Snub Nose Carry Wheelgun Hammer Preference

[25-5]

I often carry my Baby Chief. IWB or back pocket. Never a hint of a problem.
Obviously I would never make any hammer changes anyway.

 

[fastbolt]

I prefer a shrouded hammer for small j frames that I plan on carrying in the pocket. For belt and other forms of carry, I want the hammer.

I never had the hammer of my revolvers tear a hole in my shirt or snag on anything as I draw it out of a holster, so I have no clue what others are doing wrong. ...

It's probably not what someone else is doing 'wrong', so much as the type of holster they may be using.

While thumb break holsters that cover the hammer spur can protect against the hammer causing wear to garments, open-top holster designs can allow hammer spurs to poke/drag against cloth and cause wear on cover garments. Just depends.

Then again, in the days when I was carrying a 5903 and 6906 (at different times) in my plainclothes assignment, both with spurless hammers, the sharp corners of the older styled rear sights, and the ambi manual safety/decocker levers, would drag across the linings of my sport and suit coats with my body movement through the day/night. They caused holes in the coat linings that I had to have patched in some coats.

I eventually went to semi-breakfront holsters with thumb snaps, which covered the ambi levers and canted the weapons enough to reduce the potential for drag of the cloth linings across the older rear sights (which could have some sharp corners). The same holsters used for some off-duty weapons, combined with some newer production rear sights with more rounded edges and corners, were kinder to the coat linings.

 

[westernrover]

When I thought this mattered, I carried a Centennial for a while and had several of them. I switched to an L frame and would have bobbed the hammer except that it has not been an issue in years and many thousands of draws. I've never snagged it on a draw. It's never damaged my clothes. The reason for this is because my holster covers the hammer spur. It's just not going to snag on the leather and the holster will wear out in other places long before it does in that area.

One area where I've seen that it can be an issue is in re-holstering. Because the hammer spur is inserted into the holster, it is possible to carelessly snag it on the edge of the holster and snap it. In many years, I've probably snapped it three times. They were very slight snaps, possibly enough to unlock the cylinder at the cylinder stop, but certainly not enough for the hand to rotate the cylinder. Since it has two hammer blocks, the hammer cannot hit the firing pin without the trigger being pulled. Even so, it is good practice to re-holster slowly and carefully. The award for speed re-holstering isn't one I care for. If the hammer were not within the leather holster, I can imagine it getting knocked a few times over the years -- not likely enough to cause a problem even without the hammer blocks.

I don't use the hammer spur, so maybe it would be better to bob it, but instead, I covet a TK Custom skeletonized speed hammer -- because why not? Well, previously they were only available for N frames, and I've been considering getting an N-frame. I see they're available now for L-frames, but I might like an N-frame. I need to try both before I decide which one to get the TK hammer for, but I just spent $1000 on another class that's coming up, so for now, the spur stays.

 

[Styx]

It's probably not what someone else is doing 'wrong', so much as the type of holster they may be using.

While thumb break holsters that cover the hammer spur can protect against the hammer causing wear to garments, open-top holster designs can allow hammer spurs to poke/drag against cloth and cause wear on cover garments. Just depends.

Then again, in the days when I was carrying a 5903 and 6906 (at different times) in my plainclothes assignment, both with spurless hammers, the sharp corners of the older styled rear sights, and the ambi manual safety/decocker levers, would drag across the linings of my sport and suit coats with my body movement through the day/night. They caused holes in the coat linings that I had to have patched in some coats.

I eventually went to semi-breakfront holsters with thumb snaps, which covered the ambi levers and canted the weapons enough to reduce the potential for drag of the cloth linings across the older rear sights (which could have some sharp corners). The same holsters used for some off-duty weapons, combined with some newer production rear sights with more rounded edges and corners, were kinder to the coat linings.

I have carried hammer fired DA/SA or DAO with exposed hammer Taurus and S&W revolvers, 1911 variants, CZ 75 variants, and HKs for years IWB and OWB both in leather or kydex open top hosters respectively for years. I personally never had an issue with the hammers putting holes in my clothes, poking me, or disturbing my draw.

I also almost never hear the pothera of 1911 carriers, carriers of all the other cocked and locked platforms, OR those who simply carry an exposed hammer handgun complain or make a huge issue about the hammers of these guns getting caught on clothing when drawing.

Interestingly enough, I only hear about all these issues being a problem almost exclusively when it comes to revolvers when discussing enclosed, bobbed, or exposed hammers, and almost never when discussing the exposed hammers on all the other popular and loved platforms.

I agree that it maybe a holster issue. My holsters usually have a sweet guard. Maybe that's it. I don't know. Not saying anyone experiences didn't happen and aren't real issues, but I am just surprised to hear so many who have issues or negative experiences with exposed hammer revolvers especially when most do not have issues with exposed hammers on other platforms.

The only negative I can personally see is with pocket carry. If and when carrying by other methods, I can only see having a hammer as giving an extra option. No one can deny that single action aids in accuracy. You have the option there if opportunity presents itself, and you do not have to use it if you don't have the opportunity.

 

[westernrover]

You can still cock a bobbed hammer as long as the single-action sear has not been filed off.

LAPD, for example, filed the sears off but did not bob the hammers. They weren't concerned about hammer snags out of duty holsters, but weren't willing to allow officers to cock the hammer and have the trigger in single-action.

If the sear is not filed off, a thumb can be placed behind the hammer to prevent it from reaching the double-action sear, while the trigger is pulled to move the hammer far back enough to catch the hammer face with the index finger. The thumb and trigger finger is removed and the index finger pulls the hammer back into the single-action sear. Make sure the gun is unloaded and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction before attempting this. You can also try it with the cylinder open if you push the cylinder release back (S&W).

 

[fastbolt]

I have carried hammer fired DA/SA or DAO with exposed hammer Taurus and S&W revolvers, 1911 variants, CZ 75 variants, and HKs for years IWB and OWB both in leather or kydex open top hosters respectively for years. I personally never had an issue with the hammers putting holes in my clothes, poking me, or disturbing my draw.

I also almost never hear the pothera of 1911 carriers, carriers of all the other cocked and locked platforms, OR those who simply carry an exposed hammer handgun complain or make a huge issue about the hammers of these guns getting caught on clothing when drawing.

Interestingly enough, I only hear about all these issues being a problem almost exclusively when it comes to revolvers when discussing enclosed, bobbed, or exposed hammers, and almost never when discussing the exposed hammers on all the other popular and loved platforms.

I agree that it maybe a holster issue. My holsters usually have a sweet guard. Maybe that's it. I don't know. Not saying anyone experiences didn't happen and aren't real issues, but I am just surprised to hear so many who have issues or negative experiences with exposed hammer revolvers especially when most do not have issues with exposed hammers on other platforms.

The only negative I can personally see is with pocket carry. If and when carrying by other methods, I can only see having a hammer as giving an extra option. No one can deny that single action aids in accuracy. You have the option there if opportunity presents itself, and you do not have to use it if you don't have the opportunity.

The problems with sharp-edged/cornered hammer spurs in pistols were becoming addressed by various gun makers throughout the 80's and into the 90's. This was also helped along as better manufacturing (MIM) and machining capabilities were coming online.

There was a time when revolver hammer spurs could end up being sharp enough to draw blood, in both the edges and the checkering. Made it easier to thumb cock a hammer into SA if fingers were sweaty. They could play hell on clothing and skin, though. (In S&W, the earlier machined hammers required 7 different machines on the production line to make the hammers. Trivia told to us in a factory revolver armorer class. )

Then, there was also the way that some revolver hammers were narrower than others. Remember when Wide Target Hammers, with the wide spur, were a popular option on some revolvers?

Investment casting (Ruger) and MIM could produce some softer edged and less 'aggressive' checkering on revolver hammer spurs, too.

Flap holsters, leather thumb straps that fully covered the hammer, and IWB holsters that incorporated raised sweat shields (against the body), could all help mitigate contact between hammer spurs, skin and clothing. (Ditto for holster designs for pistols, of course.)

It was often the open-top, low-rise holster designs that allowed easy contact between the hammer spur and clothing, since there was nothing covering the hammer spurs.

Here's an example of an early 80's S&W M36 with a standard hammer spur. The checkering is clean, sharp and easily grasped. When I carried it in an IWB holster, sans the thumb safety (which I cut off as a young cop), that hammer spur became quite pokey, and it could eat cloth over time. However, note the old style leather paddle holster, which incorporates the thumb snap strap that covers the hammer. I never feel the hammer spur.



A S&W M65 in leather holster with leather thumb break covering the spur.


Now, this older BT paddle holster is an open-top design, and you can see the way the sights and R/side ambi manual safety lever are uncovered. Now, this particular .45, an early production 4513TSW, has much smoother sights than several years earlier, and the manual safety levers on both sides a bit smoother than in previous years.






The rear sight is still exposed, but the low mount Novak style sight bases are softer edged, and usually don't rub up against the cloth linings since the leading edge of the leather holster, next to the rear sight, can help keep the cloth a bit away from the sight.

The designs of both hammer spurs and rear sight bases have a come quite a ways. Reduced drag, smoother edged designs have become popular over the years.

Granted, the original shrouded S&W Bodyguard, bobbed hammer spurs and the Centennial style snubs are more 'pocket holster friendly' than the standard hammer spurs when it comes to a hurried draw and presentation from many front pants pockets (especially tight mouths of jeans or the soft cloth of dress slacks).

Options. Options in both gun and holster designs. Not a bad thing.