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

[Kronos]

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.

Never been attacked by a human,but I've been on the bad side of a dog a couple times-trust me the adrenaline is kickin' and I never shot myself,just stuck the pistol back and went about my business.

Now fido....yea,they don't do well against a nine or a forty five.

 

[BB57]

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.

I agree.

It's also your responsibility to know your own limitations and stay within them.

It's also your responsibility to accurate assess your own limitations so you KNOW them well enough that you CAN stay within them.

The sad fact is the majority of people are really, really, bad at accurate self assessment of their skills and abilities. They are even less accurate at accurately assessing their skills and abilities when distracted, or worse when under extreme stress.

You need to choose and configure your equipment accordingly based on a very conservative view of your abilities, and with consideration for how much that ability will degrade under stress.

 

[patrickd]

The problem with a cocked and locked striker pistol comes when people like that woman a few months back had a Glock in her purse and her kid reached in and accidentally fired it shooting and killing the mom. Striker pistols like the Glock should ONLY be carried in a proper holster. Putting one in a pocket or handbag is just asking for something to push on the trigger and causing a tragedy.

 

[gen3guy]

The only gun of mine that I have ever had an accidental discharge with is my 1911 (twice). Yes, I know it was may fault. However I shoot my 4 Glock pistols much more often and have never had a problem. Understanding yourself is just as important as undersigning your weapon. However, experience counts for something too. I never carry my 1911 cocked and locked. I carry my Glock 19 ready to go IWB all day long.

But that's just me.

 

[Neumann]

A Glock is perfectly safe if the trigger isn't pulled, but your finger isn't the only thing that can "pull" the trigger. I'm a little uncomfortable with a striker fired pistol under deep concealment - ie under clothing or IWB. There is a firing pin block released by a short movement of the trigger, and a tab which locks the trigger itself. Both are designed more against accidental discharge if dropped, but too many have discharged upon holstering by experienced LEOs, at least twice in front of school children.

My personal choice is a Springfield XDm2, which has a grip safety to block the sear. I put my thumb on the back of the slide when holstering to keep it from moving out of battery and to shield the grip safety. It can't go off even if something has fallen into the holster or snags on the trigger.

The S&W Shield has an optional thumb safety, which I would want if I carried a Shield.

A hammer offers an additional layer of safety in that you can block it with your thumb while holstering, or hold it down if de-cocked. I have no problem with a 1911, cocked and locked, using both a thumb and grip safety. There is sometimes an issue with thumb safety extensions which resemble a highway entrance ramp being jostled to an unsafe state in a poorly designed holster.

If I'm not carrying the XDm2, my preference goes to a SIG with a DAK trigger, which is always DA, hammer down, with hammer and firing pin blocked by the long trigger pull.

There are pistols to be carried and pistols to hold minimal groups. I try not to confuse the two. For me, a Glock serves neither purpose as well as other choices.

 

[Muss Muggins]

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.

They are not. Next . . .

 

[Muss Muggins]

The problem with a cocked and locked striker pistol comes when people like that woman a few months back had a Glock in her purse and her kid reached in and accidentally fired it shooting and killing the mom. Striker pistols like the Glock should ONLY be carried in a proper holster. Putting one in a pocket or handbag is just asking for something to push on the trigger and causing a tragedy.

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.

 

[AlHunt]

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.

In a holster with the trigger covered. How would you shoot yourself?

 

[Mister X]

A gun with a shorter, lighter trigger pull is more susceptible to unintentional discharges than one with a longer, heavier trigger. A manual safety adds an additional safeguard as does the ability to ride the hammer with the thumb while reholstering.

Many say it's a training issue/a software not hardware problem, but the reality is too err is human. This is especially true in the context of actual high stress, unpredictable defense scenarios compared with a controlled range environment or non-event everyday concealed carrying yet we see relatively frequent incidents of unintentional discharges even in those conditions.

A snub revolver with a 12 lb DAO trigger is technically intrinsically no less accurate than a larger framed, longer barreled model shot in single action, but the human factor usually makes it less so in practical application. I doubt anyone would insist the snubs practical accuracy shortcomings is simply a lack of proper training. The concept is no different for the topic at hand IMO. This doesn't necessarily mean a Glock and similar striker-fired pistols are inherently unsafe, just that they are comparably less safe in actual use than many other firearms after factoring in the human element.

 

[Smoke]

Ok so all the responses I'm hearing either cite human error or defective/ poorly designed holsters.

I exclusively carry M&Ps at work and at home. I've used them in high stress situations. I've even had to clear a couple of buildings with them in my hand and I've not yet inadvertently put my finger on the trigger and certainly not had an ND.

In fact I am very cognizant of where my trigger finger is anytime I touch my gun. So, again, training.

My employer issues a Safariland level 2 retention holster for work at home I use a Galco CM OWB. So, quality equipment.

 

[jlrhiner]

As far as it goes, training is the absolute reason. The manual at arms is different between striker-fired and hammer fired pistols. It's different between Glocks and 1911's, and it was different between Lugers and P-38's. The training regimen for each is different. A lot of things overlap, but some don't.

In my opinion, and it's just that, my opinion, the placement of the safety on the trigger is both the blessing and the curse for the modern striker fired pistols. I'll leave it at that.

The point is, if you are trained on one style of pistol, switching to another takes commitment. I own some Glocks, and shoot them reasonably well. I will never carry one IWB, in a pocket or anywhere not in a rigid type holster. For every day carry it's a 1911a1. I have 40+ years of carrying, shooting and relying on them. They come to hand without a thought, function flawlessly, and hit what I want. Almost without any help from me.

And there are people out there that feel the same way about their striker-fired pistols.

The main problem (again just my opinion) is that "non gun" folks buy all the hype and equip themselves with a tool they don't understand, much less take the time to adequately learn. So training is the answer.

 

[Wise_A]

What gets lost in the process is the importance and inadequacy of the training most pistol shooters seek out.

Took the liberty of fixin' that for you, BB

I can see not going out and getting training. Really, I can. If you don't know anything, I can see it being hard to pick out somebody that might know something from the horde of tactards. Plus, a lot of training is really expensive, some of it requires travel, and not everybody can afford it.

But what I can't believe is how little time people spend at least reading about guns and gun-handlin'. I just finished reading No Second Place Winner (gotta re-read some key bits), and I got a bunch of snubbie books to pore through. Books are cheap, and there's a lot of useful scribblin' in there.

The hard part is self-analysis and critique. That's what you pay an instructor or coach for, someone to watch the dumb stuff you do and let you know you're doin' dumb stuff. Which is all of the finesse in instructing. I've seen a lot of guys immediately launch into long-winded explanations of why a shooter should do X instead of Y and how their way is the One True Way.

Me, I always found it best to start off by asking why somebody did things a certain way, then explaining why I thought they should maybe do something else. Sometimes, they've actually got a real good reason for doin' what they're doin', and even if they don't, flies with honey and all that.

Amen on the holsters, by the way. You wouldn't believe the horrid little things people bring to classes.

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...

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.

 

[ContinentalOp]

I think this video offers a decent perspective on the issue, particularly the part starting at 2:25.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP8F_cwotM8[/ame]

 

[BB57]

The hard part is self-analysis and critique. That's what you pay an instructor or coach for, someone to watch the dumb stuff you do and let you know you're doin' dumb stuff. Which is all of the finesse in instructing. I've seen a lot of guys immediately launch into long-winded explanations of why a shooter should do X instead of Y and how their way is the One True Way.

Me, I always found it best to start off by asking why somebody did things a certain way, then explaining why I thought they should maybe do something else. Sometimes, they've actually got a real good reason for doin' what they're doin', and even if they don't, flies with honey and all that.

That's my preferred instructional technique as well. Some times people can surprise you, and even when they don't it's often counterproductive to just tell someone that what there doing isn't a great idea or isn't all that effective. Most of them however can see what they haven't got when you show them what you do and let them figure out why it is so much more effective.

The comments usually run along the lines of "I didn't know how much I didn't know until I saw______".

 

[oldiegoldie]

I think this video offers a decent perspective on the issue, particularly the part starting at 2:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP8F_cwotM8

Very well explained. The key words are "extra layer of safety". One thing I never see mentioned about striker fired is the partially cocked striker. The possibility that the striker could fall and strike the primer is a little nagging thought in my mind. Chances might be one in a million of that happening, but it is a possibility, however remote. The purpose of my carrying a firearm is to protect myself from harm. The chances of being harmed by my own firearm are probably greater than being harmed by another individual. I have been trading my striker fired pistols for hammer fired for 3 or 4 years now and soon there will be no striker fired pistols in my safe. Not trying to evangelize here, this opinion applies only to me.

 

[tops]

I think this video offers a decent perspective on the issue, particularly the part starting at 2:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP8F_cwotM8

If this doesn't explain it there is not any way it can be explained. Larry

 

[DD357]

I think this video offers a decent perspective on the issue, particularly the part starting at 2:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP8F_cwotM8

Excellent.

 

[BB57]

/... One thing I never see mentioned about striker fired is the partially cocked striker. The possibility that the striker could fall and strike the primer is a little nagging thought in my mind. Chances might be one in a million of that happening, but it is a possibility, however remote.

Let me start with two comments:

1. I agree with everything in that video and feel it's very well stated - even if the striker fired pistol fans won't want to hear it.

2. I am not, and have never been a striker fired pistol fan for all the reasons outlined in my prior posts and in the video.

However to be fair to the SFP crowd, one reason you probably never hear about it, is that to my knowledge it has never happened. The Glock at least, was designed from the start to be drop safe as evidenced by being dropped on a steel plate from a 2 meter height.

The odds of a striker fired pistol firing due to the striker slipping off the sear is about the same as a Series 80 or Schwartz system equipped 1911 firing when dropped on the hammer. It may well shear the sear and allow the hammer to fall, but the firing pin safety will prevent anything from happening.

The same thing would happen with a Glock - the striker moving forward would not result in anything happening due to the firing pin safety.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I think this video offers a decent perspective on the issue, particularly the part starting at 2:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP8F_cwotM8

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

 

[snowman.45]

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? Having 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.

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? As 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.