TargetTalk

I would appreciate information and opinions regarding differences between the Hammerli 150 and Hammerli 160/160 Special. I am quite familiar with the late version 150, and I know that there are probably more similarities than differences between the two models, but are the differences significant? And are the differences between the 160 and 160 Special at all significant?

TIA,
FredB

Aside from the obvious use of plastic, the two most significant differences are the adjustable grip angle and the adjustable length and orientation of the trigger shoe on the 160/162 pistols. Having owned a 160 and still own a 150, I would say that there were any other significant differences. The set trigger mechanisms are nearly identical, the falling block/striker parts are very similar, and the fit and finish are very similar. I sold the 160, because I had about 4 free pistols at the time. I was shooting a TO3-35, and kept the 150, because that was the pistol that helped me achieve NRA Collegiate All American- First Team. I like the 150, but the grip angle can be a bit much, especially if you like a "firmish" grip. I tend to agree that the 150 can be a bit unforgiving, but when you are nice to her, she will treat you like a king. I have yet to best the high free pistol score I shot with my 150.

I hope that helps,

toznerd

The leverage on the cocking lever is much improved with the 160. Much less effort is required to cock the 160. By comparison, the 150 seems to require an effort which really feels near the tensile strength of the involved parts, at least when a fresh firing pin spring (much needed to prevent misfires!) is being used. The 160 also enjoys a greater flexibility regarding trigger position and rotation, and grip angle. The 150 offers no trigger rotation or variable grip angle. The firing pin tip design is also different with the 150 having a round nose profile and the 160 more of a blade profile. Ignition seems much more positive with the 160. The 160 differs also in the use of a sideplate on the frame to access internal parts. At first I was concerned about the potential effect this may have on frame stiffness but time has proven this to be a non-issue. Larry Carter tells me he once converted 160 to 22 magnum for a customer with gratifying results.
Both pistols display beautiful workmanship free of tool marks, etc. The design of both is very similar. Yet the aesthetic is strikingly different due to materials, manufacturing techniques. Spare parts are available for both, but are a bit more plentiful, yet more expensive, for the 160. They are both wonderful.
The 160 can easily be converted to a special and vice versa. In the first case, just remove the two screws holding the forend and trigger guard and those two parts just pull off. You need a special spacer block to refit the trigger guard in the absence of the forend. After that, just add the weight system that clamps to the barrel, and maybe the optional muzzlebrake. These few parts will probably be pretty expensive.

Many thanks to toznerd, 6string and mrlo87n (PM) for your informative answers. You have collectively given me an education on the mechanical differences between the 2 models.

Now I wonder about the ergonomic and shooting consequences of these differences. Do the two feel about the same to shoot? Is the 160/160 Special noticeably lighter than the 150, which feels pretty heavy to me? How about balance and stability in the hand? Trigger feel? Anything else?

Once again, TIA,
FredB