If Striker Fired Pistols Are Inherrently Less Safe What Makes Them So?

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.

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.

Smoke said:

So even though I agree that striker fired pistols have smoother and lighter triggers than other designs...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Keep your finger out of the trigger guard and off the trigger

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.

Rastoff said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

ContinentalOp said:

]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.

Click to expand...

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.

Smoke said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

BB57 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Rastoff said:

You can't tell me you think the Glock or M&P has a better trigger than a 1911.

Click to expand...

"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.

STCM(SW) said:

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.

Click to expand...

Specially modified handgun, doesn't count for this.

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

Arik said:

What about kydex or hybrid holsters that hold their shape

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

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.

Smoke said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Kronos said:

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

Click to expand...

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.