I've asked this question before but I want to ask a little more specifically what makes striker fired pistols more unsafe than other designs.

So even though I agree that striker fired pistols have smoother and lighter triggers than other designs I think it's much more a software issue than a hardware issue.

Ive been trained from day one to holster slowly and deliberately and took keep my finger off the trigger until it's time to shoot. If you do that the mechanics of the trigger becomes irrelevant.

So,as I've said, I've heard a lot of opinions about striker fired pistols being unsafe but maybe we can look at why.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Meh~you pretty much hit the nail on the head,it's what's between the ears that gets people into trouble with the striker fired pistols.

BUT...let me point something out I've never gotten a clear answer on:

No matter how you cut it,no matter how you try to explain it the fact remains that a striker fired pistol and a single action semi-auto's triggers are very similar,yes the operation is different but the pull itself is very alike.

Now that said I've proposed many times that being the case you should be able to take,say,a Browning Hi-Power and take the safety off and replace it with the safety system used on a striker i.e. some kind of drop safety and a trigger one (the "nub") and totally do away with the manual on-off switch that the weapon has at present...

Right?

However every time I bring this up most "gun people" lose their friggin' minds! you would think I was hitler and suggesting the camps again

But the fact remains the trigger pulls between the two are so similar that you should be able to do this and have no problems at all IF it's so safe on the striker gun,yes you'd have to deal with an exposed hammer but I think it's doable.

That said I've carried several striker guns and never shot myself or anybody else on accident.

But if it's so unsafe on the single action then by all rights the striker guns should have a safety,some do like the M&P and the Ruger SR series.

__________________
Life's a grave,dig it!

Um, what??? It's the more slack, longer pull, heavier pull, grittier pull, of the striker fired pistols that has been their largest criticism. You can't tell me you think the Glock or M&P has a better trigger than a 1911.

Even so, the striker fired guns are not less safe than a hammer gun. Especially with a properly working striker block, the striker guns are every bit as safe as hammer guns.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I don't believe striker-fired guns are necessarily less safe, but I think the margin for error is smaller with striker-fired guns than something like a DA/SA (at least initially) or DAO guns because they typically have lighter, shorter trigger pulls.

I'll have to see if I can find the source, but I remember reading about a study done where police officers, who were trained to keep their fingers off their triggers until going to fire, were observed during stress training and many put their fingers on the trigger without realizing it. IIRC, they were shown videos of their performance afterwards.

Of course, the same issues apply to DA/SA guns that haven't been decocked or SA guns with the manual safety left off. Not unsafe in and of itself, but the margin for error is smaller.

Glocks are every bit as safe as any other handgun as long as you follow the VERY SIMPLE rule of keeping your finger out of the trigger guard and off the trigger until you intend to immediately fire the weapon.

OK, but I will not pocket CC my wife's 9mm shield.
Too much of a chance of me shooting myself rather then when I have my M638.
Her pistol has a 4.5lb trigger that I had to have done since she has lost hand strength for any of my revolvers.

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

I've shot a few Glocks with perfectly sweet trigger pulls. Yeah, there's movement, but it's just a different kind of trigger.

I've also shot some god-awful abominations of a trigger on 1911s. Including some expensive factory jobs. Like, Jeez, who thought putting a 5# pull on a target gun was acceptable?

Or you could argue that having a pistol with two entirely different trigger pulls depending on what condition it's in creates an unsafe situation.

*shrugs*

It's all perspective and opinion and compromises and trade-offs.

Personally, I think the safest thing I can carry is the one that goes bang no matter what stupid thing I decide to do with it. I think I'm a lot less likely to accidentally kill myself than I am to get killed by the guy I'm trying desperately to perforate.

Simple.

The Glock, and its numerous copies and clones, is extremely popular with law enforcement agencies. The single most popular pistol worldwide, in fact.

Now, in any group of people with guns--LEOs, ordinary folk, military guys and gals, and pistol instructors--there are a fair few of them that simply do not have the sense God gave a clam. These people really shouldn't be allowed near guns, automobiles, liquor, power tools, or the opposite sex, but we live in a free society, and them's the breaks.

These sub-clam sense people, when given a gun (or car, good whiskey, table saw, or complimentary genitalia, or what have you), will do something incredibly stupid with it. If we're lucky, they shoot themselves square in the leg. If we're really lucky, they don't do it on a building's upper floors.

With me so far? Good. Now, when most law-bringin' agencies are issuing Glocks, that means that when a police officer who happens to be in the sub-clam group shoots himself in the foot, he's most likely going to do so with a Glock. And since we keep hearin' anecdotal evidence leavin' out the fact that the guy that shot himself in the foot was well-known to be dumb as a post, a fair few of us are going to conclude that there must be somethin' wrong with these plastic guns.

Idiots have been shooting themselves in the foot since the days of the cap and ball. It don't matter if ya give 'em a 1911 or a 226 or an XD or an M&P or a Shield or a .38 Snubbie or a G30 or a damn pellet gun. 'kay? I remember hearing about guys that shot themselves in the foot with wheelguns, back when cops carried wheelguns (and a dime to use the payphone, in case they weren't near a call-box).

Know what I've learned, being the student of human nature that I am?

Always bet on stupid.

This subject is a well traveled road. Training has a lot to do with it. I haven't EDC'd a 1911 for many years, but whenever I do, I engage the thumb safety as soon as I release the slide. It's an automatic response. That said, I feel every bit as safe carrying an M&P with no external safety as I do with a 1911 that has three. Training, practice, and quality holsters, those are the keys.

By themselves they are as safe as any other gun. They will not go off on impact, can be carried loaded, have internal passive safeties. It's when you add the human factor that they can become less safe. If you don't believe me there's plenty of proof on YouTube of 1911 leg. People manage to bypass TWO safeties and shoot themselves in the foot....literally!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Nothing "unsafe" about striker fired pistols....... my personal preference as a civilian carrying concealed is the "extra safety" provided by long double action pull on the first shot.

Course I grew up and spent 20 some years shooting mostly double action revolvers.........................

Using words like "inherently less safe" upsets the people who like them.

They will rightly state that the pistol won't go bang unless the trigger is pulled.

What gets lost in the process is the importance and inadequacy of the training most striker fired pistol shooters receive.

What also gets lost is the need to fully understand the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the system. Some striker fired shooters are very authoritarian in their learning and if someone says "it's the best" or some agency uses it who "only uses the best", they buy it hook line and sinker - often without considering or even understanding the differences in usage or the very important qualifiers that have to be made to use it safely.

For example, the Glock was designed for military and police applications where it would be carried primarily in an OWB duty holster. It might also be worth mentioning that the trend in Europe over most of the 20th century was to carry a semi-auto pistol with an empty chamber. Under this circumstances the safety system on the Glock is far less of an issue than is the case with concealed carry.

The Glock found a great deal of favor in the US among police departments where carrying with around in the chamber is almost universal, and currently has about a 65% market share, in large part because it was viewed as very easy to teach an officer familiar with a DA revolver to carry and shoot a Glock. That's both a blessing and a curse as the large number in use mean a larger number of NDs even if the level risk is low. Unfortunately, the strong market share in the LEO community also forms the basis of an ad popular logical fallacy that because it's the most popular it must be the best, must be safe, etc. with no consideration for differences in usage, training, etc between LEOs and concealed carry armed citizens.

Even within the LEO community there were (and still are) some important differences between DA revolvers and striker fired pistols. In order to experience a negligent discharge, an officer holstering a DA revolver will have to defeat the longer and heavier trigger pull of the DA revolver (usually around 12 pounds) and if he or she is doing it properly, he or she will be able to feel the hammer coming back as the trigger is pulled if it is obstructed by the officer's finger or some other intruding object. The former occurrence was and remains a potential issue for officers in the aftermath of a real world shoot, while the latter is much less likely in an OWB holster with a very rigid mouth on the holster, although some thumb snap designs can still pose problems.

In comparison, unless it's been ordered with a "New York" trigger, the trigger pull on striker fired designs like the Glock is both shorter and lighter than a DA revolver (even if the triggers on many striker fired designs have the general smoothness and feel of a Black and Decker staple gun). Striker fired pistols also lack an external hammer and won't give you the same tactile warning as a DA revolver that something is pressing the trigger.

That makes striker fired pistols much more vulnerable to an ND in the event of any intrusion inside the trigger guard, and potential intrusions are much more likely in concealed carry. That combination of vulnerabilities drives the requirement for a proper holster as well as proper training and understanding of the system's strengths and weaknesses.

----

Yet ironically, you find products like the slide clips to allow a striker fired pistol to be carried without a holster inside the waist band by clipping it directly to the belt:



You also find minimalist holsters like the Versa Carry that support the pistol on the belt but offer basically no protection to the trigger while the weapon is being inserted into the waistband.

(Partial credit to Versa Carry - they sent me this one for evaluation several years ago, and my feedback was not positive. They did however incorporate some changes in the Versa Carry II that adds some partial protection to the trigger - but still not enough that I'd use one or recommend it.)



Under ideal conditions, where the shooter is taking his/her time and can visually observe the process, the risk of these systems is probably minimal. However, if you add in a little distraction or stress, the whole evolution can go south in a hurry.

The good news is that this particular vulnerability can be completely eliminated if the shooter carrying a striker fired pistol (or for that matter a DA revolver) will just use a holster that allows the pistol to be inserted in the holster before it's inserted inside the belt line.

This one from Wild Bill's Concealment has a CZ-75 Compact in it, but it's actually made for a Glock. The holster also uses two thicknesses of leather around a polymer insert that ensures the mouth of the holster stays open ensuring the mouth of the holster will never intrude inside the trigger guard.



In comparison, here is a soft leather IWB holster where it is possible for the lip of the holster to fold over and intrude on the trigger. However, it can still be used safely with a striker fired design as it has a clip that allows the holster to be removed from the belt before inserting the pistol in the holster while it's all held out in front of you in plane sight and pointed in a safe direction:





The bad news is that many of the true striker fired pistol fan boys are often very resistant to this kind of common sense approach to holstering a striker fired pistol due to the previously mentioned authoritarian approach to "knowing" things - absent any critical thinking of how it really applies to their situation. Alternatively some of them are just firmly convinced of their own infallibility and/or insist that the only thing that will fire a striker fired pistol if their own booger hook.

That very optimistic and very unrealistic thinking reflects a lack of knowledge and/or training that places them firmly in the category of an ND waiting for a time and place to happen. But it's not an inherent safety weakness in the striker fired pistol design, it is instead a failure of the shooter to properly understand the system's inherent limitations and accommodate them appropriately.

Plaxico Burress would not have ventilated his thigh with a C&L 1911, and it's highly unlikely that a DA revolver would've resulted in an AD in that case, either. I know, one example, but...

__________________
Because of the metric system?

What about kydex or hybrid holsters that hold their shape

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I do agree that I've come to refuse to carry a striker pistol in anything but a kydex or hybrid type holster,you don't want anything getting in the trigger guard with one...

I don't take the damn thing out to re-holster though,I just take my time and often will look at what I'm doing when I shove it back in there,never did understand those who practice "speed re-holstering" why? just why? are you in a hurry to put the thing back? if you've done it right you've got time to stick in back in speedy,slow down

__________________
Life's a grave,dig it!

"Better" maybe wasn't the right word but I have gotten consistently higher qualification scores with striker fired (M&Ps) pistols than with SA (Never qual'd with a 1911) pistols and IMO that's the only metric that counts.

Specially modified handgun, doesn't count for this.

Although I bet it would work just fine with the proper holster

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Holding it's shape is the key. I personally don't like Kydex - but not for safety reasons. As long as it never cracks or breaks Kydex is stiff enough to avoid intruding on the trigger guard and poses no safety issues.

However it's not a universal endorsement of Kydex or other polymer holsters either.

Nearly all holsters using a release button are made out of kydex or some other polymer. The problem is that any release that requires placing your trigger finger near the location of the trigger will greatly increase the potential of a negligent discharge under stress.

Consider this typical example where the shooter places his trigger finger on the release button:



Theoretically it sounds like a great idea as the finger is actually aligned with where it should be on the frame of the pistol after it's drawn. That's exactly how it works under optimum, controlled conditions. But it's the "press" of the finger that causes the problem as under stress or great time pressure, the tendency is for the trigger finger to just keep pressing during the draw and it will often keep pressing it's way right into the trigger guard and onto the trigger, putting the first round in the ground or into the shooters leg or foot.

Now...to be fair I've seen people do that with a 1911 and in a leather holster with no release as well. The thumb pushes the safety off before the weapon is pointed safely down range, and the trigger finger finds the trigger prematurely, resulting in an ND. In both cases it's a training issue, but in the case of the 1911 and no release button holster the level of "stupid" needed to get an ND has to be a little higher.

People will devolve to their lowest level of fully mastered training and a release button is just one more item that has to be thoroughly and completely mastered. Even then it is still a solution in search of a problem. In 30 years of concealed carry, I've never had a pistol or revolver come out of a decent fitting IWB holster - a release just isn't needed for secure IWB carry. If you really feel you need one, a thumb break is just as fast, poses fewer risks, and those risks are in re-holstering (where the strap can enter the trigger guard), where you've got more time to ensure you re-holster safely.

What lure have you caught the most fish on?
The one you fish the most.
What gun will have the most negligent discharges?
The one that is carried most.

It is your responsibility to keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

It is your responsibility to re-holster carefully to ensure nothing will interfere with the process such as clothing or other foreign objects.

It is your responsibility to inspect your holsters and equipment and ensure they are in serviceable order and not defective or worn to the point of being unsafe.

We are living in a society now where nobody wants to take responsibility so they like to blame inanimate objects or project the blame on to others.

The problem isn't striker fired pistols being inherently unsafe, the problem is individuals don't like to take responsibility for their own actions. But welcome to 21st century America.

I actually don't disagree with what you are saying, particularly on the speed re-holstering issue.

But it's different after a self defense shoot (or even if you've just drawn the weapon in self defense and never fired it). You're not only dealing with the psychological issues of having just shot someone or almost shot someone, but you've also got a boat load of adrenaline in your system with the result that any fine motor skills you thought you had have vanished. Coming off the adrenaline rush is even worse as you may find your knees shaking so hard you can barely stand and your hands won't be much better.

At times like that, you're better off if you've trained to remove an IWB holster (with a belt clip) to re-holster your weapon.

Most kydex jobs have no release and have a pinch type system to secure the pistol,there actually isn't many plastic holsters with any sort of retention that you have to disengage outside of duty ones.

You just grab the gun and tug and out it comes,but if it's done right you can just about literally tie a rope to the thing and twirl it and the gun will stay put,so if you were turned upside down and shook you're pistol ain't going nowhere.

__________________
Life's a grave,dig it!

Never been attacked by a human,but I've been on the bad side of a dog a couple times-trust me the adrenaline is kickin' and I never shot myself,just stuck the pistol back and went about my business.

Now fido....yea,they don't do well against a nine or a forty five.

__________________
Life's a grave,dig it!

I agree.

It's also your responsibility to know your own limitations and stay within them.

It's also your responsibility to accurate assess your own limitations so you KNOW them well enough that you CAN stay within them.

The sad fact is the majority of people are really, really, bad at accurate self assessment of their skills and abilities. They are even less accurate at accurately assessing their skills and abilities when distracted, or worse when under extreme stress.

You need to choose and configure your equipment accordingly based on a very conservative view of your abilities, and with consideration for how much that ability will degrade under stress.

The problem with a cocked and locked striker pistol comes when people like that woman a few months back had a Glock in her purse and her kid reached in and accidentally fired it shooting and killing the mom. Striker pistols like the Glock should ONLY be carried in a proper holster. Putting one in a pocket or handbag is just asking for something to push on the trigger and causing a tragedy.

The only gun of mine that I have ever had an accidental discharge with is my 1911 (twice). Yes, I know it was may fault. However I shoot my 4 Glock pistols much more often and have never had a problem. Understanding yourself is just as important as undersigning your weapon. However, experience counts for something too. I never carry my 1911 cocked and locked. I carry my Glock 19 ready to go IWB all day long.

But that's just me.

A Glock is perfectly safe if the trigger isn't pulled, but your finger isn't the only thing that can "pull" the trigger. I'm a little uncomfortable with a striker fired pistol under deep concealment - ie under clothing or IWB. There is a firing pin block released by a short movement of the trigger, and a tab which locks the trigger itself. Both are designed more against accidental discharge if dropped, but too many have discharged upon holstering by experienced LEOs, at least twice in front of school children.

My personal choice is a Springfield XDm2, which has a grip safety to block the sear. I put my thumb on the back of the slide when holstering to keep it from moving out of battery and to shield the grip safety. It can't go off even if something has fallen into the holster or snags on the trigger.

The S&W Shield has an optional thumb safety, which I would want if I carried a Shield.

A hammer offers an additional layer of safety in that you can block it with your thumb while holstering, or hold it down if de-cocked. I have no problem with a 1911, cocked and locked, using both a thumb and grip safety. There is sometimes an issue with thumb safety extensions which resemble a highway entrance ramp being jostled to an unsafe state in a poorly designed holster.

If I'm not carrying the XDm2, my preference goes to a SIG with a DAK trigger, which is always DA, hammer down, with hammer and firing pin blocked by the long trigger pull.

There are pistols to be carried and pistols to hold minimal groups. I try not to confuse the two. For me, a Glock serves neither purpose as well as other choices.

They are not. Next . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Well, if we're talking about the Idaho incident at Wal-Mart, the woman was carrying the pistol in a purse specifically designed for concealed carry, and the pistol was secured in the proper spot, in a separately zippered pouch. Never underestimate kids, even toddlers. Also, I'll take your word that it was a Glock Every news article from my search of the web only identifies it as a compact 9mm semiautomatic pistol.

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

In a holster with the trigger covered. How would you shoot yourself?

A gun with a shorter, lighter trigger pull is more susceptible to unintentional discharges than one with a longer, heavier trigger. A manual safety adds an additional safeguard as does the ability to ride the hammer with the thumb while reholstering.

Many say it's a training issue/a software not hardware problem, but the reality is too err is human. This is especially true in the context of actual high stress, unpredictable defense scenarios compared with a controlled range environment or non-event everyday concealed carrying yet we see relatively frequent incidents of unintentional discharges even in those conditions.

A snub revolver with a 12 lb DAO trigger is technically intrinsically no less accurate than a larger framed, longer barreled model shot in single action, but the human factor usually makes it less so in practical application. I doubt anyone would insist the snubs practical accuracy shortcomings is simply a lack of proper training. The concept is no different for the topic at hand IMO. This doesn't necessarily mean a Glock and similar striker-fired pistols are inherently unsafe, just that they are comparably less safe in actual use than many other firearms after factoring in the human element.

Ok so all the responses I'm hearing either cite human error or defective/ poorly designed holsters.

I exclusively carry M&Ps at work and at home. I've used them in high stress situations. I've even had to clear a couple of buildings with them in my hand and I've not yet inadvertently put my finger on the trigger and certainly not had an ND.

In fact I am very cognizant of where my trigger finger is anytime I touch my gun. So, again, training.

My employer issues a Safariland level 2 retention holster for work at home I use a Galco CM OWB. So, quality equipment.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

As far as it goes, training is the absolute reason. The manual at arms is different between striker-fired and hammer fired pistols. It's different between Glocks and 1911's, and it was different between Lugers and P-38's. The training regimen for each is different. A lot of things overlap, but some don't.

In my opinion, and it's just that, my opinion, the placement of the safety on the trigger is both the blessing and the curse for the modern striker fired pistols. I'll leave it at that.

The point is, if you are trained on one style of pistol, switching to another takes commitment. I own some Glocks, and shoot them reasonably well. I will never carry one IWB, in a pocket or anywhere not in a rigid type holster. For every day carry it's a 1911a1. I have 40+ years of carrying, shooting and relying on them. They come to hand without a thought, function flawlessly, and hit what I want. Almost without any help from me.

And there are people out there that feel the same way about their striker-fired pistols.

The main problem (again just my opinion) is that "non gun" folks buy all the hype and equip themselves with a tool they don't understand, much less take the time to adequately learn. So training is the answer.

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

Took the liberty of fixin' that for you, BB

I can see not going out and getting training. Really, I can. If you don't know anything, I can see it being hard to pick out somebody that might know something from the horde of tactards. Plus, a lot of training is really expensive, some of it requires travel, and not everybody can afford it.

But what I can't believe is how little time people spend at least reading about guns and gun-handlin'. I just finished reading No Second Place Winner (gotta re-read some key bits), and I got a bunch of snubbie books to pore through. Books are cheap, and there's a lot of useful scribblin' in there.

The hard part is self-analysis and critique. That's what you pay an instructor or coach for, someone to watch the dumb stuff you do and let you know you're doin' dumb stuff. Which is all of the finesse in instructing. I've seen a lot of guys immediately launch into long-winded explanations of why a shooter should do X instead of Y and how their way is the One True Way.

Me, I always found it best to start off by asking why somebody did things a certain way, then explaining why I thought they should maybe do something else. Sometimes, they've actually got a real good reason for doin' what they're doin', and even if they don't, flies with honey and all that.

Amen on the holsters, by the way. You wouldn't believe the horrid little things people bring to classes.

Plaxico Burress is a moron who didn't belong anywhere near a gun. He was carrying illegally, tucking his pistol into the waistband of his sweatpants. Simply put, Plaxico got what he paid for.

Comparing him to a law-abiding citizen with the sense to buy a decent piece of gunleather or Kydex is a bloody insult.

I think this video offers a decent perspective on the issue, particularly the part starting at 2:25.

That's my preferred instructional technique as well. Some times people can surprise you, and even when they don't it's often counterproductive to just tell someone that what there doing isn't a great idea or isn't all that effective. Most of them however can see what they haven't got when you show them what you do and let them figure out why it is so much more effective.

The comments usually run along the lines of "I didn't know how much I didn't know until I saw______".

Very well explained. The key words are "extra layer of safety". One thing I never see mentioned about striker fired is the partially cocked striker. The possibility that the striker could fall and strike the primer is a little nagging thought in my mind. Chances might be one in a million of that happening, but it is a possibility, however remote. The purpose of my carrying a firearm is to protect myself from harm. The chances of being harmed by my own firearm are probably greater than being harmed by another individual. I have been trading my striker fired pistols for hammer fired for 3 or 4 years now and soon there will be no striker fired pistols in my safe. Not trying to evangelize here, this opinion applies only to me.

If this doesn't explain it there is not any way it can be explained. Larry

Excellent.

__________________
K & N S&W revolvers

Let me start with two comments:

1. I agree with everything in that video and feel it's very well stated - even if the striker fired pistol fans won't want to hear it.

2. I am not, and have never been a striker fired pistol fan for all the reasons outlined in my prior posts and in the video.

However to be fair to the SFP crowd, one reason you probably never hear about it, is that to my knowledge it has never happened. The Glock at least, was designed from the start to be drop safe as evidenced by being dropped on a steel plate from a 2 meter height.

The odds of a striker fired pistol firing due to the striker slipping off the sear is about the same as a Series 80 or Schwartz system equipped 1911 firing when dropped on the hammer. It may well shear the sear and allow the hammer to fall, but the firing pin safety will prevent anything from happening.

The same thing would happen with a Glock - the striker moving forward would not result in anything happening due to the firing pin safety.

I do not usually consider videos worth the time to view them. This one
is clearly an exception.

As "gun people", don't we always answer the anti-gunners with the statement that guns are inanimate objects and have no will or physically capability of their own? Don't we always stress that misuse of a firearm is at the hands of the shooter? Having said that, doesn't the same hold true for NDs? Short of a mechanical malfunction that causes the hammer or striker to strike the primer, there is no way that a gun can fire without human action.

What is hard about the idea of always keeping your finger off of the trigger until ready to shoot, always ensuring that nothing can interact with the trigger (clothing, soft and misshapen holster, pocket contents) and using common sense in carrying and handling a gun? As someone said above, the responsibility rests with the person carrying the gun. Personal responsibility and, as a part of that, familiarity and training creating muscle memory are necessary.

__________________
Dave Frost

I agree.



It was worth a chuckle.

It was a Shield 9mm.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Before Glocks ever existed, there were several european striker fired pistols that had problems. Some could fire if dropped. Some could fire if improperly reassembled. Some could fire if there was enough wear on the sear or firing pin. Some could fire when chambering a round possibly from a protruding firing pin due to damage, cogealed lubricants or lack of cleaning. I remember that Jeff Cooper stated in an article that the pistol being discussed was striker fired and "therefore inherently unsafe". It was a long time ago and he may have been talking about an Ortegies which were fairly common 32 autos back then. The Colt 1903 32 ACP and the 1908 380 ACP have internal hammers even though they are called Hammerless. The Colt 1908 25 ACP and the latter Baby Browning 25 ACP are both striker fired. Like the Ortegies, they had grip safetys. The grip safety safety on the Ortegies did not re-engage automatically when released so that could be perceived as more likely to fire if dropped. I don't think the blanket statement about striker fired pistols applys to more recent designs. After all, bolt action rifles (except a few very early designs) are striker fired. Some claim pistols without a manual safety are unsafe. If that were true, I guess double action revolvers would be considered unsafe. Maybe stereotyping firearms is just as bad an idea as stereotyping people.

The more I carry the more I believe that there is no difference between striker and other designs.

I will say though that I shot a hair pin 44 mag that I wouldn't dare carry for one second.... it was scary how easy you could drop the hammer on that gun...

Agreed, but the OP isn't about the character or intelligence of the user, it's about the pistol itself. I stand by the premise that he would not have wounded himself if he were (illegally) carrying a DA revolver.

__________________
Because of the metric system?

Thank you. I think we're done with the Glock bashing now . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

It's important not to confuse criminal intent with negligent discharges or accidental discharges. "Misuse" is also a bit misleading as it automatically implies reckless or negligent intent.

For example if an officer is involved in a shoot, it's an emotionally charged situation where then officer may be suffering the effects of adrenaline, where even “muscle memory” (which is a misnomer) may not be sufficient. Back in the era of the DA revolver many departments adopted bobber hammer DA only designs to prevent officers from cocking the hammer when the need to shoot may be imminent. They did that as under stress, having a firearm where only a few pounds of pressure was needed to launch the round resulted in an increase in mistake of fact shootings and just plain unintentional discharges. Many of those same departments later adopted 12 pound triggers on their new striker fired pistols after the rates of mistake of fact and unintentional discharges increased.

Lighter, shorter triggers just reduce the margin for error, sometimes to perilously low levels.

Yes, but human action is involved, and striker fired pistols have fewer safeguards against those human actions that are unintentional.

No matter how well or how realistically you train, you still know it’s training and it’s a serious mistake to think that your training in non life threatening situations will ever fully prepare you for the real thing – or ever prevent some degree of unintentional movement or action. Shooting in matches under circumstances with time pressure, task loading, division of attention, and a degree of competitive stress can help identify some of that fallacy and the weaknesses in your prior traning, (and video helps make it obvious), but even that is a pale approximation to shooting in a life threatening situation.
You give a great example yourself of the role of personal responsibility. You won’t carry a hair trigger .44 Mag as you understand the inherent risk in doing that.

The question you have to ask yourself is what risks might you NOT be aware of or considering in your decision to conceal carry a striker fired pistol?

For example, I suspect many people reading this thread in the past or future were/will be people who never considered the role of the holster in adding a necessary level of safety to conceal carrying a striker fired pistol – and more than a few will still ignore that factor.

Why? One reason:

Normalization of Deviance

Normalization of deviance is defined as: “The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable.” This applies directly to the individual level. However from an organizational or community perspective the same thing applies as the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization or community.

You indicated “The more I carry the more I believe that there is no difference between striker and other designs.” That’s a subtle trap that is easy to fall into as the longer you carry without an incident the easier it is to ignore the risks and to assume your practices are safe under all conditions – even under conditions that you have in fact never actually experienced (yet).

That personal experience is bolstered by a large community of striker fired pistol shooters who as a group are more than willing to set aside good practice in the belief that no additional level of safety is needed – under ANY conditions. You can attribute a striker fired pistol shooter carrying a Glock in his or her waist band with a clip on the slide rather than a holster to an example of gross ignorance or stupidity, but you can’t dismiss the fact that there is wide community acceptance of the practice, particularly those from the “my booger hook is my safety’ crowd. The fact that there is a lot of them doesn’t change the fact they are all wrong.

The Challenger launch was a perfect example of normalization of deviance. Prior successful launches and a bit of hubris in thinking they were experts who didn’t need to heed the advice of others led the decision makers failing to acknowledge a known issue that posed a significant risk in a launch occurring in weather just slightly colder than previous launches.


Now…just to be clear, I am STILL not saying “don’t conceal carry a striker fired pistol”, and I am STILL not saying “they are inherently unsafe”.

I am saying:

1) be sure you recognize the increased vulnerabilities the system has with all safety mechanisms tied to a trigger with a comparatively short pull and light pull weight;

2) be sure to recognize the differences between open carry and concealed carry and the higher level of risk posed when re-holstering a striker fired weapon, particularly, in a concealed carry holster;

3) be sure to recognize that the holster provides an ESSENTIAL level of ADDITIONAL safety that is REQUIRED to safely conceal carry a Striker fired pistol; and

4) be sure to recognize that the sum total of all your experience and training may not be sufficient to reflect the real world demands and challenges you’ll face in an actual self defense shoot, and that some additional margin for error in preventing a negligent discharge (proper holster, removing the conceal carry holster from your waist band to re-holster the weapon after a self defense shoot, or even using a DA/SA pistol or revolver instead of a striker fired pistol) has a great deal of value.

We're not Glock bashing, we're discussing the inherent limitations of striker fired pistols.

Although to be fair, some non-Glock designs also incorporate manual safeties and thus have fewer inherent limitations than the Glock.

I wouldn't count on it.

I know, but I thought I'd at least try to steer us back to "striker-fired."

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .