Striker and hammer fired

[TunnelRat]

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.

Just like what unit in the military matters, so does what police department. Some police officers I know, more in special detachments, are pretty hard on their sidearms. Will they match some SOF guy round for round? No, but were we to take an average across the sidearms in inventory I think it might be closer than expected. My point is not to discount police use just because it isn't from the tan, green, or blue. But I think when it comes to adverse conditions that is likely different.

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.

I think the difference you might be seeing can be explained in a different way that shows that you're not losing barrel length, but gaining slide length. Were the striker assembly taking that much space over a hammer fired pistol, assuming slides of equal length, we'd see the ejection port and breechface forced forward, which would in turn limit the length of the barrel. But that assumption of equal slide length doesn't hold true. In fact on striker pistols the manufacturers often have the rear of the slide overhang the web of the hand more so than on hammer fired pistols, likely to fit in the striker assembly as you mentioned. The length of the slide forward of the ejection port relative to the barrel length is the same, it's rearward of the ejection port that changes. This would make the barrel seem shorter for a given slide, but you're not really "giving up" barrel length, you're just adding length to the slide in an area that really shouldn't matter. I don't see that as a disadvantage, but YMMV.

 

[tipoc]

I think the difference you might be seeing can be explained in a different way that shows that you're not losing barrel length, but gaining slide length. Were the striker assembly taking that much space over a hammer fired pistol, assuming slides of equal length, we'd see the ejection port and breechface forced forward, which would in turn limit the length of the barrel. But that assumption of equal slide length doesn't hold true. In fact on striker pistols the manufacturers often have the rear of the slide overhang the web of the hand more so than on hammer fired pistols, likely to fit in the striker assembly as you mentioned. The length of the slide forward of the ejection port relative to the barrel length is the same, it's rearward of the ejection port that changes. This would make the barrel seem shorter for a given slide, but you're not really "giving up" barrel length, you're just adding length to the slide in an area that really shouldn't matter. I don't see that as a disadvantage, but YMMV.

Well it's the same point I made just turned around. It is the area rearward of the ejection port that is longer in order to house the striker mechanism or action. This is especially true of Glocks but can also be seen in the S&W M&P and the XD. This may also be partially a design issue and vary from maker to maker by a small amount. But take note of it and see if it seems a common theme. I agree that it is mostly a non-issue and the reason I raised it at all was that most issues of "striker vs. hammer" are non issues in the bigger picture. The small loss of velocity (if there is any) makes no difference to an army procurement.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

The Luger doesn't have a hammer, visible or concealed. What else would you call it?

OK. I can agree. But, when I say that it's usually not thought of as a striker fired gun I think it's because the "striker vs. hammer" conundrum is of very recent make. I have a suspicion that "the issue" is a marketing tool.

Striker fired guns have been around for over a century but until the last few years there have been no yack about the superiority of one type of action over another until recently. It's not like the revolver vs. semi debate. There has, as far as I've read no talk about that specifically. I suspect some fellas in Glock marketing came up with it.

If there was a big issue Elmer Keith, Bill Jordan, Skeeter Skelton, Askins, Jeff Cooper would have been all over that theme and so would the modern gunwriters. But when they do mention it it's as a simply description of the action of a particular gun and not to portray one type as inherently better than the other. Until the last few years where some current trainers and professional scribes or YouTube commandos have tried to make it into an issue in order to promote certain guns.

If we compare a Sig P226 to a XD that one has a hammer and one a striker are not the only issue that a military contract would hang on.

tipoc

 

[Bart Noir]

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.

Some do not have any specialized cocking indicator, because the trigger itself is the indicator.

Pull the trigger on a unloaded Glock, and the trigger stays to the rear. Then rack the slide to cock the striker, and the trigger will be in the forward position.

And yes, I know that the whole definition of cocked or uncocked gets exciting when dealing with many of the striker-fired pistols. I have just ignored that semantics gunfight.

Bart Noir

 

[TunnelRat]

Well it's the same point I made just turned around. It is the area rearward of the ejection port that is longer in order to house the striker mechanism or action. This is especially true of Glocks but can also be seen in the S&W M&P and the XD. This may also be partially a design issue and vary from maker to maker by a small amount. But take note of it and see if it seems a common theme. I agree that it is mostly a non-issue and the reason I raised it at all was that most issues of "striker vs. hammer" are non issues in the bigger picture. The small loss of velocity (if there is any) makes no difference to an army procurement.

tipoc

There is no loss of velocity. As I said, the slide is longer not that the barrel is shorter. If you want a long barreled striker pistol they're easy to find from Glock, S&W, Springfield, Walther, etc. The slide being a bit longer in the rear doesn't prevent long barreled options.

 

[James K]

Striker firing has indeed been around a while. Browning's most successful commercial pistols were striker fired, including the FN 1900, 1906, 1910, and 1922, and the Colt 1908 Vest Pocket.

The idea that one or the other has significant superiority is simply a matter of claiming one's personal preference to be better because it is one's personal preference.

Jim

 

[Worc]

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.

Maybe we should start one if for nothing more than to remove any speculation and a fun fact. There's enough different models owned here collectively that a fairly extensive one be created quickly depending on participation. I'll start another post for fun and see where it goes.

 

[Quentin2]

And then you've got the Savage Model 1907 that has a cocking lever that looks like a hammer but isn't. It also could be called striker fired! Good thing Mr. Browning used a real hammer in the Colt Model 1911!

 

[tipoc]

Maybe we should start one if for nothing more than to remove any speculation and a fun fact. There's enough different models owned here collectively that a fairly extensive one be created quickly depending on participation. I'll start another post for fun and see where it goes.

It'll be entertaining. Make sure folks measure the oal of the slide compared to the length of the barrel. I believe the observation is only valid for polymer framed guns of recent manufacture, since the Glock. Though the H&K P7 and it's variants will be interesting.

tipoc

 

[Fjblair]

I own both and prefer hammer for no good reason.

 

[Worc]

It'll be entertaining. Make sure folks measure the oal of the slide compared to the length of the barrel. I believe the observation is only valid for polymer framed guns of recent manufacture, since the Glock. Though the H&K P7 and it's variants will be interesting.

Well here it is.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=561769
Looks to have the makings of a quick death. Why bother listing facts when conjecture and speculation are so much more fun.

 

[Prof Young]

Not to say that striker fired is bad but . . .

Not to say that striker fired in and of itself is bad. There are many striker fired pistols out there that do the job well.

My latest handgun purchase was a Beretta Nano. It is a striker fired gun and it is very finicky about about ammo. I've tried CCI and Remington primers in my reloads and it simply will not fire the CCI and does not fire the Rems about every third one. That on top of the FTE make this gun going up for sale and I'll find a new small gun for CC.

Live well, be safe.
Prof Young