Striker-fired vs. Hammer-fired – which is better?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim Watson...

Walter Roper modified a few *&* Straightline pistols to hammer fired operation. FWIW, the modification apparently worked rather well.

Mr. Pub...

"3.) Striker firing requires less mechanical movement than (external)*hammer firing. Thus, by design you should be able to fire more quickly."

Typically, Striker fired arms have lock times of over 3 ms, a good "V" spring lock (e.g. Brazier or Chilton sidelock shotgun locks) work in about 1.7 ms. Unfortunately, the obvious example in American handguns (Colt D,E, & I frames) does not realize the full potential of this design. Cost is the main reason that this sort of mechanism is not seen in new handgun designs.

Bob
 
One thing you're forgetting in your analysis is the carry mode. Internal strikers and hammers are fine for SA or DAO, but are a little silly for DA/SA.

On DA/SA weapons the hammer serves double duty as cocking indicator and a cocking lever.

Take the DA/SA designs that are internal or have bobbed hammers: the Walther P99, S&W autos and HK P9S.

1. The first two have no external contol to cock them for an accurate first shot.
2. The P99 loses some of the cleanlines advantage because it must have a cocking indicator hole in the back of the slide.
3. The P9S replaces a single hammer with an external cocking lever and a cocking indicator.

The point that the striker pistols should have a faster cycle time is lost because the majority of striker designs are DAO like. Anyway, cycle time has more to do with the type of disconnector used.

If you like DA/SA, as many do, the external hammer is the most efficient way of doing it. A hammer is also safer for DA/SA because it's a more obvious indication of a cocked weapon.
 
Re: your point #2, gotta disagree, a primer is designed to pop with a certain minimal force applied to it and a firing-pin, whether in the form of a striker mechanism or in an external hammer mechanism has to deliver that minimal force. - Ron in PA
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to the force striking the primer, but rather the swing or centrifugal force an external hammer creates. I think that little things can affect accuracy, like firing from an open bolt on a submachine gun vs. firing from a closed bolt (the slamming of the open bolt knocking your aim off).

Even Jeff Cooper thinks hammerless shotguns are a bit self-defeating, as the hammerless thing started out as an artsy feature sort of made-up as an advance in design. It makes sense on a military arm, as sidehammers can catch on stuff, and dig into your ribs when humping your rifle around the countryside. But for the traditional "gun over the door", exposed hammers make more sense. - H_R_G
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums up the main point that I was trying to make - too many people in influential positions in the U.S. gun industry holding on to the past and dismissing (stifling) new design and technologies (artsy fartsy).


One thing you're forgetting in your analysis is the carry mode. Internal strikers and hammers are fine for SA or DAO, but are a little silly for DA/SA. - Handy
Click to expand...
I agree that an external hammer and DA/SA go together.

I think that a light DAO is the future (like Kahr, Glock, P99QA). One consistent trigger press. DA/SA is fine for those who like it – just like a manual transmission on a car is preferred by some. But most get the automatic, just as most gun buyers who aren’t set in their ways would get a light DAO if they had the choice, IMHO.

.
 
So you're not really challenging the hammer, you're just jumping on the Glock (or similar) bandwagon.

If you're going to go light DAO a striker is fine. What you're really against is the classic DA/SA system used by the majority of police and military worldwide.

Until all guns are DAO, your striker arguement has no place.
 
Mr. Pub,

The problem with your argument is that if you want "one consistent trigger press" the 1911 does the best job of delivering it. The Glock trigger is short, but has alot of creep and generally has a mediocre to horrible feel. The Kahr and other DAO guns feel nicer, but their long pulls slow down the shooter's accurate rate of fire. By contrast, the trigger on a good 1911 is short, crisp and light. Better triggers make it easier for a person to shoot well, period. If you compare a Kimber to a Glock and the difference in trigger quality isn't blatantly obvious, you probably have some kind of neurological problem.
 
So you're not really challenging the hammer, you're just jumping on the Glock (or similar) bandwagon.
Click to expand...
I'm challenging the external hammer vs. striker or internal hammer. FWIW, I don't currently own a Glock (didn't like the way the trigger stacked at the end of the press).


If you're going to go light DAO a striker is fine. What you're really against is the classic DA/SA system used by the majority of police and military worldwide.
Click to expand...
I believe that a majority of U.S. police now use Glock or other light DAO pistols. Training costs & ease of use were a factor in moving away from DA/SA.

.
 
I am constantaly amused by the elements that make something obsolete. The guided missile made the naval gun obsolete because of its insanely long range versus the 40 or so miles a 16 inch gun can toss a shell, with a tremendous increase in accuracy.

The Cap and Ball made flintlocks obsolete because the flintlock could not be fired reliably in the rain and were prone to misfires.

The rifled bore made smooth bores obsolete because rifles were vastly more accurate than smoothies.

The smokeless bolt action repeater made single shot black powder rifles obsolete because the quintipling of rates of fire coupled by a dramatic increase in projectile power.

The M-1 Garand and SVT-40 Tokarev self-loading rifles made the Bolt action repeater obsolete because of rapid reloading and a much higher rate of fire.

The Transistor made the vacuum tube obsolete because of the dramatic reduction in size with an equal rise in power. Ditto for the integrated circuit over the transistor.

Obsolescence is created only through a magnificent jump in efficiency, power, or increadible reduction in size, regardless of the item. Electric typewriters made mechanical typewriters obsolete just like the PC and its word processor made the electric typewriter obsolete.

Nothing, NOTHING, in the above arguments can even remotely be considered as evidence towards the obsolescense of the 1911 or hammer-fired firearms. There are no dramatic increases in power, no monumental changes in ammo quantity or quality, nothing at all. Arguing this is silly. The 1911 is not obsolete, though perhaps not economical to produce as a main-line weapon. These arguments are mere beans when it comes to what makes a handgun obsolete.

Now, my black powder cap-and-ball Colt Pocket Pistol carried by my Great-Great Grandfather is certainly obsolete. However, the Colt New Service carried by my Great grandfather, nor the 1911 carried by my grandfather and uncle, are by no means obsolete. Dealing with trivial details such as a striker being .056% more efficient or easier to produce are meaningless. Bring me something that makes the pistol 5 times more efficient and powerful, then you can make that argument.

Only something like caseless ammo will render the 1911 truly obsolete. When that happens, it will not be in the realm of "striker is more advanced than hammers" but rather in cartridge construction. In that event, the Glock and Walther will also be obsolete.

Davis
 
Oh yeah, you can't seriously tell me that troops in the field carrying CZ-75's would be outgunned by troops carrying Glocks. If not, then the hammer fired CZ could not possibly be obsolete.
 
.

Castle Bravo - sorry, I was busy. Got to earn a living you know.

The problem with your argument is that if you want "one consistent trigger press" the 1911 does the best job of delivering it. - Castle Bravo
Click to expand...

The 1911 doesn't give you one consistent trigger press it gives you two completely different presses - double action and single action.

?

.
 
Mr. Pub,

I think this thread should just end. Your above statement shows you know little, if anything, about the firearms you are discussing. Not to mention you're not really reading the responses given.

Please retire.
 
Castle Bravo - sorry, I was busy. Got to earn a living you know.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with your argument is that if you want "one consistent trigger press" the 1911 does the best job of delivering it. - Castle Bravo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The 1911 doesn't give you one consistent trigger press it gives you two completely different presses - double action and single action.
Click to expand...

This speaks for itself. :D
 
Hint for Mr. Pub:

The 1911 is a SINGLE ACTION design. This means that it isn't double action.

Having confirmed your encyclopedic understanding of the design you have been so vehemently criticizing :rolleyes: , I suggest you slink away on your belly and do whatever it is that trolls do when they aren't here.

We will constantly remind you of this gigantic gaffe if you ever show your face here again, thanks for asking. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top