Why Striker?

[briandg]

Follow the money. A 1911 may cost$1,000 for a very basic model. A carefully milled frame and slide, milled and honed trigger and hammer components or even cast , none of these components can compete with a polymer, striker fired tool.

No finishing at all is required for a polymer frame. A few stamped and hardened steel inserts are in place while plastic is molded. There is NEVER a need to replace milling or other bits, no huge setup efforts. The molds are made ad can literally run for tens out thousands of frames. The most complicated part is slide, since barrels are identical, they don't even matter anymore.

An equivalent polymer striker fired pistol should cost maybe 70% of the cost of a traditional pistol, otherwise, making them would be just plain stupid.

How do they use those savings? First, they reduce the costs by unit of their products to build a huge price advantage. Take a glock, for example, millions of people have passed on the $1,000+ price of a stainless steel framed fn, for example, and bought a glock on sale at buds. Secondly, the makers of polymer guns thank god that they can save a big chunk of money, sell greater volume, and make better profits.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY ABOUT THE MONEY.

They cost less to make, cost less to buy, allowing more people to buy one, or even an entire collection of them. When fence sitters balk at$1,000 and leap at $550 that puts another vote in the mill to replace everything with polymers.

FOLLOW THE MONEY. Even Smith and Wesson whose products have always depended on finely crafted steel have pretty much handed their destiny over to polymer, they've even created polymer revolvers.

Follow the money. The public wants savings and the makers want profits and sales volume and its that simple. The model 29 and K frame are incompatible with those goals.

 

[briandg]

It needs to be mentioned that most (I believe) rifles sold use strikers now there are no hammer bolts. Some of the shotguns I have seen use strikers, some semiautomatic rifles. Over the next thirty years rifles will drift in that same direction. Henry, for example, has already started using aluminum frame small bore rifles and everyone makes cast polymer stocks.

 

[TunnelRat]

External hammer yes, but a great many of the world's most popular semiautomatic rifles use internal hammers. ARs, AKs, etc. Now a fair point is that those designs are older, but to me a counter is despite that they're still around and without a lot of signs of that changing. Even many of the more recent designs still use hammers.

 

[K_Mac]

Briandg, there will always be manufacturers willing to make $1000+ steel hammer fired handguns, as long as there is a market. Ruger and Smith & Wesson still sell many revolvers that are not polymer, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Will they become the cap and ball handguns of the next century? Time will tell.

I don't think letting the market decide what products are available and what they are worth, or following the money if you prefer, is a negative thing. We can wax nostalgically about the days of old, but quality firearms are more affordable and available now than they've ever been. That is a good thing.

 

[44 AMP]

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.

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.

Not the Russians, US...
Remington XP-100, produced 1963-1998 (from Wiki)
Striker fired, "polymer frame" (Dupont Xytel Nylon)

Since it was produced for 35 years I'd say it qualifies as a production gun, and not a "flop"

Absolutely striker fired, its a bolt action! I'd say it qualifies, as "semiautomatic" wasn't one of the listed criteria.

 

[JoeSixpack]

wow that's a interesting if not butt ugly gun.. looks like they took a rifle and chopped it down and put a pistol grip on it.

Never seen one before.

 

[briandg]

I guess that both of you missed my point.design and manufacturing follow immutable rules. Money is a driver, and seriously foolishness drives a lot of decisions to purchase, whether it's guns, beer, cars,or hundreds of other things.

We still shoot longbows, flintlocks, and both the K frame and 1911 will be around for another century, just like it has for the last century.

In fact, I find it really interesting that steel frames have changed very little. The 94 and the ar are classic, and I believe that the glock will go on for another half century or longer.

I was really interested in the Remington electronic primer, but boy, that tanked. The quickest lock time possible, I guess.

It's important to keep in mind that projectile weapons are just about all there is to accomplish what we want to do. Steel, brass, lead, now polymer and aluminum, and boy, I'd love to know what the coming thing is.

I personally think that the steel frame, hammer mechanism, are better, hands down. They are harder to make, cost more, weigh more, but they are The solid steel heavyweight tools. Polymer striker weapons are also a valid choice.

In truth, isn't the striker weapon so old that it smells? The bolt has never had a hammer, as far as I recall.


I keep thinking back on my old pickup. No plastic. Even the dashboard was steel.

 

[TunnelRat]

I didn't miss your point. What I did was point out an oversight.

I'm pretty aware strikers are old. I've been pointing that out since the beginning of this thread.

I'm also aware money is a driving factor. I was not born yesterday (though sometimes I wish I was).

 

[briandg]

Joe, the xp 100 was a great gun, solid, accurate, easy to shoot. The contender was obviously a much smarter decision. The and cuts exemplar was a breath idea, too, and there have been a few other impressive single shot designs. The lone eagle was impressive. But with the contender, it's almost a waste of time to make a single shot pistol.

 

[armoredman]

*sigh*
Even I've moved into the striker world...my CZ P10C followed me home today.

 

[Pond James Pond]

@Pond

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

Never claimed that they were.

Simply that they took a hefty portion of the govt contract market quite comprehensively in the years that followed, when it comes to striker fired over the last decades, and only later did others start to launch their own "service pistol" striker equivalents.

That's all.

P.S You wouldn't happen to be a fish would you?

Sorry: you lost me with that one!

 

[random guy]

I see nothing seriously wrong with striker fired pistols per se. They can be SAO, DAO, DA/SA. They can have de-cockers. They can have steel, aluminum or polymer frames. Externally cocking is one of the few things most hammer guns can do over a striker. And I guess you could put a Springfield/Mosin type cocking piece on the back for that. A striker is said to be more space efficient and possibly cheaper to make but I doubt it's a major change. I can really take strikers or leave them. Other factors matter more to me. My newest carry gun has a hammer.

I believe it was the polymer frame which drove most of the cost savings, weight reduction and in some cases even reduced bulk, at least in the grip area.

What I'm not crazy about is the general trend toward strikers with SAO triggers, with or without safeties. Therein lies a human related disadvantage. A striker pistol allows us to ignore the fact that we're carrying a fully cocked (in some cases) pistol, often with no safety. "As long as nothing pulls the trigger, it's 100% safe". Yeah, I know. I was never really comfortable carrying 1911s either so it's not just that I don't like change.

To me, the pinnacle of safety, readiness and capability was the DA/SA high capacity "wonder nine", although larger caliber versions are welcome. Luckily there are still options on the market for those like me.

I'd call modern strikers a subtle improvement when the other aspects of the gun are also right.

 

[briandg]

What may have been the strangest, and maybe worsti idea ever in striker fire were the needle guns. The design of the more traditional base ignition systembrass internally primed casing wiped it out completely.

It could be argued that it was the first striker vs hammer test. The striker, for countless reasons, absolutely vanished. I see the needle gun as a mind blowing mutant that missed out on the superpowers and essentially was born with a trunk instead of a nose. Just like any mutations, like a frog with no legs, natural selection bred the needle gun out of existence.

I've always been interested by the success of the break open nef singles. The ones with built in rails were interesting mutations.

 

[44 AMP]

it's almost a waste of time to make a single shot pistol.

It kind of is, if you're after a piece of the military, police, and personal defense market. Single shots have been the last choice for those markets since repeaters were invented.

Fortunately, there's more to handgunning than just military, police, and personal defense uses. Unfortunately, a lot of people never go beyond those basics.

I "wasted" about 35 years in that regard. I ignored the Contender & XP-100, no way I was interested in a mere single shot. Then, one day, killing some time in a gunshop, I actually handled a Contender. The trigger pull was as good as the SA pull on my S&W revolvers. I thought, this might bear checking out. Today I have a couple of Contenders, around a dozen barrels, and an XP-100.

Single shots are a different world. Maybe you have no use for them, that's fine. I enjoy them, and consider them pleasant recreation.

As to GLock (and similar)

Simply that they took a hefty portion of the govt contract market quite comprehensively in the years that followed when it comes to striker fired over the last decades and only later did others start to launch their own "service pistol" striker equivalents.

I think you need to look a little beyond the just the pistol itself, and look at the marketing, to understand why & how Glock took over the market for police sales.

Yes, it was COST as the bottom line, and when Glock set out to capture the market, the lower cost of making and finishing polymer frames was a huge advantage. It allowed Glock to price their guns well below their competitor's guns, and still make a significant profit. ALSO Glock usually bought the pistols they were replacing, from the police, and that further lowered the cost of the new guns to the police.

simply put, the Glock was deemed adequate, and it was cheaper. And our governmental agencies are generally required to buy the cheapest, adequate equipment. And, once established as the "next big thing", they became a standard people expected. Other companies simply had to come up with their own version in order to compete.

In my opinion, Glock didn't reach the dominant position they did because their product was vastly superior. Their marketing, however, was.

 

[noonesshowmonkey]

You have the knowledge to make a legitimate argument. My point was straw men, or hyperbole in the best case, aren't needed.

Oh, you. Your gift for pedantry is boundless.

As far as the straw man, I think that the very question of 'why striker?' in 2017 is a Luddite stance. The striker is the defacto standard for professional grade handguns. The very basis of the question undermines the technological advancements, the day-to-day facts (maintenance, cost of use, cost of ownership, ease of manufacture, etc. etc.) that define the striker platform. To ask 'why striker' is tantamount to asking, 'why vaccines?'

Because technology advances. Because humans are incredible creatures that consistently improve on things. Because a matchlock gave way to a flintlock gave way to the breech loader. Because a single action only revolver gave way to a double action revolver, which ceded ground to the automatic pistol, which has gone from a hammer to a... striker.

 

[noonesshowmonkey]

In my opinion, Glock didn't reach the dominant position they did because their product was vastly superior. Their marketing, however, was.

Today, there are more souls snatched with a Glock handgun than any other, I'd wager to say. All of the guys on the pointy end that I've ever known and work with carry either a Glock (usually a 19) or a fancy-pants 1911. When I pull a gun out of a scene, it is either a Glock (17, 19, 22, 23) or a Hi-Point.

If Glock's advantages were limited to marketing alone, then those who kill for a living would be using other kit. As it is, Glocks do more than just hit a price point. It is an uncomfortable truth for those of the Cult of Col. Jeff Cooper, and his absurd 'tupperware' hate, his disgust for 'crunchentickers', and all of the positions of a man too dug into a bygone era. Any armsman owes it to himself to see performance first, above all else, and Glock delivers.

The persistent idea that the Glock design has no value other than it's marketing and cheap cost of manufacture is bankrupt. The entire industry has been trying to catch up for the past thirty+ years. If it were only marketing, the 'tupperware gun' would have come and gone. If it were only marketing, we wouldn't have the FNS, the VP9, the P320, the Baretta APX, the CZ P-10, the Kahr series, the Canik, etc.

Take the blinders off, get your heads out of the sand, stop looking to bygone figures for advice, and use cold reason. Accept nothing but results. The results have been clear for a while: striker fired, high capacity, 9mm handguns with modern bonded HPs are the hands-down best professional use handgun for use when your primary weapon system is down / you do not have the luxury of carrying it.

 

[JoeSixpack]

~Sidebar:

P.S You wouldn't happen to be a fish would you?

Sorry: you lost me with that one!

@Pond
I seen the name and was reminded of a old video game, I thought your name was taken from, I guess not.

It was a series of games in the 16bit era, about a secret agent fish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Pond

 

[briandg]

44, let me rephrase that. With the contender offerings is to me the greatest system possible.any configuration is possible. A new barrel is quite literally a new gun. Accuracy, I have been told, is equal to any handgun made.

Nothing can compete with the contender when you consider the General market. Since the contender came out, it killed the somewhat marginal xp100. There have been several failures created post contender.

In today's climate, more than ever before, designing and creating a new precision single shot and expecting to be profitable isn't going to happen. Today, design, materials, and construction must be cheap. There are very few people who would buy an Xp 100 now because it has no versatility. I shoot my .221 at paper, it would be nice to trade barrels.

All of the competition for the contender, even the Wichita have flopped. If nef eventually creates a pistol, it could survive as a novelty.

To put it as simply as I can, the market for single shots is already small. Xp100 was the most specialized tool made. Sort of like a diamond cutters chisel. People who don't cut diamonds bought the contender.

Some people say that a left hand xp would have sold better. I disagree.

 

[TunnelRat]

Oh, you. Your gift for pedantry is boundless.

That's one way of looking at it. To me straw men and hyperbole detract from a person's argument.

To ask 'why striker' is tantamount to asking, 'why vaccines?'

I think that's a ludicrous statement, and I'm carrying a striker fired pistol at this moment. But believe what you will.

Because a matchlock gave way to a flintlock gave way to the breech loader. Because a single action only revolver gave way to a double action revolver, which ceded ground to the automatic pistol

This is the biggest issue I take with your line of thinking. The examples above are revolutionary changes to firearms development. To me the current striker fired pistol as opposed to current hammer fired pistols are more of an evolutionary change. It still has benefits you've mentioned, but I don't see it nearly as ground breaking as what I have quoted above.

 

[briandg]

Monkey, it's a simple fact, as you say, that they do the job. They do it well. They fill the needs. nearly every specification placed by a majority of departments, I suppose, can be met with a glock. There are well over 100 different makers and models that can also meet most of those specifications, unless there are weight restrictions, or metal frames are disqualified. Since there are plenty of competitors, why is glock chosen?

My thoughts? Glock is Hershey, Smith is nestle, fn and Sig are Ghirardelli, godiva is kimber. The actual decision to buy glock in most cases, I believe, isn't an involved affair. The people set a list of wants, and make the decision as simple as possible.

In my case, the glock nineteen-4 fit nicely and fulfilled all criteria, and I never even looked at alternatives. That may also be because I had heard a number of people complaining about the mp