lee n. field
New member
Something that folks on Internet social media obsess about, that they probably shouldn't.
In Glocks that one spring kind of does double duty, in a clever way.
Striker Fired vs Firing Pin
- Thread starter Bucksnort1
- Start date
Something that folks on Internet social media obsess about, that they probably shouldn't.
In Glocks that one spring kind of does double duty, in a clever way.
stinkeypete
New member
there are excellent explanations of the differences above and of course there are grey area designs that are a little of both but here is my humorous attempt at a response:
Striker Fired: Advantages: Its a Glock or just like it. Disadvantages: The trigger pull is long and miserable like a Glock.
Hammer Fired: Advantages: You can lower the hammer without firing and the trigger might feel great like the golden standard, the 1911. Disadvantages: it's more complicated to use.
With striker fired pistols in general, you point, pull the trigger, and each pull of the trigger feels like pulling a stick through mud. Then bang. Simple. Point and shoot.
With hammer fired you might have a simple set-up like the 1911- the hammer is back and you lock it there with the safety. Remove safety as coming to aim, pull the trigger which feels like a small glass rod breaking. If you forget to take the safety off, it's either embarrassing or worse.
You might have a set-up that's double/single action- point, pull the trigger which cocks the hammer and releases it. The first shot is like a double action revolver, it's heavy. The second shot is like breaking glass. You have to practice to deal with that first shot.
UNLESS
You have a double action pistol with a safety. The ol' belt and suspenders approach. Remove safety as you aim, then deal with long pull, then get follow up great trigger response. Again, don't forget to take safety off.
Basically, striker fired pistols are easier to operate.
A while back I might have said "Oh come on, who is going to forget to take their safety off???" but then I had a life changing experience on the second lesson of learning to fly a sailplane. The instructor asked me, while I was under extreme stress of trying to keep the airplane from falling out of the sky, how high we were above the ground. I could not subtract 1,000 from 4,000 and I am a math teacher. Lesson learned- under enough stress, the brain stops working.
As I don't do combat stuff, I only have hammer fired pistols.
Striker Fired: Advantages: Its a Glock or just like it. Disadvantages: The trigger pull is long and miserable like a Glock.
Hammer Fired: Advantages: You can lower the hammer without firing and the trigger might feel great like the golden standard, the 1911. Disadvantages: it's more complicated to use.
With striker fired pistols in general, you point, pull the trigger, and each pull of the trigger feels like pulling a stick through mud. Then bang. Simple. Point and shoot.
With hammer fired you might have a simple set-up like the 1911- the hammer is back and you lock it there with the safety. Remove safety as coming to aim, pull the trigger which feels like a small glass rod breaking. If you forget to take the safety off, it's either embarrassing or worse.
You might have a set-up that's double/single action- point, pull the trigger which cocks the hammer and releases it. The first shot is like a double action revolver, it's heavy. The second shot is like breaking glass. You have to practice to deal with that first shot.
UNLESS
You have a double action pistol with a safety. The ol' belt and suspenders approach. Remove safety as you aim, then deal with long pull, then get follow up great trigger response. Again, don't forget to take safety off.
Basically, striker fired pistols are easier to operate.
A while back I might have said "Oh come on, who is going to forget to take their safety off???" but then I had a life changing experience on the second lesson of learning to fly a sailplane. The instructor asked me, while I was under extreme stress of trying to keep the airplane from falling out of the sky, how high we were above the ground. I could not subtract 1,000 from 4,000 and I am a math teacher. Lesson learned- under enough stress, the brain stops working.
As I don't do combat stuff, I only have hammer fired pistols.
There are a number of firearm designs that use a free floating firing pin, so no spring for the firing pin. Most of the examples I can think of are rifles such as AR15 or AKM variants, but it’s also true in pistols like a Makarov. In fairness I can’t think of a recently released hammer fired pistol on the commercial market that doesn’t use a firing pin return spring, but it’s not required for function (if someone knows of one released in the past few decades that doesn’t use a return spring I’d be interested to know which).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There have been no new long guns designed in over 100 years with an exposed hammer. Bolt action rifles use striker fired systems and are considered the most reliable rifles, and the ones with the best triggers. The better question is; why did it take so long for handguns to move to striker fired systems?
Having all of the moving parts enclosed inside the frame and slide reduces the chances of dirt and debris messing up things. Exposed hammers are susceptible to damage if the firearm is dropped. In close combat clothing, hair, or fingers can get between the hammer and firing pin preventing the gun from firing. Exposed hammers can be accidently cocked when they come in contact with objects while being carried.
All of these reasons are why exposed hammers fell out of favor with long guns. And are why striker fired guns are taking over with handguns.
And striker fired handguns don't have to have a long and heavy trigger pull. In fact most have trigger pull weights very similar to out of the box factory 1911's. The 1911 CAN be made lighter. And just like a 1911 trigger can be improved so can most striker fired guns. I have a couple of Smith M&P's with aftermarket Apex triggers that will rival my 1911's. They even have 1911 style thumb safeties, and with a trigger that light I wouldn't want them without the safety.
Having all of the moving parts enclosed inside the frame and slide reduces the chances of dirt and debris messing up things. Exposed hammers are susceptible to damage if the firearm is dropped. In close combat clothing, hair, or fingers can get between the hammer and firing pin preventing the gun from firing. Exposed hammers can be accidently cocked when they come in contact with objects while being carried.
All of these reasons are why exposed hammers fell out of favor with long guns. And are why striker fired guns are taking over with handguns.
And striker fired handguns don't have to have a long and heavy trigger pull. In fact most have trigger pull weights very similar to out of the box factory 1911's. The 1911 CAN be made lighter. And just like a 1911 trigger can be improved so can most striker fired guns. I have a couple of Smith M&P's with aftermarket Apex triggers that will rival my 1911's. They even have 1911 style thumb safeties, and with a trigger that light I wouldn't want them without the safety.
Yeah but simply not having an “exposed” hammer doesn’t make it striker fired. It just means it a hammer that lives in a garage.
. Not sure what you were getting at with this. AR’s, AK’s.....Beretta CX4 etc. all hammer fired.Sorry I didn’t mean the above to sound like I was “calling you out”. I am just confused by the statement?
To the first point, the US military had pistol trials before the adoption of both the 1911 and the M9. In both of those trials there were striker fired pistols, at least the Luger and then the HK P7M13 respectively (there may well be others, that’s what came to mind). They didn’t win. Now that may not be solely due to reliability, but when you read the trial information both the 1911 and the M9 performed pretty admirably in terms of dealing with external fouling. You can also watch people do their own pseudo dirt, mud, and water trials on YouTube. One that makes a decent attempt at consistency is the Military Arms Channel. He’s had hammer fired pistols do very well and striker fired pistols do very poorly. The reverse is also true. I don’t know that hammer fired pistols are as a rule less reliable in the “elements” as striker fired pistols.
I’m not sure how overly common it is for a dropped pistol to land exactly on the hammer, but I think it’s a fair point. Some designers, such as SIG with the P6, included a deforming hammer as part of the design so the armorers would know if that happened.
It’s also possible for hands or clothing to get in the way of a falling hammer. At the same time I think it may be more likely in a close quarters struggle that you end up with a pistol out of battery, and in that case the pistol won’t fire even if it is striker fired (I remember that happened in the Michael Brown shooting). To that point though it can be easier to hold a striker fired pistol in battery with say the palm of a hand than a hammer fired pistol.
I’m just not convinced that the reasons outlined are areas where exposed hammer fired pistols are so deficient that they represent the reason why striker fired pistols have become so predominant (even if I personally carry a striker fired pistol and do agree with you to some extent). The domination of the striker fired pistol in the commercial market didn’t happen until some time after Glocks became more popular. As others have pointed out, there were striker fired pistols long before Glock, even polymer framed striker fired pistols. If exposed hammer fired pistols were so much more deficient than striker fired pistols there were a number of points in history for them to have taken over in that regard. Personally I think the current state of the pistol market in terms of striker fired sales has more to do with the relatively simple manual of arms and affordability.
To your last point, I do agree that striker fired pistols don’t necessarily have long and heavy pulls, certainly not compared to the DA on a lot of hammer fired pistols. They’re not what I would consider “pulling a stick through the mud”. I still don’t think they’re in 1911 territory or other hammer fired pistols in SA. While the resulting weights are often close to production 1911s, the amount of pretravel, length of the reset, and the crispness of the break often aren’t what I’d call close, but I admit that’s subjective. I have had M&Ps with Apex kits and they are quite nice, but my 1911s still put them to shame (in fairness I never tried the forward set sear kit from Apex, if you are talking about that kit).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stinkeypete
New member
What about the Thompson Center Pro Hunter and Encore series? Exposed hammers and not even close to 100 years old.
Striker fire is great because it is all internal. Nothing external to get a glob of mud or rock in. The problem in striker fired pistols relates directly to safety. You have a striker loose in the slide and a slide relatively loose on the frame. The mating sear is fixed in the frame. To have a good feeling trigger, a design needs minimal, but safe sear engagement. A striker fired gun needs the safe amount plus the amount to make up for the slop between parts. No matter how you leverage the sear, you either have a heavier pull or a longer pull to release the striker. This also creates variation pull to pull. That is why the all kind of feel like staple guns!
A hammer rides on a close fit pin. A sear rides on a close fit pin. Both are pinned through a common frame. The tolerance stack up is small and the sear engagement is minimized. This is why 1911 and CZ’s can have such great trigger pulls.
A bolt/lever/pump action rifle trigger is different. They usually have a design where a striker release lever is preloaded to released position. Then a tight tolerance trigger system with a short sear engagement is set below that. Pulling the trigger releases a sear that allows a preloaded lever to release the striker. You have no feeling of the actual striker release, you just feel your end of the mechanism.
AR’s are quite different because the trigger systems don’t really disconnect....the catch the hammer and then hand it back to the sear. The hand back process requires a pretty long sear engagement....hence the popularity of cassette and 2 stages triggers to trick you into thinking you have a short release.
A hammer rides on a close fit pin. A sear rides on a close fit pin. Both are pinned through a common frame. The tolerance stack up is small and the sear engagement is minimized. This is why 1911 and CZ’s can have such great trigger pulls.
A bolt/lever/pump action rifle trigger is different. They usually have a design where a striker release lever is preloaded to released position. Then a tight tolerance trigger system with a short sear engagement is set below that. Pulling the trigger releases a sear that allows a preloaded lever to release the striker. You have no feeling of the actual striker release, you just feel your end of the mechanism.
AR’s are quite different because the trigger systems don’t really disconnect....the catch the hammer and then hand it back to the sear. The hand back process requires a pretty long sear engagement....hence the popularity of cassette and 2 stages triggers to trick you into thinking you have a short release.
Yes, they do. They just don't do it exactly the same way some other designs do it, but they do disconnect the trigger (meaning no action of the trigger affects the rest of the firing mechanism) for a brief interval during the firing cycle.
Every semi auto firearm does this, in some fashion, though the specific mechanics vary with different designs.
Manual firearms also do it, though it is not generally noticed as much.
Jim Watson
New member
All the pump and lever actions I have seen have hammers.
Modern bolt actions have what was called in the then - new Model 70 Winchester, a "self setting single set trigger." Earlier guns like Mausers, the trigger just cams down the sear directly.
Ok, 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. Would you agree many/most trigger systems force the trigger to disconnect when the action cycles rearward from the sear so the hammer/striker will be held when the action returns to battery? That is why I explained the catching of the hammer, the hand off and how that lengthens the sear engagement.
The only time anyone refers to bolt action rifles as "striker fired" is in discussions like this one. This only recently, like in the last few years. It's also only raised when a person feels the need to defend striker fired pistols. This is because the actions are so very different.
There are only so many ways to ignite the primer in a standard center fire or rimfire cartridge. Actually only one way, a piece of metal is driven into the primer to set it off. How that piece of metal is driven into the primer is what varies. There are only only two common ways that I know of, a hammer hits the firing pin driving it forward, or a catch releases the firing pin (called a striker) which is powered by the energy in a spring. (This is an edit: In older revolvers and old style revolvers the firing pin is on the face of the hammer so when the hammer falls the pin hits the primer hard to be simpler than that.)
This difference in how a firing pin ignites the primer is not the biggest difference between pistols or as important a difference as some think or like to think. That's because both hammer and striker are old tech and known. Known to be reliable and safe.
In the first books and magazine articles to come out on the Glock by gunwriters, scribes and shooters, the fact that it was striker fired was met with a big..."OK, we've seen that before". That the striker mechanism was made entirely of stamped sheet metal and self contained was more interesting. That it was a polymer frame was more interesting and the new trigger mechanism was the most interesting. "A plastic trigger? What's that doohickey on the front of the trigger?" That the only safety was on the trigger caused deep concern. Mas Ayoob and Jeff Cooper and others denounced that as dangerous and not the smartest thing.
Since then there are striker fired polymer guns with external safeties and some with very good triggers, and drop in kits that get you the same.
The reason for the rise of striker fired guns is the lower cost of production under the methods introduced by Glock which revolutionized the industry.
Striker fired pistols, where each part was made of machined steel (look closely at a Luger someday) were more expensive to make than hammer fired guns. Hammer fired guns are more versatile.
When Colt and S&W introduced plastic MSH's on their semis and plastic triggers and mim parts, shooters about lost their minds in indignation and concern. Cheap parts! Mim hammers!?! Plastic triggers! Loose fitting slide to frame fits!?! Outrageous!
But cheap stamped steel in a Glock and tiny stamped steel tabs that the slide rides on...this became normal and accepted after a few years of outrage. Mostly anyway.
If you took apart the striker mechanism of a modern polymer striker pistol and laid them on a table next to the parts of a made in Taiwan plastic hair dryer you might no tell the difference, except for the heating unit. The gun will be more reliable than the hair dryer usually, being the main difference.
That cost of production changed the structure of the fire arms industry.
tipoc
There are only so many ways to ignite the primer in a standard center fire or rimfire cartridge. Actually only one way, a piece of metal is driven into the primer to set it off. How that piece of metal is driven into the primer is what varies. There are only only two common ways that I know of, a hammer hits the firing pin driving it forward, or a catch releases the firing pin (called a striker) which is powered by the energy in a spring. (This is an edit: In older revolvers and old style revolvers the firing pin is on the face of the hammer so when the hammer falls the pin hits the primer hard to be simpler than that.)
This difference in how a firing pin ignites the primer is not the biggest difference between pistols or as important a difference as some think or like to think. That's because both hammer and striker are old tech and known. Known to be reliable and safe.
In the first books and magazine articles to come out on the Glock by gunwriters, scribes and shooters, the fact that it was striker fired was met with a big..."OK, we've seen that before". That the striker mechanism was made entirely of stamped sheet metal and self contained was more interesting. That it was a polymer frame was more interesting and the new trigger mechanism was the most interesting. "A plastic trigger? What's that doohickey on the front of the trigger?" That the only safety was on the trigger caused deep concern. Mas Ayoob and Jeff Cooper and others denounced that as dangerous and not the smartest thing.
Since then there are striker fired polymer guns with external safeties and some with very good triggers, and drop in kits that get you the same.
The reason for the rise of striker fired guns is the lower cost of production under the methods introduced by Glock which revolutionized the industry.
Striker fired pistols, where each part was made of machined steel (look closely at a Luger someday) were more expensive to make than hammer fired guns. Hammer fired guns are more versatile.
When Colt and S&W introduced plastic MSH's on their semis and plastic triggers and mim parts, shooters about lost their minds in indignation and concern. Cheap parts! Mim hammers!?! Plastic triggers! Loose fitting slide to frame fits!?! Outrageous!
But cheap stamped steel in a Glock and tiny stamped steel tabs that the slide rides on...this became normal and accepted after a few years of outrage. Mostly anyway.
If you took apart the striker mechanism of a modern polymer striker pistol and laid them on a table next to the parts of a made in Taiwan plastic hair dryer you might no tell the difference, except for the heating unit. The gun will be more reliable than the hair dryer usually, being the main difference.
That cost of production changed the structure of the fire arms industry.
tipoc
Last edited: