Striker and hammer fired

A

ATN082268

New member
Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?
 
It seems to me that the striker fired handgun was born out of the need (or perceived need) for a duty handgun that did not require a cocked hammer for it's first shot -- or a long double action trigger pull. (which is then followed up with a short single action pull for all subsequent shots)

Striker fired handguns are well suited to a system where the pistol is NOT visibly cocked -- but a reasonably short trigger pull will fire the pistol and all shots have the same trigger pull with no transition from the first to second shot.

Whether that is significant--
seems to me to be a question for the person who carries it.
 
None that I can think of. A striker fired will be consistent on its trigger pull, which a DA won't(unless you cock the hammer first). I don't know if that qualifies.
 
Striker fired guns are simpler, more durable, and cheaper to produce. Hammer fired guns tend to hit the primer a little harder, which can be beneficial if you're using ammo with primers that are especially hard.
 
I guess it would be significant if the employing agency mandates one over the other for safety reasons.

Some departments mandate a longer and heavier trigger pull for safety reasons. The reasoning behind such is to 'help' prevent adrenalin induced or shock induced trigger pulls. (Shock meaning- jarring as a result of running, jumping, bumping into things).
 
Striker fired pistols are simpler and therefore cheaper to build.
They have been that way for over a hundred years, long before their simplicity and safety of operation were "discovered."
 
Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?
Click to expand...

"Striker vs. hammer" is one of those things that people get worked up about for not good reason. Also confused about.

IMHO & YMMV
 
Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?
NO
 
Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?
Click to expand...

Short answer - No.

It seems to me that the striker fired handgun was born out of the need (or perceived need) for a duty handgun that did not require a cocked hammer for it's first shot -- or a long double action trigger pull. (which is then followed up with a short single action pull for all subsequent shots)
Click to expand...

There are also striker-fired pistols that are DA/SA. The Walther P99AS and Canik TP9 come immediately to mind.

Striker fired handguns are well suited to a system where the pistol is NOT visibly cocked -- but a reasonably short trigger pull will fire the pistol and all shots have the same trigger pull with no transition from the first to second shot.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that there are a number of striker-fired pistols that do have an indicator to show that the pistol is visibly cocked.
 
Striker fired guns are simpler, more durable, and cheaper to produce.
Click to expand...

I would definitely agree they are typically cheaper assuming that the manufacturer had to pay for the design and it's not a situation of a clone (i.e. CZ75 pattern clones seem to be very cheap to produce and can be had for much less than say a Glock). I would also agree that striker fired pistols can be simpler, but something like a P-series HK or CZ P-07 is surprisingly simple and really has a limited number of parts. Still more I grant you, but I'm not sure how much of a difference you were implying.

What I don't think I can agree with is the more durable argument. Yes there are Glocks with 100,000+ rds, but there is also a known case of an HK USP in the same boat and the HK P30 ranks pretty high up there too.
 
I have heard and read the argument that hammer-fired pistols are safer to reholster because you can place a thumb on the hammer as you do so. The argument doesn't sway me much, but it is out there.
 
Striker fired handguns tend to have a lower bore axis and fit lower in the hand, reducing muzzle flip. They also don't need a long beaver tail frame to protect the hand from hammer bite, so they tend to be shorter and easier to conceal.

These and others already mentioned are important advantages - but like many others, I like a hammer if the pistol won't be concealed. And a well designed gun is a well designed gun, you can make either type work for you.
 
I believe a hammer fired pistol will be more tolerant/reliable with ill-fitting ammo. The ammo could be dinged or have headspace issues with a hammered pistol and still cycle properly. I have experienced many times over a period of years when using my ill-fitting reloads the hammer will hit/drive the slide home and still have enough energy to hit the firing pin with adequate force to fire the cartridge.

Granted all my hammer fired pistols have a conventional/OEM firing pin, steel, not titanium with a stronger firing pin spring. And I do not reduce the main spring/hammer spring force from stock. I might do some light polishing on contact surfaces but that’s about it.
 
I don't think there is any real advantage. To me it seems to be more of a preference and perception issue.
Proponents of striker fired handguns argue that the consistency of the trigger pull is an advantage, but I am not really sure about that. If you want consistent trigger pull from a hammer fired gun, cock the hammer. If you are in a situation where there is no time to do so, the adrenaline going through your system is likely going to make the longer stiffer trigger pull of the double action setting moot anyway.
As far as reliability and durability, There are plenty of examples of guns of both types that have thousands of rounds through them with no problems, and plenty of examples of both types that have crapped out way before that. My impression is that this is a maintenance issue. If you take care of of your guns, they will take care of you, regardless of whether they have strikers or hammers.
 
For defense/duty I like the typical striker fired trigger. It's less about the consistency than the weight and length of the pull. Not quite as long or heavy as a typical DA, but not quite as light or short as a typical SA.
I'm pretty sure they make hammer fired guns that do the same thing now, but what I have works, and my "fun guns" tend to be revolvers and rifles, so I haven't tried any of them out.

All that's just a matter of preference though.
If one were truly superior the other would have probably faded away.
 
I personally feel that hammer fired guns have a much nicer trigger. although I haven't owned a lot of strikers to compare, only glock, sd9ve and Taurus pt. so far as my experience goes, I haven't found a better trigger than a CZ sa
 
Waiting for the "if it's not a glock, it's junk." folks to eat this thread alive.

Everyone knows glocks are striker fired and that means they're the only pistol type anyone should be allowed to own.


I have both....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top