I do like being able to cock the hammer on the 637. That might be needed if used while in the field and I want the best chance at a shot on a small target. I like having a small handgun on me while hunting or fishing. For SD while around town the hammerless 442 works for me. Any shooting will be fast and hits on target are more important than pin point precision. I don't own a shrouded hammer gun. Never saw one for a price I was willing to buy. It might be the best of both worlds.

Its easy to learn to use your thumb as a shroud on the hammer of the 637 so that it draws from the pocket as easily as the 442 does.

WELL, I HAD MY RUGER BLACKHAWK CONVERTED TO HAMMERLESS. SLICK, BUT COULDN'T SHOOT THE BLAMED THING!

Not really, or course. Contrary to what some might think, I've got more sense than that. I did carry a Smith & Wesson 442 for awhile, but was always nagged by the fact I had to shoot double action only. In the back of my mind I feel there just might be a need for an accurately aimed single action shot. And just couldn't warm up to that tiny little gun.

Just one of my peculiarities.

Bob Wright

Mr. Mosin said:

Do you prefer a fully exposed hammer, semi-shrouded hammer, or fully shrouded/enclosed hammer for your snub nose wheelgun of choice ? Why ?

Click to expand...

I have a mild preference for bobbed hammer DAO, not enclosed.

Why? I understand the argument for why one does not want single action capability on a defensive revolver, and why one does not want a hammer spur. But, it's a lot easier to find spurred hammer guns.