Bobbing the hammer on a DA/SA snub: questions.

[Ruger45LC]

Personally I don't understand bobbing the hammer, I get why it's done but I don't think it's at all necessary. I would just buy a DAO revolver and be done with it, I would hate to lose the ability to manually cock the hammer on a revolver that once had that feature but no longer does because in theory it's quicker to pull from a pocket. To each his own.

[44 AMP]

I get why it's done but I don't think it's at all necessary. I would just buy a DAO revolver and be done with it,

There seems to be a bit of confusion here. There are two different things being talked about as if they were one thing, and, they aren't.

Bobbing the hammer and shooting DAO are not exactly the same thing.

People bobbing the hammer has been done for quite some time. It's intended purpose generations ago with to reduce the possibility of the gun snagging in clothing when drawn from concealment. A bobbed hammer gun could be shot single action, it was just more difficult to cock the hammer or let it down. Good quality "bob jobs" would checker the top of the hammer to assist cocking for those rare SA shots. The guns were rarely converted to DAO, there simply is no point to doing it.

Shooting DA ONLY is either your personal choice, or is because its the only way the mechanism works. The more famous guns from yesteryear are the S&W "Lemon Squeezers" and their modern versions with internal or shrouded hammers are available today.

I think the idea of having the SA function removed from a DA revolver (in order to force(??) you to shoot DAO) is like having the emergency brake removed from your car. Nearly all of us drive FBO (Foot Brake Only) and essentially ignore the Emergency Brake, until/unless we're in a situation where its actually useful, but nobody has it removed (even if the law allows for that).

Shooting DA has been around a long time and so has training the cops to shoot DA. The idea of converting the gun to DA Only didn't have much traction until 1960s and 70s when some large police forces got sued and administration officials decided having their guns converted to DA Only so officers couldn't "violate their training" was a good idea.

Only a very few places did that, and those were major cities, so the idea got traction with some people, though not everyone by a long shot.

Don't take any of this to mean I am in any way saying anything bad about DA shooting, All I'm saying is I think its a poor idea to tell people they should get their guns converted to DA ONLY.

If you want a DAO gun, get one, there's plenty to choose from. Learn it, enjoy it, and be well.

[dahermit]

All I'm saying is I think its a poor idea to tell people they should get their guns converted to DA ONLY.

I reviewed the posts in this thread and did not see any post that told "...people they should get their guns converted to DA ONLY." Many gave opinions on why they did so or do not do so. Maybe I missed it.

[Master Blaster]

Pocket carried a 36 with the hammer spur for about 15 years. I put my thumb on the hammer when I drew the gun from the pocket holster and no snag.

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by Master Blaster

Pocket carried a 36 with the hammer spur for about 15 years. I put my thumb on the hammer when I drew the gun from the pocket holster and no snag.

Have you practiced putting your thumb on the hammer of the gun in your pocket after being knocked to the ground and being kicked repeatedly in the ribs? Do you think you need a hammer spur on a pocket-carried snub nose M36?

[Carmady]

Now we're getting somewhere.

[44 AMP]

I reviewed the posts in this thread and did not see any post that told "...people they should get their guns converted to DA ONLY." Many gave opinions on why they did so or do not do so. Maybe I missed it.

post #10

You need to (or should) take the hammer out to do it, so while you have it out, might as well take the SA notch with it. No need for it anyway. The best thing you can do with a DA revolver, is to learn to shoot it DAO anyway, so, no need for a SA notch.

I read that as a recommendation to convert the gun to DAO.

[AK103K]

All I was saying there was you might as well remove the SA notch while you were at it, as there was no longer a need for it.

Bobbing the hammer basically converts it anyway. For most who do it anyway.

It also takes away the safety risk of those who think they are going to try and thumb cock it for some silly reason. Hard enough to do at the range when youre not under any stress, and why would you anyway, you should be shooting, not fooling with the hammer.

Like the comment on trying to draw with your thumb on the hammer while rolling around on the ground, etc, just poor, inappropriate habits picked up at the range or at the keyboard, thinking that its in line with reality, when its not.

If you dont want to shoot DA, dont. No one is telling you you have to. If you want to learn to shoot a DA revolver properly, at least in a defensive/offensive capacity (ie "serious use"), then you want to learn to shoot DAO. Simple as that.

[44 AMP]

It also takes away the safety risk of those who think they are going to try and thumb cock it for some silly reason. Hard enough to do at the range when youre not under any stress, and why would you anyway, you should be shooting, not fooling with the hammer.

What safety risk would that be??

My "silly reason" would be for a more precise aimed shot. I'm sure others are better than I am at DA shooting, and constantly shoot DA. I don't. I do shoot DA some, but I shoot SA a lot more and with a lot of guns. I'm just more accurate that way.

This doesn't mean I'm going to shoot a DA gun SA in an emergency situation. When I want the most precise shot I can make, and its NOT a self defense situation, and that DA bellygun is what I'm carrying, I want to be able to use it SA, if that's what I choose to do. And even a bobbed hammer gun can be used that way, if the SA function is not removed.

You say "might as well take it out, its not needed" and I say, "might as well leave it alone, it doesn't hurt anything".
So, we disagree. On that.

[AK103K]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

What safety risk would that be??

My "silly reason" would be for a more precise aimed shot. I'm sure others are better than I am at DA shooting, and constantly shoot DA. I don't. I do shoot DA some, but I shoot SA a lot more and with a lot of guns. I'm just more accurate that way.

This doesn't mean I'm going to shoot a DA gun SA in an emergency situation. When I want the most precise shot I can make, and its NOT a self defense situation, and that DA bellygun is what I'm carrying, I want to be able to use it SA, if that's what I choose to do. And even a bobbed hammer gun can be used that way, if the SA function is not removed.

You say "might as well take it out, its not needed" and I say, "might as well leave it alone, it doesn't hurt anything".
So, we disagree. On that.

How are you planning on getting the hammer up to where you can reach/catch it?

The only way I know is to "pull the trigger", and that often results in the hammer falling unintentionally when you misjudge. And that's happening when youre not under any stress. Hows it going to work under stress, when your focus is on the threat and not the gun? But if you think youve got it covered, Ill take your word for it. I wouldnt do it, but then again, I dont see the point in doing it.

A "precise shot" doesnt come from the trigger, it comes from the sights. Youre sight alignment and where it is on the target is what gives you a hit on target when youre focused on doing that. My focus is on the sights, not what the trigger is doing, and I really dont even thnk about the trigger when I shoot. At least not consciously.

Once you learn to put your focus on the sights, things tend to tighten right up. If youre holding the alignment as you stroke the trigger, the rounds go where the sight are when the trigger breaks. Best of both worlds too, "somewhat" surprise break with sights aligned. The sights and the alignment dont move when the trigger is stroked either.

If I try to shoot for groups, my DA groups are almost always tighter than my SA groups. The reason is, my focus is on keeping the sights aligned, and I dont know when the shot will break. There is no anticipation of the gun going off, and no urge to force the shot.

With single action, especially with a light trigger, there is that tendency to want to shift your focus to the trigger and force the shot.

I think if you take the time to learn to shoot DAO, you will see an improvement in all your shooting, across the board, and with any gun you shoot. From what Ive seen and heard over the years, and I was there at one time myself too, the push back on doing that, comes from the SA shooters who dont believe its possible, and thats simply because they have convinced themselves they cant possibly shoot well in DA, and mainly because they never really tried.

Push yourself here, and I guarantee it will pay off. Or dont, your choice.

One thing about shooting is, there is never an end to learning and you never "get there". The only thing holding you back, is you.

[Steve in Allentown,]

To bob or not to bob, that is the question. It depends on your objective and if it's possible for a particular revolver to be 100% reliable with a bobbed hammer.

My objective was to reduce the gawdawful double action factory trigger pull on a S&W 625. If reducing the trigger pull dramatically is not your objective, then don't do what I'm about to describe.

This revolver is my wife's designated, go-to, repel-boarders, home defense cannon. Hence the need to substantially lighten the trigger pull.

One of the tricks to maintaining functional reliability is to drastically reduce the weight of the hammer so that it will rotate faster to insure primer ignition. So, I bobbed the hammer and hogged out the middle of the hammer. The result was a 100% reliable, double action only, home defense revolver with a smooth trigger pull somewhere around 5lbs that my wife actually enjoys shooting (because she doesn't have to police up the brass).

I have my doubts about being able to do what I did to a J-frame and I would counsel against it unless there are plenty of reports of it having been done successfully.

Here are a couple of links that may be of some interest.
http://www.brianenos.com/forums/inde...owtopic=155401
https://www.1911forum.com/threads/qu...hammer.374075/


Here's an "after" pic of the hammer and the revolver.

[Bill DeShivs]

I fail to see how reducing hammer weight could have more than a cursory effect on trigger pull.
Reducing hammer weight can reduce mass enough that primer ignition can suffer.

[Steve in Allentown,]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

I fail to see how reducing hammer weight could have more than a cursory effect on trigger pull. Reducing hammer weight can reduce mass enough that primer ignition can suffer.

In and of itself hammer weight will not reduce trigger pull. It's what that lighter weight allows you to do to the springs.

From https://www.1911forum.com/threads/qu...hammer.374075/

A lighter hammer allows for a lighter mainspring to achieve the same "smack" as a heavier hammer. A lighter mainspring allows for a lighter rebound spring to reset the trigger. All this adds up to a lighter trigger pull.

As for light primer hits, we all know about the infamous California drop test and how Springfield started using titanium firing pins along with crazy-heavy mainsprings (hammer springs). The mass of the Ti firing pins wasn't enough to reliably set off primers when using standard weight mainsprings. So, I generally agree with your observation. However, there is a large body of experience with K, L, and N frame S&Ws available for anyone who wants to take the time to do the research that supports what I've posted about reducing hammer weight to get a lighter trigger pull.

Also from the link above:

There is a critical point of diminishing return when lightening a hammer. I don't personally know what that point is but if you can get the original hammer down to about half of its original weight, you're in good shape.

I know this modification works very well with K, L, and N frame S&Ws. As I stated in a previous post above, I don't think it's possible to successfully modify a J-frame in this way. About all you can confidently do to a J-frame is drop in Wolff or Apex Tactical springs. I would not touch the hammers on these little gats.

An excellent source of information on all this is at the Brian Enos forum.

[Bill DeShivs]

"A lighter hammer allows for a lighter mainspring to achieve the same "smack" as a heavier hammer. A lighter mainspring allows for a lighter rebound spring to reset the trigger. All this adds up to a lighter trigger pull."

This is absurdly wrong.
Lightening the spring AND the hammer equals even less force to ignite the primer.

[Steve in Allentown,]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

This is absurdly wrong.

Your skepticism is warranted and I am not an engineer or mathematician so cannot provide the equations or proofs necessary to explain the experience of those who have trod this path before me.

All I can offer is my experience and a source of information that you can explore to find the answers to your questions.

As I said previously, "There is a critical point of diminishing return when lightening a hammer." I should amend this statement to say there is a critical point of diminishing return based upon the combination of hammer weight and spring strength. My own experience showed that given a specific hammer weight, the spring strength could not be below a certain amount otherwise the primer would not be struck with enough force to ignite it. Also, the amount of required force varied by primer manufacturer. Federal primers being "softer" allowed the lightest springs to be used while Remington primers being somewhat "harder" required heavier springs.

I think our disagreement revolves around my use of the word "smack" and how it relates to setting off a primer. Logically, a 10lb sledgehammer is going to hit a fly on the wall with more force than 6oz plastic hammer. But the fly will be dead either way. Also logically, the sledgehammer will not be moving as fast as the plastic hammer. The sledgehammer doesn't have to move as fast to crush the fly as the plastic hammer.

There must be point in the power curves of each hammer where mass x velocity intersect. I hope there's a mathematician/engineer here who can provide some insight.

[Bill DeShivs]

Yes, as long as the end result is a fired primer.

But again, let's drive that nail- using a 2 lb. hammer works just fine and moves the nail X amount on each hit.
Now, try driving the same nail X amount using a tack hammer. You can't get enough speed on the tack hammer to do the job.

[Steve in Allentown,]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

Yes, as long as the end result is a fired primer.

But again, let's drive that nail- using a 2 lb. hammer works just fine and moves the nail X amount on each hit.
Now, try driving the same nail X amount using a tack hammer. You can't get enough speed on the tack hammer to do the job.

The trick it seems is to find the combination of weight and speed that will get the job done reliably. I think that had I lightened the 625 hammer too much, there wouldn't have been a spring strong enough to make it move fast enough to pop a primer. The thing is I don't know where that line is. I do know that carving up the hammer reduced its weight to 269 grains and resulted in a delightfully light double action trigger pull that lights off every primer I've put through it including Wolf.

So, it's a balancing act between hammer weight and the hammer spring. The Goldilocks rule applies here. A hammer that's not too light and not too heavy. The challenge is having to depend on the experience of others to inform the decision on how much weight to remove.

I have to stress that my only hands-on experience with all of this is limited to two S&W N-frames and I do know S&W K/L-frames can be so modified but I do not know if it is possible with any other revolvers.

[Moenie]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

Based on #4 it sounds like you've had it done!

Any chance of a picture?
I must say I like they look, though.

Somehow says "take me seriously!"

Truthfully, the hammer on this one is not bobbed but replaced with a bobbed Apex hammer.

[Moenie]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

1. What are the lesser known disadvantages of bobbing the hammer?

Makes it difficult to spin the cylinder to be sure that there are no high primers, burred rims, etc. binding cylinder rotation.

Ok, I'm missing something here.

Can you spin the cylinder in an Astra while the cylinder is in the frame? None of my DA guns will allow that. I've never owned an Astra but I always thought they were S&W clones.

The only revolvers that will allow me to do that are my SAA single actions but then bobbing an SA hammer is really a bad idea anyway.

[Moenie]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

Reducing hammer weight can reduce mass enough that primer ignition can suffer.

The lighter hammer accelerates faster and therefore hits the primer/firing pin at a higher velocity. Given energy is velocity squared times mass, in theory the lighter hammer carries more energy assuming the mainspring weight remains the same.

How well the "theory" translated into practice I have no idea.

My understanding is that light hammers are preferred as they give faster lock times, not for reliability.

[lee n. field]

Originally Posted by Moenie

Ok, I'm missing something here.

Can you spin the cylinder in an Astra while the cylinder is in the frame? None of my DA guns will allow that. I've never owned an Astra but I always thought they were S&W clones.

The only revolvers that will allow me to do that are my SAA single actions but then bobbing an SA hammer is really a bad idea anyway.

What I have seen some people advocate is pulling the hammer back slightly, and turning the cylinder manually. This is to check to make sure you don't have high primers, that would bind the gun up.

(Seems to me you could accomplish the same end by pushing the cylinder latch, rolling the cylinder out slightly, to get it past the cylinder stop, and turning it. )

[lee n. field]

Originally Posted by Moenie

The lighter hammer accelerates faster and therefore hits the primer/firing pin at a higher velocity. Given energy is velocity squared times mass, in theory the lighter hammer carries more energy assuming the mainspring weight remains the same.

How well the "theory" translated into practice I have no idea.

My understanding is that light hammers are preferred as they give faster lock times, not for reliability.

Kel Tec small autos (and other company's copies) use a very small hammer. I've not read of any reliability problems on that account.

[Moenie]

Originally Posted by lee n. field

What I have seen some people advocate is pulling the hammer back slightly, and turning the cylinder manually. This is to check to make sure you don't have high primers, that would bind the gun up.

(Seems to me you could accomplish the same end by pushing the cylinder latch, rolling the cylinder out slightly, to get it past the cylinder stop, and turning it. )

Ah, ok. Got it.

I was thinking Astra's may have a half cock sear like you get on Colt SAA type revolvers that allows the cylinder to spin freely. I've never owned an Astra.

[44 AMP]

The lighter hammer accelerates faster and therefore hits the primer/firing pin at a higher velocity. Given energy is velocity squared times mass, in theory the lighter hammer carries more energy assuming the mainspring weight remains the same.

How well the "theory" translated into practice I have no idea.

Here's a point to consider, math is accurate, but can be misleading. The energy derived from the standard formula where velocity squared is used doesn't tell the entire story. We use it alot, because it is a number that can be calculated the same way over a wide range of very different things, and is useful for general comparisons (energy # to energy #) but not always useful for accurate comparison of actual effect of that energy.

For example, one can load a .22-250 and a .45-70 to exactly the same identical energy in ft/lbs. Which one would you choose for buffalo???

Another example is the door of a safe. Big heavy steel door with plenty of inertia. Slap the door with X ft/lbs of energy, see what happens, then push the door with exactly the same ft/lbs of energy.

the slap barely moves the door, the push gets it swinging closed...same amount of ft/lbs but different results due to factors OTHER than just ft/lbs of energy.

The lightened hammer, swinging faster MAY deliver the same amount of energy calculated on paper, but may NOT deliver the same results, due to other, real world factors.