Striker mechanism, the ultimate in reliability???

pete2 said:
Folks, striker fired guns are usually cheaper, especially plastic 20 shooters. I can't see anything better about them as for reliability. Think about it, the 1911 pistol for example, and for rifles, M1, M 16 etc have hammers as do O/U shotguns, pumps and semis. Heck, look how long a S&W revolver lasts.
Don't be brainwashed by the folks who sell cheap plastic guns.
Click to expand...

There's nothing about hammer or striker fired that mandates polymer framed or not. There are hammer fired polymer framed pistols, quite a few and a number that are not "cheap" (see HK). There are also striker fired metal framed pistols, see the Luger and P7. The use of polymer absolutely reduces the cost of the end firearm, but there are also pistols that have polymer frames that have gone tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds. Are they really inferior?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
JJ45 said:
Let me try a different approach.

Two nearly identical pistols except for the firing mechanisms (the only ones I could think of but there are certainly others)

XDs 3.3" 9mm (striker)
XDe 3.3" 9mm (hammer)

Which, do you think, would prove to be the most durable/reliable and outlast the other?
Click to expand...
I'll echo what was stated and note that it's likely a spring or small part like an extractor or slide release that will need replacement first, both of which are agnostic to the way you ignite a primer.

To go further, say we do the test you suggest and we get a clear winner. What then? What if someone argues that one design aspect of that particular hammer fired pistol or that particular striker fired pistol is noticeably weaker than another hammer fired or striker fired pistol? If the question is meant to imply which is more reliable on average, than only testing one incarnation of each leaves you open to faulty conclusions. Maybe that manufacturer is better at one design type than another? I think the best you can do is compile information, but a definitive conclusion is not in the cards.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
TunnelRat said:
A 1911 doesn't have a DA trigger. DA means double action, a 1911 is single action. He is exactly talking about hammer down for pistols designed to be used with a DA first pull, such as a SIG P22X series or Beretta 92 series.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Correct, and misnomer on my part.

However I'm sticking to my argument that they aren't any less shootable than a Glock based simply on the heavy pull of the first shot. Yes, the first shot is pivotal, especially in a self defense scenario. But if you chose that piece as your carry weapon, or if you are issued one, train to shoot it well or cock it before you fire.
 
Tallest said:
Correct, and misnomer on my part.



However I'm sticking to my argument that they aren't any less shootable than a Glock based simply on the heavy pull of the first shot. Yes, the first shot is pivotal, especially in a self defense scenario. But if you chose that piece as your carry weapon, or if you are issued one, train to shoot it well or cock it before you fire.
Click to expand...
I carried DA/SA for a while. It absolutely can be shot well. It does, in my experience, require more training to get to and maintain the same level of proficiency.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Tallest said:
You're losing me. I don't think they're the same!



In my experience, everything about a DA trigger is more concise than a striker fired triggers. Unless you're talking about taking your first shot hammer down, a DA trigger on 1911 or a CZ75 (I reference these two because they comprise the majority of my experience) has less travel and a much cleaner break than a Glock trigger. Indeed, I think the trigger is probably the biggest compromise of choosing a Glock. But I choose it anyway.
Click to expand...



I think it is you who is confusing things.

A 1911 is a SA pistol not a DA pistol.

Of course, we are talking about hammer down - thus DA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tallest said:
Correct, and misnomer on my part.



However I'm sticking to my argument that they aren't any less shootable than a Glock based simply on the heavy pull of the first shot. Yes, the first shot is pivotal, especially in a self defense scenario. But if you chose that piece as your carry weapon, or if you are issued one, train to shoot it well or cock it before you fire.
Click to expand...



Okay, so you’re advocating cocking the hammer before firing... uh, no.

You’re trying to EASE that longer, heavier DA pull which indicates to me that you KNOW it’s more difficult to execute that first shot ON DEMAND, UNDER THE CLOCK or to save your skin. Your choice.

That said, I adore my CZ P-07 (CGW did the Pro Grade internals). I believe it’s 8.75lbs and very near linear (but not as nice as the Wilson Combat Beretta 92 that’s sitting in my local fun store).

It requires a lot more focus and I can and do hit very well with it against the clock.

So much so I practice coming out of the holster and hitting IDPA Head “A” zones at seven yards.

I’m not QUITE as quick as the 19X or P-10C or VP-9 but it’s so satisfying I don’t care. But I practice a lot with it.

There are a few mental images I use: constant velocity trigger movement without disturbing the sights and sometimes constant increase in force (which doesn’t work as well for me because it’s more difficult to ascertain).

The 1911 is easiest hit with for me. Even though it’s .45ACP and the others I have are 9mm.

Then the P-10C, VP-9 then Glock 19X.

Everyone is different.

To make things more interesting you may wish to try an HK P30 without LEM if you think DA and SA “are the same”.

They are not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I dont think it really matters, as long as youre using a gun of known quality and reliability.

Ive owned and used SA, DA, DAO, and striker-fired guns, autos and revolvers, and they all worked well. All are easy to shoot once you know them.

I dont have an actual round count on my 1911's, but they are probably the highest since they are what Ive owned the most of and shot the longest over the years.

I currently have a Glock 17 that had at least 147,400 rounds through it in the past 10 years (based simply on a weekly count. Its actually more like over 150K) when I broke a rail. Had trigger springs go at 90 and 120K, but the gun still actually worked with them broken too. It still worked with the rail broken for that matter.

I have a 26 that has over 25K through it, and its still going strong.

Those were the only two I bothered to keep a reasonable round count on, and count or not, regardless the type, all the guns I trusted to use, regardless of type, were just shot and shot and shot and were never a problem.

These days, striker guns are what get the most actual use, but I still shoot all of them on a regular basis, and they all still work and shoot well.
 
There are very reliable striker-fired pistols and very reliable hammer-fired pistols. But from a design perspective, I do not consider the striker design to be inherently more reliable.

The striker channel and sear surfaces of a striker action pistol are more exposed to carbon deposits than the hammer, sear, and mainspring of a hammer-fired pistol. The mainspring of a hammer-fired pistol is generally very easy to change to a increased force spring to deal with the occasional hard primer.
 
Let me put it another way, The most reliable handguns, after revolvers, are a 92FS, a Ruger LC9, a DW Valkyrie, all with hammers. I do have a G19 purchased about the same time as the Valkyrie but messed with it a year trying to get the roughness out of the trigger, finally a Glock armorer helped it by swapping parts out of a known good gun, still haven't figured out how to shoot it without it eating my trigger finger. Maybe an M&P would work for me. I also have a Springfield 1911 Bullseye gun that's never jammed but it's a Clark gun so I don't count it. For me, the Glock is not shootable so it definately isn't as good as my hammer fired guns. A quality gun will work whether hammer or striker fired.
Gaston Glock is a very good salesman......................................
 
pete2 said:
Let me put it another way, The most reliable handguns, after revolvers, are a 92FS, a Ruger LC9, a DW Valkyrie, all with hammers. I do have a G19 purchased about the same time as the Valkyrie but messed with it a year trying to get the roughness out of the trigger, finally a Glock armorer helped it by swapping parts out of a known good gun, still haven't figured out how to shoot it without it eating my trigger finger. Maybe an M&P would work for me. I also have a Springfield 1911 Bullseye gun that's never jammed but it's a Clark gun so I don't count it. For me, the Glock is not shootable so it definately isn't as good as my hammer fired guns. A quality gun will work whether hammer or striker fired.

Gaston Glock is a very good salesman......................................
Click to expand...
I think you mean, "In my experience these are the most reliable handguns I've owned." I'd be a little skeptical of anyone claiming that one handgun or another is an undisputed champion of reliability, especially when we get into the weeds of the various makers of 1911s.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
I did intend to specify "that I own", sorry bout that. Your mileage may vary. I do have a Kimber that wouldn't work right brand new that I had to repair. There really ain't a perfect design. Taurus has some guns that as far as design goes are great but their ability to put them together ain't so good. Kimber 1911 I bought didn't work, all they had to co was copy a 1911 gun that did work, same same Ruger on a CMD. Shoddy workmanship will mess up anything.
Point I was trying to make is that striker fired is not better than Hammer fired by design. I'm not actually convinced it's as good because mfgs haven't managed to perfect the trigger pulls on them. I would actually like the Glock trigger if it was smooth and didn't eat my finger. I have shot one or 2 Glocks with smooth light triggers, so light I wouldn't carry it. All eat my finger no matter the trigger pull. My G19 has a 5-5 1/2# pull, perfectly acceptable if it was smooth. Chewing the skin off my finger just don't work.
 
I don't discount your experience. I've owned probably a dozen or so Glocks. None of them ate my finger, and while none of them had triggers I would rave about, none of them stopped me from getting hits on IPSC plates at 100 yds or turning in say 4-5" groups standing at 25 yds, which isn't any different than any hammer fired pistols I've owned. Some of those hammer fired pistols had noticeably worse triggers, specifically a CZ 75BD and an HK45c. I've had one Glock with 8k rounds and probably 3 malfunctions and I now have one with 5k rounds and 0 malfunctions and another with 2.5k rounds and 0 malfunctions.

I don't know that one is superior to the other. But to me the notion that striker fired pistols are "cheap" when it comes to quality that translates to function doesn't hold true, just as something being hammer fired isn't a guarantee of quality.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
pete2: said:
I do have a G19 purchased about the same time as the Valkyrie but messed with it a year trying to get the roughness out of the trigger, finally a Glock armorer helped it by swapping parts out of a known good gun, still haven't figured out how to shoot it without it eating my trigger finger.
Click to expand...

If the trigger on a Glock 19 doesn’t work for you then don’t buy in the first place, or sell it off, there are probably many people who would take it off your hands. The ribbed trigger face on a stock G-19 trigger can cause problems for some people. Glock triggers in general are a love / hate relationship for a lot of people, I have an APEX Action Enhancement Package trigger on my Gen3 17 and “IMHO” it gives a nice rolling break that I think really improves the function of this gun, and it uses the stock striker, trigger return and FPB plunger springs, so (IMHO) the reliability is at least as good as the stock setup. That is my experience based on an informed opinion having used the product for a significant amount of time, and anybody who has tried this setup and disagrees with me is certainly giving their informed opinion about it.
 
Had I known it would eat my finger no matter what I would not have bought it. I will sell it if I can't come up with a solution. Trigger face is not a problem, it's the tip of the trigger pinching the side of my finger against the bottom of the trigger guard. There may be no solution for it. It's a shame. I can't be the only one in the world with this problem, I thought someone on the Glock Forum could help. I wouldn't have bought the gun if I didn't want it.
 
I don't know that one is superior to the other. But to me the notion that striker fired pistols are "cheap" when it comes to quality that translates to function doesn't hold true, just as something being hammer fired isn't a guarantee of quality.
Click to expand...

This^^^

FWIW, as disclosure, I prefer da/sa ala CZ action for carry over striker fired. The one striker pistol I have in the carry rotation is a Kahr, known for longer (yet very smooth) triggers. My preference is personal. I want a fair bit of effort on that first SD trigger pull decision, more than what your current run of the mill striker (Glock included) affords.

You won’t hear me speak ill of Glock or any other known reliable striker pistol. There are unique advantages and disadvantages. Someone said the mainspring in a hammer fired pistol could be increased in strength for harder primers. Well... a heavier striker spring can do the same. The difference is, a heavier striker spring generally affects trigger weight much more than a hammer mainspring in single action. That first DA pull on a da/sa will be affected a great deal with the heavier spring, as much or more than a striker. Strikers are a decent compromise between ease of use, and a heavy enough trigger pull to carry safely without an external safety but not too heavy to shoot accurately. DA/SA offers the possibility of a heavier first trigger pull followed by a potentially dreamy follow on trigger pull (if the manufacturer got the trigger right). This comes with a learning curve of having to learn two different trigger pulls. Still not necessary to fool with a manual safety. SAO ala 1911, well we all know. If you’re comfy with cocked and locked and manual safeties then rock on. I carried one for a few years, didn’t feel nervous about it. Trigger is usually to die for even in a mediocre example.

This “which is more reliable” is hogwash imo. There are tons of high round count hammer fired and striker fired pistols. I don’t feel like there is an inherent reliability advantage to either action type.

Buy the action type based on your personal preference, not perceived inherent reliability. There are examples of high quality examples in each action type being much more reliable than lower quality examples of other types. And if one type does tend to last 80k rounds instead of 70k rounds on average before major breakages... not worth debating for your average shooter who won’t shoot one pistol half that in a lifetime.
 
There are reasons the military chose the M17 over other striker and hammer guns.

But the new issue pistol is a striker fire....there were also some modifications stipulated like a "mud flap" which I am unfamiliar with except the purpose is to keep debris out of the trigger operation which might say something about the general civie specimens not having one ...the M9 or the 1911 (hammer guns) didn't require a mud flap.
 
I currently have a Glock 17 that had at least 147,400 rounds through it in the past 10 years (based simply on a weekly count. Its actually more like over 150K) when I broke a rail.
Click to expand...

Did Glock fix it for you?
 
JJ45 said:
There are reasons the military chose the M17 over other striker and hammer guns.

But the new issue pistol is a striker fire....there were also some modifications stipulated like a "mud flap" which I am unfamiliar with except the purpose is to keep debris out of the trigger operation which might say something about the general civie specimens not having one ...the M9 or the 1911 (hammer guns) didn't require a mud flap.
Click to expand...
The way the trigger shoe on the P320 sits in the frame it leaves a noticeable gap in front of the trigger where dirt or debris could get in. Not all, or even most, striker fired pistols have the same issue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top