I don't mind striker fired pistols. I'm confident enough in my training and weapons handling to not worry about the firing system. I work with DAO semi autos and play with 1911s and have no problem transitioning between two very different platforms. I do not like polymer guns. Most striker fired pistols seem to be polymer so they really have no place for me. I can't really explain why but a gun half made out of plastic has absolutely no appeal to me. I guess I like old school stuff, like metal guns, automatic watches and rear wheel drive. And I am, barely, under 30.
Why the dislike for striker fired pistols?
- Thread starter RonJ
- Start date
Stargater
Member
Do all striker-fired pistols require the frequent changing of recoil and striker springs as the Glocks?
The reason all the new auto pistols are striker fired isn't because they're better; it's that they're cheaper to make. Plastics are cheaper to mold and to torque as are low-compression springs. All the cheap autos made a few years ago were all striker-fired. Ravens, Jennings, Sterlings, Davis, and, to their credit, many of them worked. I own two striker-fired autos -- a Jennings J-22 and a Davis P32. The former works flawlessly while the latter jams incessantly.
It shouldn't be too tough to figure out that a hammer strike will always be more decisive when it hits the primer than a striker hit. But it's more expensive, too, which is why steel 1911s tend to go for more than striker-fired pistols. So if I have $600 and want a pistol that would last me through an EMP attack and possibly for the rest of my life, I'd find a decent used Smith & Wesson 5906, 659 (outstanding), 645, Beretta/Taurus 92/99 or Sig Saur and one set of replacement springs and go with that. Or, I'd get one of those old-fashioned, obsolete...oh, what did they call them...oh yeah, revolvers. A good 4-inch Smith 686 or Ruger Security-Six will be in use long after all autos, but especially striker-fired autos. The less dependent a gun is on springs, the more resilient it will be if otherwise well cared for. (Some revolvers do have design flaws that limit their durability, such as the Colt Python. While Colt made the frame heavy enough to last, the hand, or pawl, was designed so small, and the gun goes out-of-time every 2K rounds or so.)
Beginning with the Beretta 92, autos finally became ultra-reliable. This innovative gun not only had a hi-cap magazine capacity, it had a horizontal feed that didn't require a ramp. It had no ejection port as the gun was completely open on the top, and tho it had an ejector, it really didn't need one. Then came the others, including the Smiths (459/559), Glock, Sig and later the Rugers. I considered getting a Springfield XD, but couldn't find the money or gun. The venerable Colt 1911, which for so long had ruled the roost, made a poor showing when compared to the newer gun. In the initial military trials, the Beretta 92 had a malfunction rate of 1 in 2,000, which was phenomenal. Smith's outstanding 459 came in second with 1 out of 982, and the Colt 1911 came in at the bottom of the list with 1 out of 11 malfunctions. The Beretta and the Smith were the only two guns that passed, and the guns were fired under a number of different circumstances.
If I were going to have to do the rest of my life on an auto, the Glock could certainly do the trick, but I'd have to stock up on reserve springs and perhaps other parts. On the good side, however, it's light, handles recoil well, is ultra-reliable, accurate and easy to take apart and repair.
The reason all the new auto pistols are striker fired isn't because they're better; it's that they're cheaper to make. Plastics are cheaper to mold and to torque as are low-compression springs. All the cheap autos made a few years ago were all striker-fired. Ravens, Jennings, Sterlings, Davis, and, to their credit, many of them worked. I own two striker-fired autos -- a Jennings J-22 and a Davis P32. The former works flawlessly while the latter jams incessantly.
It shouldn't be too tough to figure out that a hammer strike will always be more decisive when it hits the primer than a striker hit. But it's more expensive, too, which is why steel 1911s tend to go for more than striker-fired pistols. So if I have $600 and want a pistol that would last me through an EMP attack and possibly for the rest of my life, I'd find a decent used Smith & Wesson 5906, 659 (outstanding), 645, Beretta/Taurus 92/99 or Sig Saur and one set of replacement springs and go with that. Or, I'd get one of those old-fashioned, obsolete...oh, what did they call them...oh yeah, revolvers. A good 4-inch Smith 686 or Ruger Security-Six will be in use long after all autos, but especially striker-fired autos. The less dependent a gun is on springs, the more resilient it will be if otherwise well cared for. (Some revolvers do have design flaws that limit their durability, such as the Colt Python. While Colt made the frame heavy enough to last, the hand, or pawl, was designed so small, and the gun goes out-of-time every 2K rounds or so.)
Beginning with the Beretta 92, autos finally became ultra-reliable. This innovative gun not only had a hi-cap magazine capacity, it had a horizontal feed that didn't require a ramp. It had no ejection port as the gun was completely open on the top, and tho it had an ejector, it really didn't need one. Then came the others, including the Smiths (459/559), Glock, Sig and later the Rugers. I considered getting a Springfield XD, but couldn't find the money or gun. The venerable Colt 1911, which for so long had ruled the roost, made a poor showing when compared to the newer gun. In the initial military trials, the Beretta 92 had a malfunction rate of 1 in 2,000, which was phenomenal. Smith's outstanding 459 came in second with 1 out of 982, and the Colt 1911 came in at the bottom of the list with 1 out of 11 malfunctions. The Beretta and the Smith were the only two guns that passed, and the guns were fired under a number of different circumstances.
If I were going to have to do the rest of my life on an auto, the Glock could certainly do the trick, but I'd have to stock up on reserve springs and perhaps other parts. On the good side, however, it's light, handles recoil well, is ultra-reliable, accurate and easy to take apart and repair.
sigp220.45
US Veteran
Somehow I missed the memo on all this Glock spring changing. My little 27 has had at least 15,000 rounds of factory ammo through it in the past 17 years. I've never changed a thing and it still shoots like new.
Alpo
Member
Somehow I missed the memo about the 1911 having one malfunction every eleven rounds.
If I were going to have to do the rest of my life on an auto, the Glock could certainly do the trick, but I'd have to stock up on reserve springs and perhaps other parts. On the good side, however, it's light, handles recoil well, is ultra-reliable, accurate and easy to take apart and repair.
Not a bad idea.
Not a bad idea.
sipowicz
Member
I carry the M&P for duty...no problem with it in a duty holster. A few friends have the Shield and I can shoot it pretty well..but I just can't seem to trade my DS or 442 for one...I like the full double pull on each and being able to see the cylinder turn...when I CCW an auto, it's my P2000...I like the exposed hammer for holstering and again, the longer pull...just makes me feel safer.
RalphMP9FS
Member
I agree with your statement, but I strongly believe the majority of civilian Glock type handgun owners are severely lacking the skill-set to safely carry and operate. The scary part is they feel there's no need for training.
Only in America do we believe we are born with gun handling skills. The shooting gene if you will. Thank you Hollywood. You can not design an idiot proof weapons system. Whatever system is chosen it is the responsibility of the user to train and master the controls of that system. I like and prefer the simplicity of the Glock but I have no problem using other systems. I also have no problem in seeking out training if I'm not getting the most out if a system. I really get tired of people complaining about something. because they won't take the time to learn the system. If you don't like it that is fine but don't trash it because you're no good with it. Just be quiet and choose whatever system your willing to learn and master. Train dang it!
Hellraiser
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 491
- Reaction score
- 1,182
I like 'em all...
However... tryin' not to be close-minded... I went over to Youtube 'bout three years ago... and watched them Glock torture tests. Specially where they buried that one Glock 21 for two years... dug it up... washed it off under an outside water faucet... and shot that pistola for 500 rounds... as fast as they could load and shoot. I got 'bout 30 revolvers of different types... I'd say there are very few of my revolvers that can do that.
However... tryin' not to be close-minded... I went over to Youtube 'bout three years ago... and watched them Glock torture tests. Specially where they buried that one Glock 21 for two years... dug it up... washed it off under an outside water faucet... and shot that pistola for 500 rounds... as fast as they could load and shoot. I got 'bout 30 revolvers of different types... I'd say there are very few of my revolvers that can do that.
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
Comfort in your own mind is a big factor, and many striker fired pistols do not have a positive thumb safety. This makes many folks nervous, so they won't carry them. I would carry a Steyr S9 with the safety inside the trigger guard but they are surprising wide and I am a bit skinny for concealing any handgun. I'll probably carry FEG .32 most of the time when my permit finally comes in the mail.
Alpo
Member
Absolutely. Despise 'em. "If it's Mattel, it's SWELL". Yeeeaaaahhh. I don't think so.
