Exposed hammer vs shrouded / enclosed hammers on revolvers

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Exposed hammer vs shrouded / enclosed hammers on revolvers

Posted: 2/8/2006 1:17:17 PM EDT

What are the pros and cons to each setup? I'm talking specifically for CCW.

I understand that the fully enclosed hammer will be the least likely to snag on clothing, but what happens if the hammer goes to half cock or something; what do you do then? Can the cylinder be opened and the trigger pulled the rest of the way to bring the hammer down?

thanks,
dan

Posted: 2/8/2006 2:00:37 PM EDT

[#1]

On double action revolvers there IS no "half cock". When the trigger is pulled, the hammer comes back then drops.
Unless the gun is flatly defective, and BADLY so, when the trigger is pulled the hammer WILL drop.

Posted: 2/8/2006 3:05:56 PM EDT

[#2]

Hammerless/trigger shrouds will let you fire from inside your coat pocket (Gangsta style) but cannot be fired single action.
Exposed hammer double actions can be fired single ation for much better control/accuracy.
So, if I thought I might be shooting from my pocket without aiming I would go with the concealed hammer. If wanted to hunt i would go single action/double action w/hammer cocked for the shots that count.

Posted: 2/8/2006 3:14:50 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
On double action revolvers there IS no "half cock". When the trigger is pulled, the hammer comes back then drops.
Unless the gun is flatly defective, and BADLY so, when the trigger is pulled the hammer WILL drop.

Got it. I'd never used DOA handgun much less a concealed hammer revolver. I am going looking for a snubbie S&W Model 60 type revolver this gunshow weekend.

Wanted to understand them better beforehand. I had the above revolver before and really enjoyed it, may get the same one anyway

Posted: 2/8/2006 3:53:47 PM EDT

[#4]

The concealed hammer S&W's let you get a higher grip to better control recoil.

Posted: 2/8/2006 4:01:41 PM EDT

[#5]

Concealed hammered guns allow for a more stable grip, plus pocket crud is all but eliminated in the action. They are essentially lawyer proof, having a generally long fairly heavy DAO pull, so no "hair trigger" prosecutorial aarguments. And finally concealed hammer revolvers like the 442 & 642 look cool!

Exposed hammers or shrouded hammers ala 638 Bodyguard, still allow for single action aimed fire, are generally more receptive to action tuning, hammerless guns sometimes suffer from light strikes when tuned, even by reputable smiths.

Posted: 2/8/2006 6:12:00 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
The concealed hammer S&W's let you get a higher grip to better control recoil.

Yep. BIG plus for the 642 type guns. Cocked hammer single action firing should not be practiced for self defense shooting anyway.

Posted: 2/8/2006 7:08:18 PM EDT

[#7]

I had a Model 60 J-frame Smith, loved it, fit my hand near perfect. Which is the shrouded version of that same .357?

edit: Is it the 640 (looks like it, off the Smith site) I just want to make sure?

Posted: 2/8/2006 7:15:50 PM EDT

[#8]

you want to be able to handle the firearm instinctively in the case of emergency...knowing the grip safety is squeezed, knowing the safe(s) are off, etc...with the hammerless, all you have to do is point and squeeze the trigger...especially good for a woman or someone who doesn't plan on shooting much....nothing extra to think about in a stressful situation.

Posted: 2/8/2006 7:25:22 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
you want to be able to handle the firearm instinctively in the case of emergency...knowing the grip safety is squeezed, knowing the safe(s) are off, etc...with the hammerless, all you have to do is point and squeeze the trigger...especially good for a woman or someone who doesn't plan on shooting much....nothing extra to think about in a stressful situation.

I tend to slightly disagree with a J-frame being good for those who don't plan on shooting a lot. J-Frames are excellent revolvers, but require practice to shoot effectively, especially the hammerless versions that have a somewhat long slightly heavy pull.

Posted: 2/8/2006 7:42:51 PM EDT

[#10]

I bought the exposed hammer S&W Airlight, and it is a great carry gun, but some day I may upgrade to the shrouded hammer model. I often carry in my coat pocket, and the hammer could snag at the worst time.

Get the enclosed. And get a lot of practice.

Posted: 2/8/2006 7:53:17 PM EDT

[#11]

I like to shoot my handguns when I go to the range and by that I mean 150-200rnds per gun. I was able to do about 50-75rnds of .357 per session in the J-frame I had.

Is that possible with the Airweights? Carry weight is not that much of a concern to me.

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:04:51 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I like to shoot my handguns when I go to the range and by that I mean 150-200rnds per gun. I was able to do about 50-75rnds of .357 per session in the J-frame I had.

Is that possible with the Airweights? Carry weight is not that much of a concern to me.

150-250 standard pressure through the AW won't be a big deal, but you will not want to shoot that many .357's or +P or +P+ .38's through one! Trust me on this, those are for familiarization only, maybe 20 every other range session or so. Aside from stressing the AW, they are no fun to shoot after a few!

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:07:50 PM EDT

[#13]

For CCW I chose a enclosed hammer S&W J-frame, 342.
When things are upclose and personal, single action shooting isn't that valuable. I can consistantly plug a lifesize sillouette target in the chest from within 30'. That's good enough for me.

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:15:07 PM EDT

[#14]

I like the idea of the S&W 638 "bodyguard" with the shrouded hammer. Allows for a manual cocking for SA shots, yet is non-snagging. I'm thinking of one, but don't have one yet.

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:17:45 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
I like the idea of the S&W 638 "bodyguard" with the shrouded hammer. Allows for a manual coking for SA shots, yet is non snagging. I'm thinking of one but don't have one yet.

But they are a PITA to clean w/o taking off the sideplate. I loved my 638, but traded it for a 442 because with pocket carry, that shroud filled with pocket gunk really quickly.

Posted: 2/8/2006 8:28:37 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I like the idea of the S&W 638 "bodyguard" with the shrouded hammer. Allows for a manual coking for SA shots, yet is non snagging. I'm thinking of one but don't have one yet.
But they are a PITA to clean w/o taking off the sideplate. I loved my 638, but traded it for a 442 because with pocket carry, that shroud filled with pocket gunk really quickly.

Hmmm. I never thought of that.

Posted: 2/12/2006 2:13:48 PM EDT

[#17]

I have an older 649 38spl. I think the shrouded hammer is a great compromise.

Posted: 2/14/2006 2:39:33 PM EDT

[#18]

SP 101 spurless .357 2 1/4 inch. If you want to see a trick version go to Gemini Customs website. I got mine tricked out by Marc Morgantti and could not be happier.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Exposed hammer vs shrouded / enclosed hammers on revolvers

Handguns » Revolvers

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us