Huh, I learned something!....you would think that would be enough to disqualify the pistol considering the other contenders that wouldn't require this modification.
Striker mechanism, the ultimate in reliability???
- Thread starter JJ45
- Start date
I think it's in part a leftover from the frame being used for the P250 and the trigger needing to be able to travel further for a true hammer fired DAO design.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
The government never finished testing, actually. So we really don’t know how well the two finalists compare with one another.
I’ve grown to like the P320, however.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have several centerfire pistols in both hammer fired and striker fired. None have ever failed to fire but I like the triggers more on the hammer fired guns. I also have both in rimfire and the failure to fire common with rimfires are similar with both types having to turn the cartridge when they always fire.
I think you will find equal, long-term reliability testing from both striker and hammer designed handguns. I think the manufacture of handgun is more important than the action when it comes to reliability; however, any mechanical device will fail at some point.
Where I think the simplicity of some striker-fired handguns comes in is with replacements. Some designs are much easier to replace the firing mechanism or firing pin than others; some can be done in minutes with a single tool, others need various tools and a bench.
Realistically, for the average shooter, a quality brand handgun will likely outlast the shooter and even more likely their children and possibly their grandchildren (excluding competitions, abusive tests, or "issued" handguns).
All guns can and will eventually fail. Personally, once you get to that 1000-round count for a quality handgun, it's a good probability to last 10 or 50 times that without much worry. Maintenance is important and understanding which parts may need replacement (extractor/ejector, firing pint, recoil or other critical spring, etc.). I just don't think comparing the firing mechanism is indicative to determining a handgun's service life or long-term reliability.
ROCK6
Where I think the simplicity of some striker-fired handguns comes in is with replacements. Some designs are much easier to replace the firing mechanism or firing pin than others; some can be done in minutes with a single tool, others need various tools and a bench.
Realistically, for the average shooter, a quality brand handgun will likely outlast the shooter and even more likely their children and possibly their grandchildren (excluding competitions, abusive tests, or "issued" handguns).
All guns can and will eventually fail. Personally, once you get to that 1000-round count for a quality handgun, it's a good probability to last 10 or 50 times that without much worry. Maintenance is important and understanding which parts may need replacement (extractor/ejector, firing pint, recoil or other critical spring, etc.). I just don't think comparing the firing mechanism is indicative to determining a handgun's service life or long-term reliability.
ROCK6
Back to the OPs post:
The problem in answering this question simply is that we have a long history of both hammer fired and striker fired hand guns to look at and refer to. It's hand guns that the question is about. The record of actual physical guns and not theoretical abstract guns does not give a clear preference. Both can be durable and reliable. That's just the truth.
So it's hard to toss out history and the evolution of handguns, when looking at the issue. The op asks to disregard the history of actual guns in action.
The other part of the problem is that we can't separate out the build of the guns in general from what makes a reliable and durable gun. It is neither the hammer nor the striker that are the most common parts that create issues. They usually work very well and are reliable. It's the magazine and the feeding, slide lock up, etc. that are usually the issues.
While the first part of the question says "Forget about build", the second part asks us to make build the central part of the question. So this kinda confuses the issue or makes it two questions.
Theoretically yes, fewer parts should make a gun less prone to malfunctions. Modularity is also a large step forward, which enhances ease of maintenance. But the first guns to take advantage of this were hammer fired pistols. The 1911 and the Tokarov and Makarov.
The Luger is a striker fired weapon. But the key to the Luger is it's toggle action and not the striker. It was too expensive to make so the Germans and others left it aside. So being a striker fired weapon alone has not made a gun more or less reliable.
The problem in answering this question simply is that we have a long history of both hammer fired and striker fired hand guns to look at and refer to. It's hand guns that the question is about. The record of actual physical guns and not theoretical abstract guns does not give a clear preference. Both can be durable and reliable. That's just the truth.
So it's hard to toss out history and the evolution of handguns, when looking at the issue. The op asks to disregard the history of actual guns in action.
The other part of the problem is that we can't separate out the build of the guns in general from what makes a reliable and durable gun. It is neither the hammer nor the striker that are the most common parts that create issues. They usually work very well and are reliable. It's the magazine and the feeding, slide lock up, etc. that are usually the issues.
While the first part of the question says "Forget about build", the second part asks us to make build the central part of the question. So this kinda confuses the issue or makes it two questions.
Theoretically yes, fewer parts should make a gun less prone to malfunctions. Modularity is also a large step forward, which enhances ease of maintenance. But the first guns to take advantage of this were hammer fired pistols. The 1911 and the Tokarov and Makarov.
The Luger is a striker fired weapon. But the key to the Luger is it's toggle action and not the striker. It was too expensive to make so the Germans and others left it aside. So being a striker fired weapon alone has not made a gun more or less reliable.
Last edited:
"OK", some one could respond, "but what if we just take current weapons?"
In general we've taken great steps forward in handguns since the introduction of the Glock. The latter revolutionized hand gun production and design. Following innovations first introduced in other firearms Glock proved that the use of polymers and light weight stamped metal parts could produce a gun that was both simple and lass expensive to manufacture and maintain than other designs of the time and also be durable and reliable. Glock is now in it's fifth generation of improved designs.
Since then modularity in design and lower costs of production, along with simplicity of maintenance and lower costs of maintenance has increased across the board. I mean that for both hammer and striker fired guns.
"So is the striker more durable than hammer fired guns?"
That question is really not relevant since there is more to guns than the firing mechanism. Also as I said before, that can't be answered because the questions is the wrong question.
In general we've taken great steps forward in handguns since the introduction of the Glock. The latter revolutionized hand gun production and design. Following innovations first introduced in other firearms Glock proved that the use of polymers and light weight stamped metal parts could produce a gun that was both simple and lass expensive to manufacture and maintain than other designs of the time and also be durable and reliable. Glock is now in it's fifth generation of improved designs.
Since then modularity in design and lower costs of production, along with simplicity of maintenance and lower costs of maintenance has increased across the board. I mean that for both hammer and striker fired guns.
"So is the striker more durable than hammer fired guns?"
That question is really not relevant since there is more to guns than the firing mechanism. Also as I said before, that can't be answered because the questions is the wrong question.