external hammer vs internal
- Thread starter Shakgul
- Start date
I don't think an external hammer gives any better reliability, but it may give better utility.
\
A consistant trigger pull can enhance accuracy; especially a SA trigger pull.
But other than that, it's mostly a matter of preference. I'm like you in that I like an external hammer. I like them on a revolver, and I like them on a semi-auto, and actually prefer a SA semi-auto like the Hi-Power or 1911.
Daryl
\
A consistant trigger pull can enhance accuracy; especially a SA trigger pull.
But other than that, it's mostly a matter of preference. I'm like you in that I like an external hammer. I like them on a revolver, and I like them on a semi-auto, and actually prefer a SA semi-auto like the Hi-Power or 1911.
Daryl
carguychris
New member
Are you talking about guns with a true internal hammer (e.g. S&W Model 40 revolver, Remington Model 51 automatic) or striker-fired semi-automatics (e.g. Glocks, S&W M&P)?
carguychris
New member
The advantages of striker-fired pistols are generally simpler operation, a reduced number of parts, and fewer protrusions on the exterior of the gun. Generally, the two most significant simplifications are a lack of external safeties, and a trigger pull that is the same for every shot. This makes the gun simpler to use, particularly for someone with little or no shooting experience, and is one of the major reasons for the widespread adoption of these pistols by law enforcement.
The advantage of hammer-equipped pistols is that most have external safeties and/or a heavy double-action first-round trigger pull, making the pistol more difficult to operate by unauthorized users. (In addition, some hammer-equipped pistols are double-action only or DAO, and have a heavy trigger pull for every shot, similar to a double-action revolver that is not hand-cocked.) In addition, many (albeit not all) hammer-equipped DA automatics have second-strike capability, i.e. the hammer will lift and hit an unfired round again if the shooter pulls the trigger a second time. Striker-fired pistols categorically cannot do this. Also, when firing in single-action mode, most hammer-equipped pistols have a much shorter, lighter, and crisper trigger pull than a striker-fired gun, which feels more refined and makes them easier to shoot with a high degree of accuracy.
AFAIK all modern striker-fired designs have polymer frames, which have the added advantage of being lighter and absorbing more recoil than a metal frame, and these pistols generally have a low bore axis for better recoil control. However, some new hammer-equipped DA/SA designs have emerged with a polymer frame and/or a lower bore axis, so this is not a universal advantage of striker-fired pistols any longer.
IMHO it's important to note that some of the advantages of striker-fired pistols- i.e. simple controls, no safeties, uniform trigger pull- are shared with traditional double-action revolvers (assuming the shooter does not manually cock the hammer for single-action fire). DA revolvers also have an additional advantage since the cylinder advances every time the trigger is pulled; this gives them second-strike capability on a fresh round without having to manually operate the slide to eject a dud. However, DA revolvers have a number of disadvantages- lower capacity of typically 5-8 rounds, typically slower reloading, a high bore axis, and generally sharper recoil.
The advantage of hammer-equipped pistols is that most have external safeties and/or a heavy double-action first-round trigger pull, making the pistol more difficult to operate by unauthorized users. (In addition, some hammer-equipped pistols are double-action only or DAO, and have a heavy trigger pull for every shot, similar to a double-action revolver that is not hand-cocked.) In addition, many (albeit not all) hammer-equipped DA automatics have second-strike capability, i.e. the hammer will lift and hit an unfired round again if the shooter pulls the trigger a second time. Striker-fired pistols categorically cannot do this. Also, when firing in single-action mode, most hammer-equipped pistols have a much shorter, lighter, and crisper trigger pull than a striker-fired gun, which feels more refined and makes them easier to shoot with a high degree of accuracy.
AFAIK all modern striker-fired designs have polymer frames, which have the added advantage of being lighter and absorbing more recoil than a metal frame, and these pistols generally have a low bore axis for better recoil control. However, some new hammer-equipped DA/SA designs have emerged with a polymer frame and/or a lower bore axis, so this is not a universal advantage of striker-fired pistols any longer.
IMHO it's important to note that some of the advantages of striker-fired pistols- i.e. simple controls, no safeties, uniform trigger pull- are shared with traditional double-action revolvers (assuming the shooter does not manually cock the hammer for single-action fire). DA revolvers also have an additional advantage since the cylinder advances every time the trigger is pulled; this gives them second-strike capability on a fresh round without having to manually operate the slide to eject a dud. However, DA revolvers have a number of disadvantages- lower capacity of typically 5-8 rounds, typically slower reloading, a high bore axis, and generally sharper recoil.
Nice post carguychris. The only thing I'd add is that double-strike capability shouldn't be necessary, and could even be considered a negative, as it may tempt you not to train to clear malfunctions. Being able to execute a fast tap rack bang, without "analysis paralysis" is important. Assuming you can just hit the primer again to get moving again is a bad habit to develop; chances are if it didn't go bang the first time, it won't the second time either.
For this reason, I don't consider second strike capability when choosing. I agree there is something sexy about the external hammer, for me probably that I've seen so many dramatic movie moments where the hammer is back and the good guy/bad guy has his finger on the trigger. You just don't get that suspense with a Glock.
That said, my primary defensive gun is striker-fired, and my fun/safe queen/range guns are hammer
And everyone should have a few inert rounds to practice malfunction clearing during their range trips.
For this reason, I don't consider second strike capability when choosing. I agree there is something sexy about the external hammer, for me probably that I've seen so many dramatic movie moments where the hammer is back and the good guy/bad guy has his finger on the trigger. You just don't get that suspense with a Glock.
That said, my primary defensive gun is striker-fired, and my fun/safe queen/range guns are hammer
And everyone should have a few inert rounds to practice malfunction clearing during their range trips.peacefulgary
New member
An external hammer sexy???
I just don't get that.
In my opinion, there's nothing "sexy" about the hammer of a handgun.
The very notion sounds weird.
I just don't get that.
In my opinion, there's nothing "sexy" about the hammer of a handgun.
The very notion sounds weird.
The only problem I have with most striker fired guns is that the trigger is never as good as a gun with a hammer. There really is no good reason for this, except most striker fired guns are based on the Glock design. This means that the trigger actually has to move the striker back a tad on each pull - as opposed to simply releasing the striker (e.g. Jennings J-22).
Does anyone even make a good quality true S/A striker fired gun?
Does anyone even make a good quality true S/A striker fired gun?
Walther makes really nice strikers, I don't know if they are technically single action though. But I think you get safety issues then, the partially-charged striker offers a degree of safety vs. having a 100% charged striker. While the striker I choose to carry does have a manual safety (Ruger SR9c), as someone pointed out, most don't. That's a really light trigger that doesn't need to go very far to create a ND.
Last edited:
Some of Both.....
I have some Ruger Vaqueros, single action revolvers. Of course, I only fire them Single action. I have a few Ruger double action revolvers with hammers. I practice double action, with them and I fire them double action. And I only cock them on occasion.
I have a couple 1911's, and they are single action semiautos.So......
I also have a couple hammerless double action, Ruger LCR's. I carry one every day. I love the trigger on them. It's smooth & easy.
The thing is......everyone has preferences. It's not about right or wrong....
It's just whatever you like.
I have some Ruger Vaqueros, single action revolvers. Of course, I only fire them Single action. I have a few Ruger double action revolvers with hammers. I practice double action, with them and I fire them double action. And I only cock them on occasion.
I have a couple 1911's, and they are single action semiautos.So......
I also have a couple hammerless double action, Ruger LCR's. I carry one every day. I love the trigger on them. It's smooth & easy.
The thing is......everyone has preferences. It's not about right or wrong....
It's just whatever you like.
aarondhgraham
New member
Im with bikerbill,,,
I don't like the idea of giving up the option of cocking the hammer for single action shots.
To my way of thinking,,,
A DA/SA with a decocker is the ideal semi-auto.
Aarond
.
I don't like the idea of giving up the option of cocking the hammer for single action shots.
To my way of thinking,,,
A DA/SA with a decocker is the ideal semi-auto.
Aarond
.
RobertSB701
New member
Exposed Hammer
On semi-autos I have a CZSP01 Tactical and FNP-45 w/ exposed hammers. I feel they give me more options. I keep the FNP-45 bedside loaded w/ HST's. I keep mag full w/ 1 in the chamber. I then de-cock gun. I like the perceived added safety with the heavier initial trigger pull. I train accordingly. I never was a fan of external safeties. Back to the hammer issue, I like having the option of cocking the hammer if I so choose. Shoot it double-action or single. Best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned
On semi-autos I have a CZSP01 Tactical and FNP-45 w/ exposed hammers. I feel they give me more options. I keep the FNP-45 bedside loaded w/ HST's. I keep mag full w/ 1 in the chamber. I then de-cock gun. I like the perceived added safety with the heavier initial trigger pull. I train accordingly. I never was a fan of external safeties. Back to the hammer issue, I like having the option of cocking the hammer if I so choose. Shoot it double-action or single. Best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned
gnarSKYLER
New member
I had never used a pistol with an external hammer before my px4. I had only ever shot xds and a few glocks, but now that I have a pistol with an external hammer, I never want to own a striker fired pistol.