Who else likes a Hammer on their snubbie?

[Speedo66]

When I used to carry a revolver, I ground the hammer spur off. Our training was DA only, god help you if you let a round loose because of a light SA trigger pull. Same for being seen doing SA at requal.

With the spur off there were no snags when pulling it, but if I really wanted to SA it, a light pull on the trigger would bring the hammer back enough to then thumb it back to SA.

 

[Hawk]

Personally, I'm not a cop. Many of their concerns are not mine. If I were to shoot a fella accidentally or on purpose I would own up to it. I would not be in the position of explaining that I could not possibly have shot them accidentally because my gun cannot be cocked for single action firing. This was the motivation for Ayoob's suggestions.

I'm not a cop nor am I employed by a public agency or anyone with deep pockets that could conceivably be drawn into a civil suit. I've sometimes expressed my belief that, though I respected the views, I felt "immune" to much of what Ayoob was writing about - as I'm not a public servant and have insufficient funds to attract a contingency lawyer.

The difference with the above "trigger issue" is that he was talking about bogus negligent discharge claims invoking homeowner's liability insurance which I do have.

Still, I suppose it's a long shot on top of already long odds. I don't have issue with pinned 1911 grip safeties, disabled BHP magazine disconnects and absent Kimber type II parts. The revolver caution is probably related to my relative nooby-ness with the platform.

My snub DA-fu is weak but I can't picture my SA results being anything to brag about either. The rear sight is a furrow plowed in the frame and the "white on white" offered by my 640 might as well be invisible. Others may well be able to derive advantage by a single action in such circumstances but I don't have the proficiency in the platform to much worry about it yet - may never.

 

[wnycollector]

I own two J frame snubs, a 638 and a model 36. I like the option of a hammer and/or SA shooting!

 

[crebralfix]

I do. There's no need for a shroud or hammerless gun. Thumbs work just fine.

 

[Seafarer12]

I like hammers on my revolvers no matter what their intended purpose. The only way I would own a hammerless would be if it was dirt cheap.

 

[Guillermo]

It appears that I am among like-minds.

Not being a newbie, I see no reason not to have the double action option.

My carry snubbie is a detective special. While I usually carry on the belt, when I do have it in a cargo pocket, I put my thumb on the hammer when drawing.

While everyone should carry what they want, I have no plans ever to buy any DOA gun.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Old Fuff has both, and uses both styles - depending on the situation and mode of carry.

In the pocket, the hammer spur will be removed - if there was one. There is a chance of snagging, and while I can cover the spur with my thumb, it can be awkward and prevents getting a full grip on the handle. Space within a pocket can be tight. and this is where the advantages of a fully inclosed hammer really show up. Also it is much harder for lint and dirt to migrate to the revolver's insides.

My Colt Detective Special from the middle 1950's strill has its spur. Given its size I seldom carry it in a pocket, and shorter stocks won't fit on its full-sized frame. It can in a pinch, hit a silhouette target in the K-Zone at 100 yards. I am always sure to use a holster that covers the spur, otherwise a covering garment can get ripped to pieces.

Defensive shooting with a revolver seldom ever involved single-action/cocked hammer shooting. Therefore I practiced double-action methods. Anyone who thinks that this is difficult or inaccurate need to read the works of McGivern, Jordan, Applegate, and a few others.

And I never, ever, picked a personal weapon on the basis of "what looked right," or the "cool factor." Instead I went for what "worked best," and that included a Fitz Special that that looked very strange, but worked great for its intended purpose.

Of course there are folks that use snubbies for purposes other then a personal weapon. The can make a great pack-around-in-the-woods gun, or one that lives exclusively in a bedside table drawer; and in those instances I see little reason to alter the hammer.

 

[ferretray]

My primary CCW handgun, for now, is a S&W .44 MG with a hammer. BUG for pocket carry is a S&W 642 (Its on lawaway, sold my other years ago). I'm not overly concerned with the supposed legal liability of carrying a handgun capable of single action.
Most of my practice with the .44 is up close DA, with some accuracy work if I feel like it. I qualified many times with a S&W 64, shooting DAO up to 25 yards, not a big deal. I try to use what I think is appropriate for the intended mission.
For a belt gun, I would use either. The models with hammers are more pleasing to the eye, IMHO.

 

[csmkersh]

My Snubbies

Most of my snubbies are either "hammerless" or have bobbed hammers. One, an old Nitex coated Model 36 still has its hammer but goes out and about in a Bianchi upside down shoulder holster. The others are carried most often Mexican carry although I do have a Milt Sparks Summer Special II, Bianchi Model 5 strong side plus a IWB holster.

The bobbed hammers have nothing to do with "SA libilities" although Mas did present one case where an AD from cocked position earned a man hard time. For me, its snag proofing the guns. for years I pocket carried without the benefit of a holster. All my snubbies have benefitted from the installation of Wolfe spring sets.

​

 

[Photoman]

Old Fuff wrote: "Defensive shooting with a revolver seldom ever involved single-action/cocked hammer shooting. Therefore I practiced double-action methods. Anyone who thinks that this is difficult or inaccurate need to read the works of McGivern, Jordan, Applegate, and a few others."

And I would add...have the double action revolver tuned. I can't emphasize enough the benefit of a quality action job. Double action shots are MUCH easier with a tuned gun.

 

[Drgong]

I prefer with hammer, not that hammerless is bad or anything, I am not worried about snagging as even when I first started my thumb was on the hammer when drawing, so I am not worried about snagging.

Why hammer?

Looks baby, looks!

 

[MCgunner]

I don't have a problem with snags on the draw, just slide my thumb over the hammer. I prefer the hammer. It's handy for securing with a strap on my UM's ankle holster and I like shooting SA at longer ranges. We actually have fun ringing a 12" gong at 100 yards with snubbies at the range. My Taurus has a very slick DA, better than any Smith I've ever handled or fired, but I still like SA capability. I do not find concealed hammers necessary for pocket carry. I shoot DA very well, but still like SA capability. I do carry this thing afield and a rabbit at 25 yards is a small target. Mostly, though, I've used it to tranquilize sharks when fishing. I have taken game with snubbies, though. It's quite accurate, 3" at 25 yards and that's good enough for rabbits at close ranges. For pure defensive purposes, most times I carry a Kel Tec P11 in a pocket, but when I go outdoors, I carry the little Taurus M85 Ultra Lite stainless. It's rugged and accurate and capable of SA shooting.

 

[Gideon]

Well I'm encouraged by all of the replies!!! I do like my 642 for pocket but just love the looks of a good snubbie with a hammer. I used to have a 637 and learned to draw it from a pocket with my thumb over the hammer.

I long to get a pre-lock model 60 in .357!!

I also agree with a lot of the posts on some key points:
-practice DA, then practice DA some more; no need to practice SA because if you can do it DA then SA is cake
-It's not as much a liability having a hammer for civilians in low threat scenarios unless you're going to cock a hammer on a guy which would be foolish and ill advised!

Thanks for the input and the GREAT pics!

God Bless
Gideon

 

[KiltedClaymore]

personaly, i think revolvers dont look good without a hammer sticking out the top-rear portion of the frame. thats just my oppinion, and i hold that oppinion mainly for aesthetic (as opposed to functional) reasons. although, it is nice having the option of shooting it single action style for a lighter trigger pull (ergo:better accuracy).

 

[Ben86]

I never could get around to parting with the hammer. It looks sort of like a cat without a tail with no hammer. Plus I never want to give up my ability to make a single action tack driver shot if I have to. Oh and then there is the cool sound it makes when you cock it back.

I'd say it's more about looks/feelings than function, but I can't give it up.

 

[flounder22]

 

[MCgunner]

Well, you can carry a concealed hammer that can shoot SA, ya know.

 

[S&Wfan]

To the poster mentioning wanting stags and Tyler T-grips . . . I can tell you that this is an amazingly wonderful and attractive improvement of the gun.

The Tyler T-grip greatly reduces both gun movement and twist in the hand, and also tames the recoil perfectly.

I love Patrick Grashorn's work, and his gorgeous Elk Stag grips (stocks) and have them on an increasingly growing number of firearms. His turnaround time is less than a week typically, and he'll make 'em exactly as you want (with less or more bark, thickness preferences, etc.)

AS YOU CAN SEE BY THIS PICTURE . . . I like my hammers on all my "snubbies," no matter the size . . . all the way up to the N frame Model 25-2 .45ACP revolver with the chopped 3 1/4" barrel! Decending is also a 1964 nickleplated Model 36 no dash and a blued 1971 Model 37 no dash "Lightweight."

T.

 

[cerberus65]

I have a model 60 and I like being able to shoot either SA or DA depending on the situation, my mood, or whatever...

 

[Virginian]

I will not own a gun without a hammer, or with porting.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm not a cop nor am I employed by a public agency or anyone with deep pockets that could conceivably be drawn into a civil suit. I've sometimes expressed my belief that, though I respected the views, I felt "immune" to much of what Ayoob was writing about - as I'm not a public servant and have insufficient funds to attract a contingency lawyer.

I'm afraid I don't see how not being an LEO makes the risk of a negligent discharge any different. And the consequences aren't limited to civil action. Quoting Ayoob, "For a Manslaughter conviction, all he [the prosecutor] has to do is convince them [the jurors] that, just like any other human being, you the defendant were reckless and negligent in just one instance."

Even if you were not at legal risk, how about living with the fact of an unintended shot?

The following is from a link in The Snubnose Files on the Centennial variants: "there are almost no situations in which single action fire is appropriate in self defense. Most self defense situations unfold rapidly. There isn't time to thumb cock a revolver and take careful aim in the way one would do while target shooting". I could not identify the author.

That doesn't rule out having the option, but what follows (same link) is to me more telling: "A cocked revolver is dangerous in the adrenaline dump of a lethal force encounter. The trigger is just too light. Its too easy to fire when you don't mean to".

Both points were hammered upon in my recent concealed carry class.

It seems to me that for concealed carry for self defense, the hammer is a liability and little more--if you aren't going have time to use it and know that you should not use it, why have it? For hunting and fishing, however, the story is different.

So for me, the answer to the original question ("who likes a hammer") is "it depends"--kind of like the answer to the question, "which is better, a putter or a nine iron."

 

[MCgunner]

Those who worry about the courtroom are a might paranoid IMHO. If the shooting is justified, it's justified. If not, you deserve a cell with bubba. And, just because the gun has a hammer spur, don't mean you have to use it in an inappropriate situation. Hell, there are lots of folks that carry a 1911 cocked and locked. You can't even FIRE one of those DA. Then there's the Glock safe action, pretty much a spongy SA with no external safety. Those Glock guys have a saying that "safety is between the ears". Well, so's self defense and operation of a DA/SA capable revolver. No, I don't carry a 1911 or a Glock, I'm just sayin'...........

 

[Kleanbore]

And, just because the gun has a hammer spur, don't mean you have to use it in an inappropriate situation.

Excellent point, and for my Model 60 I'm "reprogramming' myself accordingly. That weapon, with its steel frame, target sights, and 3" barrel, is a fine gun for many purposes but for me, is not ideal for concealed carry under summer casual clothing.

For a single purpose CC SD gun, I personally choose to not have a hammer spur. Its primary function, I think, would be to serve as a hook, to catch on my shirt, slowing the draw, or to prevent me from firing from a pocket if necessary. That's what I meant by liability.

 

[redbone]

With my 637 and CT lasergrips, I can shoot 8' groups at 50 yards (not in bright light, though). With my 442 and laser grips, I can't even stay on paper at 50 yards.

Just one of the reasons I like an exposed hammer.

RBH

 

[Shade00]

All of the revolvers in my house currently have exposed hammers. However, I did put some money down on my first Centennial model S&W, a Model 042. I will be picking it up in a couple of days. However, I do like having the hammers on my snubbies; not for any particular reason, I just like the look. I do occasionally fire them single action at the range. However, I am on the lookout for a replacement spurless hammer for my Ruger Speed Six - I really like the double action on it, and I can see myself carrying it one day. That is one that rarely gets fired in single action.

I don't see not having a hammer as a liability - as Old Fuff said, you probably ain't gonna be cockin your gun in a defensive situation. But if you have to have a hammer, the Chief's Special and the Detective Special are, as always, fine choices.