What's the point in a hammerless revolver?

>>34004984
no snag

No risk of snag.

>>34004984
it lets you have a revolver with no hammer

>>34004984
it's a child safety feature. if ur kid gets a hold of the gun and pulls the trigger they wont get their finger smashed by the hammer

>>34004984
No snag, lawyers can't get on your ass about hair trigger

>>34004984
It has a hammer but no hammer spur. Ease of use, less cleaning, risk of obstruction, and able to fire from underneath clothing without jamming.

>>34004984
Elaborating on the no snag, you can hold it inside a jacket pocket and if you get mugged you can fire it from inside your pocket with no fear of it malfunctioning.

>>34004984
good question. not very useful without a hammer. the gun in your pic has an internal hammer

>>34004984
To shot a nigga through your pocket without worrying about your gun failing.>>34005000

>>34004984
To kill people, just like any other gun.

>>34005000
trips of truth

and I'm not gonna be firing single action with my snubbie

>>34005151
Not doubting the likely hood of this happening, but has this ever actually happened.

File: 1464495778373.gif (483KB, 422x248px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 422x248px

>that one retard that chimes in with the desire to shoot a fucking j-frame on single action

>>34005775

There are some cases from the 1980s or so where prosecutors and plaintiff's lawyers alleged police officers had cocked their revolvers and unintentionally fired at people who supposedly didn't need to be shot. The theory there is that a negligent/reckless homicide charge is easier to prove than a murder charge -- and doubly so in civil court.

Some agencies mandated DAO for that reason. Massad Ayoob, who testified as an expert in some of those cases, took those (relatively uncommon, and IIRC never successful in a criminal case) tactics and preached far and wide of the dangers of the "hair trigger." Idiots who didn't fully understand the issues at play gave the idea a life of its own.

>>34004984
To trigger autists like you.

Why DAO for carry?

- Most of the time, merely presenting the firearm will end the incident. People tend to be under a high degree of stress when guns come into play.
If you cock your revolver and do not fire, there is no safe way to decock it -- only less-bad ways which decrease the odds of a bullet hitting anything of importance.

- If the problem does not yet require shooting, or has changed to not require shooting by the time your gun is out, you're now dealing with a trigger that has a few millimeters of travel and that only weighs about 3 pounds. Despite all the admonitions against it, people tend to touch their triggers. A 3lb SAO shot is a lot easier to unintentionally touch off than a 10lb DAO shot. While both triggers can be pulled under a startle response, the DAO trigger at least gives you tactile feedback that "hey, things are happening and the big, loud noise is about to start" once you start pulling it.

>>34005908
I talked to a retired San Diego cop. She was issued a .357 magnum in the '70s, and that tactile feedback you mention actually saved someone's life. Almost smoked a suspect that kept approaching with his hands in his coat pockets. She remembers taking up slack when he finally showed his hands. He was unarmed. Just drunk as fuck and not thinking clearly.

>>34006202
Darryl Bolke had a similar incident with HK LEM.

>>34005908
>- Most of the time, merely presenting the firearm will end the incident. People tend to be under a high degree of stress when guns come into play.
>If you cock your revolver and do not fire, there is no safe way to decock it -- only less-bad ways which decrease the odds of a bullet hitting anything of importance.

Never handled a revolver before, can't you just open the cylinder before you ride the hammer forward?

>>34005795
>I don't practice marksmanship and want my 5 shot revolver to be useless at 20 yards

>>34006440
No, but if you hold the hammer and pull the trigger you can let it down easy. This works fine, as long as you don't let go of the hammer while the trigger is depressed.

>>34005908
I agree with this in so much as you shouldn't cock the hammer until you're ready to fire.

But I'd still like the option of SA to be able to hit anything at or past 25 yards.

>>34006478
>I want my hammer to snag on my clothes

File: 1483150797394.gif (1MB, 232x201px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 232x201px

>>34006478
>he can't land accurate shots at 20 yards on double action

I carry DA/SA and do this every time I go to the range without ever cocking my gun, suck my dick faggot.

File: hqdefault.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

To prevent snag, why don't people just put their thumb over the hammer when unholstering? That way you don't have to get a castrated wheelgat that looks stupid and you still have the option of single action?

>>34006744
its not worth it when I can just get the snagless version and practice shooting double action

>>34005874

>There are some cases from the 1980s
so, legal precedent?

>prosecutors and plaintiff's lawyers alleged
criminal and civil lawyers have used this tactic?

>The theory there is that a negligent/reckless homicide charge is easier to prove than a murder charge -- and doubly so in civil court.
Is it a theory if it has been done in practice?

>Idiots who didn't fully understand the issues at play gave the idea a life of its own.

You literally just built the case, backed it with facts, and still say only idiots think this...

>>34006744

Because you establish a proper grip on the handgun when it's in the holster, then draw it.

Getting a half assed grip before the draw, then reconfiguring your hand during/after probably isn't a great idea.

>>34006707
Is that a DA/SA revolver?

Also, everything is truth on the internet friendo

File: mk0XofNH.jpg (55KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 512x512px

>>34006848
>Not cocking the hammer as you draw
>He doesn't even High Noon

>>34006865
God you faggots its not that hard to make a shot in double action. Am I the only person who practices dry firing or has snap caps.

You pussies make it seem like its impossible, just get that shot out of the way man, can't beat them drones man.
Defeatist lazy fucks.

>>34005874
...and so now all these idiots are issued Glocks.

>>34006707

>he doesnt shoot snubs @ 100 yards

Its like you want to be called a no guns

>>34004984
Doesn't snag when drawing from a pocket holster. That's about it. You can shoot a normal revolver through a pocket just fine, I've never had any clothing get under the hammer. It's a non issue.
Drawing from IWB is not a problem with a normal revolver. Even drawing from a pocket is OK when you have your thumb over the hammer.
It really is a non issue.

>>34006478
>implying

Have you ever actually handled a J-frame before? I was able to go from being a newgunz with stormtrooper-tier inaccuracy to landing ~90-95% of my shots on an 8 inch target at 25 yards after around 200 rounds of practice.

>>34006829

Late response but...

>so, legal precedent?

Using a tactic at trial =/= precedential value that courts are obligated to follow. Trial courts are not bound by the decisions of other trial courts. Judge A can rule one way, Judge B the other. You get binding precedent from appellate courts.

>criminal and civil lawyers have used this tactic?

In the past, and unsuccessfully. They generally don't bother trying today. That might be a clue.

>Is it a theory if it has been done in practice?

Not the proper context of that word, but OK, whatever. The mental state which must be proven for murder (generally: malice aforethough/state language equivalent) is a significantly higher bar than negligence or recklessness, and even depraved heart/equivalent.

>You literally just built the case, backed it with facts, and still say only idiots think this...

No, you literally just cherry picked things out of an incomplete set of facts. I didn't write a treatise on plaintiff's litigation tactics of 1980s police wrongful death cases.

The rest of the story is that courts quickly figured out this, called it for what it is (bullshit), and ruled against those civil verdicts on appeal -- creating binding case law in the process which creates an unfavorable environment for such tactics. They can still be used, of course, but a series of things has to happen before they are -- and in that case the defendant is typically fucked anyway. If you understood how negligence worked, you'd figure it out pretty quickly.

I also didn't say "only idiots" think this. I said that idiots who didn't fully understand the issue (like you) took some things they didn't understand fully, and then gave a relatively obscure scenario a life of its on (typically by misinterpreting information they didn't understand). From this we get GlockTalk's self defense section.

TL;DR: You're dumb and you don't know what you're talking about.

>>34010248
25 yards anon, not 25 feet

>>34007819
You'll never be as smooth with DA as a SA trigger break, gotta get them headshots.

>>34012490

Not him, but for whatever reason I actually shoot a DA pull better than a SA pull. Has to do with the break. A rolling pull is much harder for me to anticipate.

I can also get dem headshots with a DAO J-Frame. But then again, I use Crimson Trace grips so I'm basically cheating.

File: 649.jpg (24KB, 533x371px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 533x371px

>>34005000
>>34005002
>>34005010
>>34005211
>>34005317
So why not buy a 649.
Shoots .38 or .357
anti snag
can cock for accurate distance shots

Hammerless revolvers are as stupid as NYPD's 12lb triggers in their Glocks

>>34009689

Yes, because the ATF classified Glock's trigger as a double action only design, even though the striker's about 90-95% cocked when the trigger is at rest. And, if it says it's double action only, that means it meets the contract requirements.

Most cops aren't amazingly smart Their administrators are even less so. It's something of a job requirement.

>>34012517
Because pocket lint is a thing

There's also an appeal about having a revolver that literally cannot be stopped from fireing on contact

>>34004984
It's a stupid solution in search of a problem. Snagging is only a problem if you Mexican carry.

>>34012517

I can get a much higher grip on a 642 than I can a 638. That matters to me a lot more than a feature I'll basically never use outside of the range.

I can also buy a new no-lock 642 or 442 or 340. I can't get a 638 (or a 649) without a lock unless I buy an older gun (which comes at a premium).

>>34007819
A fucking men.
>>34012490
It's actually pretty common for DA/SA shooters to be more accurate with the DA pull than the SA. One anon already pointed this out and it's the same with me along with Ernest Langdon.

>>34005775

Yes, though I'm not aware of any cases involving revolvers. This all comes from Massad Ayoob. He spent a lot of time as an expert witness in self defense shootings and noted a few good self defense shoots where prosecutors couldn't get a conviction, so instead they argued that the defendant's modified trigger caused them to shoot on accident and thus it was manslaughter.

I bumped into him and asked the opposite question; if there was any legal liability in heavy triggers that cause...I dunno, NYPD to blast several bystanders. He stated that as of the moment no prosecutor has made the argument.

Basically, for a self defense gun carrying a standard handgun, in a standard caliber, with a moderate trigger pull removes a few arguments a prosecutor might try.

>No hammer
>Less parts
>More reliable
>Cheaper
The question should be what's the deal with revolvers still using hammers.

>>34005874
>Massad Ayoob
Why do people listen to him again?