Striker and hammer fired

Quentin2 said:
Striker fired handguns tend to have a lower bore axis and fit lower in the hand, reducing muzzle flip.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that this has less to do with the firing mechanism and more to do with the trigger mechanism. Most modern hammer-fired designs are DA/SA and therefore require more room for the trigger mechanism, and gunmakers have typically accommodated this design requirement by making the pistol taller.

As a counterexample, most .22 rimfire target pistols are SAO hammer-fired, and these pistols generally have really low bore axes. (For the uninitiated, most common models such as the Ruger Mk-series, Browning Buckmark, Colt Woodsman, High Standard Sport King, etc. are not striker-fired as they may appear - they have internal hammers.)

Low-bore-axis DA/SA hammer-fired pistols have been done - notably including the world's first DA/SA full-power military duty pistol, the Walther P38 - but they're not commonplace for reasons of manufacturing economy.
 
Striker fired have one less opening for debris to enter the action. There is no exposed hammer to break if the gun is dropped. It is impossible for clothing, or someones hand to get between the hammer and frame in very close contact shooting that would prevent the gun from firing. It is a simpler system less likely to fail.

I'd say for heavy duty use/abuse the striker fired guns are much more desirable for military or LE.

For nightstand use it probably doesn't matter. But in the real world, especially military use guns are often abused, dropped, survive helicopter crashes, and are picked up out of the mud and expected to work.
 
But in the real world, especially military use guns are often abused, dropped, survive helicopter crashes, and are picked up out of the mud and expected to work.
Click to expand...

Amazing them to think we've survived over 100 years in our current military with hammer fired guns...
 
I have both and they each have their advantages and disadvantages. Reliability and durability not being one of them as I put them as equals overall.

Bore axis height is only one of many aspects that affect muzzle flip/recoil. It could also be said that hammer guns tend to be heavier and that reduces muzzle flip/recoil. The reality is that weight is also but just one factor as well. No one factor will single handedly reduce muzzle flip/recoil. It's a cumulation of several that makes a particular model recoil/flip less for each individual.

Hammer DA/SA models don't normally need a beaver tail to eliminate hammer bite. My Sphinx SDP is a great example of a hammer gun that does not need the beaver tail that has one. They differ from 1911's that have the hammer recess into the beaver tail when cocked.
 
The biggest advantage of a striker-fired action, whether it is double action or single action, is consistency of trigger pull from shot to shot, something that is not safely attainable from most DA/SA designs. (I get a consistent trigger pull with my safety-equipped CZs by carrying them cocked & locked.)

Hammer-fired SAO and DAO designs offer consistent trigger pulls. SAOs with external hammers can scare people -- users and observers -- who aren't knowledgeable of the redundancy in safety systems usually built in. I think most hammer-fired DAO designs have long and heavy trigger pulls, a rather painful consistency. Physics pretty much guarantees poor precision when a 10-lb trigger pull is needed to shoot a 2-lb handgun, unless one is able and willing to buy lots of practice ammo and invest the time and effort to perfect a technique that can adapt to the design deficiency.

Interestingly, Detonics has an advanced design in their hammer-fired MTX, but plans to submit a similar but striker-fired STX in the Army's pending modular handgun bid. The reason -- to overcome the perception of danger posed by a combat pistol with an external hammer being appropriately carried cocked and locked.

In summary, the advantages are a real mechanical consistency and a false perception of enhanced safety.
 
Last edited:
lechiffre said:
the only advantage the striker has is that it eliminates the need for a main spring down the back of the grip frame.
Click to expand...
No, that's definitely not the only advantage. The other advantages (and downsides) have already been discussed in this thread.
 
You will find more hammer fired models with double strike capability, if that matters to you, and with DA/SA, you have the ability to change the trigger pull if you like, especially with a decocker.

Nothing wrong with striker fired, I own some of these as well and the concept of striker firing is not a recent development. It was been used in rifles probably long before it was made commercially successful in pistols.
 
It was been used in rifles probably long before it was made commercially successful in pistols.
Click to expand...

There's this common notion that striker fired pistols are "newer". The Borchardt pistol in 1893 was striker fired. Both mechanisms have been around for a significant amount of time.
 
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...

No. Not that anyone knows so far or that any military has acknowledged. There are differences in handling characteristics as many have mentioned here, but not so much in questions of durability or reliability.

Over the last century hammer fired guns have enjoyed a much wider dispersal in military service than striker fired guns. So the actual record is weighted in one direction. In another 20 years or so there may be evidence to show that one has a decided advantage over another in military service based on the "hammer vs. striker" comparison. But that characteristic may be less important than others (like cost per unit).

It might also be worth pointing out that guns in police service usually don't get what can be considered "heavy duty" use. The overwhelming majority are never fired off of a range. They may be carried a alot, dropped and bumped into things with, but they go into a locker or home at night and receive regular maintenance. The worst that usually happens is they are neglected.

Most of the differences that folks point to are more matters of training or of what characteristics some military is looking for at the time, than of the "striker vs. hammer " discussions.

For example if we look at the length of the slide vs. the length of the barrel of a hammer vs. a striker fired gun you give up 1/4" to 1/2" of barrel length when you move from a hammer fired gun to a striker (an exception being some Sigs). For guns with the same length slides, the guns with strikers generally have shorter barrels to accommodate the striker assembly. But this makes little to no difference in the actual world, nor to an army. The same is true of the da/sa transition issue.

tipoc
 
Thank you TunnelRat. I knew in the back of my mind that striker fired pistols must have been developed long ago. I also knew someone would know when. ;)
 
Theohazard said:
No, that's definitely not the only advantage. The other advantages (and downsides) have already been discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...
Consistency of trigger pull is not an advantage for all users. The heavier da pull is the advantage in da/sa guns for some people. I also don't think a hammer adds too much "complexity" to a striker. So there is weight for sure as an advantage of strikers. Would love to see an exploded view of a simple hammer gun versus a complex striker gun.
 
It might also be worth pointing out that guns in police service usually don't get what can be considered "heavy duty" use. The overwhelming majority are never fired off of a range. They may be carried a alot, dropped and bumped into things with, but they go into a locker or home at night and receive regular maintenance. The worst that usually happens is they are neglected.
Click to expand...

Is that really that different from the average M9? Sure there are some units out there beating on pistols, but they're few and far between. A lot of M9s see duty in the holsters of personnel performing guard duty on bases in CONUS and abroad. They've been in the inventory for a lot longer than your typical police pistol so they're much more used, but besides shooting for qualification their use is often limited. Yes we can find the very romantic Google image, but reality is that with carbines the standard issue now pistols are needed even less than before. We focus on them as civilians because that's what's convenient for most of us to carry.

For example if we look at the length of the slide vs. the length of the barrel of a hammer vs. a striker fired gun you give up 1/4" to 1/2" of barrel length when you move from a hammer fired gun to a striker (an exception being some Sigs). For guns with the same length slides, the guns with strikers generally have shorter barrels to accommodate the striker assembly. But this makes little to no difference in the actual world, nor to an army.
Click to expand...

This I really can't agree with. I've owned literally dozens of pistols from both categories. The barrel length has more to do with manufacturer choice than any design limitation. For instance my HK P-series pistols had notably shorter barrels than the S&W M&Ps of similar slide length. However that's just one comparison. We'd need a pretty exhaustive spreadsheet to really get out of anecdotal territory. The striker assembly occupies the same area as the firing pin channel on a hammer fired pistol with regards to the slide. The firing pin is built into the striker and both require a spring, the striker pistol to drive the striker forward and the hammer to return the firing pin to rest. Both typically have some sort of block to prevent the firing pin/striker from going forward accidentally. I don't see space as an issue.
 
Amazing how nearly everyone fell into the same trap. TunnelRat was the first to point it out.

The trap is thinking of modern designs and guns as the only ones, and making blanket statements based on current designs.

such as ..
Striker fired guns are simpler, more durable, and cheaper to produce.
Click to expand...

How about the LUGER????

No one can argue that this was perhaps the most common striker fired military handgun in use until the closing decades of the 20th century. (ok, they can argue, but they would be wrong...;))

And few would argue that they were more durable and cheaper to produce than non striker fired guns (including contemporary designs).

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that what is most commonly used today is all there is, or ever was. Take that into account when making blanket pronouncements, or some jerk like me might call you on it. :rolleyes:

I cannot think of a single handgun design that succeeded or failed only because it was, or was not striker fired. There simply is much, much more to it than that.
 
Tunnel Rat,

Most sidearms in police duty do not see the type of "heavy duty" use that the op was looking for or that others referred to earlier in this thread (regular exposure to mud, sand, heat, cold extreme conditions and use) and it's true that they generally don't. It's also true that neither do most military side arms. But some do and they are more likely to see "heavy duty" use and conditions on a battlefield as military sidearms then in the day to day policing over here. The op after all was looking to see if exposure to difficult circumstances made a difference in how one type of mechanism held up versus another in harsh conditions.

On the striker barrel length issue,

We'd need a pretty exhaustive spreadsheet to really get out of anecdotal territory.
Click to expand...

You can do as I've done and measure over the next year or two and see. You can also measure the length of striker assemblies and see that in general they require more space than do many firing pins simply because they have to do more, like pre-cock.

But as I said that also falls into the category of "so what?". Neither armies nor police forces select hand guns based on that criteria. Neither do they care all that much, so far, on hammer versus striker. Other criteria are usually more important.

The Luger's "toggle link" action has not been thought of as "striker fired" anywhere I've read. The Austrian Roth-Steyr pistols of the early 1900s might be better examples. There are others.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
The Luger's "toggle link" action has not been thought of as "striker fired" anywhere I've read
Click to expand...

I called it striker fired (post #35). The Luger doesn't have a hammer, visible or concealed. What else would you call it?

No, its not exactly the same kind of "striker fired" as a GLock. SO WHAT?
I've got .22s that are striker fired, as well. No, they don't get talked about when discussion is focused on defensive guns, either.

But they are all covered under the blanket pronouncements made here about "striker fired pistols are..."

I've got an XP-100 too. It is a "striker fired pistol". And, its a .22 caliber. Yet its neither a semi auto, nor a .22 rimfire. (I didn't bring it up earlier because its not a semi auto)

My point is, if you are going to talk about the pros and cons of the design features of certain guns, NAME THEM.
 
First shot is the same as the last with a Striker. Other than that, I suspect all other differences is about personal preferences and training. A quality pistol these days will take alot of torture and keep running.
 
If I told my HK P7 that it was worthless as it has a striker fired system it would just laugh at me !!! :D
3.5 lbs, smooth , clean break, consistant , reliable !! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top