kingbigluke
New member
I was researching the sr9 and it is a striker fire. I am wondering what it means.
What does striker fire mean?
- Thread starter kingbigluke
- Start date
kingbigluke
New member
thanks
I found this for you on another site; hope it helps.
Single Action: Pulling the trigger does ONE thing : if the hammer has been cocked, it will release the hammer. Trigger pull is light, short, and consistant between first and subsequent shots. Example: Star Firestar Plus.
Double Action: Pulling the trigger does TWO things : it will first cock the hammer if it hasn't been cocked, and then it will release the hammer. DA Trigger pull is longer and heavier than SA, but the user can cock the hammer first if they want to fire in "Single Action Mode." If the gun is semi-automatic, the first shot is DA, subsequent shots are SA due to the slide cocking the hammer for you, resulting in differing trigger feel as described above. Example : Beretta 8045, Hoekler and Koch USP series, etc.
Double Action ONLY: Any DA gun which does not allow pre-cocking the hammer because the hammer won't stay cocked, and is often bobbed or hidden. No decock is ever needed, and trigger pull is consistent between first and subsequent shots. Example: AMT Backup
Striker Fire: Rather than a hammer, an internal striker is cocked and released to fire. The striker is cocked by the first motion of the slide, and there is no way to decock other than squeezing the trigger.
Single Action: Pulling the trigger does ONE thing : if the hammer has been cocked, it will release the hammer. Trigger pull is light, short, and consistant between first and subsequent shots. Example: Star Firestar Plus.
Double Action: Pulling the trigger does TWO things : it will first cock the hammer if it hasn't been cocked, and then it will release the hammer. DA Trigger pull is longer and heavier than SA, but the user can cock the hammer first if they want to fire in "Single Action Mode." If the gun is semi-automatic, the first shot is DA, subsequent shots are SA due to the slide cocking the hammer for you, resulting in differing trigger feel as described above. Example : Beretta 8045, Hoekler and Koch USP series, etc.
Double Action ONLY: Any DA gun which does not allow pre-cocking the hammer because the hammer won't stay cocked, and is often bobbed or hidden. No decock is ever needed, and trigger pull is consistent between first and subsequent shots. Example: AMT Backup
Striker Fire: Rather than a hammer, an internal striker is cocked and released to fire. The striker is cocked by the first motion of the slide, and there is no way to decock other than squeezing the trigger.
There are two basic methods for dimpling the primer.
In the first, a hammer is cocked (either manually, by slide action or by trigger action) and released by the trigger. The impact of the hammer is transferred through a firing pin (which may be mounted on the hammer) to the primer.
In the second, a striker is pulled back (either by slide action, by trigger action or by a combination of the two) and released by the trigger. The striker acts as a large spring-driven firing pin and strikes the primer. As an interesting aside, nearly all bolt-action rifles are striker fired.
In the first, a hammer is cocked (either manually, by slide action or by trigger action) and released by the trigger. The impact of the hammer is transferred through a firing pin (which may be mounted on the hammer) to the primer.
In the second, a striker is pulled back (either by slide action, by trigger action or by a combination of the two) and released by the trigger. The striker acts as a large spring-driven firing pin and strikes the primer. As an interesting aside, nearly all bolt-action rifles are striker fired.
kingbigluke
New member
What do you think is better striker fire or a hammer?
chris in va
New member
There is no 'better' or 'worse'. Personal preference on how you like the trigger pull to feel. Striker is the same, all the time. The one's I've tried are somewhat mushy.
azredhawk44
Moderator
Cosmetically, I like guns with hammers over strikers. I'm purging my safe of Glocks and XD's in favor of 1911's and CZ's.
From a sight alignment perspective, I find that the sights are easier to pick up on when the gun has a hammer. At first I thought it was grip angle (one of the biggest complaints about Glocks), but my XD has the same issue for me. The rear of the gun (which contains the striker mechanism) draws my attention. Perhaps I have bad eyes or something, but it takes me longer to acquire the front sight in my vision with a striker gun than a hammered gun.
Concealment-wise, I find hammers easier to conceal. Striker guns tend to be squared and bulky, and the striker mechanism portion of the gun tends to be the forward-most portion of the gun when carried IWB or OWB. I find that this blocky protrusion prints more loudly through my clothes than a gun with a hammer since the lines on the hammered gun have more scallop and curve to them usually.
kingbigluke
New member
azredhawk44 in AZ is it required that you have a permit to carry a concealed firearm?
It's mostly personal preference. Here are some of the pros & cons.
Strikers tend to be more enclosed designs which keeps debris out of the action of the gun. They tend to be more snag-free for the same reason.
If the gun is a DA type striker, it can be hard for a designer to get the same energy level available in a hammer fired design.
Hammer fired guns tend to be a bit more complicated since the striker typically substitutes for more than one part in a hammer-fired design.
It's a bit easier to design a striker-fired autopistol with a low bore axis.
Unless the hammer is concealed, it offers a readily observable status of the pistol that is not as obvious with striker designs.
Decocking strikers is not usually possible.
When the recoil spring becomes very worn, it's possible for a DA type striker to have the slide moved out of battery by the trigger.
I have a hunch that all else being equal, either the recoil spring stiffness or the slide weight must be higher in a striker-fired design since the force that the slide would normally expend cocking the hammer must be dissipated in some way.
Most of this is not going to be particularly useful in making a buying decision, I'd say that sticking with a respected manufacturer and picking a gun that fits you and that you shoot well are all much more important than the nitty gritty details of the design.
azredhawk44
Moderator
Yes, a permit is required to carry concealed in AZ.
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
I would say that this statement in of it'self is not true... while there may be either brands & or models that this might be witnessed on... its failure to consistantly dent primers is based on too light a spring use, based on poor mechanical design... & compromises made on achiving an acceptable trigger pull
since the striker relys solely on the spring to get the energy needed to dent the primer & fire the cartridge, a heavier spring could always be added to provide more energy ( if needed ) so light strikes never "need" to be witnessed with a striker fired weapon
the hammer fired gun's denting of the primer is more complicated, as it relys on a spring, a hammer, with enough mass to carry some momentum, & transfering that momentum to a firing pin... as does the striker fired weapon, the spring ( which is usually much lighter, as it only has to start the hammer swinging ) puts the hammer ( which generally has more mass, hence more momentum once moving than the striker ) into motion...& on all modern guns, the hammer then has to hit the firing pin ( which in reality is just a smaller, lighter, non sprung, or very lightly sprung striker )
lots more can go wrong with a hammer fired weapon... & there is ( even though very little ) more of a time lapse between pull of the trigger & firing of the cartridge... this time lapse, even though small can effect the percieved accuracy of the weapon under recoil... especially for new shooters who do not have all the skills, & may be lacking complete follow through on taking the shot
... But... & this is a big 'ol butt... the springs pressure must be over come to fire the weapon, & the higher the pressure of the spring, the more trigger force is needed to release the striker or hammer ( or the more mechanical advantage must be built into the trigger mechanism ) ( reads more complicated, involving more angles, leverages, & moving parts )... the more complicated the trigger mechanism, the more the "feel" will be effected... so, since a hammer fired weapon can use less spring strength ( it uses the added weight / momentum of the hammer to reliably dent the primer), they almost always have a lighter, smoother or better "feeling" trigger...
I personally have both, & IMO... neither is better, so long as the design of each weapon consistantly goes bang every time I pull the trigger...
45_Shooter
New member
I'll admit a hammer fired weapon is usually slightly more complicated than a striker, but I really don't see a difference between the reliability of one over the other. If anything, hammer fired weapons usually have a harder primer hit than a striker.
I've also never seen a shooter (new or not) struggle to shoot a hammer fired weapon due to what you describe, the firing time difference has to miniscule if anything at all. The fastest race pistols on the planet (semi or revolver) are all hammer fired, so I can't imagine it really matters that much.
I usually see a new shooter struggling much more with trigger control of a long, uneven, or mushy DAO trigger than a short SA one, and I'd tend to think that makes up for any slight difference in ignition time they might face.
I also don't understand that point. The time it takes for sear/hammer
engagement to break and the time when bullet leaves the muzzle is
instantaneous.
It used to be that with match lock weapons, the time between lowering
of the match and bullet leaving muzzle would be as much as a second.
But who here still shoots match lock weapons?
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
sorry... I wasn't trying to imply the striker fired weapon was easier to shoot... only speaking specifically of the time of the action... I'd be the 1st to admit a horrible trigger is harder to over come for both new & old shooters alike...
... & that a lighter spring on the striker is often the factory response of a horrible trigger "feel" with plenty of spring on the striker... however I stand by my statement that striker fired weapons are no more prone to light strikes than hammer fired weapons, & often more easy to correct, because of a normally simpler mechanism...
There's nothing inherent in the striker design that makes light strikes a given.
The problem comes when one tries to combine a striker with a DA or DA hybrid action where the trigger retracts (or partially retracts) the striker. In order to keep the trigger pull reasonable a compromise must be made and the result of that compromise can be less striker energy than is ideal.
In addition, if one goes overboard with the striker spring, it's possible to get into a situation where the striker spring will hinder the slide from going fully into battery.
You can get around all those issues in one way or another. The issue isn't the striker in and of itself, but rather the interaction of the various design requirements and the compromises they require.
As mentioned earlier, bolt action rifles are nearly exclusively striker-fired and yet have an impressive amount of firing pin/striker energy.
When it comes to the IMPLEMENTATION of a particular design, one may find that some striker fired designs do not have the energy of a hammer fired design for some of the above reasons. How much does it matter to the shooter? Not much--a respected manufacturer will deal with the design compromises in a practical manner to insure that the final product is fully functional.