Stupid Question

[dewage83]

HEY guys I see these revolvers for carry w/o a hammer, the have to have a hammer right? but internal so nothing gets caught when you draw from holster? Or is there some other value to them i dont understand. Please excuse my ignorance, im not much of a revolver guy but staring to find the place in my small heart to like them. any help would be appreciated.

 

[Dismantler]

To the best of my understanding there is a hammer in there. It is not striker fired. The idea, as you have grasped, is that there is no external hammer to hang up on clothes. You do have to fire double action only with these guns.

I have a S&W Model 442 and really like it.

 

[Walkalong]

HEY guys I see these revolvers for carry w/o a hammer, the have to have a hammer right? but internal so nothing gets caught when you draw from holster?

Yep.

 

[esq_stu]

My S&W 642 (internal hammer) is a pocket gun. I have two other revolvers with bobbed hammers. They could be pocket guns if necessary. They are for personal defense at close quarters, and are double-action-only. I do not expect to ever need to cock them (even if they could be cocked). Under those circumstances, I see an exposed hammer as more of a liability than a benefit.

 

[Thernlund]

Yeah. There's still a hammer in there. It's just covered to, as you said, avoid snags.


-T.

 

[PigPen]

OK! OK! OK!

I can no longer sit here and let these remarks go by unchallenged.

Having or not having a visible hammer has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of having no visible hammer have been adequately covered but nobody is speaking up for the bodyguard.

The shrouded hammer has the advantage, like the hammerless (internal hammer), of not hanging-up on stuff. In addition, it can also (again like the hammerless) be fired double action if the shooter deems it necessary and/or prudent. Unlike the hammerless, it can be fired single action (from a cocked position) for a more precision shot. An important point for a pistol that is difficult enough to precision shoot in the first place due to size/weight/sighting radius.

For those worried about pocket lint blocking the action, clean out your pockets!


PigPen

 

[Hawk]

There is a significant body of thought that holds that a defensive revolver should be rendered DAO.

Also, the Centennial (fully enclosed) model has no hammer block. Hence the action can be made nicer than the exposed hammer models.

Found the following on Grant Cunningham's site some time ago.

Battle of the "J" frames?
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
The internet forums sporadically ignite with a common debate: what "J" frame is the best?

The disagreement seems to center around the fans of the exposed hammer models (who hold out the dream of needing to make a "precise, long range" single action shot) and those of the enclosed hammer Centennial models (who opine that the lack of entry points for dirt outweighs ever needing single action capability.)

I'm not qualified to talk about tactics, but there is one salient point that is missed in the crossfire: the Centennial models simply have better actions!

The enclosed hammer Centennial models have slightly different sear geometry than do the exposed hammer models, which gives them a pull that is more even - more linear - than the models with hammer spurs. For the savvy shooter it's a noticeable difference, making the Centennial a bit easier to shoot well.

The Centennials also have one less part than the other models: since they have no exposed hammer, they don't have (nor do they need) the hammer-block safety common to all other "J" frames. That part, which is quite long and rides in a close-fitting slot machined into the sideplate, is difficult to make perfectly smooth. Even in the best-case scenario, it will always add just a bit of friction to the action. Not having the part to begin with gives the Centennial a "leg up" in action feel.

(In fact, at one point in time a common part of an "action job" was to remove this safety, in the same way that some "gunsmiths" would remove the firing pin block on a Colt Series 80 autopistol. Today we know better!)

So, if your criteria is action quality, the choice is clear: the enclosed hammer Centennial series is your best bet!

 

[PigPen]

I guess on this we must just disagree. Maybe neither of us will ever need to use them. OTOH, if we do maybe both will serve it's intended need.

PigPen

 

[Dismantler]

Did somebody put a photo of a new Lemon Squeezer on this thread after tweaking the photo to remove the dreaded lock? Must be, because it says .38 +p on the barrel. Naughty naughty!

 

[Hawk]

The "current / classic" lemon squeezer does indeed appear to be without the frame lock. I didn't see the CC version on their web site but the blued guy also has an unmarred frame - or the lock is camo'd really well.

 

[Thernlund]

Did somebody put a photo of a new Lemon Squeezer on this thread after tweaking the photo to remove the dreaded lock? Must be, because it says .38 +p on the barrel. Naughty naughty!

I guess you're referring to the photo I posted.

That photo is a direct link to S&W. No trickery involved.


-T.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Revolver hammers can be: shrouded (the sides of the frame or an add-on device come up and shield the sides of the hammer to avoid snagging but still allow thumb cocking); concealed but still swinging within the frame; bobbed, wherein the spur is flush or nearly flush with the frame but swings visibly rearward when the trigger is pulled; and completely exposed spurs. But, they all do have hammers.