Now that you've accepted I'm technically correct (the best kind of correct), are you going to keep being dismissive, or will you just give up and leave?

(since your not a biggie developer and have no idea how they function)...while it says it's not traditionally considered a hammer it still functions exactly like a hammer would just does so internally to reduce the moving parts so technically your wrong (interpretation being what it is) and to answer your other question...meh I will hang around.. This is better than having to clean my house ATM lol... BTW I'm just being am ass... This is a fun convo

Actually, that reasoning makes no sense. The Chiappa Rhino has MORE moving parts than a standard revolver with a fully functional hammer. The design of it requires a more convoluted system, whereas the standard revolver design hasn't really changed in nearly 150 years. A single-action revolver (which The Last Word seems to be), is actually a very simple design. And yes, I agree it's fun. Why do you think I've been sitting here replying to nearly everyone for the last 6 hours?

Hahahahaha... Awesome... I don't know why.. That was my quick wiki search.said they did it to lessen moving parts..I like the look of these guns but as a father of three there out of my price range.. Plus the fear of powder burn on my hand is no bueno