"Shrouded Hammer" Question

C

ChrisR246

New member
I am in the process of getting my first CCW gun. Because I have more experience with revolvers, I am pretty much settled on a snubnosed revolver, probably in .357 mag. Because of my usual dress (business casual - sport shirt tucked into pants) I am right now planning on pocket carry. This is a long way of leading to my question :) ...

I like the idea of the S&W 649 - allowing SA or DA but appearing more snag free. Is this the only gun with this feature? Is the hammer snagging something to worry about? Or should I not even consider SA shooting for defense?

Thanks in advance for any input.
 
Taurus also makes revolvers with no-snag hammers. The hammer is there, there's just no spur.

The Colt Detective Special/Cobra used to be available with a factory installed hammer shroud.

Other than that, I'm not certain who makes hammerless/shrouded hammer revolvers.

Hammer snagging can be a serious problem, especially if you're trying to draw your gun from a pocket and it won't release.

I carry an S&W 042 in a pocket holster. It's a hammerless design (actually, there is a hammer, but it is fully enclosed in the frame).

I don't consider single action shooting for self-defense to be a winner. Why?

Takes time to thumb the hammer back.

Possibility of accidental discharge/shooting if the attacker ceases his/her actions.

The only time I ever shoot any of my defensive handguns single action is when I'm at the range and shooting off of the bench to get an idea as to where the bullet is hitting in realation to the sights.
 
i would go with an internal hammer too. the slot in the 649 is just an invitation for dirt to an area you can't clean without taking the side plate off.

i've been carrying a 642 for years, both as a backup for my duty gun and as an off-duty weapon. i never felt the need for a hammer spur or a desire to shoot it single action. i regularly practice out to 25yds (old PPC habits...checking against flinch) and have fun with wagers at 50yds. the gun is capable if you practice enough.
 
shrouded hammer

Chris, the guys above pointed out what needed to be said, for the most part, about the shrouded hammer feature. Take a serious look at the Centennials, the closed shroud keeps pocket lint at bay. Also, be VERY sure you want the magnum of pocket guns. They are no fun to practice with, and if you are going to carry .38's, see "Airweight" (NOT Ti or Scanadium) version. Less sag, more comfort. My 642 goes everywhere with me, even when I am also carrying a "real gun" because it is effortless to tote.
 
I bought the 649 and I love it

My cousin first showed one to me and I had to have one. Although I may never fire the gun single-action in self-defense, I like having the capability to do so. The gun is far more accurate than you would expect from such a short barrel, and having single-action capability is a definite plus. The single-action trigger is like glass. Don't worry about the slot in the back, just don't pour sand in it.

Regards to all.
 
Bianchi's Lightning Grips can make a 36 into a 49, or shroud the hammer of any revolver. I have a pair on a 65. They're rubber, with finger grooves, angled just right for me. The 3" 65 points like a Luger.
 
Wife carries S&W M38. Perfect pocket gun.
Available used only.
(New from S&W is the stainless M638 version, but you'd have to buy it from S&W.)

The 357 model is kinda' big for pocket carry...
 
My father has had a .357 Mag. 649 for years and I like it a lot for belt carry. I've carried it my pocket for short periods and think it is too heavy at 23 or 24 ounces. The DA stroke on his is very good, but the SA pull is downright scary because it is so short, light and crisp. It makes a Ruger 22/45 with a 2.5# trigger seem crude (and a couple of old S&W Model 17's too.) No take-up and not much trigger movement is required to fire it. I would never dream of cocking it in a stressful situation. Of course, this is only one gun. John
 
Before I get into my diatribe ( it's optional ) go to

http://www.wallerandson.com

where they still have the old Colt style shrouds for S&W J frames and the little Colts. About fifty bucks for one.


Now for my rant.

The Centennial was discontinued for quite some time because of poor sales a decade or two back, while the Bodyguard continued to sell well. Apparently folks in those days figured they were smart enough to make up their minds based on the situation and it was nice to have the option of cocking and making a more precise SA shot.

Well, until enough purists and gunrag writers whined loud enough to sell the "shootin' public" on the Centennial's greatness due to it's eliminating of the SA option. Less to confuse you with. Funny how this came about the "time of the sheeple" arising in the general population. Then they had the Centennial outselling the Bodyguard.

Interestingly enough, one group of quiet shooters continued to carry their full hammered coat gougers/shirt snagglers by simply using their thumb on the hammer as a shroud when they drew. Some even said "what the hell" and cocked the thing as they drew, letting them take a fine bead for a single, decisive shot. What an idea - making every shot count!

Maybe I should patent a new Ultimatesighting system - crown the muzzle with a full width 45% inverted "V". To use, insert into (appropriate) nostril. Pull trigger.

Sorry, have a cold and have been really snotty lately. :D
 
Snotty ain't the word for it, Rusty... I think you need to up the cough syrup... :)

Tell us how you really feel.

S&W's dropped, and brought back, a LOT of models over the years.

As someone who was in the industry (American Rifleman magazine) when S&W brought back the Centennials, I can tell you that it wasn't because the magazines made a big deal about how people needed these guns.

It was because S&W had been getting continuous requests for the Centennial's return since 1974, when the gun was first dropped in one of the "line cleansings" that happened due in large part to S&Ws sales being down across the board because of the crappy economy in the mid-1970s.

Starting in 1989, S&W made several uncataloged Centennial production runs, such as the stainless that were designed to test the market for the guns return. Sales were brisk enough that by 1991 it was decided to return the gun to general production.

It wasn't until about that time that any of the major gun magazines really took notice that these guns were coming back.

The popularity these guns had with consumers when they were brought back surprised quite a few people in the industry who had spent the previous 10 or so years selling people on the concept of the 9,270-shot "Wonder9GeeWhiz" of the week.

I had one well respected gunwriter who worked at another magazine sort of chuckle and tell me that it was going to be a dark day at S&W when they realized that they had spent all that money to build up inventory for a gun that was never going to sell...

Then we started seeing sales figures coming out of the major S&W distributors, and the numbers were pretty astounding. The guns were selling, they were selling well, and THAT'S when everyone started jumping on the bandwagon.

I'll admit that I also jumped on the bandwagon a little big (it's not a big jump for me, as I'm a revolver person) in that I wrote a "small revolver round up" article that appeared in the August 1994 issue of American Rifleman.

In talking with the major manufacturers -- S&W, Taurus, Ruger -- one thing became VERY clear. Concealed-hammer revolvers were selling very well, and in a lot of cases, were outselling the latest Wonder[insertcaliberhere]GeeWhiz semi-auto that had supposedly replaced them.

In general, the gunbuying public isn't quite as stupid as you might think. They tend to recognize good, solid, proven ideas, and stick with them.
 
Thumbcocking the 649-types in a life-threatening situation is an extreme tactic; but I like the having the option. Thus, I think it represents the best solution. Advantages of both styles, under the right circumstances.
 
WIth the right-sized pocket holster, having a normal hammer is no big deal in CC. I carry a Taurus m85 multi alloy ti in a cheap Uncle Mike's pocket holster, and have no trouble with the hammer catching on anything. Practicing single-action with a revolver is fun too, so you're not giving up that with a normal hammer.
 
I use a 642 all stainless steel model .357 as an ankle gun, on duty. It is perfect for its role...and no, even good old fashioned steel isn't too heavy for use (as some think).

When you're looking at revolvers, you have a couple of options:

regular hammer: advantage is you can cock it, disadvantage is that it can and likely will snag, given the opportunity.

Bobbed hammer: it won't snag, but you can't cock it. ALSO, it possibly offers a worst-of-both-worlds scenario...a BG has gripped your gun in a manner that prevents the hammer from moving rearwards (this also applies to the regular hammer), and thus preventing you from pulling the Felon Repulsion Lever. Yes yes yes, I know, unlikely...and any scenario when that could happen your cylinder likely would be gripped tight, too...but it could happen.

(Also, there are 'low profile' hammers in between those two, that supposedly snag less and still allow you to cock it. Never used them, though)

hammer shrouds: there are after market bolt-ons that turn regular guns into shrouded hammer guns. Never used them, and it seems like you're making things needlessly complex. JMO.

shrouded hammer guns: They prevent hammer snag AND you can cock them. however 1. they seem bigger than their regular or enclosed hammer brethren and 2. as someone above said, the gap for the hammer will act as a dirt-sucking hole.

enclosed hammer guns: can't cock 'em, but they won't snag, their profile is very similar to 'regular' guns and there is no hole for dirt. I like mine.

In my admittedly non-expert opinion, I don't see the ability to cock the gun to be any sort of a bonus in its role as a back-up, last-ditch defensive weapon. lets face it, if I'm going to be employing this gun, it means that whatever the plan was, it has gone horribly awry, and I'm going to be sending 5 rounds of .357 into a guy almost on top of me as fast as I can pull the trigger.

Mike
 
Oh yeah, one other thing:

Someone already said it, but it bears repeating: firing .38 +P+ or .357 magnum out of that gun is gonna S*U*C*K, but thats the price you pay for a lot of power in a small package (at this point someone will sound off with ballistics info that states that regular .38 and .357 out of a snubby's barrel are pretty much a wash in the damage-to-target department, and then a Cartridge Holy War will ensue, and I profess no knowledge in that area :D).

One thing I would do is this: don't cheat on the grips. In my department what all the cops do is use really small grips for carry and then put on big cushy rubber ones to shoot and qualify. theres a reason for this: its easier to shoot with the big grips, and the gun conceals better with the little ones. But its cheating, and if you ever have to use the gun (heaven forbid), you might regret it. Shoot what you carry, carry what you shoot.

Mike
 
My 2 cents: go with an all steel(stainless) centennial. Self defense is upclose and fast. You won't have time to decide if you go SA or DA. If you get a revolver with SA capability you will practice with SA because it easier and more accurate at first. Shot DA only and you will be suprised how proficient you can be, but you must practice.

The idea that all steel snubbies are too heavy for pocket carry has been posted many, many times. I repectfully disagree. If you wear pants with large pockets and use a good pocket holster( I use a Galco with my)carrying is a snap. After a short time you don't know it's there, but you need to give it a chance. Stainless snubbies have the advantage of weight that allows you to shoot more in practice and therefore gain proficency.
 
Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful input. With it I've decided that...

I can't decide now what to get:D

I am going to have to find a few places that rent guns and see if they have some of the different types mentioned and try them out.

Thanks again.
 
The taurus Multi-allow ti m85 is ported, so the recoil is quite manageable.

It's also very accurate, and easy to carry. I think it is the best of both worlds.
 
Maybe I'm crazy, but I've never had ANY problems with my hammer attracting lint...

Chris,

I think you'll find that the "dirt" argument is only espoused by people who've opted for the 642 style guns. Most people who actually own the "humpbacks" will tell you that keeping your hammer area clean is a non-issue. If you can afford the occasional Q-tip you can maintain it. If that won't do it, just spray Break Free or Crud-Cutter in there, no big deal.

As for "having to remove the sideplate to clean the gun", that's pretty funny.

Also, those who tell you the SA trigger on the humpbacks is like glass are absolutely correct.
 
The Need for Single Action Capability ...

Scenario: You are in a crowded public place, say a restaurant. A deranged person bursts through the door, which is 75 feet across the room, and opens fire with an AK on random targets in the room.

Realizing this is a shooting spree, you immediately take cover and draw your snubnose from your pocket. Not seeing you, he turns his back to you to shoot another victim and you take careful aim for his spine (or head), knowing that if your first shot misses, that person may die and then you'll be hosed down with 7.62 FMJ's.

Would you rather have a crisp single-action pull, or be hampered with a long, heavy DAO pull?

To me, DAO is simply handicapping myself.

It was this scenario that made me think that DAO advocates really take that position because they think people are too stupid to be trusted with a single-action capability.

I contend that if you practice both ways effectively, you'll be able to implement them effectively, and will be able to discriminate as to which you should use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top