Double barrel: Hammerless VS hammers

Status
Not open for further replies.

mr_goodbomb

member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
177
Just wondering what people's opinions are. Is it just a taste thing, whether you want to rack the hammers back and use them, and the aesthetic? Is one more reliable than the other? I assume a hammerless is cocked by the act of breaking it open and loading it? I am looking at two older coach guns, both at the same price, one has exposed hammers, the other doesn't. The first is a Norinco 99, the other (hammerless) is an unnamed Spanish make. Same barrel lengths, same build in general. Just trying to decide. I'd go for a Stoeger, but I can't justify spending that much right now.
 
It's up to the shooter.
The rabbit-ears hammerguns are more 'cowboy' traditional.
The hammerless guns are more modern bird-gun.
A hammergun generally will have a more smooth break-open since you are not cocking the hammers on opening.
Hammerless guns have less stuff to snag.
Both are fun.
 
Depending on the Spanish name and when it was made, it might be the better deal. Hammerless guns can be designed to either cock on opening, or on closing - both hammerless and hammered guns - if they are quality-built - will be reliable
 
I personally prefer external hammer guns just because you can keep them loaded with the hammers down. That's more of a home defense consideration than anything else though.

From your two choices, I'd probably go for the Spanish hammerless though. It just seems like the more interesting weapon for the price. After all, Norincos are EVERYWHERE.
 
I'd be very leery of the Spanish gun & wouldn't risk it.
Some Spanish doubles, especially coachguns imported by the old Charles Daly outfit, were low quality.
Parts might be hard to find if needed & the gun may not hold up.
Some of the early Chinese imports were also problematical.

Money may be tight, but you're gambling with either one. I would not bet my life on either.
You'll probably get further responses from owners of the Chinese coachguns saying they're OK, but I've worked with two. The first had to have empties pulled by hand in some loads & punched out by a cleaning rod with others, the second was fine, but it had been worked over extensively.
If the one you're looking at was part of the first Norinco imports, it could be very shaky.

As far as preferences go, the hammers add an extra step in reloading & shooting, can be an issue if you want to use it under stress for defensive purposes.
The upside of the hammers is that the gun can be stored indefinitely loaded & closed with the hammers down without any affects on the hammer springs.
Hammerless guns will be sitting with internal hammer or striker pin springs fully compressed if you store them loaded & closed, or loaded & open.

Denis
 
For fun and vintage shoots the hammer guns are tough to beat but for HD I wouldn't want the extra steps needed to fire the gun, I want to be able to pick it up and boom.
 
DPris said:
The upside of the hammers is that the gun can be stored indefinitely loaded & closed with the hammers down without any affects on the hammer springs.
Where does this keep coming from?

It is known and proven that springs do not wear from being in a static condition (either compressed or relaxed).

It is the usage of the springs that wear them.
 
Nal,
It keeps coming from the fact that your "proven" statement is far from being a total guarantee of each & every spring's performance in every gun that has a spring.

It may well be a general rule, but it is not an absolute.

Metallurgy, age, load, and spring type are all factors.
I won't waste your time or mine debating the issue, but I will say that while the often-used example of WWII 1911 mags left loaded for 60 years that function fine may be perfectly true, I'll also say that the Glock mag springs in my 17 back when I was carrying one fully loaded 24/7 WOULD & DID take a set within two years.

That gun was not fired all that much, but the only malfunction it ever (then or in over 20 years of possession) exhibited was a factory mag spring that didn't have enough soup left at a department qualifier to avoid a follower jam with several rounds left in the mag. The jam left the round column sitting with the top round stuck too low for the slide to pick up. Mag fully seated & not dirty.

Our department armorer made it a regular practice each year during the annual teardown inspection to replace mag springs that had shortened to a certain point.
It was not just my mags, and it was a known occurance routinely handled.

My comment about shotguns resting with hammers down to avoid longterm compression simply ommits taking a chance on springs weakening.
You're free to do whatever you wish with your own guns. :)
Denis
 
If you're wanting to keep it loaded and uncocked you only option is external hammers.

I would not feel comfortable keeping an internal one loaded and on standby. I do feel comfortable keeping a loaded external one, with hammers down, ready on standby.

I like the smooth cosmetics of internal better though FWIW.
 
I normally carry my external hammer .410 in the field cocked with the action broken open.
It is much easier to close the action than it is to cock both hammers since there is no other safety. I also make it a habit to allways cock it broken open for safetys sake. Your thumb only has to slip off the hammer once to know why [luckily I only shot a bush] im just glad it wasn't a 12 gague!
Good luck whatever your choice T
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top