45LCshooter
02-12-2004, 09:07 PM
I've noticed that some posters don't like the rebounding hammer on newer 94's. Is it simply because the half-cock position is eliminated or is there something else unsatisfactory about this sort of hammer? I only have the one lever gun and the only other exposed hammers I see on a regular basis are on my Blackhawks (no half-cock hammer position, either) and a SIG P220 (which you could describe as having a rebounding hammer, though I have not compared them to see if they operate similarly...).
Am I missing out on something? I agree that half-cocked is a good method for a loaded chamber (worked for my .303 Enfield: it locked the bolt up just like having the safety on, but seemed less likely to be brushed to the "off" position) but the function of the rebounding hammer reminds me of my SIG, and "Brother SIG" has been a reliable companion for quite a while. Of course, neither of these are lever action rifles, which brings me back to the question: is there something mechanically inferior in the rebounding hammer or is it largely a matter of shooter's preference?
Am I missing out on something? I agree that half-cocked is a good method for a loaded chamber (worked for my .303 Enfield: it locked the bolt up just like having the safety on, but seemed less likely to be brushed to the "off" position) but the function of the rebounding hammer reminds me of my SIG, and "Brother SIG" has been a reliable companion for quite a while. Of course, neither of these are lever action rifles, which brings me back to the question: is there something mechanically inferior in the rebounding hammer or is it largely a matter of shooter's preference?