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

[Wise_A]

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

I agree.

It was worth a chuckle.

 

[Protected One]

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.

It was a Shield 9mm.

 

[texmex]

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.

 

[fdw]

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...

 

[petepeterson]

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.

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.

 

[Muss Muggins]

It was a Shield 9mm.

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

 

[BB57]

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? ​

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.

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.

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

B]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? [/B]

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.

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.

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...

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.​

 

[BB57]

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

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.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

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

I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I wouldn't count on it.

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

 

[Muss Muggins]

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.

"Glock" appears 43 times in this thread (47 now that I've copied and pasted and added one more.) "Shield" appears nine times.

 

[walkin' trails]

Striker fired pistols are not any less safe than hammer fired guns. There are many owners of both types of actions, as well as revolvers, rifles, and shotguns who are much less safe than they should be.

I would venture a guess that most unintentional discharges are a result of careless gun handling rather than design flaws. There are inexpensive, less sophisticated designed out there that i would not trust to carry for various reasons. There are also poorly maintained, worn out, or botched "Gunsmithing" that result in unintentional discharges, but those are many times coupled with operator error. I've talked to vets who carries WWII era 1911A1s during the early 60s who reported slam-fires when chambering rounds. Having dealt with a worn out 1911 or two myself, I concede that sometimes it is the gun, but those incidents are few and far between.

Mostly, I would chalk up these unintended events as complete disregard to common sense gun handling. In my 26 years as a full time LEO, I will attest that there are those LEOs who are not gun people and will devote the least amount of time possible to training with, maintaining, or carrying a firearm. Then again, even those who take the the responsibility seriously have head-up-behind moments. The former would display mediocre performance and safety skills with a 1970s mfg Colt Trooper with its 20lb DA pull, and the later need to not take their abilities for granted.

Non LE gun owners/CCW carriers are in the same boat. My advice on off-body carry for anyone is to not do it. The reasons are obvious and numerous. Same with on-body carry methods. I don't care how cheap or popular a certain holster is, it's not for serious gun toting. Regardless of construction, a good holster that starts to to exhibit wear beyond scuffing of the finish needs to be replaced.

Kids and guns - unless the safety lever requires 30-40 lbs to activate, a child could just as easily deactivate one as he/she can manipulate a trigger. Anyone with a Sig with DA/SA system can attest how little strength it takes to cock back the hammer, effectively defeating all the safeties and negating the perceived benefits of a long, heavy DA trigger.to gun safety. If one is going to have guns around children, one must educate them from an early age. Furthermore, when the gun is not being carried, it should be secured.

Rule Number One says to treat all firearms as if they are loaded; or as Pat McNamara reinterprets it, "know the status of your weapon at all times."

All - have a safe Memorial Weekend. God bless all who go in harms way, and remember those who couldn't make it back.

 

[BB57]

"Glock" appears 43 times in this thread (47 now that I've copied and pasted and added one more.) "Shield" appears nine times.

If you want to feel some Glock love (mentioned 49 times now), you're probably in the wrong forum.

 

[Mister X]

I do personally feel something along the lines of a traditional DA/SA or hammer-fired DAO pistol with a manual safety is probably the overall safest design even though all the pistols I own are Glocks. All of mine currently have NY trigger springs installed.

In making the choice as to what is the best carry weapon for you, many factors must be weighed against each other and a balance reached. The pistol perceived to be the safest may not be considered the most effective for actual defensive use and if you're carrying, obviously you feel there is a realistic possibility that you may have to use it in self-defense.

There is always a lot of referencing proper training, responsibility and adherence to safety rules in threads such as these, but you can't foresee and prepare for every possible contingency and in terms of training, consider how accurately yours actually simulates the most probable realistic conditions. During FoF/Force on Force training, you'll see unexpected issues surface that previously hadn't in more controlled practice. Being safe and effective at range shooting or in other controlled environments doesn't always translate over to other conditions and the operational specifics of the gun itself does indeed matter a great deal.

There has been numerous instances of individuals using a M1911 failing to get the manual and even grip safeties disengaged during reactive close-quarter FoF drills. It doesn't matter how much you train or are proficient on a square range, once in the chaotic, unpredictable environment of a real world defense encounter or even one that simulates it fairly well, things generally get very messy and dexterity will be in short supply. The same concept applies to safe gun handling and trigger discipline. People will very often prematurely put their finger on the trigger unknowingly(even applying some pressure) during actual defense situations as well as during FoF.

So, choice of a suitably safe and effective carry firearm should be made in context balancing the respective relevant features.

 

[eb07]

If you are scared to carry striker fired pistols, then carry something else. Life is full of choices. Me? I refuse to carry any self defense handgun with a manual safety. Period. Point and click under stress.

 

[snowman.45]

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.

I retired from law enforcement after 37 years, most of which time I served as a range master/firearms instructor. I believe I have a bit of expertise and a valid perspective on the issues at hand, particularly since I made the transition from revolvers, to SA semi-auto pistols (1911) to DA/SA pistols and finally to Glocks. I understand quite well the difference between criminal intent and ND/AD situations. As a firearms instructor, I also understand the importance of consistent training that develops muscle memory and good habits. Can "accidents" happen, even with such training? Certainly. However, as costly as it is, appropriate training can ensure a greater level of consistency.

I've been involved in OIS situations and their investigation. I have not seen accidental discharges in those cases. Maybe its a matter of familiarity with the weapons system. So, maybe its a matter of training.

Most striker-fired handguns have an average trigger pull of 5 to 6 lbs., with some being modified to be lighter or heavier by either department regulation or individual choice. I think 5 to 6 lbs. provides sufficient resistance for the trained individual. I do not recommend a striker fired trigger pull less than that. As your example of the "hair-trigger .44" illustrates, there are thresholds of safety that should not be crossed. I couldn't agree more.

Now, I will agree that there is a greater margin of safety in a DA/SA design for the initial trigger pull, but that margin of error is no longer present in subsequent shots fired. Further, the training curve for transition from DA to SA is a bit greater that SA alone. This inconsistency adds to greater potential for AD/ND situations on subsequent shots, as well as having an effect on accuracy. Again, this can be overcome with regular and consistent training, but I have seen accidental shots fired from the SA mode subsequent to the initial DA shot. Here, your example of an officer under the effects of adrenaline may be more prone to an AD/ND. And, insofar as muscle memory being a "misnomer", I'll have to disagree. As with anything else done repeatedly in a consistent manner, finger positioning on the firearm can and is successfully trained.

In my mind, this all comes down to a number of things you have listed in your conclusions;
1) Recognizing the mechanical differences between the systems,
2) Recognizing the potential for ANY handgun to be affected by a holster or system that does not protect the trigger and how the holster itself or finger position can create an AD/ND,
3) The necessity for holsters to ensure safety through protection of the trigger.
4) Realizing that a margin for error always exists and being cognizant of your practices and their consistency.

I will note that during the days of DA/SA pistols, during training I saw a number of people re-holster a DA/SA pistol with the hammer cocked. As the first were S&W 3rd Gen. guns that required de-cocking, and the later guns were Sig-Sauer P226 pistols that had no external safety, but required manual de-cocking, I will point this out as another instance of design that has inherent potential for AD/ND. In short, regular and consistent training are the greatest insurance against unintentional firing of any system.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

If a person believes that they are not competent to be in the possession of a striker fired pistol (or any type of gun) without unintentionally shooting themselves or others, then they should listen to themselves.

 

[Brasky]

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.

If you press the release on a Serpa with the side of your finger, then the finger is pointed straight forward like it should be. Problem is people press it with the tip of their finger causing the finger to go to the trigger.

I received a Serpa with a Glock I purchased. I tried drawing as fast as I could over and over with the Serpa and never once found my finger even close to the trigger. I did switch to a bianchi accumold holster as I strongly favor them

 

[Brasky]

If you are scared to carry striker fired pistols, then carry something else. Life is full of choices. Me? I refuse to carry any self defense handgun with a manual safety. Period. Point and click under stress.

I zip my pants up every time I use the restroom (which seems to be dozens of times a day ) but yet I forget sometimes. Same is said of a safety.

He who says "I will never forget the safety" is in a dream world. It happens. Almost all of the two dozen people I deer hunt with will tell you about the one that got away because they forgot to take the safety off. They've been hunting since before I was even a sparkle in my parent's eyes and harvested dozens upon dozens of deer but yet the heat of the moment still can get to them.

Training helps but the less steps in the process the better chance you have

 

[Rick_A]

A safety should never be a crutch for poor handling skills.

Most modern guns when used as intended are only as safe as their owners.

That said most people choose whatever they are comfortable with.

For me that's DAO, DA/SA, SA, and striker.