Why the dislike for striker fired pistols?

In my case, I dislike the trigger pull on most striker fired pistols and the lack of a physical safety on pistols like the Glock. I think we've all seen the video of the police chief in his LGS. When he holstered his Glock after comparing it to another model, the plastic piece on the drawstring of his windbreaker was lodged inside the trigger guard. When he pulled on his jacket to straighten it, the Glock fired in his holster. From some things I've read, this doesn't seem to be that uncommon an occurrence. As for trigger pull, well I have to admit I'm spoiled by my 1911 style firearms. Yes, I do have a Glock Mod 22 but it rarely makes a trip to the range or the farm. Usually it's either on the dresser at night or in the safe if we're out of town.

CW

I have no dislike for striker-fired guns.

I like my 1895, 1896 and 1898 Mausers just fine. Also my 1903A3 Springfield. My Ortgies 32 pocket pistols are nice, and my H&K PSP is the most accurate gun I own.

And, since there is NO HAMMER in any of those guns, they are all STRIKER FIRED. Striker-fired means the firing pin (the striker) is held under spring tension until released by the trigger, as opposed to hammer-fired, where the pin just sits there and the hammer, driven by spring tension, hits the pin. It has nothing to do with a trigger style, or a frame material.

Technically, I suppose, that would make older S&W HEs "striker-fired" since the firing pin is attached to the hammer, it would make the hammer the "striker".

I do not, however, like plastic guns. You can call 'em "polymer" all you like, and it will not change the fact that they are plastic. I do not like they way they feel.

I like the Ruger 22 automatic pistol. I have a Mark I Bull Barrel, and a Mark II. And for about six months I had a 22/45. Sold it. Know why? The 22/45 has a "polymer" frame. It did not feel good in my hand.

I don't care about how the Glock trigger works, or whether it is safer than a normal "it's cocked until you pull the trigger" gun. I don't care whether S&W copied Glock to make their plastic guns. I don't care whether Kahr are "striker-fired" or "hammer-fired" or what.

They are plastic. I do not like plastic guns.

Simple, ain't it?

Been shooting all manner of pistols since 1980. Never ever had a hammer/striker spring ever fail no matter how grungy the pistol. Never had a 1911 of any sort fail. Never had a Glock of any caliber fail ever in any way. And, never had any of those pistols just up and go off by themselves.

Safeties? Some folks want them. Can't see the big need. Certainly don't need one on a revolver. It will not go bang unless and until I put my finger in the trigger guard and pull the trigger. Then on a DA... it will most assuredly go bang. Just like a Glock or M&P. Keep your trigger finger off the trigger and it's as safe as a 1911... w/ the safety on or off or whatever.

Like striker fired firearms? Yep. Count me in. I like 'em w/o reservation. Would have been thrilled to have had something like a G-17 back in 1979. Would have stood up well to the salty environment of the shipyard... and give lots of rounds for one night in particular when I blundered up on a dope deal. Those folks all had guns.

Cocked a problem? With the Glock... no. It is not cocked. There is a load on the spring... maybe what 40%. But it will only fire if you pull the trigger. That trigger is not going to up and pull itself. As to criminals gaining control of the pistol, well, that's a problem even if your carrying a flintlock pistol.

All in all, the striker fired firearm is just a smart way to deal with the firing mechanism. Think of the MG-42.... etc. Those things don't have hammers. They have spring powered strikers. Those things fire a gazillion rounds in the time it takes for sweat to pop out on your forehead. And those things are unbelievably reliable... almost as good as a Glock.

Glocks are astounding guns. When I took a firearms course to accompany my sister, I was able to choose my weapon. I chose a Glock and my sister picked a Taurus fixed sight .38 with a beautiful black finish.

The Glock worked flawlessly, but I marveled that people would carry them with a cartridge up the snoot. Remember the federal agent who had an accidental discharge while he was explaining that he was one of the few agents experienced enough to carry a Glock!

Also, just look at the various autos with hammers! The Ruger .22 auto has a hidden hammer and is known for its accuracy and reliability.



The Ruger designed .22lr pistol was actually a rifle built as a handgun. Here we have the stainless Ruger Mark II and (bottom) an AMT version of the same gun, both with hidden hammers.

And check out these classic autos with hammers:







The Taurus PT 92 is one of the few Taurus handguns that
are as good as the original. Hasn't missed a beat, and is both
accurate and dependable. Also, gorgeous, to boot!



Even these tiny Berettas have hammers. Anyone want to
swap them for a Jennings J-22 and a Raven?



Having shot the Glock, I think it's an ugly, dependable tool like a screwdriver or an axe. But I wouldn't carry them with a round in the chamber any more than I would carry a Smith & Wesson 5906 or 3906 in a holster with a round in the chamber and cocked.

Two of the best pistols I have ever owned are striker fired: The HK P7M8 and the Walther P99 AS. Both have repeat strike capability, both have been very accurate, both have been very reliable.

These pistols could change minds about strikers. (Internet pix.)


The P7 family of pistols are, in my opinion, the safest pistols to carry with a round in the chamber. All shots are single action as long as the cocking lever is held in the cocked position. Once the lever is released the pistol is decocked and cannot be fired. The P7s are also all steel, very tough steel.

P7M8



Walther P99 AS


The Walther P99 in its original and in its AS configuration will fire in double action mode with a revolver-like, long 11 pound pull and in single action mode with about a five pound pull. The reset, once fired, is a measly quarter inch and very distinct. Once decocked, the P99 AS trigger pull is as long as it is in double action but with virtually no resistance until you hear and feel a noticeable click—like a set trigger— and the rest of the pull is about five pounds, like the single action.

Straightshooter2 said:

In my case, I dislike the trigger pull on most striker fired pistols and the lack of a physical safety on pistols like the Glock. I think we've all seen the video of the police chief in his LGS. When he holstered his Glock after comparing it to another model, the plastic piece on the drawstring of his windbreaker was lodged inside the trigger guard. When he pulled on his jacket to straighten it, the Glock fired in his holster. From some things I've read, this doesn't seem to be that uncommon an occurrence. As for trigger pull, well I have to admit I'm spoiled by my 1911 style firearms. Yes, I do have a Glock Mod 22 but it rarely makes a trip to the range or the farm. Usually it's either on the dresser at night or in the safe if we're out of town.

CW

Click to expand...

That was the classic case of a negligent discharge, emphasis on negligent. As far as 1911s, I've pulled it out of the holster to find that the safety had already disengaged. So, I don't think it's so much the design,as it is the safety between the ears. Any gun can be dangerous without due diligence.
So you could say the Glock type may even be safer because you know it's cocked and loaded with no safety, whereas the 1911, you think it's safetied, but it may not be and most are far less than 5 1/2lb. triggers.

Stargater said:

Glocks are astounding guns. When I took a firearms course to accompany my sister, I was able to choose my weapon. I chose a Glock and my sister picked a Taurus fixed sight .38 with a beautiful black finish.

The Glock worked flawlessly, but I marveled that people would carry them with a cartridge up the snoot. Remember the federal agent who had an accidental discharge while he was explaining that he was one of the few agents experienced enough to carry a Glock!

Also, just look at the various autos with hammers! The Ruger .22 auto has a hidden hammer and is known for its accuracy and reliability.



The Ruger designed .22lr pistol was actually a rifle built as a handgun. Here we have the stainless Ruger Mark II and (bottom) an AMT version of the same gun, both with hidden hammers.

And check out these classic autos with hammers:







The Taurus PT 92 is one of the few Taurus handguns that
are as good as the original. Hasn't missed a beat, and is both
accurate and dependable. Also, gorgeous, to boot!



Even these tiny Berettas have hammers. Anyone want to
swap them for a Jennings J-22 and a Raven?



Having shot the Glock, I think it's an ugly, dependable tool like a screwdriver or an axe. But I wouldn't carry them with a round in the chamber any more than I would carry a Smith & Wesson 5906 or 3906 in a holster with a round in the chamber and cocked.

Click to expand...

Not the same thing. A cocked 5906 and a Glock. Glock isn't cocked. The Fed agent is a bad example. I saw a guy have the same problem with a 1911. Plenty of people had the same problem with revolvers. Just cause it gets played over and over doesn't make it different. Still the same ONE incident

Accidental discharge with a revolver
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/what-...charge-safety-reminder-caution-graphic-photo/

Some more

http://www.fieldandstream.com/answe...rearm-if-so-admitting-honest-mistake-forum-an

A guy who won't even carry a revolver with an internal hammer

http://extranosalley.com/?p=50300

A NY judge has a AD in his chamber
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/08/2...r-accidental-discharge-of-weapon-in-chambers/

Another revolver oops
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22002593/cu-staffer-gone-charges-filed-accidental-shooting

If you would like I'll start looking for 5906 ND/AD

Hammer Vs. Striker.

I own both and I feel that a hammer delivers a stronger blow to the primer than a striker. This could be important if you're fighting for your life and the gun must go bang every time. I also like the deep, wide dent a hammer delivers to the primer. Some of the primer dents left by my Glocks and even my S&W M&P makes me wonder how the round fired.

I LOVE striker fired pistols. I own several, different brands. My "PASSION" is S&W Revolvers. There's quite a difference...

Not so much "dislike" as "disinterest."

Seriously, you think a striker fired trigger pull feels the same as a DA/SA? M'kay... I have fired a G19 with a worked over trigger that was OK. The box stock G17 was absolutely horrendous...

It's something to gripe about.

+1 on everybody who said 'trigger pull' or some variation thereof.

I've owned both but have since sold or traded my striker fired 9mm's and settled on...dun dun dun dun....the CZ75 because it has, BY FAR, the best TRIGGER PULL of any SA I've ever owned. And I mean right-out-of-the-box! If any other trigger could match the SA of hammer-fired CZ75, then I would already own it.

I could care less whether its polymer or steel, as long as it absorbs enough recoil so that my hand doesn't hurt. IMHO; it just 'happens' that the metal guns absorb, for me, more recoil and I just happen to shoot them much more accurately when they have nice triggers. I would also note that I'm not going to pay $450-$650 for a gun and then put another couple hundred into trigger work. Hence my 92FS, M&P9c, and other plastic-trigger-group guns are all gone.

I'm a gun guy. I like most all guns. I just prefer some over others. It's silly not to at least try new or different guns.

I noticed right away when I purchased my first CZ85db these are way underrated.

Either way the gun doesn't matter to me striker or non striker if it shoots its all good. As far as plastic pistols I don't own any yet, I don't hate them but I don't love them either. I just don't have the time to waste or dwell on them.

I like pizza either mushroom/sausage/pepperoni or buffalo chicken or sausage/peppers.

Please identify that slab sided Ruger pictured above. I've never seen one like it.

RonJ said:

Please identify that slab sided Ruger pictured above. I've never seen one like it.

Click to expand...

AMT. Their "copy" of the Mark II. Which I hear they were sued for. Not a bad gun. Don't see many.

Striker-fired pistols go back to the beginning of autoloaders

As a couple of others have noted above, striker-fired pistols aren't a new thing. Back in 1900 AD--114 years ago--two striker-fired pistols went on the market:

1) The Luger (7.65mm/.30 Cal. version)

2) The FN Browning (7.65mm/.32 ACP)

Both of these were pretty safe to carry with a chambered round; both had thumb safeties and grip safeties.

The FN Browning was John M. Browning's first successful autopistol design. FN sold half a million of them. It was superseded by another JMB design, a simpler, more elegant striker-fired pocket gun, the FN Model of 1910, which was manufactured up through the 1960s.

In the meantime, so as not to step on his own patents, JMB had designed another .32, which was released in the United States; collectors call it the Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless, but it had a hammer, concealed by the slide. You couldn't get a "second strike" with one of these--there was no way to cock the hammer again without racking the slide and ejecting the cartridge. This (and the .380 version) was another hugely successful pistol.

So, as others have said, "striker-fired" didn't start with Glock and doesn't mean "unsafe plastic pistol."

Jessie said:

That was the classic case of a negligent discharge, emphasis on negligent. As far as 1911s, I've pulled it out of the holster to find that the safety had already disengaged. So, I don't think it's so much the design as it is the safety between the ears. Any gun can be dangerous without due diligence.

Click to expand...

I've heard that before, but design has plenty to do with accidental discharges. The human mind is not always in a constant state of alertness and gun designs have to take that into consideration. The Colt 1911 is a wonderfully designed pistol with an intelligent safety that makes the gun capable of great readiness. The cocked-and-locked aspect is what caused me to choose the Taurus 92 over the Beretta. Other guns that don't really need safeties allow for rounds in the chambers with no need to engage anything that would make them "safer." The earlier Smiths (2nd and 3rd generations), Berettas, Sigs, and many others were of this type.

So you could say the Glock type may even be safer because you know it's cocked and loaded with no safety, whereas the 1911, you think it's safetied, but it may not be and most are far less than 5 1/2lb. triggers.

Click to expand...

Yes, fine, if your state of alertness is at maximum capacity. I'm still convinced that a round in the chamber of a Glock is about at the same safety level as a Smith 659/5906 with a round in the chamber and cocked. These are all manageable states, but hardly recommended.

federali said:

I own both and I feel that a hammer delivers a stronger blow to the primer than a striker. This could be important if you're fighting for your life and the gun must go bang every time. I also like the deep, wide dent a hammer delivers to the primer. Some of the primer dents left by my Glocks and even my S&W M&P makes me wonder how the round fired.

Click to expand...

Amen to that!

Striker-fired pistols work...there's no denying it. But, and this is an important but -- they're all dependent on springs. The springs in revolvers and hammer-fired autos, however, are stronger, more condensed and will last for years. A Ruger Security-Six will last for generations. A 659/5906 with hammers also will last for years, the only exceptions being the magazine springs. With striker-fired pistols, the weak link is the firing pin and recoil springs. Thus the weaker hits on the primers. That's why Glock recommends changing its springs every 3,000 rounds! A Ruger Security-Six is still being broken in at 3,000 rounds. And hammer-fired autos also are still going strong. If, heaven forbid, a local or national emergency happened, like our power grid going down, changing springs would have to be a consideration for people with striker-fired pistols. Hammer springs hold up much better, and a collection of magazines would go the rest of your life. And if you had a Security-Six, your grandchildren would be using it given there was adequate ammunition.

I have a Beretta .22lr with a hammer. Works great. I also have a Jennings J-22, which is a cheap striker-fired pistol that also is extremely reliable. I haven't fired it much, but on the few times I have, it works great. I also have extra springs, magazines and a couple of firing pins. With the Berettas, I didn't think it was necessary. Maybe some day in the future that gun with the extras will be worth a lot of money.

Bottom line: I believe hammer-fired pistols will outlast the striker-fired pistols unless one stocks up on springs, firing pins and so forth.







Another consideration...why were all the junk guns striker-fired? Because they're cheaper to produce. Yet modern plastic pistols sell for as much as hammer-fired pistols. I've also wondered how much guns like the Smith & Wesson stainless 9mm and .45s would sell for today if they were still being made. With the higher prices of steel, fitting and other resources, they most likely would be close to a grand.

Striker fired pistols have miserable triggers.

All the add on parts in the world don't change the reality:

1911 triggers are so much better that it's not worth fussing with strker fired variety

Just my opinion, of course.