Hammerless

B

Bella

New member
I realize that hammerless revolvers might serve a purpose, but I can't get past their looks. To me they look weird, actually ugly in my opinion. A revolver has to have an exposed hammer to look right to me.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone else share this opinion?
 
Nope. Guns like the 642 look different from an exposed hammer gun, but not "ugly". Now there have been a few striker fired revolvers that really did look odd, with a long overhang, but AFAIK, all those were European.

Jim
 
I've owned some sort of a S&W Bodyguard (real ones, not those new abominations) for 35+ years. Not only do they look good and business like, the "hump" allows you to get a very high grip, in effect lowering the bore axis, and improving the handling. They are by far my favorite J frame except for my M43. But that's a different story.
 
I realize that hammerless revolvers might serve a purpose, but I can't get past their looks. To me they look weird, actually ugly in my opinion. A revolver has to have an exposed hammer to look right to me.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone else share this opinion?
Click to expand...

No.

Ok, yes, the humpback ones look funky.
 
I'm with ya. Humpbacks look weird. I'm sure the people that own 'em are weird too. They probably think their AMC Javelins are super cool too. Yeah. :D
 
I always thought the Ruger Sp101 in DAO(no single action, cant cock the bobbed hammer) looked kind of weird, especially with the stock grips. But the S&W 642 looks pretty slick to me.
 
"Humpbacks look weird. I'm sure the people that own 'em are weird too. They probably think their AMC Javelins are super cool too."


Maybe I'm a bit weird but I'm also old enough to remember when Penske Racing was wining races with '71 390cid Javelins. :cool: Those things ran like striped apes.
 
No, they remind me of the 1982 Cadillac Seville with the real weird trunk line.

I have two of them. One is a S&W Model 42 from 1963. The other one is a 1900 S&W .38 Safety Hammerless Fourth Model. The 1963 or newer one shoots .38 Special and the 1900 or older one shoots .38 S&W.

Their popularity is indicated by the length of production. They started making them in the late 1800's and even have a Model 42 as a member of the current S&W line of "Classic Revolvers".

Both are great for concealed carry since they fit right in your rear pocket and do not have a hammer to snag on your clothes while serving as a concealed carry.

Both are also considered in slang terms as a "Lemon Squeezer" since they have a rear grip safety that has to be squeezed to fire the revolver.

You can call me "Weird" or you can call me a "Lemon Squeezer". :)
 
Maybe I'm a bit weird but I'm also old enough to remember when Penske Racing was wining races with '71 390cid Javelins. Those things ran like striped apes.
Click to expand...

If you're talking Trans-Am, those would have been 304's, but you're right otherwise. Nobody could catch those red, white, and blue "Ramblers". :D Man, Mark Donohue could drive anything with wheels. Remember the Matador NASCAR Grand National car he won with at Riverside? Ummmmm....sorry...for another thread....

I'm with the OP. I think they look funny. However I did have a Taurus 85 with a factory bobbed hammer I liked a lot.
 
I have a 642 Airweight and love to carry it. Beauty is not a factor where my life and the life of others is concerned. An exposed hammer carry gun can be a huge problem, especially if carried in a pocket.

Beauty is as beauty does!
 
I think the spurless hammer on my Charter, flush with the frame, looks fine to me. Charter's factory shrounded and enclosed hammer guns look odd and disproportionate.

gats_zpsb7bc1406.jpg
 
I love the classic look of a S&W Model 60, but IMO the Centennial-style 640 has even nicer lines and is better for no-snag carry.
 
Yes, they do like a bit strange to me, but what else can you fire from inside a bag, purse, or jacket pocket and not get something all snagged up and jammed? When I think about the utility of it, it becomes prettier so to speak. Kind of like my Honda Civic, it isn't that pretty or ugly, but when I get over 40 MPG with it then it becomes beautiful.
 
Bella,
I like you feel the same way. A revolver is not a revolver with out a hammer. I myself would never buy a hammerless revolver. Its just a dumb ass gun IMO.
 
Yes, a dumb ass revolver that has been in production for over a 120 years by Smith and Wesson and others.

They just produced millions upon milllions with total disregard to whether anyone would buy them or not. :confused:

You might want to rephrase your comment to being strange or weird looking. It does have a hammer. It is just not visible.

A lot of modern day pistols have hammers that are pretty much hidden from view. The striker fired pistols do not have hammers. Are these dumb ass? :rolleyes:
 
While I agree that a hammerless revolver doesn't look right on a sporting revolver with a 4" barrel or larger... I prefer the S&W 640 Centennial for a "pocket carry" revolver, or a bobbed hammer on my 2" Model 64 and 3" Model 65 for concealed belt (OWB) carry.
 
I don't like the look of hammerless revolvers either, and I have seventeen of them.
All my revolvers have exposed hammers, but then again I never pocket carry, or carry IWB. I always carry them in OWB holsters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top