For looks...round.
For function...spur.

 

"Updated" rowel (round).

 

I used to lean more to the round, but now I appreciate both and don't necessarily have a preference one way or the other. Thankfully, I'm one who doesn't get bitten by either one, so there's no functional preference.

 

C&S no bite.

Both factory hammers get me everytime; and I don't have especially big hands.

Bad thing about the no bite is it makes the pistol fairly tough to cock with the 32 lb. mainspring.

 

I started out liking the factory rowel better of the two factory offerings. I started using the spur more often as I acquired newer hi powers and placed that older rowel equipped model in a different sort of lay away. I do not think the spur less than pleasing to the eye at all. I have now come to think the factory rowel has entirely too much mass and the appearance is not proportional to the rest of the gun to my eye. I like the c and s type one the best for looks but the spur makes dry fire without slide manipulation much easier. Dry fire is the only need I see for hammer manipulation other than making the first round charging of a forty cal easier. I fully intend to try a devel style modified hammer but do not suspect I will be using that one for dry fire.

 

HP just doesn't look right to me without the spur. Don't have a problem with hammer bite so no reason to change.

 

I like the rowel. I replaced the spur hammer with a round one on this 1989 forged-frame MK III.
Bob

 

I like the rowel hammer. I personally just do not like the looks of a spur hammer on anything but a revolver.
As noted above, the C&S offerings are big improvements on the OEM versions, as far as hammer bite/chew goes. They look better than OEM too, I think.

If you are one of those people who still get bit regardless, the C&S SFS kit will totally eliminate hammer bite/chew.

 

Round please..

 

Round, spur bites me.

 

Like the Rowel and the spur wears out garments and gets snagged on the draw. For defense the Rowel.

 

No preference really, the only other advantage to the spur that hasn't been mentioned that in a crisis situation it can substituted as a bottle opener.

 

I've only ever used the spur, and would like it to be one serration shorter, with the sharp edges rounded off. I keep thinking I'm going to do just that, but haven't got around to it, yet.

 

Both HATE ME!! The Spur bites and the Rowl pinches. I have a permanent scar on my shooting hand from both types, i will take it to my grave ........along with my Hi Powers.

So it's tiny, i'm just sayn'

 

HELP!!! Does anybody know the number for 911???

 

I like to see people who "tough out" a little hammer bite. Be a MAN like Charles68! Whining is for weenies!

 

Rowel. Pain sharpens the senses!

Tr

 

No preference as I grew up shooting both styles.

 

I own both types of hammers, but to my eyes, the rowel type is the best. I have changed out a couple of spur hammers to the rowel type because of it. My 75th Anniv. model still has the spur hammer, and I don't plan to change it out.

 

Round. Guns like me, they know I will treat them well so they don't bite me.

 

Spur and a little blood is fine. Anything that does not kill you makes your stronger.

Of course I am ten feet tall and bulletproof now

 

I have both but each gun has a fitted beaver tail. Both are functional.

 

Spur for me, like the way it looks. The round hammers bug me.

 

Ring. Just the way JMB and Saive intended.

 

For BHP my preference as far as esthetics go:

Favorite overall is C&S round no bite

As far as factory goes I prefer the spur. Slightly bobbed spur is even better.

The factory round hammer looks okay and looks right on the old classics but the ring is set back so far it looks odd to my eye.

 

I've owned HPs with both styles, and agree with those who've mentioned not liking the proportions of the OEM rowel hammers. All the HPs I currently own are Israeli trade-ins from Coles, and all have (or had) spur hammers, and I like the appearance of these hammers better than the OEM rowels.

Both styles used to bite the web of the shooting hand for me, so I bought a C&S no-bite hammer, and simply copied the profile of its backside while doing trigger jobs on OEM spur hammers. I also like to shorten the spur by one or two serrations - the Mk II I did for myself has its OEM spur hammer done this way, and is nigh-on to perfect for me.

As far as Commander-style rowel hammers go, the proportions of Chuck Warner's is my favorite. Got several sets of his sear/hammer/fp stop kit, and am in the process of fitting one to a cast frame Mk III. Am anxious to see what sort of break I get with his parts...