Why the dislike for striker fired pistols?
- Thread starter RonJ
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Harrison
US Veteran
Some people don't like any operating system invented after say 1920. I have friends that think the mauser 98 is too new fangled. They like Sharps and 1885 high walls, or Remington rolling blocks. I like striker fired semi-auto pistols, and hammer fired as long as the hammer is attached to a revolver.
beemerphile
Member
Some don't like that you can't re-strike on a hard primer like you can on a hammer fired pistol. Others feel they need the ability to de-cock the gun and feel endangered carrying the gun in what they consider "cocked and unlocked".
I like them though. I consider the holster to be a critical part of the safety system along with handling and clearance drills. Less dedicated (casual) users who don't plan to train should probably shop elsewhere.
I like them though. I consider the holster to be a critical part of the safety system along with handling and clearance drills. Less dedicated (casual) users who don't plan to train should probably shop elsewhere.
Arik
Member
Thats really it ^. Lots of people think of striker fired as "plastic". As if its watergun plastic paper bag plastic, when its actually polymer and in may cases stronger then steel guns. But its all perception. People will always assume metal means "strongest"
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
mjr
Member
My impression is that there's more dislike for hammer fired pistols these days, at least among those under age 30 or so. I don't know why. Striker fired pistols may be cheaper to manufacture.
I also don't know how far back striker fired designs go--wasn't the Browning 1910 auto striker fired?
I also don't know how far back striker fired designs go--wasn't the Browning 1910 auto striker fired?
bp231986
Member
Hey some people dont like pizza...go figure...i love pizza and plastic guns 
not everything is for everyone....
not everything is for everyone....
HAWKEYE10
Member
My problem is I like them all. 
Don
PS I just bought a new FNS in 9mm.
DonPS I just bought a new FNS in 9mm.
Faulkner
Member
Nothing wrong with the nastalgia of double action revolvers and single action semi-autos, but I don't have a problem with embracing new technology. That's why I have several striker fired firearms, and a DVR for my satellite TV receiver, and a iPhone and iPad, and a Ecoboost in my Ford truck.
NCTexan
US Veteran
Hillbilly77
Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 6,183
- Reaction score
- 18,475
There's an *** for every seat.
lhump1961
US Veteran
Funny. I've heard so many negative comments on various boards but now everybody likes 'em.
Can't speak for others...I have shot striker fired and like them just fine. I think they are easier to shoot well, the trigger feels fine and they are affordable to most folks...but I've never owned one.
I shoot and carry my guns as they are under contract for active duty...but they are so much more than a "tool" to me. I appreciate the craftsmanship and styling of my guns as much as using them and that is where the polymers leave me wanting.
My dog is supposed to protect me but it seems we spend most of our time playing...
Actually striker fired guns are VERY old.
Borchardt in 1893:
The first striker-fired pistol - Page 1 - AR15.COM
I'm a revolver guy but I've been thinking of getting a bottom feeder. I've been to my local gun shops and checked a few out. In my research I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather have a striker fired semi over hammer fired. They'd have the longer consistent trigger pull and point and shoot simplicity of a revolver. I'm planning on getting an M&P40c when I can scrape enough pennies together to afford one.
Sir, I don't know if this is common to all striker-fired pistols, but the trigger in my Glock stacks--it gets heavier the farther you pull it, which causes the muzzle to twitch to the side as the sear releases. Not conducive to fine accuracy. Other than that, I rather like the gun.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
A M&P is my only striker fired pistol. I have numerous hammer fired revolvers and semi autos. Two reasons the striker fired pistols don't appeal to me that much. a. Trigger. I like a light, crisp, precision trigger. b. plastic. I have an affinity for polished steel and nicely figured wood. That said, I like the M&P just fine. It resides by my bedside, cocked and unlocked, complete with CT laser grips, ready for action.
Stargater
Member
First, I very much dislike striker fired autos, particularly Glocks, so let's get that up front. For you folding knife guys, I equate them with liner locks. Some are very good, but the overall design leaves a lot to be desired.
My chief gripe is that the firing pin depends on a longish spring which, when depressed, is released by a squeeze of the trigger. The spring then releases, sending the firing pin forward to contact the primer. The gun goes boom and the whole thing can be repeated until the magazine is empty.
Not only does this put a lot of wear and tear on the guns, Glock recommends these springs be changed every 3,000 rounds. Hammer-fired pistols fire when a hammer or hammer block contacts the primer, which in turn is driven forward by a shorter, stiffer spring that far outlasts the longer striker-fired springs that bypass the hammer.
Another thing I personally dislike is the so-called safety on these guns. On the Glocks, they put the safety on the trigger! This is akin to putting a brake on an accelerator. Every police department, highway patrol, federal or state LE agency or security service that has gone from revolvers or hammer-fired autos like a Beretta or Smith & Wesson's superb 2nd/3rd generation pistols, has seen a substantial increase in accidental discharges.
Can Glocks and its siblings be carried safely? Yes, with a little extra training, but though some people feel safe carrying them and using them, others (including some gun savvy people) don't. I've taken my Smith 659 and 3906 pistols and, unloading them, I cocked both. I then set about trying to get them to "fire." I then took my sister's Glock and did the same.
Given the Smith's long takeup in its trigger (even cocked), I found that accidentally discharging my two was no more or less difficult than accidentally discharging the Glock! In fact, I cocked one of the Smiths and carried it around both casually (under the belt in front and back) and formally (in a holster). I then took the Glock and did the same. In both situations I would have felt uncomfortable carrying any of these guns thus described. Also, if I were a police chief or agency head, I would have severe doubts about letting my personnel carry striker-fired pistols. If they're not cocked, they would have to be before being ready. And if they are cocked, firearm retention becomes a significant issue.
Hammer-fired pistols are much more reliable, safe guns than any striker-fired pistol. So I'd pass.
Just my own personal view.
My chief gripe is that the firing pin depends on a longish spring which, when depressed, is released by a squeeze of the trigger. The spring then releases, sending the firing pin forward to contact the primer. The gun goes boom and the whole thing can be repeated until the magazine is empty.
Not only does this put a lot of wear and tear on the guns, Glock recommends these springs be changed every 3,000 rounds. Hammer-fired pistols fire when a hammer or hammer block contacts the primer, which in turn is driven forward by a shorter, stiffer spring that far outlasts the longer striker-fired springs that bypass the hammer.
Another thing I personally dislike is the so-called safety on these guns. On the Glocks, they put the safety on the trigger! This is akin to putting a brake on an accelerator. Every police department, highway patrol, federal or state LE agency or security service that has gone from revolvers or hammer-fired autos like a Beretta or Smith & Wesson's superb 2nd/3rd generation pistols, has seen a substantial increase in accidental discharges.
Can Glocks and its siblings be carried safely? Yes, with a little extra training, but though some people feel safe carrying them and using them, others (including some gun savvy people) don't. I've taken my Smith 659 and 3906 pistols and, unloading them, I cocked both. I then set about trying to get them to "fire." I then took my sister's Glock and did the same.
Given the Smith's long takeup in its trigger (even cocked), I found that accidentally discharging my two was no more or less difficult than accidentally discharging the Glock! In fact, I cocked one of the Smiths and carried it around both casually (under the belt in front and back) and formally (in a holster). I then took the Glock and did the same. In both situations I would have felt uncomfortable carrying any of these guns thus described. Also, if I were a police chief or agency head, I would have severe doubts about letting my personnel carry striker-fired pistols. If they're not cocked, they would have to be before being ready. And if they are cocked, firearm retention becomes a significant issue.
Hammer-fired pistols are much more reliable, safe guns than any striker-fired pistol. So I'd pass.
Just my own personal view.
RalphMP9FS
Member
My M&P 9 (no manual safety) is strictly for home defense. In about an hour, twenty forum members will post that you shouldn't own a firearm if you feel there's an elevated risk for a ND with a striker fired weapon. I agree with your post 100%, maybe that's why I never felt confident cliff diving.
Last edited:
