Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
concealed vs exposed hammer on pocket relover
Ok I know a concealed hammer on a pocket revolver is the better way to go. Does having an exposed hammer on a pocket revolver make that much of a difference if the revolver is carried in the pocket inside a pocket holster?
The deal with the covered hammers is they can be shot though your pocket without worry that they will get hung up while being shot from the pocket.
If you never plan to shoot from you pocket and exposed hammer is fine.
I say lets all remove the warning labels and let nature take its course.
Seems like a non-exposed hammer could potentially be easier to draw with no hammer to catch on clothing as well.
"There are no finger prints under water."
Exposed hammer can catch on clothing. For concealed carry, an internal hammer is much better. I have two M640 357M's and a M640 38SP, all great carry guns.
It is interesting that you only hear exposed vs hidden hammer discussions when talking revolvers, and not semi-autos. Well, at least I never hear anyone suggesting a striker fired semi-auto for carry over an exposed hammer.
"There are no finger prints under water."
you're missing the 3rd option- internal hammer fired on a semi-auto.. Kel-tec, for example.. not a big difference, but they CAN function slightly different..Originally Posted by Stuart
But I get where you're coming from.. we now return you to your regularly non-scheduled debate..
When was the last time you saw somebody even attempt to pocket carry a auto with an exposed hammer? There aren't very many that would fit in a pocket. The smaller 380s have hammers that are surrounded by the slide. You can't throw a 92 or a 1911 in your pocket very easily without drawing a little attention to yourself.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote