Striker-fired,,,…safest?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OneFreeTexan

New member
In the recent issue of American Rifleman,John Treakle, states the ‘glock’ system of striker is safer because the striker is only partially held, or loaded as he puts it.lHe claims that fully spring loaded strikers are inherently more dangerous, and liable for accidental discharge. He glosses over the fact that often a fully loaded striker has a lower trigger pull. He claims wil the partially loaded striker the trigger movement is comparable to that of a double action revolver.

Is a fully loaded striker that dangerous??
 
unsafe? no more so than a 1911.

Glock my be the safest though imho. The trigger bar has a tab sticking out near the sear. As the trigger is pulled back cocking the striker, the tab moves into the unlocked position allowing it and the sear to be dropped. the sear cannot drop to release the firing pin until it has almost fully loaded the striker. this is the 3 safety built into the system, along with the trigger and firing pin block.
 
Aquila Blanca said:
If Glocks are so super-safe, why are there more accidental [negligent] discharges with Glocks than pretty much all other makes combined?
Click to expand...

Might have something to do with the sheer number of them in circulation as opposed to many other makes and models. Also, besides anecdotes, is there a database of all negligent discharges by make and models of which I am unaware?
 
To my knowledge the Springfield XD series are the only striker fired guns that are fully cocked and are technically Single Action pistols with no safety. Every other manufacturer (to my knowledge) uses the same partially cocked system as Glock. Which are technically classified as Double Action Only. There are some newer pistols out there and there could well be something I'm not aware of.

Some pistols, Glock for example, have heavier trigger pulls than some others. But most of the others are still only partially cocked.

If Glocks are so super-safe, why are there more accidental [negligent] discharges with Glocks than pretty much all other makes combined?
Click to expand...

Because Glock sells more to LE than all other makes combined. And are probably the best seller to non-LE as well. I've never seen any hard data showing they are involved in any more AD's proportional to their market share than any other guns. But I read that on the internet a lot.

That said, I still like a gun with a 1911 style safety. I don't care for the backwards type safety on many DA/SA pistols. And there are a lot of striker fired guns now coming with that option.
 
OneFreeTexan said:
In the recent issue of American Rifleman,John Treakle, states the ‘glock’ system of striker is safer because the striker is only partially held, or loaded as he puts it.lHe claims that fully spring loaded strikers are inherently more dangerous, and liable for accidental discharge. He glosses over the fact that often a fully loaded striker has a lower trigger pull. He claims wil the partially loaded striker the trigger movement is comparable to that of a double action revolver.

Is a fully loaded striker that dangerous??
Click to expand...

There are a few elements of safety as far as I'm concerned. There's the mechanical safety; in my definition that is how likely it is for the design to fail and for that failure to result in a discharge. There's also safety as it relates to the user interface; in my definition that is how likely is it for a user to inadvertently/negligently discharge the firearm. It's not clear for me in your summary of the article which form of safety you mean as "accidental discharge" could match either of those definitions, depending on whom you ask.

jmr40 said:
To my knowledge the Springfield XD series are the only striker fired guns that are fully cocked and are technically Single Action pistols with no safety. Every other manufacturer (to my knowledge) uses the same partially cocked system as Glock. Which are technically classified as Double Action Only. There are some newer pistols out there and there could well be something I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge the Walther PPQ/PDP, SIG P320, HK VP9, Beretta APX, and the more recent Canik TP9SF/SFx series have fully cocked strikers. The CZ P10 and FN 509 series appear to have partially cocked strikers. It's not overly easy to find this information, however.
 
Glocks have enough stored energy, at rest, to fire most of the time. Other striker guns are, for all practical purposes, fully cocked. That’s how they are getting 1911 trigger weights on them.

Until Glock came up with the phrase “safe action” it was considered imprudent to carry a gun, with enough stored energy to fire, without an off switch.
 
Last edited:
Gun mags. My gosh. Just talk talk talk talk talk.

A sear has more to do with a mechanical failure...which is what you're saying he's alluding to. A firing pin block (or safety block in the P320) is what rules them all.

A Glock at 68% charged or a 100% charged PPQ, VP9, P99, etc are all going to do the same thing when the trigger is pulled which is cause the firing pin block to move.

So here is where he gets it totally wrong. The difference of travel and weight is very great in single action between the P320, PPQ, P99, and VP9. Glock falls within those single actions guns for weight and pull. So there is absolutely nothing special about them.

So mechanically the sear and firing pin block keep them safe but the Glock trigger falls within other Single Actions. So his point is junk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=299&v=2KykjaykRlc&feature=emb_logo
 
JMR40 said:
To my knowledge the Springfield XD series are the only striker fired guns that are fully cocked and are technically Single Action pistols with no safety. Every other manufacturer (to my knowledge) uses the same partially cocked system as Glock. Which are technically classified as Double Action Only.
Click to expand...
What recognized industry standards body or organization "technically" classifies Glocks as double-action only? I know of none. My recollection is that when Glock first hit the market, the practical shooting organizations (IDPA and IPSC) couldn't figure out what they were and, after a lengthy back-and-forth, Glock finally convinced those bodies to allow them to fall into classes/divisions open to double-action firearms. I don't believe Glock has ever referred to their pistols as either single-action or double-action. Glock refers to them as "safe action," which is a made-up term that conveys no useful information (other than confirming that they are not double action) And, of course, they are also not inherently or intrinsically safe.
 
Not so: S&W M&Ps are fully cooked and, therefore, single action (albeit with a lengthy pull from full release). Same is true of any striker fired pistol that uses a search that rotates over a pin.
 
If I were to carry a SFP, it would be one with a manual safety like the Sig M17-18 series. I see no need though, my Sig 228 does quite well in that capacity.

Bill
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Glock refers to them as "safe action," which is a made-up term that conveys no useful information (other than confirming that they are not double action) And, of course, they are also not inherently or intrinsically safe.
Click to expand...


It makes sense to me to use a new term to describe a system that you yourself seem to admit falls into neither true double action nor true single action. As for conveying no information, Glock explains the system on their website:

https://us.glock.com/en/learn/glock-pistols/safe-action-system

As for not being inherently or intrinsically safe, in terms of not discharging if the trigger isn’t pressed to the rear, the system does as advertised. There are some designs that are not as tolerant of events such as a drop when it comes to unintended discharges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If you don't chamber a round until you're ready to shoot, the issue goes away...

And yes, it would add a second or two to your response time in a self-defense situation. Good situational awareness, however, wil generally more than compensate...
 
WmMunny said:
If you don't chamber a round until you're ready to shoot, the issue goes away...

And yes, it would add a second or two to your response time in a self-defense situation. Good situational awareness, however, wil generally more than compensate...
Click to expand...


If I don’t feel safe carrying a design with a round chambered, I would personally pick a different design. You don’t always have the luxury of knowing how and when an attack will occur in order to chamber a round beforehand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Most Glock negligent discharges are the fault of the shooter, not the gun. Holstering with finger on the trigger, not clearing the chamber when disassembling the gun etc.
 
Some designs promote negligent handling into a negligent discharge.

The concept of being a “safer design” is a dangerous fallacy.

“I dropped my six shooter and it went off”- well, you can blame the shooter for loading 6 instead of 5, or you can accept that stuff gets dropped and consider a transfer bar a safer design for general public’s use. (Don’t have 6 holes and expect weekend cowboys to not fell them up.)

“An untrained person picked up my gun”- you can blame the owner, or ask how that person knew to operate the slide and remove the safety before pulling the trigger.

A design assuming that the gun must go bang for even the most untrained user, then talking about safety, seems ridiculous to me. Even the Wild West was not the Wild West, safety is not being the quickest draw in the territory.

Even more ridiculous is to claim one method of putting energy into the firing pin is safer in a discussion of safety.
 
Last edited:
TunnelRat said:
It makes sense to me to use a new term to describe a system that you yourself seem to admit falls into neither true double action nor true single action. As for conveying no information, Glock explains the system on their website:

https://us.glock.com/en/learn/glock-...-action-system
Click to expand...
I wrote that Glock's description of their system as "safe action" is a term that conveys no useful information. As for the more detailed explanation of how their system works (from your link), in the context of whether it's single-action or double-action, IMHO it still conveys no useful information.
 
Still missing the 3 confused concepts as one though.

A trigger pull discharges any gun because the firing pin block correctly moved. If you finger pulled more weight is irrelevant. The VP9 at 100% cocked is about the same weight of pull as Glock.

A dropped gun is protected by the trigger dingus stopping the trigger from bouncing rearward, which would mechanically and correctly move the firing pin block. The dingus only exists for a drop safety. The Walther P99 has it as the back of the trigger shape doing the same. The P320 has a safety block as I put in my post above.

A gun won't fire, Glock cocked at 68% or 100% on the PPQ, unless the firing pin block moves by the trigger moving.


At no point is the Glock at 68% cocked safer in any of those cases because the Sear isn't different and the Trigger Dingus is drop safe for all of them, and the Firing Pin exists on all of them (safety block on the P320).


Based on his opinion, the lightest Single Action of all these guns is the P99AS. The pull when in Anti-Stress mode is a long travel with no weight--WAY longer than a Glock.

The only point where safety is actually a consideration in my mind is reset. A 68% cocked striker on the Glock is going to require a harder and/or longer reset than a striker single action gun like the PPQ, VP9, M&P. But that isn't always how it plays out by the manufacturer. Look at the VP9 which has a false reset point and overall longer reset than a PPQ or P-10
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top