I posted earlier......... but reading later posts made me think..........

I'm a couple of years on the high side of 60.......a lot of folks here are also on the "older" side of their mid-life crisis ......... for me after shooting for 50+ years.........

I will quote Matthew Quigley... as to striker fired guns and.... .40S&W for that matter...................

"I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it."



There was a time I wondered why my Father still carried his 6" 1939 .357 Colt New Service, 1946 4" M&P and his 1950s 2" Colt Detective Special .... when so many "new" models were available........

..... as the 20th century faded...... I got my answer! When I realized I was still carrying some of the same guns I'd carried in the mid-80s..................I liked them, was pretty dang good with them ....... and didn't see any good reason to change just cus someone made a "new" and in some's opinion "improved" model !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ONE time at the range a shooter was claiming his Glock wasn't shooting to point of aim for him and asked me to see what I could do with it.

I pointed the gun and started to lean on the trigger "BANG" it went off and shocked me on how the trigger had no slack and fired with a very light touch.

I didn't like it and couldn't hand it back quick enough.

Being old I carry old guns that I learned on when they were new. As said by others I'm good with them and see no need to change, especially since I like the ones I have now.

It's really very simple, buy what you want, and the heck with what others think.

Endless threads on this forum about hammer, SF, lock, no lock, MIM, etc.

OTOH, what would anyone have to talk about?

My first time was like that, caught me completely off guard. I call it a light switch trigger, because it feels like flipping a light switch. Not forgiving at all, and not for people who can't keep their finger off the trigger until the right time.

How could you forget?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

My only requirement for a carry gun is: NO MANUAL SAFETIES

That is why small Smith revolvers and small Glocks are my favorites.

For target, hunting, or other plinking types, I like diversity. I own a lot of different styles.

Oh and gunslinger... GREAT video. Wow.

He changed his screen name.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Never seen a striker fired revolver..

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

People who cannot keep their finger off the trigger "until the right time" should not handle any firearm. I point it out to anyone that shoots around me that practices unsafe firearm handling by leaving a finger on the trigger when just handling the gun

As for me, I don't like striker fired for many reasons:

1) most are ugly. I mean come on I can't defend my life with a tool that isn't beautiful. What if a camera catches me defending myself? I want to look brilliant and amazing for having a beautiful firearm.

It's also kind of like my wrenches. I only have 24k gold plated wrenches and I display them. If I have to use them I am very careful not to scratch them as then they would be ugly and useless.

2) If you take a loaded striker-fired handgun and point it at your leg then pull the trigger it will shoot you! This happens to people and cops all the time. If I take a loaded revolver and point it at my leg and pull the trigger it would never shoot me as it's safer and the longer trigger pull will bounce the projectile off of my leg.

3) They are plastic and plastic breaks easy. Let's ignore the fact that a handgun made of quality polymer with properly hardened metals in the right places will far outlast a complete handgun made out of soft grade steel (and trust me most steel handguns have softer steel than you would think)

In all reality I enjoy my striker fired handguns and shoot them quite well but I get tired of the lame excuses. I've met many a person who never fired a Glock before and could pick one of mine up off a table and shoot it better than whatever handgun they have been carrying for years. If it doesn't fit your hand or you cannot shoot one well those are great reasons not to carry one but saying they are junk or unsafe is not an accurate statement.

Attached Images

IMG_5306.jpg (69.0 KB, 24 views)

It would appear that Mr. Brasky's favorite target to practice on is straw men.

Never met a striker fired handgun I could love at the range.
Single action auto triggers and revolvers rule on that stage.

This is to be expected of the fan base of Glocks. No reasonable conversation can be held about preferences, unless the preference are Glocks. Glocks are a tool like any other handgun, they have features some like, and some don't. It is the fanboy that is extremely irritating because they cannot participate in any conversation about handguns without getting upset.

That's because a lot of people (not everyone, and not saying you) buy based on looks and feelings and then try to argue how that's better. Some other people see a gun and proclaim it's unsafe because it can go off when the trigger is pulled while forgetting that ANY loaded gun WILL go off when the trigger is pulled.

When I'm looking at a reliable gun my feelings don't play any role in the purchase. Feeling and looks can't be measured and have no standard. None of that is "features".



Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

As the OP on this thread, thanks for the all the input. It seems they are a couple of reasons that keep coming up.
1. The safety aspect and concerns of the short trigger pull compared to the long trigger pull on the da/sa pistols.
2. Many have started with and used for years the da/sa and it's what is most familiar.

As someone who plans on using my shield 9 for edc, the safety concerns is something to chew on. Of course the the number 1 safety is your finger, but I also hear concerns of the "what if" should clothing, a drawstring, etc catch on that trigger. Obviously aproper holster helps with most of that but certainly something to think about.
I am a big fan of the phrase. ..you don't know what you don't know.

I find glock bashers just as annoying if not more annoying than fan boys

That being said I own many striker fired handguns, but my two favorite triggers are the one on my 1911 and the one on my model 19.

But I am comparing apples to oranges. Modern striker fired firearms are reliable , light, and require different trigger control to master. To each his own.

I do know I use proper holsters, proper firearm handling , common sense, and have never Tex grebnered myself as a result.

Lack of common sense seems to be the culprit in most ad's

Who the heck cares why they buy, it is certainly NONE of my business. They could buy a gun because it sings Yankee Doodle Dandy, and I would not stick my nose in where it did not belong.

The problem is, nobody has bashed Glocks in this thread that I have seen. Personal preference based on any reason is not bashing, it is liberty.

I think the biggest problem is, this ain't the 1870's anymore, or the Victorian era in general. Back then guns improved so much so quickly that as soon as something was issued it was obsolete, much like a modern computer. Between 1820 and the late 1880's, a period of around only 60 years, military standard small arms went from smoothbore flintlock to percussion muzzle rifle, to single shot cartridge, to magazine cartridge, all in the blink of an eye. The truth is, the rapid change and its effect on military psychology affects arguments like this to this day.

Back then weapons would have to be replaced almost constantly as new models, vastly superior to their predecessors, would be introduced. The government and military got into the habit of replacing arms and models so quickly that it became habit. Habit so much that even after things leveled off after WW2 and into the 50's, when the improvement virtually came to a complete halt, that there is still an attitude of "There's gotta be something light years ahead of what we have now, upheavel, we must change everything radically to stay ahead!". And thus when a tiny change, every tiny improvement, or every change that isn't an improvement comes along, the radicals come flying out of the wood works and demand a complete overhaul.

As ancient and backwards as I am, I'm not the one living as if the radical improvement ere is still going on like it was 150 years ago. Is the new H&K rifle better than my current civilian G3? Maybe. Is it enough to make a real difference, will it make me a better solider, or home defender, or plinker, or hunter, would changing a squad of men from G3's to the new guns make any difference int he outcome of a war? No. We aren't upgunning from Martini Henrys to Lee Enfields, we're making tiny, minute changes to a field of arms that, in all reality, has become equal and has basically not changed since the 1950's. Is the SCAR a better battle rifle than what I have? Perhaps. Will it make any real difference? Almost certainly not.

Fighting over changing from a muzzle loader to a breech loader is an easy argument. Fighting over which modern auto loading rifle is better quickly becomes assinine, pointless, impossible to discern a real clear winner, and the differences are so minor the victory is almost pointless in itself. We have a reached a point where the panic to improve is unfounded, completely hollow, and our painfully desperate "need" to improve our small arms is as out of time and place as a flintlock muzzle loading pistol. We aren't going form 3 shots a minute at 80 yards to 25 shots a minute at 1,000 yards anymore, we're arguing about a few details that probably won't matter.

The problem of these arguments, and the big part of online gun culture, is that point exactly. We have central planners all the way to mall ninjas who think these is a desperate, absolutely crucial need to update to the newest arm or else we will be beaten, that everything from 5 years ago MUST be obsolete. Things are now black and white X>Y, small changes make anything before completely obsolete and the new ones give you such an advantage that the poor guy carrying the older gun has no chance of winning the gunfight against the massive improvement in arms.

This is, of course, ridiculous. The problem for those wanting to constantly, desperately, painfully need to upgrade to the newest bestest best thing is that it isn't the 1870's and the changes and improvements aren't so obvious the the improvements speak for themselves. The problem they have is that the Glock did not render the 1911 or Browning Hi Power magically incapable, did not make them obsolete. It didn't make them any less deadly, the striker fire system did not suddenly make a reliable and effective weapon system of hammer fired guns magically incapable, did not present a gun so superior that it can give a decisive edge, that it can actually claim any sort of victory. Its real and imagined improvements, or changes that maybe aren't so great, are self apparent, or even real at all, to so "This is better and all others are inferior and pointless", its such a real grey area that these arguments go nowhere and mean absolutely nothing.

Surprise: if you have either a Hi Power or a Glock and you win the gun fight, 99.9% chance your victory had nothing to do with your choice in firearm. The changes in firearm are so little that a trained and capable man is just as good with both. Modern poly strikers are reliable, but so were many 1911's and Hi Powers. Both have served well and done their job. Neither holds an advantage that, in reality, really matters. At all.

Truth is, revolvers have real street advantages in certain ways that keeps them relevant. Less skilled and dedicated shooters are better off with revolvers, because they are more reliable in the hands of people who don't take as good of care as them, they are more reliable in plain regular NORP street life and conditions. Bring out your piece of paper and metrics and you still lose in the real world where other factors are in play. This ain't the laboratory, this is the real world. Telling people who don't take the best care of their guns to "man up" to use an auto loader is pointless arrogance that won't win them over, but help supply them with a weapon that might fail them. Telling them to run a revolver is making a choice that fits their real self and conditions,and accepts our limitations in our ability to control them.

"Shoot what you like" isn't just the logical fallacy used to look fake neutral, or compromise for peace, it really is a valid argument today. The older auto loaders and revolvers are competent enough to be competitive even with the newest weapons, so if you ARE better with them, you should stick with them. No amount of "but muh lab tests" world of theory does not beat the reality of an individual who shoots better with the older gun in reality.

Because it was an answer to the OP's question. It's not like I just randomly pick a member and tell them why I think their gun is good/bad/indifferent. But when someone says they suck because they're not pretty that's not an answer.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

NOT one word was mentioned about Glocks in the OP. Glock is not the only manufacturer of striker fired guns, they are not even the first.

Kind of like when 1911 guys write six threads on how Glocks and anything like them are dangerous toe-shootin' machines?

I, like many others here, have had at one time or another just about every type of hand gun one could have. The only ones I no longer have are the ones with the de-cock feature. I found the first trigger pull not to my liking. I have several S&W revolvers and a couple of 1911 platforms and 1.... cough... Glock. A first gen 17. It is a good gun and one I plan to keep. I have carried most all the different sidearms and have come down to 2 on a regular basis. A S&W 19- 4 snub most of the time and a 640 nd the rest.

It matters not what operating system you carry.... it does matter that you can use that weapon when your motor skills diminish and you get tunnel vision... at the moment of truth. Find what works for you, carry in a fashion that is safe and secure on you body and practice at every opportunity. Ammo and time are cheap when those few seconds do arrive.

I would not hesitate to lean on my ugly plastic fantastic for one second if the need arose and in fact it is the only side arm in my "bug out bag".
IMG_0385.jpg

I've owned one striker fired pistol, an early Glock 17. Based on how well I shot other guns, I couldn't hit **** with it although others might be pleased with the groups. I sold it an never looked back.

What don't I like about them? The main thing is they don't seem to strike the primer as hard as an exposed hammer gun.

Several times I've had a failure to fire with a striker fired gun, tried again and failed, dropped the round in a hammer gun and fired it.

Take an unloaded striker-fired gun, point it muzzle-up, drop a pencil down the bore, and snap the trigger. Do the same with a hammer gun.
The result I've seen is always the same: The hammer gun's firing pin impact will launch the pencil, sometimes hard enough to whack the ceiling. A striker gun probably won't get the pencil out of the barrel, and will usually only make it jump a little.

That's not very confidence inspiring to me.

I have about a dozen revolvers and a couple of each of 1911s, SIG P22xs and CZ75s. Recently, due to rebates, I bought a SD9VE just to see what difference there is between striker fired and hammer handguns. Frankly, the SD seems to be basically a semi-auto with a DAO revolver type action. Note that I'm not talking about the quality of the action, just the type. As for safety and safeties, neither any of my revolvers nor the SD has a positive manual safety or a decocker. My opinion of the two part trigger on the SD is that the best safety is between the ears. The two part trigger may protect against a discharge in the event the gun is dropped, like a hammer block, but that seems to be about the extent of its use.

Frankly I kind of like the SD. It's not perfect, I still think a K frame or L frame is still the most versatile and useful handgun, and because of that more "perfect" in my opinion. However, like any firearm, within its functional and design limitations- designed for defense purposes- the SD is a good firearm. My comments would probably apply to other striker fired handguns, but I haven't owned any and only shot Glocks on occasion.

Ugly striker fired pistols... I think mine are rather photogenic.

Many folks were taught to place a thumb on the external hammer while re-holstering the weapon. This insures the safety of the weapon (some will argue that).

One of the early striker fired pistols was the FN 1910 aka Browning 1955 it's safety was grip safety based with a thumb safety blocking the grip safety. Now days the common striker fired pistols are based on a single trigger which activates / deactivates all safety devices. So if something gets in the trigger guard and you re-holster rapidly...you could be putting your health insurance to test!

Geoff
Who has all sorts of options, but he carries a Kahr.

It's difficult to pigeonhole striker-fired guns and safeties.

M&P Shield has both thumb safety and no thumb safety. The new M&P 2.0 is equipped with and without a thumb safety.

And then there's the Ruger striker-fired LC9 with thumb safety. The LCP is hammer fired with no safety.

Heck, some people don't even know the difference or know how their gun operates. Just a few days ago someone posted about their striker-fired Ruger LCP.

Actually Mr Brasky enjoys all types of firearms and is making fun of the bashers who bash based on falsehoods "they heard at the gunshop" or "some friend of a friend was an idiot and shot himself so they aren't safe".

I respect a firearm of any make as long as it's not a piece of junk and I own many different types of firearms.

Knock off the bickering.

Barry had it right

I saw a lot of FTF's with striker fired guns over the years. Granted it was mostly with 9mm and surplus ammo, but still it was a FTF.

Thank you TTSH, I did not know that. I am glad I have none.

Sadly, true

Not my gun, but it is pretty, and they have been around for a long time.

Pretty striker fired handgun



Another one

I certainly wouldn't ugly em' all up by adding a hammer.

I simply don't like the term "striker fired", as it is commonly being used.

This is a striker fired gun:



This is a hammer fired gun:



Do people picture a P-08 Luger when they use the term striker fired? Probably not. Would they think that a KelTec P-9 is striker fired? Probably so. They are using the term striker fired as if it means something that it does not.

A striker is a springloaded firing pin. May be partly preloaded, may not. As you pull your trigger it increases the load on the spring until you reach a predetermined point whre the tension is released. Hopefully it goes bang. So I guess I understand what the term striker means. P'08 beautiful piece of engineering. George Kelgren, well he is comtributing to the economy of South Florida.

Me, I don't like inertia firing pins, so putting a spring on one does nothing for me. I like my firing pins attached to the hammer. I like cylinders, don't like short recoil, long recoil, blowback, alloy frame, polymer frame, hexogonal bored, lazer anything.

Now get off of my lawn....

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Remember the news story about the woman who had a pistol in her purse while shopping? Her toddler about 2 or 3 yrs old reached in and pulled the trigger on it and killed the mother.. If you carry a striker fired pistol like a Glock cocked and locked it is ONLY safe to do so in a holster... Had that woman been carrying a heavy triggered revolver with the enclosed hammer she'd be alive today. I like striker pistols, but will never carry one in my pocket.

I actually don't think that's necessarily true, Patrick. I think a lot of times those "baby grabs gun, shoots parent" stories aren't properly witnessed. I think it's a lot more likely the child grabbed at the gun or at the trigger, and the parent noticed this and tried to snatch the gun away. Then, either the parent's hand, or the child's grip combined with the snatch caused the gun to discharge.

I've only heard the gun described as a "9mm Smith and Wesson", which could mean it's anything from the most likely candidate, an M&P, to a DA/SA or DAO auto, a Shield, or a Sigma...or a bloody .380 or a .38 revolver or a God knows what, given the media. But anyways, the gun was apparently zipped into a pocket in a CCW purse that her husband just bought for her.

Problem is, as all parents know--plus people like me that have been in the general vicinity of a small child--they like to dig around in purses, and parents generally don't teach them not to that early.

Anyways, a 2-year-old isn't capable of even reaching around the trigger like an adult. I also think their hands are probably too big to grab the trigger like a lever and push it side-to-side. The best chance they'd have would be to push their hand into the trigger guard and push the trigger, like a person sweeping books off a shelf, like. But in that position, I think they'd generate enough force to discharge any style of weapon--they'd have their arm pushing against their whole body weight.

But really, I think it's most likely that they simply unzipped the pocket, found the gun, and the deceased tried to snatch it away and shot herself, either with her own hand or some part of the child's.

She was a victim of carrying a concealed weapon in an unfamiliar manner, without really thinking about the complications. And hell, I don't even think it's that major a mistake. A foreseeable, preventable tragedy, but nothing worth condemning her over.

Regarding kids with guns...

Don't assume small children can't pull a trigger or operate the slide of a semi-auto. I remember seeing a YouTube video of a guy who left unloaded guns for his kids to find, while he was watching via video. Even his small child was able to figure out how to cycle the slide and pull the trigger.

Moral of the story: Regardless of how it happened, carrying a gun off-body is a bad idea unless you're prepared to keep that bag/purse/whatever within your control at all times, just like one should with the gun by itself.

Quibbling over which loaded handgun is best in the hands of a 2 year-old?

Get off my lawn? Thought you didn't like "gas operated". If it's cycling automatically there's gas operation. If you mean direct impingement then it goes back much further than the AR

Here's one from 1942.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

This thread was started as a bickering, quibbling thread. How could it not be? When it comes to children and striker fired guns, there is much to discuss. Of course it could be an entire thread by itself as well.

Wait, is this quibbling over quibbling?

Case in point:This opens the whole can of worms all by itself. I mean, there are recoil operated guns and gas operated guns. Not all actions are operated by gas. I don't know of any gas operated pistols. However, all cartridges in firearms use some kind of gas propulsion. Even single action pistols use expanding gasses to propel the bullet down the bore. So, yeah, all firearms have some kind of gas operation.

Then there's what's implied by this comment:While the original author didn't spell out what he thought people were saying, I'll bet he was thinking that most were confusing polymer framed guns with being striker fired. He's right that not all striker fired guns are polymer framed, but he's wrong to assume that people are using the term in that fashion. At least I don't use the term that way.

Like striker fired or not, there's going to be lively debate.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

For me, striker vs hammer for CCW comes down to two things:

1) Which conceals easier.

2) Does it function.

On the subject of triggers....

A carry gun needs a trigger good enough that you can shoot straight at SD distances, that's 10 yards or less IMHO. Those who refuse to shoot anything other than target grade triggers need to widen their horizons/get some training.

Maybe I don't have the tactile sensitivity of some here, or maybe it's because I came from England so didn't grow up with fixed ideas about triggers, but I can only name three really bad handgun triggers that I have tried.

1) WWII Enfield No.2 Mk1*, and I'm beginning to get the hang of even that tragger.

2) 1895 Nagant

3) Feg Walther PP copy until I changed the springs, up on the recoil, down on the hammer.

On semis I don't ride the reset. To me, guns are like cars, they don't necessarily drive the same. So not trying to ride the reset on every gun I shoot eliminates the differences biting me in the butt.

__________________
Release the Kraken

Personally, I like both and I've carried both. I currently carry striker fired because well...........it's a Shield.

I do have a stipulation though.......if it's striker fired, it must have a thumb safety.

As for hammer fired pistols......I don't like the DOA type because of long heavy triggers and for the exception of a 1911, I prefer SA/DA types. That way, I can carry with the hammer not cocked but, still be able to fire when the need arises without doing anything extra.

Bickering was in the context of things getting personal going back and forth.... back and forth... between a couple guys. I took the time to delete it rather than the membership having to sift through it. Apparentely the message was clear enough because they knocked it off.

Moving along...

Arik, sorry meant blowback. Mea cupa. Will edit.

Very nice, a Gewehr, my copy is from Tula.

Every so often we go across the lake to Milwaukee (usually on the way to Lambeau or Miller Park). Steve True the "voice of Marquette basketball" (who outdates me) uses that line "get off of my lawn" spoken in old geezer voice.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

I was going to start a thread on which handgun was safest in the hands of a two year old but could not decide which heading it belonged under:-)

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Much just comes down to what you are comfortable with due to use. I practiced, practiced, practied with S&W DA and DAO revolvers. They are what I prefer. My son who grew up able to choose anything has this thing for Stars, PDs BMs and Ss. (The S is really cute looks like an adolecent government model.)

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Bingo. I thought a DAO auto would suck out loud until I finally tried one. Remember that scene in 2001 when the monkey picks up the bone? It was like that.

A DA/SA, I still find kind of jarring. Not because the pull weight changes from the first shot to the second, but more like "the range you're pulling the trigger in", if you get my drift. But I haven't tried every DA/SA on the planet.

I can think one. I know a guy that actually bought one of those gold-plated "commemorative" 1911s they advertise in the back of gun rags. Paid $2000--and he actually shot it! Even the sights were gold-plated, front and back.

Anyways, I think it would qualify. Trigger was like dragging a loaded ammo can over a gravel parking lot. And that was presuming you could rack the slide or get the safety off.

I was nice about it--didn't even roll my eyes--until he sneered at my K-38 Target Masterpiece, an inherited gun that lacks a bit of its finish but is perhaps the finest shooter I own.

I'll just say that he changed his tune after a couple five-shot groups. I don't ordinarily show off, but that couldn't stand.