Hammer or hammerless??? ...............

^^^^^^^ You will love the SP101, Ducci. It was one of my favorites until it got stolen by a young punk so he could buy drugs. :mad: He may have been on them when he burglarized my GF's car... since he left his cellphone it it. I am sure that justice will serve him with a most severe hand slapping. :rolleyes:

Anyway... here is a pic of my dearly departed SP101. :( I will be buying another. You should consider the 3" model. The extra inch doesn't hamper concealment, but gives quite a bit better sight picture and a bit more velocity. It makes a great carry package, but is also a damn fine plinker with .38 spl's. I killed many a beer can with my former revolver. :thumbup:

IMG_4370.jpg
 
Heehee... I am indiscriminate when it comes to firearms. I love my Smith's too!

IMG_1703-1.jpg


But, for the money, the Ruger might be the best buy in revolvers at this time.
 
I bought a Ruger Sp101 (2in with hammer) several years ago. The gun is heavy for a small 5 shot revolver, has a very rough trigger, and won't perform some of the functions of the lightweight S&W's. That said, it is a more rugged and reliable gun which I feel does have a place. My original gun was VERY rough. I sent it to Cylinder and Slide for a trigger job, hammer removal, dehorning, and bead blasting. The end result is a MUCH more functional and visually attractive gun. I'm very happy with the gun I have now, but if I didn't have any intention of having it worked on from the factory, I probably wouldn't buy one.
 
I bought my 442 to keep as a "quick run to the store" gun. I never, however, carry it in a pocket. It used to ride in a cheap Uncle Mike's at 1:00, but now it sits pretty in a KDStrick Special. (Thanks, Kevin!)

I looked at the 101, but for my use, the 442 airweight is perfect. Why take the extra weight for a BUG?

J
 
Had 'em both. Sold the hammerless. Nothing wrong with it, just liked the SP101 with the hammer better.
 
I'mGatMan! said:
I bought my 442 to keep as a "quick run to the store" gun. I never, however, carry it in a pocket. It used to ride in a cheap Uncle Mike's at 1:00, but now it sits pretty in a KDStrick Special. (Thanks, Kevin!)

I looked at the 101, but for my use, the 442 airweight is perfect. Why take the extra weight for a BUG?

J
Click to expand...

Aw, shucks man... :o thanks, enjoy it! :thumbup:

Pocket carry always seems to get the business end of the pistol pointed at the one thing I don't ever want to lose... or the other 2 things.... :eek:
 
Personally I like the I would get one with a hammer. Many reasons, but mainly since LA county isn't known for giving away CCW permits, I just don't see the need for hammerless, since it would be for home defense only and for range shooting, where I'd still prefer the hammer.

Also I was hitting bulls eye at slightly more then 5 yards (5 m) from the hip when I was on the shooting team back in a day. During training I think I got my time down to 22 seconds (this time distance was about 2.5 yards though)from signal to placed shot (react, draw, chamber, aim, shoot at a target specified by a signal), not great, but hell of a lot better then a lot of people there. However if they already got a gun pointed at me without me noticing it, thats about 19 seconds longer then I have to live if I even think about using my gun. So shooting through the pocket is an option but not the best one.

But thats only me, and as said before, it is personal choice. What ever you get, train with it, and hope you don't get to use it.
 
Ken44 said:
As for myself, I wouldn't have a hammerless revolver. Been shooting a long time and have always wanted the option of a lighter shorter trigger pull.
Bobbed is fine.
Click to expand...

There are three reasons they make sense, two practical and one theoretical:

1. The snag-free design allows for smooth draws from almost any location.
2. The action (assuming there's no Hilary Hole) is more tightly sealed against foreign materials.
3. In the situation of an actual self-defense shooting, you are defended from the theoretical risk of being accused of "cocking the hammer and thus setting up a hair trigger situation that resulted in a negligent discharge."

I know people hate Massad Ayoob's fixation on the last one, but I throw it in for completeness. I have never heard of it being an issue from anyone other than him or people quoting him.

Rat Finkenstein said:
why anyone would want that is beyond me, terrible placement. Not only that, but they actually pay for it.
Click to expand...

Have you ever shot one? The muzzle-flip (not recoil per se) reduction is frankly unbelievable. Sometimes it almost seems to push down. Yes, the muzzle blast is horrendous. Yes, you will injure yourself if you fire it with any part of your body above the ports. With those drawbacks noted, the porting is incredibly effective.

Top gun is stock, bottom is after Hybra-porting from Jack Weigand's old shop. I will confess to having had it rendered double action only in addition to having the hammer shaved:

44projectgenesis.jpg


Close-up of the ports (on both sides of barrel rib):

44weigandfrontright.jpg
 
rbmcmjr said:
Supposedly, Clint Smith used to advise potential students to bring an old coat to use in drills for shooting from the pocket. I can't find anything other than anecdotal claims to support that, however.
Click to expand...

The Amok! and Suarez guys recommend the same for their FoF shooting courses, they also use it to teach how to shoot through your clothes it if you get tangled up somehow.
 
rbmcmjr-

I am sure it reduces recoil. . . and velocity and power. any brake should be at the muzzle, so you get the most out of your barrel length. The Gemini porting starts at the back of the barrel.
 
Rat Finkenstein said:
rbmcmjr-

I am sure it reduces recoil. . . and velocity and power. any brake should be at the muzzle, so you get the most out of your barrel length. The Gemini porting starts at the back of the barrel.
Click to expand...

I remember reading somewhere (I can't remember which gun magazine) where they tested some of the shorter guns with porting, and on some of the shorter guns there was no loss of velocity, or very little like 5-10 fps). Yes, it is blasty, but so are snub nosed revolvers.

I don't have mine ported, and don't think I need it. The gun is heavy enough that I have never had anything shot out of it, including hot loads and heavy hunting loads cause enough discomfort that I thought I needed it.

On guns that have porting, I prefer end of the muzzle. But it does serve a purpose, and does what it is supposed to do, reduce muzzle flip/felt recoil.

the only ported gun I have (currently) is my Glock 22C, and the .40 in a full sized Glock is not exactly punishing, but my wife can do follow up shots faster with it.
 
For a small revolver consider a smith "humpback" model, snag free but you can still cock the hammer when you want to. Only downside i can see is its kinda ugly. Best of both worlds otherwise. (638 bodyguard.) +1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top