what are the pros and cons of having a gun with a shrouded hammer

>>34872775
You can shoot that single action. It isn't as reliable as a 442 though.

The best of both worlds without being the best at either one. Seems pretty fucking cool. I know cocking a hammer is advised against in self defense scenarios but as one might imagine... Sometimes you NEED that much more precision, from a single action trigger break.

I had the 642 and a few other J frames. I like having the ability to fire in single action more then the ability to shoot through my own clothing.

Cleaning comes to mind and it is probably the most practical consideration. Those holes and groves will fill with lint and fibers.

File: 1500463499263.jpg (40KB, 297x297px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 297x297px

>>34872775
In a defensive scenario, it will be extremely unlikely that single action will be necessary or preferable to you. It simply requires too many extra steps than double action, especially under pressure. However, if you are also buying the revolver for target shooting too, the single action could definitely come in handy.

One other note too is that lint SERIOUSLY collects in the shroud area of concealed hammer pistols, so you would want to check that frequently. Overall though, you're not going to be significantly disadvantaged with either choice, so get what appeals to you most

File: 155876_01_nib_s_w_model_442_1_640[1].jpg (41KB, 640x423px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 640x423px

>>34872864
honestly i consider the ability to be fired reliably from within clothing as the ultimate in tactical application.

that being said, how likely is it that you will have your hands in your pockets in a self defense situation where it is legally acceptable to fire?

however, ignoring that last paragraph; if my ultimate consideration is being able to fire from the pocket reliably, it seems like the enclosed hammer is the best choice.

thanks guys!

now im wondering if i should carry 2, one in each pocket just in case

>>34872775
Single action seems kind of wasted on a lightweight snub

>>34872857
do they make striker-fired revolvers?

>>34872954
think for a second why that wouldn't work

>>34872902
>>34872775

>firing a revolver in your market
yikes dude

>>34872775
>Pocket gun can be fired from your pockets precious
>filthy nasty little hobbits!
>They stole it from us!

How do hammerless revolvers work?

Also:
>>34873013

File: 1464650730737.gif (1MB, 292x243px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 292x243px

why not just get a small semi automatic at this point

>>34873117
i misspoke. its not hammerless but rather the hammer is enclosed in the frame so theres 0 risk of it getting caught on clothing either when unholstering the gun or when pulling the trigger

>>34873203
No true, it is reduced, but not zero unlike the 4/642

File: 1aby.png (351KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 720x480px

>>34872775
I really like the "no hammer" look of a revolver
I don't know why, maybe i just like revolver combined with a numodern design
or the idea of a covert revolver gets my pee pee hard

can anyone post more of these cool things

bump! cool thread! love ya OP!

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

24KB, 533x371px

>>34872775
I have a S&W 649 in .357. It is my Favorite gun of all time! Slick out of a pocket and It shoots like a barn on fire. Qualified 100% with it at the local PD range. Heavy enough to tame the Magnum recoil, and then pistol whip someone.

File: 1441414900668.gif (3MB, 376x278px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 376x278px

>>34872902
Hillary Hole/Can't COCK?/.38 only....Garbage

File: 1399315022674.jpg (516KB, 1800x1136px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1800x1136px

>>34872775

>>34872775
might be harder to get your hands up higher for better accuracy
thats about it i suppose

>>34872990
A hammer rotates on an axis and a striker travels horizontally, it does work and there are striker fired revolvers but they are all old snowflake guns

File: 6426001-m2jpg.jpg (147KB, 1500x843px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1500x843px

hows the maintenance and cleaning of the hammerless revolver?
And is it easier to clean one with a hammer?

Also are revolvers more reliable (jams etc)
then a pistol?

I know this might be stupid questions,
but im a revolver virgin.

I got a 637 at a gr8 price a decade ago. I ground down and rounded off the hammer as suggested by my CCW instructor. Get a 642 if possible. Exposed hammer on a pocket carry pistol is stupid.

>>34873522
how much would one like that cost?

>>34872775
Highly unlikely you'll need to cock the hammer for a single action pull. Moderately unlikely you'll need to fire from the pocket and moderately unlikely then that a normal hammer would get caught and cause a malfunction.

If it's not going to be a pocket gun I'd go with a non bobbed hammer. If it is then go with the bobbed. IMHO whether it's more valuable to have a possible SA pull or be able to fire from concealment without drawing depends on how you'll carry the gun.

>>34873878
Jams are technically possible with both.

Semi autos are considerably more likely than revolvers to malfunction but also usually easier to clear.

Revolver jams are much less likely but when the do occur they tend to either require serious work(gunsmithing) to undo or can even result in a KB like if you have a hang fire and keep pulling the trigger.

Frankly it's not an obvious decision and open to interpretation and preference

>>34874249
go with semiauto and bring an extra mag and proper reliable ammo, so if you have to clear, you can just drop the mag and get a new fresh one

>>34874263
The thing is you might not have that chance in an SD situation.

Real talk:

revolver has dud primer, low power round, or ?!?!? resulting in less than desirable effect on target. You just keep on pulling the trigger. This will in all likely hood only bite you in the ass in the specific incidence of having a hang fire.

Semi auto has any of those and you have to assess the malfunction and then TRB.

IMHO one of those sounds much more doable while being shot at or rushed by a crackhead with a knife than the other. YMMMV

File: 102_1490.jpg (684KB, 1024x743px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1024x743px

I've had both DOA and DA/SA revolvers and I gotta say I much preferred having the SA option. The shrouded hammer is a perfectly acceptable compromise.

Another option that could have been was the old Merwin Hulbert & CO pocket revolvers on which the hammer spur was hinged it laid flat most of the time but could be folded out if one wanted to fire SA.

>>34874249
You are making a false equivalency in your post.

You are conflating the kinds of failures that happen in revolvers (snapped mainspring, broken hammer pin, timing, etc), all of which are extremely rare occurrences, with common ammunition-related failures in an auto (fail to feed, fail to eject, double-feed, hollow points catching on the bottom of a feed ramp and nosediving) that do not happen to a revolver, while failing to ALSO account for the fact that the same kinds of mechanical failures happen in an auto with the exact same rare frequency.

To put it another way, you are essentially saying that X = X + Y, where X = mechanical failures in a gun and Y = ammunition-related failures in a gun.

>>34872775
A shrouded hammer is a nice option on paper, but it has some hang-ups in reality. The channel for the hammer is a magnet for dust, lint, and debris of all stripes, and you cannot buy new production 438s or 638s without the abominable lock.

File: bilfoto.jpg (31KB, 400x273px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x273px

Thanks for the answers.
I learned a little about revolvers today.

>>34874431
>Semi autos are considerably more likely than revolvers to malfunction

>Revolver jams are much less likely

I thought i was rather clear that revolvers don't tend to suffer from ammunition related failures and that the failures they do tend to encounter happen much less frequently than auto loaders.

Of course both can suffer serious failures requiring gunsmithing or other serious issues and both are similarly likely to encounter these(depending on specific design). I merely meant to convey that revolvers are not nearly foolproof and can encounter issues that could take them out of a fight for good.

This video perfectly adresses your question OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJbsLrAxNjY

Why have revolvers pretty much stayed the same for so long? the fact that the hammer is still on is just one example of how esoteric the design is

>>34874431
So where can you buy a smallish enclosed hammer revolver that doesn't have the lock?

>>34875974
fuck off

>>34873589
think:
what would cock the striker?

>>34876063
The Smith and Wesson Centennial revolvers (442, 642, 640, M&P 360, and some others) are all available without a lock. The Ruger LCR also does not have a lock.

>>34877659
The trigger

>>34875974
>how esoteric the design is
>esoteric

When does school start again?

>>34878909
I'm way past school anon

>>34873534
My 442 does not have a Hillary hole.

The dreyse needle fire revolver is striker fired, and at least some of those old revolvers chambered in 5.5mm velo dog are striker fires as well, that's really all I can think of

>CC revolver
lol

>>34879994
I can tell. Just like I can tell you're a pseudo-intellectual know-it-all who thinks he's hot shit, but has so little actual experience that he starts quaking in his boots when he encounters something unfamiliar. Fuck off.

>>34880568
Are you projecting? Fuck are you saying?