Why Striker?

K_Mac,
If you want to see evidence of people blaming safety malfunctions on the injury to another just look up "Remington safety/trigger problems". One guy tried to sue Remington for the death of his family member when his Remington fired as a result of a "faulty" safety when the bullet went through their trailer and killed a person who was on the other side. There are a number of other examples that came to the forefront during the law suit.
You will note that I was careful not to include "most" or even a high percentage of people. The small percentage of shooters that rely on safeties over proper gun safety still constitute "many" in my opinion. The people who I know as safe gun handlers rarely rely on or even use the gun's safety.

As far as the safety of the trigger finger is concerned you should note I stated, "The best safety that can always be counted on is your trigger finger and the trained use of it. That would agree with your point, "...the most important safety is between your ears." and I totally agree.

I could have worded my opinions differently but I failed to think that it would offend someone, for that I apologize.
 
Shootist I had a long response typed into my phone and hit the wrong button, erasing it. I hate technology sometimes.

The Remington example is interesting. You're right that safe handling practices would preclude anyone getting killed. A gun that fires when it shouldn't is dangerous though, and selling rifles with known defective safety/trigger mechanisms is hard to understand.

I shoot with guys that I trust and respect who shoot a variety of handguns. Some have external safeties and some don't. I know others that shoot those same guns that I don't shoot with because I don't trust their judgement. My point is, it is not what they shoot that matters.
 
K_Mac,
Most of the Remingtons that were examined as part of the law suit showed incorrect modifications by the owners or "gunsmiths". With the hundreds of thousands of 700s sold it was less than a tenth of 1% that had problems. Most were modified and some were just neglected. As the original designer stated, neglecting to maintain the gun properly could cause the trigger sear plate to rust between the plate and trigger causing engagement problems. The firing control group was never found to be defective in any way. They did change the trigger mechanisms in the 700 as a part of a settlement and used an adhesive to bond the two parts together. In the first run of the new triggers there was a problem noted where too much adhesive had been applied and it caused problems, Remington quickly recalled the guns causing quite a few people to believe that the trigger "problem" was finally being admitted by Remington. It was a completely different problem with a completely different trigger. As a long time Remington owner I have never had any problems with the triggers. All of my Remingtons have after market triggers installed. The triggers were replaced to get better trigger pulls and had nothing to do with failures or concerns of future failures.

The folks I shoot with, I trust with my life. The shooters I associate with is a different group of folks. I am an RSO (NRA trained) and I am constantly reminding people that the muzzle should remain pointing down range. I get real tired of hearing, "its not loaded" or "the safety is on" and I am sometimes harshly short with those who continue to make the same mistake. I do wish that I could select those using the range while I am there, but that can't happen and I try to keep a patient and light demeanor when privately reinforcing gun safety rules.
 
Shootist I admire your patience in dealing with the public at your range. I would not last as the safety officer at most ranges. Life is too short to deal with idiots. While idiots make up a small percentage of the shooting public, it only takes a few... I am fortunate that I don't have to deal with the general public where I shoot.

I thought I read that Remington had admitted there was a flaw in the 700 trigger/safety design. I can't imagine that something I read online wasn't true!:D
 
K_Mac Shootist I admire your patience in dealing with the public at your range. I would not last as the safety officer at most ranges. Life is too short to deal with idiots. While idiots make up a small percentage of the shooting public, it only takes a few... I am fortunate that I don't have to deal with the general public where I shoot.

I thought I read that Remington had admitted there was a flaw in the 700 trigger/safety design. I can't imagine that something I read online wasn't true!
Click to expand...

They did! They admitted that some of the new triggers had too much adhesive applied and that it could interfere with the safe operation of the gun. A lot of people who were less informed than they believed just took it for granted that this was the "long term" problem with the original trigger. It wasn't but the internet is still flooded with information about how Remington finally admitted that they had produced a faulty trigger all along. BTW of all the suits in the past over the original trigger they never lost even one case. The last "class action" suit was settled out of court because it was cheaper than going through the same old BS. They agreed to change the trigger design (which was already being planned) to get rid of the bad press that the few cases had brought. It was a "win - win" solution that would have been very successful had it not been for the error in applying glue to the new triggers.

Well, just remember that quote about truth and the internet from Abraham Lincoln... and don't forget your sense of humor!

as for dealing with the public - Well I kind of asked for it. I took the class and paid for it and even renew it, so I can only blame me for it. I just try to keep two things in mind:
1. My mom used to ask, "how important is it going to be in ten years?"
2. Don't take life too seriously; nobody gets out alive.

I tend to be pretty thick skinned (or thick headed), having grown up with 8 brothers and 3 sisters. I'm not perfect - or even close to perfect - but I have remained mellow throughout the years.
 
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.
Click to expand...

My point was more that Glock, as far as I'm aware, was the first major manufacturer to make their entire line striker-fired. They've been extraordinarily successful with their product and it seems that since then other companies have launched their own. Even hammer-fired bastions like CZ....

My question was would we be seeing the same level of striker-fired contributions by other brands if Glock had never been?
 
I've gotten rid of all but 2 of the striker fired pistols I had. I'm pretty much all CZ DA/SA and 1911's now and very happy with the decision.
 
Why?
Gaston Glock is a good salesman.
They are cheaper.
The military and police buy from the lowest bidder.
 
@Pond

Well apparently glock was not the first to be polymer or striker.

First striker gun (that I could find) was the Colt Model 1908 Vest Pocket.. Also known as the "model N"
Designed by none other then the man himself.. John Browning.
Circa 1908, a .25acp pocket gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Model_1908_Vest_Pocket

I know we're on the subject of strikers but there was also the Rem. Nylon 66 which wiki puts at 1959 that had a polymer stock (although not a handgun)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_66

First polymer handgun distinction appears to goto the Russian's in 1963
A polymer framed Markov, although the gun never saw mass production so this one might be a bit of a cheat.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/01/31/worlds-first-polymer-pistol-makarov

HOWEVER!
It appears the first polymer framed, striker fired, "production" gun was the
HK VP70 circa 1970, a full 9 years before glock, But was a flop at only 20k produced.
https://guncarrier.com/first-polymer-and-striker-pistol

Glock 17 circa 1979

I did not do a search but I am pretty sure glock was the first to have a split "safe action" trigger though.


P.S You wouldn't happen to be a fish would you?
 
My question was would we be seeing the same level of striker-fired contributions by other brands if Glock had never been?
Click to expand...

I don't think we can know the answer for sure. I think that Glock realized his design was simple and elegant, and marketed it aggressively. I tend to think that when there is a market for something, someone will fill the need. The popularity of striker fired polymer pistols in military, law enforcement, and personal defense shows the market was there. Glock was smart and his timing good. My guess is if he had not been there, someone else would have been.
 
JoeSixpack said:
I did not do a search but I am pretty sure glock was the first to have a split "safe action" trigger though.
Click to expand...
Although the design was somewhat different, AFAIK the first pistol to use a similar trigger "dingus" was the J.P. Sauer & Sohn Behördenmodell (aka Behörden Model, Behörden Pistol, or simply Behörden), a variant of the Model 1913/1930 series introduced ca. 1930. It's also striker-fired. :D More info here.

FWIW I own a Model 1930, which lacks the "dingus" and reportedly has some internal differences in the sear mechanism, but is otherwise similar. Neither pistol completely did away with the external safety a la Glock; they have a thumb safety that's mounted below the trigger guard and doubles as a slide stop.
 
The rise in popularity of striker fired pistol tracks pretty well with the decline and decadence of the western world. They are to handgunning what "auto tuning" is to singing.

It's way easier to shoot a striker fast and well. However, for most variants you'd be well advised to always have them holstered when not in active use and never appendix carry them. I dislike the lack of carry and "grab from the nightstand" versatility of most striker pistols. The "manual safety" on most striker variants is this bulky freaking thing called a holster.

For consistent trigger pulls, SAO hammer options check the box even better than striker fired does. DA/SA is harder to master the trigger modes on, but the reward is maximum versatility for safe readiness in and out of a holster "system." I can throw a "naked" 1911, CZ-75 or 92FS in the center console or glove compartment of my truck. I can leave them "naked" on the nightstand or tuck them into my waistband to answer the door. I am not forced to wear a holster all of my waking hours as the mechanical safety of a striker fired pistol.
 
TunnelRat said:
Okay. Where did you find all the straw for that straw man of yours? Borrow it from Dorothy? I don't see anyone advocating anything remotely along those lines.
Click to expand...

The striker system is inherently simpler, uses fewer parts, and as Glock has shown, is easier to maintain. I can swap all of the springs in my striker fired Glock in under 3 minutes with just a punch. Taking down my Sig P229, or any of my other firearms, to swap out springs takes much longer, and generally requires a detail strip.

More springs = more cyclic use parts that will fail.

More parts = more parts that will experience wear and will fail.

The striker spring being the only commit energy to the firing pin makes diagnosing light primer strikes simple: replace that spring.

That they produce a consistent trigger pull with each shot is an added bonus. Everyone falls all over themselves to worship at the altar of Single Action triggers like old school revolvers or--pause for the chorus of angles--the Colt 1911. While the light, and mechanically straight (as in literally straight) trigger mechanism of the 1911 is great, one of the key, if not THE key, to the platform is that it is consistent.

My Glock 19 with a (-) trigger bar, and a bit of light stoning / polishing has a fantastic trigger, which is more than enough to get out of my way during shooting. A PPQ gives me more for free, and I run it better, but again, we're still talking strikers.

It doesn't have to just be Glocks. I happen to be issued one, and carry one on my own time. The Sig P320, the Walther PPQ, etc. all still have the same advantages as far as single-action-esque triggers. The Sig, for example, is a very simple firearm to maintain.

Striker fired pistols are also easier / cheaper to produce. Thus the VP9 is the most affordable of the H&K line.

Firearms technology has advanced since the first matchlocks, fellas. It will continue to advance. The striker, for the pistol at least, is the current technology standard.

The question in some ways is 'why hammers'?
 
Last edited:
That's great information. It in no way justifies the straw man argument of earlier. No one here is advocating going back to matchlocks. :rolleyes: For that matter it's an impressive amount of hyperbole to suggest that the differences between the striker fired pistols of today and the hammer fired pistols of today even remotely approach the differences between matchlock firearms and modern firearms.

You have the knowledge to make a legitimate argument. My point was straw men, or hyperbole in the best case, aren't needed.
 
Last edited:
The rise in popularity of striker fired pistol tracks pretty well with the decline and decadence of the western world. They are to handgunning what "auto tuning" is to singing.
Click to expand...

Firearms technology has advanced since the first matchlocks, fellas. It will continue to advance. The striker, for the pistol at least, is the current technology standard.
Click to expand...

So our answer is somewhere between the striker fired pistol as a sign of the Apocalypse and the striker fired pistol as the paragon of semi-automatic handguns. I think that clears it up.
 
Lol. Seems that way. If I could give you a thumbs up, I would.

I would also remind folks for the third time that striker fired pistols are not new. They've been with us since before 1900. Yes the combination of them with polymer is a much more recent development than that, but good or bad they've been around some time. And yet we're still here, they're still here, and hammer fired pistols are still here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top