Why no Spurless 1911 hammers?

Just sittin' & thinkin': Why aren't bullseye 1911 hammers bobbed?

As a revolver shooter in practical pistol competition, I've been a fan of (radically) bobbed hammers for a number of reasons. One of them is a bit of an accuracy gain due to less muzzle jar upon hammer strike (see vid below). Possibly from a faster lock time, too. Seems match 1911s could benefit from überlight hammers for the same reason. Am I missing something? Are they not legal in competition? Unless the spur is somehow considered a safety device, I haven't read anything in the rules to forbid it. One could shoot a DAO revolver in bullseye, no? 

It can be done, note the H. Reeves match, but I know of no advantage
Against the semi-auto.

One big reason against would be the 7-8# DA pull of a revolver v. The 2.5-4# SA pull of a 1911.

Jim Chapman

no rule against it, but if there was a benefit to accuracy you would see it done on many guns, you dont so i can guarantee you its been tried and abandoned.

http://www.cylinder-slide.com/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=prodshow&ref=CS0106

Better than spurless, it's a skeleton of a spurless hammer.

I know a lot of shooters like to hold the hammer back when dropping the slide. That is the only drawback that I can think of at the moment.

In the 60's & early 70's there were a few around that were lightened, a few quite radically, but as David said the procedure must not have improved the performance as they have all but disappeared.
Ron