M&P striker firing system?

[helomech73]

S&W lists the M&P as double action only. My question concerns the striker firing mechanism. In a traditional DAO firing system the first trigger pull acutates the hammer, releases it to fire and the hammer is home when the slide returns to battery with a fresh round stripped from the magazine in the chamber. In the striker fire system the striker is cocked when the slide is cycled rearward and returned to battery correct? So, on the first trigger pull, the trigger is simply releasing the striker fired firing pin? Wouldnt this be more correctly described as light hammerless single action only if this is the case?

 

[helomech73]

S&W lists the M&P as double action only. My question concerns the striker firing mechanism. In a traditional DAO firing system the first trigger pull acutates the hammer, releases it to fire and the hammer is home when the slide returns to battery with a fresh round stripped from the magazine in the chamber. In the striker fire system the striker is cocked when the slide is cycled rearward and returned to battery correct? So, on the first trigger pull, the trigger is simply releasing the striker fired firing pin? Wouldnt this be more correctly described as light hammerless single action only if this is the case?

 

[Spotteddog]

Yup.
But don't tell anybody!
It makes people REALLY nervous, thinking that a gun might go off when it's trigger is pulled. So, shhh! I'll never tell, if you promise not to...
BTW, WELCOME!

 

[handgunner356]

Unlike the Sigma, Glock and KAHR the M&P uses a fully cocked striker, so I would say it is more like a "long pull single action" in that sense.

 

[OKFC05]

Call it what you want, it is listed with BATF and the sanctioning bodies as "Double action".
All but the XD are so classified and it would probably have been except Springfield messed up and filed the paperwork as "single action."
Go figure.

I prefer the term "striker fired" as more descriptive and accurate. By the way, legal trigger mods to the Glock eliminate futher rearward movement of the striker before firing.

 

[helomech73]

Thanks for the info!

 

[gglass]

No matter how you would describe the mechanical operation, the action had to named Double Action Only if S&W wanted the police and military sales. A vast majority of these agencies require a Double Action to even be considered as an acceptable firearm.

So no matter what it really is, it's still a DAO.

 

[Bullitholz]

Racking the slide "cocks" the action. Pulling the trigger trips the sear, releasing the striker. The trigger does NO cocking of any sort in an M&P pistol.

Simply put this really is a single action design. If you happen to drop the firing pin on a bad primer the slide will have to be racked to eject the round and reset the striker, sure sounds like a single action to me.

 

[rewster]

Simply put this really is a single action design. If you happen to drop the firing pin on a bad primer the slide will have to be racked to eject the round and reset the striker, sure sounds like a single action to me.

Wouldn't you have to rack the slide on any semi-auto if the round in the chamber doesn't go off ?

 

[dennis40x]

Originally posted by rewster:

Wouldn't you have to rack the slide on any semi-auto if the round in the chamber doesn't go off ?

No certain designs have re-strike capability.

 

[Bullitholz]

3rd gen S&W pistols like my 4506 are double action designs. If you have a light primer strike with one of these guns you simply stroke the trigger again. Usually the second strike of the firing pin is enough to make the round go boom.

Taurus has made a big deal of this capability on the polymer guns as having "second strike capability". They cite studies that show that 98% of the time the second firing attempt will fire the round.

 

[rewster]

That's what so great about this place. I learn something new every day

 

[WR Moore]

Originally posted by Bullitholz:
Racking the slide "cocks" the action. Pulling the trigger trips the sear, releasing the striker. The trigger does NO cocking of any sort in an M&P pistol.

Untrue! If you closely examine the sear, the surface that engages the striker is circular in shape. The stroke of the trigger actually does cam the sear back prior to release. I wouldn't want to speculate on exactly how far the striker is moved prior to release, but the trigger can legitimately be considered double action.

 

[MattB]

Originally posted by dennis40x:

Originally posted by rewster:

Wouldn't you have to rack the slide on any semi-auto if the round in the chamber doesn't go off ?

No certain designs have re-strike capability.

I find it somewhat odd that the M&P wasn't designed with a second strike capability since the older 99-class pistols do have it.

 

[JamesArthur60]

Originally posted by OKFC05:
All but the XD are so classified and it would probably have been except Springfield messed up and filed the paperwork as "single action."
Go figure.

The Glock, XD and now M&P firing system is confusing to me. I use an XD in IDPA and it cannot shoot in the same division as the striker fired Glock or M&P. Strange...

 

[Bullitholz]

Originally posted by WR Moore:
Untrue! If you closely examine the sear, the surface that engages the striker is circular in shape. The stroke of the trigger actually does cam the sear back prior to release. I wouldn't want to speculate on exactly how far the striker is moved prior to release, but the trigger can legitimately be considered double action.

Well now that's splitting hairs just a bit. OK just to touch on what your referring to, it's a few thousandths of an inch, at the most. That can hardly be considered "double action" in my book.

The truth is, if you drop the striker on a round and it doesn't fire in one of these pistols, you will HAVE to rack the slide and try again. Once the striker falls on the primer it will not reset without pulling the slide back, period.

From a symantecs standpoint MAYBE we can classify these guns as a double action design but in the real world their manual of arms is that of a single action design.

 

[WR Moore]

Hey, if the BATFE can class the Glockenspiel as a double action, the M&P also fits the description.

Springfield allegedly made some sort of paperwork error in describing the action sequence, which led to the XD being considered single action-at least by IDPA.

As to second strike capability, at minimum, it complicates immediate action drills by adding to the decision tree. As a result, there's a school of thought that considers it a waste of time. Ammunition reliability is much better than it was in ye dayes fo olde, if the round doesn't go the first time, get it out of there and try another. Requiring a slide cycle to recock the pistol solves the various issues quite neatly.

 

[Bullitholz]

Originally posted by WR Moore:

As to second strike capability, at minimum, it complicates immediate action drills by adding to the decision tree. As a result, there's a school of thought that considers it a waste of time. Ammunition reliability is much better than it was in ye dayes fo olde, if the round doesn't go the first time, get it out of there and try another. Requiring a slide cycle to recock the pistol solves the various issues quite neatly.

....hmmmm, yes like I said, single action....a la' 1911, glocks, XD's and M&P's. I don't care what they call it, in the field they all handle the same

Now, on a Smith 3rd Gen that's not the case as those guns truly are double action, like a revolver. Pick it up and pull the trigger, no boom, pull it again, still not boom? Rack the slide and then pull the trigger again. You going to get a boom in the process sometime and my money would be on the second trigger pull more often than not.

 

[helomech73]

Well, there certainly are some interesting opions in this debate. I'm more inclined to say single action due to the fact that there is no hammer actuated mechanically by a long trigger stroke. That being said one thing that can be agreed upon is that the M&P series is a home run for S&W. I love my M&P 45!

 

[JamesArthur60]

Originally posted by WR Moore:
Springfield allegedly made some sort of paperwork error in describing the action sequence, which led to the XD being considered single action-at least by IDPA.

An error in paperwork?

I think the powers to be in IDPA, probably Glock shooters/owners, didn't like someone else (XD) moving into their division for competition purposes. Now they have to deal with the new M&P in SSP, leaving the XD striker alone in ESP.