Hammer or not?

Hammerless design makes sense on a concealed carry piece. Very embarrassing to have the spur catch on clothing while drawing. For most recreational or sport shooting I prefer to have a hammer. Two favorite carry pieces are the Taurus 738 380 auto and the S&W M40 Centennial. Both lack external hammers.
 
Hammer or striker really makes no difference to me. Manual of arms does and I do avoid certain things the safety( if equipped) must be down to fire. I prefer on a duty size strong side weapon that there be some way of reholstering where a foreign object can't cause a ND, so my duty strikers all have safeties other than the one on the trigger.
Although I don't adhere to this with pocket guns.
 
I'm more about can I do the intended purpose or not. I view the trigger as a switch to make the bullet go. If I can pull that trigger and get to an appropriate group size for the gu, basically, I'm ok. Then there is the safety aspect. I need to be able to "get on" the trigger without moving it. I also need appropriate take up.

For example: my CCW Glock 23 has about 2.5 lbs pretty long take up and a 5 lb release. That is ok, but the release could be more crisp. Over travel could be a bit better, reduced sproing and it would be nice to have a thumb safety.

If it were hammer fired, it might be easier to make crisp, but who knows....they are all just a slightly different to get a piece of high potential energy metal released by sliding metal away from it. DA is more challenging because you have to put the energy into it and release it.

Hammer fired guns have better tolerance stack up usually, because all parts are in one frame. Striker fired guns always have striker to sear variation that will make one pull 5 lbs and the next 5.5!
 
One of my gun rules is that guns have hammers. That is just part of how they work

One of my exceptions to the gun rule is everyone should own and be familiar with at least one striker fired gun.
 
Hammer.

I don't favor safeties for personal defense, but I like the "safety" of riding the hammer into the holster and so it's DA/SA for me. Ensuring that you have a sure grip on the pistol will eliminate issues with the double action to single action transition IMO.

P226 40S&W EDC
 
I have seen a lot of machines fail in my life as a mechanic. Most of the time it's not a life or death matter - just inconvenient. I am a hammer guy. Lowering the hammer is a natural thing with a pistol. Revolvers, most of them, have a hammer so you can "decock" your gun safely. Striker fired guns require either unloading or the use of a decocking device to drop the hammer without firing a round. The decocking device adds to the number of parts that can fail and if the decocker fails it can discharge a round. The hammer can be dropped manually and safely every time. Yes, you can screw up and have the gun fire with a hammer too but you are in control of that. I would rather gamble on me than on any mechanical device where guns are concerned.
It's a bit like owning a car with that "self parking" feature. I don't want my car driving itself, I would rather do it myself.
That is why all my guns, with the exception of two auto-loading 22 rimfires, all my pistols have hammers.
 
I took a little mental inventory and was surprised to realize that almost half of my pistols are striker fired. I kind of prefer hammers, but from my buying habits I would say it is a weak preference - weaker than I thought a few moments ago.
 
I like exposed hammers on both revolvers and autoloaders.

Those are the guns I grew up and learned to shoot with, and the ones I'm still most comfortable with. I don't like shrouded hammer revolvers either. I just prefer to have SA/DA or SAO.
 
There are a few SA semi's I would own without hammers but very few and the ones I would have are very old. You couldn't give me a revolver without a hammer on it no matter how old it is. I don't like DAO and won't own one. I do own two DA revolvers with hammers and both are only fired SA but don't want any more and those were made in the 30's. I bought a Glock once just to see if I could learn to like it. I couldn't, I despised the thing from the get go.
 
The way I see it, if it DOESN'T have a hammer, it better have a safety.

And I mean a safety lever, button, (push or slide) one that stays in the position you set it, until YOU decide to change it. I will accept a decocking lever, although I do not understand WHY anyone would make a decocking "safety", but they do.

I believe that a safety, when placed "on", should prevent the gun from firing, when the hand is in the shooting grip and the trigger is deliberately pulled, as well as when it is not.

I own a couple dozen pistols, roughly evenly split between revolvers and semi autos, with a couple of single shots as well.

The only centerfire ones I own that are striker fired are my P.08 Lugers, and my Remington XP-100, and they both have safeties!
 
Either or for me, I buy guns based on how they look and how they fit my hand, other than my two inherited revolvers. Next on my list of guns to buy after I finish up two ARs is either a P226 or a 1911. Such a difficult decision.
 
I have hammer-fired and striker-fired pistols, both types are useful for their intended purposes so I really don't have a preference for one type vs. another.
 
Not sure where I fit as a young or old guy, probably young on this forum. '76 gen x. I prefer single action revolvers. Cap and ball, cap and ball guns converted to center fire, cartridge SA guns such as the Blackhawk. Those are what I like to shoot the most.
As far as carry pieces, DAO J frame 442 and striker fired M&P 45c. Have even carried a CX .22, hammer fired.
As long as the gun is safe to carry and goes bang when I squeeze the trigger, I'm adaptable.
Prefer to not have a safety on a carry piece, heavy trigger is OK, I can get used to it.
 
Last edited:
Until I got to thinking, I didn't realize how unbalanced by little collection has become. I recently sold 3 of my old guns to a friend and a brother. I am down to just 13. 5 or my 6 long guns are striker fired but 5 of my 7 handguns are hammer fired.

I don't have a preference of a hammer over a striker but there is just something special about a revolver, a 1911 and a lever action rifle.
 
I grew up on 1911s and revolvers. I like the safety of holstering my gun with my thumb on the hammer so I can feel if it moves.
Click to expand...
Me too. And until your post, I'd never given it a thought as to my buying habits. Looking through the safe, I've found a Glock, a Luger, and a S&W Bodyguard 380 are the only ones without a hammer...guess I like 'em. Heck, even my wife's Smith 637 has a hammer, and no, she nor I have ever had trouble with hangups in clothing, purses or pockets with it. Rod
 
If I have a da revolver, I prefer with a hammer. Just makes me feel more in control somehow. Unless you're talking about a really small pocket revolver, for me a revolver would mainly be for home defense/nightstand, so wouldn't require a hammerless one. Just up to the individual.
 
Just a quick mental count, seems I own around 2/1 exposed hammer to striker fired pistols. With a couple internal, or shielded DAO hammer fired.
It really doesn't matter to me in general range use. But for carry I prefer a "hammerless" design. Be it striker, or non-exposed hammer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top