Why Striker?

Until recently with the slow down I'd say very little of that "cost savings" ever got passed on to us.

I mean look at glock.. generally go for 500 which is the same price I can get a new beretta 92.. tell me which one cost more to produce? I would love to see the actual markup on a glock, They aren't passing on a damn thing to the consumer.

I don't particularly have any thing against striker fired guns, although I prefer hammers.

polymer on the other hand while I will admit is strong enough to make a gun out of I've yet to come across a polymer gun that I thought was "a work of art"
A few might be considered pretty at a distance but they always feel utilitarian in the hand, I can't ever see wanting to pass a glock, xd, m&p, etc down to my kids (well if I had any) except for the fact that "hey im your dad and I owned this hunk of plastic"

I mean to say is I just don't see those type of guns as "heirlooms".. They look like tools and they feel like tools and that's about the size of it.

It's because of that I don't feel the need to own a collection of poly guns, I don't see them as "investments" at all, A poly gun has to serve a real purpose (or is just dirt cheap) or I have no eyes for it.

What I hate most of all is the "safe action triggers" however having recently bought a Taurus 709 (price was just to cheap to ignore anymore) I guess I'll be dancing with the devil on that one.

It really is no surprise that these types of guns might be popular, It's because they make up most of the market now, we could argue which came first the chicken or the egg.. although for my 2cents I'd say the industry made the move to copy glock success and save money rather than customer demand.

If you wanted a glock you bought a glock, how many people was beating down S&W's door to create the sigma?

It would be one thing if it was just a co-exist situation but companies sometimes try to retro fit their older designs with polymer.. Taurus is especially bad about this.. and once that transition is complete the older metal framed gun is often discontinued.

The writing was on the wall when they started poly-izing revolvers..
 
I believe a little bit in the generational thing. I don't have any issue with poly semiautos, but I was coming of age when Glocks were new and stirring the pot, so to speak. I was a little shocked when I started seeing poly revolvers and without ever holding one or shooting one, I'm just not interested in those.

I think to some degree, the same applies with striker vs hammer. Younger people are surrounded by strikers, so naturally, that's what they're mostly going to look at. One of many possibilities.
 
Maybe I'm the exception, but I'm plenty pleased with my (cheap to make) striker fired, polymer handguns. ;)
 
K_Mac,

I have a couple of buddies that carry stryker fired guns....but personally, I still carry a full sized, 5", 1911, all stainless...but in 9mm now.

(some of my buddies carry 1911's..as well...)...but most all of us are over 60...

Maybe the trends are changing even among older shooters.../ ...I know 25 yrs ago, none of my generation would have considered carrying a 9mm - especially in a 1911...( and 4 of my closer buddies have all gone to 1911's in 9mm..)..some arthritis, carpel tunnel, etc...has caused us to get off the .45 acp band wagon ( although we still all own guns in .45acp / we don't shoot them as much as we used to - and we quit carrying them in the last few years -- as better and better defensive ammo became available in 9mm).
 
Last edited:
roashooter said:
bingo...which translates to greater profit.....gun makers are not in the business of pleasing the user...they are in it for the profits...
Click to expand...



I guess I don't think they can't both make profits and please the user. For years you've still been able to find hammer fired pistols and I imagine you will continue to be able to find hammer fired pistols for years to come. The lower cost pistols seem to be the ones selling and that typically means striker fired polymer pistols. Even if they're not your cup of tea, it seems to me that manufacturers are pleasing the customer in offering what the majority of them seem to be buying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
For me, I prefer a single consistent trigger pull. Easier to train for.

My preference is SAO, followed by strikers.
 
TunnelRat, I think that long-term profits are only realized by making products that meet the demands of the consumer. There are many who don't like polymer striker fired pistols, but most of us are very happy with light weight, reliable, durable, and accurate high capacity pistols. When you add reasonably priced to the list it is no wonder they are are a huge part of the market.

BigJim, I am also over 60. I think 1911s are beautiful handguns. I understand why many who grew up with them are not willing to consider striker fired polymer pistols.
 
Discussions like this trip my trigger in several ways, but the biggest one that irks me is how easily (and often) sweeping blanket statements are used, and accepted as 100% fact when they aren't actually 100% fact. (RANT WARNING!!!:eek:)

One can, (and many do) ignore the exceptions, or consider them inconsequential, but when you make a blanket statement and don't allow for the exceptions, I think it weakens the statement, and possibly calls your objectivity, and accuracy, into question.

There hasn't been a new rifle or shotgun designed with an exposed hammer in well over 100 years.
Click to expand...

What about the Browning BLR??

Of course, if your definition is broad enough, you could say there haven't been any NEW gun designs in over 100 years. ALL our guns today are simply refinements of designs more than 100 years old. Bolts, levers, pumps, semis and revolvers all existed more than 100 years ago. My definition isn't quite that broad, however.

Simple is always better, striker fired guns are more reliable.
Click to expand...

I realize the possibility of an exposed hammer being jammed, so in that regard, striker fired is more LIKELY to be reliable. But, again, I find the blanket statement that striker fired guns are more reliable to be...over reaching. Such a statement implies ALL striker fired guns are more reliable all the time, and that, simply is not true. The Luger is a striker fired gun. I believe that right there shoots holes in the validity of "always more reliable".

Perhaps people shoot them better because of faster lock times?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Personally, I don't put a lot of weight into that as a factor. A faster lock time MIGHT make a difference, but I think it would have to be an exceptional individual to be able to make use of it in a gun that isn't built to give better than a couple inch groups at 25yds. What makes a difference in a rifle, shot from a rest, with the intent to put all the shots in a single hole doesn't have the same degree of importance, I think.

You can make a hammer fired pistol with a consistent trigger pull. HK LEM, SIG DAK, S&W 3rd Gen DAO, and other examples too. But it won't be as short of a trigger press.
Click to expand...

Again, overly broad statement. Seems focused on DA hammer guns, ignoring SA hammer guns which DO have a short "trigger press".

The trigger pull is consistent
Click to expand...

This one fall short on many levels. I THINK the author is referring to striker fired trigger not having the change from DA (long) to SA (short) pull, but there isn't enough said to be certain.

One of the Glocks I've shot had a horribly INCONSISTANT trigger pull. Over 200 rounds, and virtually every shot fired with a different feeling length and weight of pull, at random. That gun was probably individually defective, but it certainly wasn't consistent as far as trigger pull went.

Sometimes striker fired guns have consistent trigger pulls that are consistent crap.

And then there's the biggest blanket of all,
Striker fired guns are cheap to make
Click to expand...

SOME of them are. Current design Polymer framed striker fired guns, are. A Luger is NOT.

Yes, I'm a pain in the rear about this. If you're talking about polymer framed striker fired guns, particularly those made in the Glock style, SAY SO.

Don't just say "striker fired", because that covers every design of striker fired pistol ever made, more than a few of which have virtually nothing in common with the striker fired polymer framed service type pistols, other than the fact that they are pistols and are striker fired.

If you want to restrict discussion to a certain class of pistol, all with similar features, that FINE. Just SAY SO. Otherwise, you open the door to snarky folks like me. :D

I realize I'm being a pest about this, but when all we do is repeat overbroad generalities and blanket statements the discussion really has little merit.

I've got a striker fired pistol, with a very fast lock time, terrific trigger pull, polymer grip frame, shoots MOA size groups and has a couple hundred yards of easily usable range. It's a terrific gun. It's also a terrible choice for personal protection, and concealed carry is only an option under a poncho or something similar. If your discussion's limit is (only) striker fired, fairness means that one must be included, as well.;)

Not saying the group doesn't know what its talking about, only that we should express ourselves with more accuracy.

As to the fading away of the popularity of DA/SA semi autos in favor "more consistent" trigger pull of a Glock style striker fired gun, or a DAO type trigger, it makes me wonder if Jeff Cooper wasn't right (about that) all along.

Cooper said (for decades) that the DA semi auto was an ingenious solution to a problem that did not exist. PERHAPS people are actually starting to realize this, though without often recognizing it??
 
Yup, 1911's are the way to go, in my opinion ... I am very fond of my Wilson's in 9mm and in .45 acp...both have been solid and well made guns.

I think hammer fired as well as other ( non poly, non stryker ) weapons will continue to be in the market...Wilson Combat has a new alloy frame, double stack hybrid coming out pretty soon / not sure I want one, but a buddy has one on pre-order, so I'll be able to fire it a little when he gets it.

I think I will just stick with my traditional, 5", 1911's...
 
I was reading a review of the new Walther Creed, which, though it has an enclosed slide, is hammer-fired.
One of the reasons cited for it being hammer- rather than striker-fired is that the former is cheaper to make.

I suspect that striker systems, completely enclosed within the all-steel slide, are easier to engineer than a system that divides the ignition components between the slide and frame, and also results in fewer openings through which "gunk" (technical term) can get into the gun.
 
I think some folks are getting #triggered by this thread.

Again, overly broad statement. Seems focused on DA hammer guns, ignoring SA hammer guns which DO have a short "trigger press".
Click to expand...

It was 100% focused on DA pistols. I was countering those that brought up DA/SA pistols as the example of non-safety-equipped hammer fired pistols (as IMightBeWrong said, revolvers with higher capacity). There's also the fact that when it comes to law enforcement and the like the last major pushes from many of the big manufacturers in the hammer fired field were DAO variants. But if my exclusion of SAO or other pistols offering a cocked and locked type condition offended you, then you have my apologies.

Not sure why "trigger press" needs to be in quotes. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
What a thread... My opinion, is that modern Striker fired pistols offer certain advantages that have made them very popular over the years...

1. Consistent "DAO-like" trigger pull with no DA/SA transition or need for cocked and locked carry, no decocking levers, etc.

2. Simpler firing mechanism design, vs a hammer fired mechanism (talking Glocks and similar pistols here)

3. They offer a simpler manual of arms. Point and shoot, finger off the trigger and you are safe. No levers, unless you want one

4. Their polymer construction offered less weight to power vs the competition at the time

In the case of the Glock and similar pistols, they were offered to LE Agencies at very competitive prices.

YMMV...
 
Pond, how much of the popularity of electric lights is a result of cashing in on Edison's work? Or the popularity of automobiles a result of Ford's work? Glock introduced a product whose time had come and who still has a huge share of the market. All of the major manufacturers sell variants though. I think the popularity of polymer striker fired pistols by other manufacturers has far more to do with demand than Glock's market share.
 
I think it comes down to a much shorter learning curve - it's easy to shoot a striker gun well.

I personally prefer DA/SA, but it literally took thousands of dry-fire repetitions to get just reasonably 'ok' at it. Even now, I'm nowhere near as accurate in DA as I am with a striker or with SA, but it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make for the psychological comfort of that heavy DA pull.
 
I like all types of handguns and try to shoot them all half-way competently.

In fact, this weekend may be time to put an edge on the flint and clamp it into the jaws of a muzzle-loading pistol. Don't stand downwind of me! :p

little flippy things on the triggers
Click to expand...

I like that phrase!

Bart Noir
 
I simply prefer a hammer fired pistol. I can "decock" the hammer with a round in the chamber and the gun is then "safe", meaning that unless you pull the trigger (in DA) or cock the hammer and pull the trigger (in a SA) the gun won't go off. I don't like the "safety" triggers with the skinny lever in the middle any more than the two stage trigger of the 03A3. I want the trigger to move when I start to pull it and I want it to affect the release of the hammer.
I own two striker fired semi-autos and neither of them are equipped with a "de-cocker" mechanism. You have to pull the trigger to release the striker. My bolt action rifle will de-cock if I close the bolt with the trigger pulled - with or without a round in the chamber. I use that function when I store the empty rifle. My pistols have to be fired (without a round in the chamber) in order to store them in a relaxed state.
The best safety that can always be counted on is your trigger finger and the trained use of it. Safeties are mechanical devices that can and will malfunction. I don't use them. People who do use them (there are exceptions) get used to trusting the safety and feel that it preempts the safe handling rules. There are a lot of folks who blame an accidental shooting of another person on a safety malfunction when if the muzzle had been pointed in a safe direction the faulty safety would only produced a unintentional discharge.
Why a striker? Hey, if you like striker fired guns then go for it. Enjoy them and use them safely. I like a hammer on my handguns and even on my rifles and shotguns. I also shoot bolt guns that are striker fired and love the accuracy and ease with which they can be used. Whether a striker fired handgun is cheaper to make or not has a lot of components and the striker fired double action can have the same number of parts or more than some hammer fired guns. Price is based on a level of profit and what the market will allow. Brand name of good reputation demand a higher price even if they are less expensive to manufacture. A new product costs a great amount of money to change or setup the new tooling and education of employees. All that has to be regarded in the initial pricing. If the market demand is higher than the product produced the price goes up. If the new product doesn't sell well then the line is a loss and the product is suspended or deleted with the costs passed on to other more successful lines. Businesses have to make a profit or they won't be "in business" for very long. They have to serve a demand and keep the customers happy so the can sell more products.
Right now, striker fired pistols are a larger section of the market because that is what most are buying. There is still a serviceable market for hammer fired guns too and I don't see that going away any time soon.
 
Safeties are mechanical devices that can and will malfunction. I don't use them. People who do use them (there are exceptions) get used to trusting the safety and feel that it preempts the safe handling rules. There are a lot of folks who blame an accidental shooting of another person on a safety malfunction...
Click to expand...

I get weary of reading this kind of post. It is absolute nonsense to claim that although there are exceptions, the folks who trust mechanical safeties are more likely to disregard safe gun handling practices. I'd love to see some evidence of this. While your trigger finger is an important safety device, the most important safety is between your ears. A Glock, 1911, or revolver is only as safe as the person who carries it. There are no exceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top