Striker designs

T

tranders

New member
I was wondering do all the striker fired pistols on the market use the same basic design for the fire control system? Are there any real advantage or disadvantage to one manufactures design compared to others?

I have owned multiple Glocks in the past and now have a XD and looking to get a M&P in the near future.

Thanks!
 
There are some differences. There are precocked strikers that tend to have very good trigger pulls and some need to be dry fired for take down while others don't.
 
Striker mechanisms are as versatile as hammer mechanisms.

There are DA/SA strikers, DAO strikers, all kinds of half cocked pretensioned strikers, and SAO strikers.

There are all kinds of tradeoffs, but it basically comes down to personal preference.
 
Strikers are similar but different... They have to avoid patent infringing designs.

There will be some similarities, but the differences will affect how a trigger feels and functions...

There are a few types of mechanisms... Partial tension (half cocked) strikers, fully cocked strikers, DA/SA strikers... The biggest similarities exist within the mechanism types. IE... Fully cocked designs will essentially all operate on a rotating/dropping sear principle.


An XD has a trigger bar that connects directly with the sear. Pulling the trigger pulls the trigger bar forward, which rotates the sear to release the striker... The striker is fully cocked to the rear, when at rest, ready to fire. When you look at the design, the reason for the grip safety is obvious, it directly interfaces with the sear to prevent unwanted movement.

The M&P (original), uses a rotating sear, but it is not directly connected to the trigger bar. The trigger bar has a piece that is folded over and bent into a curved shape. It is often called the "candy cane" because it looks like one laying on its side. The long tail of the candy cane acts like a ramp.

The striker on an M&P is also fully cocked when at rest, ready to fire... Pulling the trigger, pushes the trigger bar to the rear, the "candy cane" ramp, interfaces with a camming surface on the sear. The sear is rotated as the cam surface is pushed upwards by the ramp. This releases the striker.

The new 2.0 M&P does away with the candy cane... As it introduced some flex and mushiness to the trigger system, combined with the thin hinged trigger design, many felt the M&P trigger a bit mushy and ill defined.

The new 2.0 has the trigger bar push a lever, which rotates the sear... I have felt one, and it is a big improvement over the original.


Now the glock striker design is different...

The Glock is a partial tension striker design. I believe when at rest and ready to fire, the striker is only cocked about 60% of its full rearward travel. This means that the glock mechanism can not simply rotate a sear to release the striker... It must also pull the striker back to its full rearward point before releasing it.

The trigger bar is also the sear in a glock... The sear portion is called the "cruciform", due to its cross shape... When at rest, the striker is resting against the rear of the cruciform. As you pull the trigger, the trigger bar moves rearward. The striker is pulled back as the trigger bar moves to the rear. The trigger bar has a curved cam surface, and as the trigger bar gets to the end of its rearward travel, the cam surface interacts with the "connector" which has a ramped surface that pushes the trigger bar down as it moves to the rear. Once the trigger bar moves downward far enough, the striker is released.


Other pistols do these basic things in different ways... The FNS is partial tension, but the mechanism is a good bit different than a glock.

The PPQ has an odd dropping sear that relies on tension from the cocked striker to work...

And other variations on the theme.
 
I know XD's and Glocks a bit. A Glock trigger bar moves up and back to release the striker safety and to engage the striker. Then it cocks the striker until the trigger bar/cruciform is forced down by the connector to release the striker. Talking only about the trigger bits, the Glock is a rougher less fit trigger than an XD that overcomes it's cheaper design with added spring force to help release the sear. The Glock has lots of roughness on the sliding surfaces, but it also has a spring pulling with your finger. Smoothing and fitting these sliding surfaces can make a pretty good trigger, until you reach the limits of its geometry and tolerances. The striker I'd a bit loose in it's channel, so it creates a bit of creep when the cruciform tries to break free of it.


The XD is a fine trigger. A trigger which moves straight back to push the FP Block up and then engage a rotating sear which rotates off the striker to release it. Since it rotates off, the striker is fully cocked.

Both systems have one key failure....excessive vertical play between slide and frame cause designers to have a lot of sear to striker engagement which causes the trigger pull to always have a lot of creep.

The fix is to look at how bolt actions handle this issue and attempt to replicate.
 
I was wondering do all the striker fired pistols on the market use the same basic design for the fire control system? Are there any real advantage or disadvantage to one manufactures design compared to others?

I have owned multiple Glocks in the past and now have a XD and looking to get a M&P in the near future.
Click to expand...

OK, not sure what you mean here, by different "fire control system".

I have gun that you say you're familiar with, a Glock and multiple XD guns. I've had them for a while. Internally they are quite different. So I'm wondering what you mean by "the same basic design for the fire control system."
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that I like the look and feel of having a hammer. But, I recognize that anything that can be done with a hammer-fired pistol can be replicated by a striker fired system. And, the striker is all internal making for a sleeker design.
 
Yes. 1910 Brownings, etc. People seem to think striker-fired pistols are a new thing.
While some of the modified striker designs are relatively new, the basic design is over a century old.
 
To add....Ruger follows Glock....Not sure who FN and some others follow.

At the end of the day, good trigger actions are the result of close tolerance parts, short trigger bars, part hardness, part rigidity and part hardness.

Did you have a specific question?
 
Glocks are DAO. The striker is partially cocked when the action cycles but not enough to detonate a primer. Pulling the trigger finishes cocking the gun then releases the sear. The M&P and most others work similarly.

The XD is true SA. The striker is fully cocked and pulling the trigger releases the sear firing the gun. This is a huge reason why you almost never see an XD used by LE except when used by departments that allow officers to carry and use personal weapons.
 
FWIW, Gaston Glock reportedly studied the Roth-Steyr when designing his pistol, so the resemblance is not coincidental.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top