Bobbed Hammer on a j-frame (legal question)

[TheProf]

Here's the question...

I realize that using a revolver with a trigger job as your carry gun is usually frowned upon. Many see it as a possible "hair trigger" scenario and it leaves the person using the gun for self defense open to a "negligent" firing of firearm charge.... (I know, this sounds silly...but dishonest lawyers eat this stuff up and will fabricate outlandish theories of what might have happened.)

Is there a downside to converting a revolver to a purely a double action gun..by bobbing the hammer (without altering the trigger pull weight)?

In other words, the only modification is bobbing the hammer so that the gun can only be fired as a "double action" gun. The sear has been smooth out also so that it is impossible to have the gun in single action mode.

 

[Trebor]

If you do it so that it can't be fired single-action I can't think of any potential legal risk. In fact, that's one of the "prosecutor friendly" modifications that Mas Ayoob recommends for a defensive DA revolver.

From a practical standpoint it can also improve the trigger pull on a J frame, if you are willing to give up the SA option entirely. Once you decide to modify it to DA only the gunsmith can do a better job on the DA pull. Something about the angles, etc, of the parts.

 

[azmjs]

I carry j frame with a bobbed hammer but it isn't rigged to be double action only.

I practice 'defensive' shooting with it double action. Firing it single action is possible but tricky, you have to partially pull the trigger to get the hammer to start going back, then catch it with your thumb without the benefit of a textured hammer spur.

This said, I've also shot it a great deal single action when at the range, and have never once had the hammer drop unexpectedly while cocking it. If I were in some scenario where I had the chance to cock it and take precise aim, I would.

I would not consider having it altered to be DAO, even if it improved the already very good DA pull.

 

[9mmepiphany]

You mean something like this?



I think it's a good idea and don't see a downside

 

[230RN]

I was going to say "light hammer blows" as a downside, but when I thunk about it, the extra velocity given to the hammer might make up for the loss in weight.

I gave away a Smith n Wesson top-break in .38 S&W which had been altered in this way. In double action, there was a slight "catch" to the pull where you could grasp the bobbed hammer and continue in SA mode.

That modification was fairly common in the days this gun was popular.

I used to say I almost never fired double-action, until I got my carry permit and realized that I was'nt going to make long-range precision shots in a defense situation, and I've now moved to a DA only 442 AirWeight revolver and a DA only PF-9 semiauto as a backup for the regular old running around town.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Owen Sparks]

If you carry a previously owned firearm it will be hard to prove that you made the modifications or even knew about them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Smoothing out a DA trigger pull is hardly a "hair trigger" and should not be a problem. Nor should bobbing the hammer.

If you carry a previously owned firearm it will be hard to prove that you made the modifications or even knew about them.

So the spur of the hammer of your revolver has been cut off, and you're going to claim you didn't know it?

 

[Cop Bob]

I don't own a double action pistol that hasn't had a trigger job, with the exception of a new LCR, that was just fine without it... But, I don't shoot a DA Revolver in the single action mode.. EVER.. I'm strictly a Double Action Shooter..

Bobbed hammers I actually prefer in a small carry gun, less to hang up on. and as stated, if an attorney were to try and go that route, can't (easily) be fired in the single action mode.. kind of negates the whole "Hair Trigger" argument..

As far as trigger jobs, I carry revolvers that have had DUTY (at least that is what I have always called them) trigger jobs done on them, because I do care.. It makes ME more accurate, and therefore less likely to miss or deliver an unintentional errant shot.. it is done to IMPROVE SAFETY... not take away from it..

The majority of pistols today, are mass produced, and quickly assembled to minimum factory specifications. They are rough in many places..The purpose of a DUTY trigger job is NOT to lighten things up to the point were they will go off just from looking at them, they are done to make the trigger pull smooth and fluid so as to keep the rough spots from making it difficult to maintain proper sight picture and alignment through the firing sequence..

 

[azmjs]

Smoothing out a DA trigger pull is hardly a "hair trigger" and should not be a problem. Nor should bobbing the hammer.

So the spur of the hammer of your revolver has been cut off, and you're going to claim you didn't know it?

There's no situation where I'd shoot someone that I wouldn't be justified, so I have no worries about a bobbed hammer being any impediment to my full exoneration if the unthinkable happened.

 

[Sam1911]

There's no situation where I'd shoot someone that I wouldn't be justified

There is no scenario of defensive shooting in which your opinion that it was "justified" would make any difference at all. Pull the trigger (even draw the gun) and someone else's opinion now decides your fate. And your actions aren't "justified" until the DA and/or jury looks at all the evidence (maybe even your bobbed hammer) and decides that they were.

Having said that, I don't consider trigger jobs and bobbed hammers to be a significant risk factor in the event of a trial.

I have no worries about a bobbed hammer being any impediment to my full exoneration if the unthinkable happened.

That, I agree with.

 

[rcmodel]

I realize that using a revolver with a trigger job as your carry gun is usually frowned upon.

It's frowned upon by all large police departments.
Manily because you can't have 50 million cops doing trigger jobs on the kitchen table and expect some of them not to be dangerous.

I don't think it has any bearing at all for a civilian.
One could argue that a brand new S&W Performance Center SD revolver, or a Kimber Match 1911 comes out of the box with a trigger job already done to it!

As others have said, if the SD shoot was necessary in the first place, a trigger job would not enter into the legal end of things.

If you cocked the gun and shot someone by accident it would, or could.

rc

 

[N003k]

If you shoot somebody, and you admit you did it, which is the situation if you shoot in self defense, how are they going to claim negligence to put you in a bad light?

If you shoot someone accidentally, I can see this type of stuff coming up, but, if you intend to shoot someone and you admit to that, what difference does it make if you shot them accidentally while meaning to shoot them, or if you shot them with complete control while trying to shoot them?

 

[Sam1911]

If you shoot somebody, and you admit you did it, which is the situation if you shoot in self defense, how are they going to claim negligence to put you in a bad light?

That's largely my take on it as well. The hair-trigger argument seems to be most significant when there's a question of someone giving evidence that "the gun just went off" or some such. A well-argued "affirmative defense" won't be going down that road at all.

From a different angle, I can see shades here of the "establishes state of mind" argument, whereby it is feared that a modified gun could be used by a prosecutor to cast doubt as to your mindset. E.g. to say that you're someone who owns "tricked-out weapons modified to be extra lethal" (or whatever nonsense) so therefore perhaps you were looking for an opportunity to shoot someone and the necessity of your lethal force use is called into question.

But, the complete opposite could be argued in this case as this modification actually removes the single-action ("hair trigger") capacity, thus perhaps making the gun less "dangerous."

I doubt these sorts of arguments really come up in more than one in a thousand cases, but who knows?