What's the general opinion here of rebounding versus non-rebounding hammers?
I assume you just have-to get used to bringing the gun back to half-cock before opening? From a hunting perspective, I suppose it does slow one down a skosh when needing to reload, but...really, aren't we're talking relative speed in a low to no-speed situation? From my clearly-unfamiliar perspective (my last hammer was rebounding), I see non-rebounding hammers in about the same light that I see a Jones underlever. Both work just fine, but both require time and familiarity to become proficient, eh? On a trap range I'd guess it's really a non-issue, but on a dove field, how much is one giving up in reloading time over a rebounding-hammer equipped gun?
Next question: do non-rebounding hammers cock more easily (from half-cock) than rebounding hammers? Are you giving anything up by going with the rebounding option?
I view re-bounding hammers as much safer. I may be mistaken, but non-rebounding hammers is much like an old Colt Single Action Army, if you carry a live round under the hammer you risk a sharp blow or dropping the gun causing the gun to fire.
Both rebounding and non rebounding are equally safe IF used properly. Both have a half cock notch the sear settles into. Only difference is the rebounder automatically moves into the safe position. The non rebounder has to be pulled into the half cock notch. These notches also serve as intercepting Sears—if the hammers accidentally fall from full cock without the trigger being pulled then the sear will stop the hammer fall as the sear slides into the half cock notch.
The rebounder is much more convenient since the hammer automatically retract, allowing the barrels to be opened. The non retractor requires the shooter to first manually put the gun on half cock before opening. Forgetting to do that can result in a broken firing pin.
The non rebounder I own is much easier to cock from half cock than a non rebounder. Just like how a compound bow works, the tumblers have cammed over at half cock and there is little resistance remaining in the mainspring.
Bottom line: non rebounders, invented by Stanton in 1868, are much more convenient and faster than non rebounders. But I find both attractive. The non rebounder just continues the same mechanics that had been in use for several hundred years. I think they are sexy.
