Hammer fired DA/SA VS Striker fired - RELIABILITY?

Josh17 · April 21, 2012, 06:11 AM

I know everyone prefers their own kind. But I'm not talking about peference here. I'm talking about realibity, in a "one shot only" situation. Why one shot only? Let's say you have a magazine problem. So both your guns (one striker fired and one Hammer SA/DA) have no mags in them. So you are only able to manually put just ONE single round into the chamber. All you got is one shot.

Which wins in terms of reliabilty?

#1. STRIKER FIRED - You pick a Glock, with no mag in it, but one round in the chamber. You aim, and pull the trigger.

vs

#2. SINGLE/DA ACTION HAMMER - You pick a Beretta, with no mag in it, but one round in the chamber. BUT YOU COCK THE HAMMER BACK FIRST, then aim, and pull the trigger.

Which one is MORE likely to NOT have a FTF issue? My GUESS is that the Hammer fired would win in reliability, at least for just firing the one shot in the chamber. I guess this because I figured the force of the hammer plunging forward would "force" the chambered round out and cause it to fire. While a striker fired gun on the otherhand, with just one round in the chamber, doesn't have the hammer so there is no real "force" like a hammer being plunged forward to make the chambered round fire.

RT · April 21, 2012, 06:29 AM

Why would you manually cock the hammer on a DA/ SA gun?

ChaseReynolds · April 21, 2012, 06:34 AM

^^^I don't believe that I understand the question that well either. I see no reason why it wouldn't fire if the hammer is just falling forward.

Josh17 · April 21, 2012, 06:37 AM

Well, say perhaps the trigger is a little stiff or in poor condition and you can't quite pull it all the way back for it to make the hammer pull back and plunge forward. (worst case scenario, unlikely to happen, but just an example) So you manually cock it. Chances are even with a bad trigger, since the trigger pull will be so light, it'd be more likely to fire. I guess that's the only REAL advantage of having the hammer cocked back. But that situation is very likely to happen.

But how about my main question? Hammer SA/DA vs Striker fired.

Let's say there is a mag problem with both guns. Meaning you have no Magazines in the guns. So you just have a SINGLE shot loaded into the chamber. Which wins in terms of reliability? Hammer fired vs striker fired? Or is there no real answer?

ChaseReynolds · April 21, 2012, 06:40 AM

I don't believe that there is a real answer. You are comparing a striker fired pistol that some people believe are flawless and hammer fired guns are hard not to go bang either. So yes, they will both fire. Unless there is something wrong with the ammo.

Josh17 · April 21, 2012, 06:51 AM

Hmm, I kinda figured there wasn't a real answer, but since searching found me no results I figured I'd ask to be 100% certain.

I just wasn't sure when it came to just having ONE single round in the chamber, if having the "force of the hammer plunging forward" would make it MORE reliable to fire off that single round in the chamber vs a striker fired pistol that has no hammer to plunge forward and force the single chambered round out.

Mrgunsngear · April 21, 2012, 07:23 AM

The only difference in 'reliability' is second strike capability and that's not what you're asking so indeed there is no answer. In this case, spring weight and the cleanliness of the firing pin channel would be the only difference in reliability, not the system.

Slugthrower · April 21, 2012, 08:55 AM

The hammer driven firing pin is "more reliable".

I have many different pistols and from a practical standpoint they all have gone bang when they should. Save a few .22LRs. But that was the ammunition.

Back to the point. when you have a striker fired pistol. The friring pin will be driven by a spring. This essentially means that the force of the spring is what pushes the pin hard enough into the primer to cause it to ignite.

With a hammer driven design you have a hammer that drives the pin. Yes is it driven by a spring as well. The difference is that you have a hammer that is many times more massive than just a spring driven pin. This translates to a much more forceful impact into the primer.

Those of you that have a Kahr PM9 and a hammered pistol can prove this to yourself. Take a pencil slide it into the barrel and make sure the eraser is butted up to the breechface. Pull the trigger. Don't be surprised when the pencil barely moves or just does fall out the barrel. Now take the hammer driven pistol and do the same, you will notice that it is shot out of the barrel with more force.

Does it matter? For the most part it will not. As a rule primers are plenty soft and will go off reliably in either design. Under typical conditions that the typical user will put their particular pistol in. Now if the conditions are not ideal, you have a cruddy firing pin channel, it will put a constant drag on the pin itself and this is where the hammer has an advantage. If you are using some military ammo with a harder primer the same can be said.

Not that it is the same thing, but that is why an AR shooting 7.62x39mm can be unreliable. The primers are harder in the old soviet stuff and ARs don't provide as much force as the AK would.

Ask yourself. If I take a nail and compress it up against up against a spring and release it. Will it drive the nail deeply? How much effort will I have to apply to get that required force? Now how much more effective is just using a plain old hammer? Momentum is the primary difference and it does matter.

For most of us it will not make a bit of difference the type we choose. For others it could be very imortant. I hear people quite often ask why the US armed services don't use Glock as their issue side arm. Not that it has been said, but I suspect it is the fact that it is a striker design.

M9, M1911,Sig 226, are all hammer designs. Just a thought.

I like many different types and trust them with my life. I am in no way saying that a striker fired design is a liabiliy. On the contrary I carry my PM9 all the time as opposed to my larger hammer fired pistols. But I would not expect it to hold up in a field environment where maintaining it may not happen for a long time. Since I am not going to war it is moot. IE it is debateable that my preference for hammer designs means anything at all.

Go with what fits you and you shoot well with. So long as it fits you and handles well all the rest will be gravy for your prime rib.

ScotchMan · April 21, 2012, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Now if the conditions are not ideal, you have a cruddy firing pin channel, it will put a constant drag on the pin itself and this is where the hammer has an advantage. If you are using some military ammo with a harder primer the same can be said.

This is kinda what made me prefer hammer-fired designs. Unfortunately, most subcompact guns don't have hammers, and therefore I do most of my carrying and therefore shooting with striker guns. But my full-size nightstand/the terrorists are coming gun is an HK45.

I'd really love to get my hands on a P2000sk someday, seems like that would be ideal.

Slugthrower · April 21, 2012, 10:03 AM

I agree, ScotchMan. Given the choice I'd take a hammer design.

Also I'd take into consideration that the smaller pistols that use hammers have alot of problems in that they need the space for their hammers and those hammers are smallish where a striker may well be more "effective" in the dimensions available. 6 in one, half dozen in the other.

ScotchMan · April 21, 2012, 10:47 AM

Good point. That right there may be the takeaway of this thread; strikers are better suited to small carry guns, and hammers are better suited for mid to full size weapons.

James K · April 21, 2012, 12:15 PM

There is NO difference in reliability based solely on the use of a striker vs the use of a hammer.

The pencil trick proves nothing except that in SOME hammer type pistols the firing pin is free to move out beyond the breech face where in MOST striker fired pistols it protrudes only a short distance.

Jim

Josh17 · April 22, 2012, 03:16 AM

Thanks Slugthrower you answered the question to a T. You explained exactly what I was wondering.

Thanks.

David9X19P · April 22, 2012, 05:19 PM

I have been "going through" a number of DA/SA 9mm autos the past three years, including the SIG 220/226/229, the CZ75, Browning BPMD, S&W 5906, Beretta M9, Polish P64, and have shot most of the striker fired pieces too.

Recently been using a Walther P99 mostly, and the other day tried some cheap Tula Russian steel case/Berdan ammo. Second round was a FTF. Instead of the usual execution of a tap/rack drill, I simiply pulled the trigger again and it went bang.

I second your notion that a hammer fired pistol is an advantage with certain types of bargain ammo! Your visual demo of putting a pencil down the bor is an apt one. Probably no difference with quality stuff, as the P99 had run 100% with all other stuff I've tried including S&B ball, Federal, Remington, Winchester ball, Federal and Speer JHP.

hogwiley · April 22, 2012, 05:55 PM

Thousands of rounds through glocks and I have never had a misfire, even with crappy ammo, so I dont see it as an issue. The chance of it happening with high quality self defense ammo is incredibly slim in a properly maintained quality striker fired pistol like a glock. In the unlikely event it does happen, its a pretty easy fix. Go tap rack bang, problem solved.

The one misfire I did have was with a hammer fired gun, a beretta m9, and it was the fault of the ammo.

I have read Taurus striker fired guns can have issues with some ammo due to light strikes.

wrdwrght · April 22, 2012, 07:10 PM

Another way of getting at the answer you seek is to ask: which action pointed at you would make you feel safer? I think the answer is "neither", because both are reliable enough.

ETA: Your magazine-out scenario would disqualify my striker-fired M&P40c and Ruger SR-40c. Each has a magazine disconnect...

BlueTrain · April 23, 2012, 07:51 AM

This sort of sounds like the kind of discussion people were having a hundred years ago when they were thinking about switching from revolvers to automatics. It's the reasoning that resulted in having lanyard loops on .45 auto magazines. As it is, striker fired pistols have been around just about as long as hammer fired pistols. A Luger is striker fired, is it not?

Strafer Gott · April 23, 2012, 08:35 AM

OK, let's try this spin. The striker is an HK, and the hammer is a Taurus.
Who's safer now?

carguychris · April 23, 2012, 08:46 AM

Quote:

The pencil trick proves nothing except that in SOME hammer type pistols the firing pin is free to move out beyond the breech face where in MOST striker fired pistols it protrudes only a short distance.

+1. My S&W M3904 (hammer) will throw pencils across the room while my M&P9 (striker) only moves them about 2". However, neither gun has ever had a FTF while I've owned them, and they're fed the same ammo. Advantage: neither.

Quote:

As it is, striker fired pistols have been around just about as long as hammer fired pistols. A Luger is striker fired, is it not?

+1. Here's my argument: virtually all modern bolt-action rifles are striker-fired, and by "modern", I mean post-1891.

Ask a large room full of shooters if they've ever had a FTF using a reasonably well-maintained centerfire bolt rifle with fresh ammo (i.e. no 50-year-old Egyptian military surplus) and I bet you only a few hands would go up. They're almost as reliable as the sunrise.

While it's true that these guns generally have more massive firing pins pushed by much stouter springs, IMHO this just helps to prove that it has more to do with the design details of the particular system than any inherent problem with the general concept.

Quote:

Your magazine-out scenario would disqualify my striker-fired M&P40c and Ruger SR-40c. Each has a magazine disconnect...

The mag disconnect is optional on the M&P, and most M&Ps produced for commercial sale don't have one unless it's required by law in the particular sale location.

BlueTrain · April 23, 2012, 10:29 AM

How many have fired their magazine fed pistol without a magazine in place?

dgludwig · April 23, 2012, 06:14 PM

I guess it might depend on whether the pistol has a magazine disconnect or not.

jmr40 · April 23, 2012, 07:24 PM

Striker fired is more reliable.

It is a more closed design with one less opening to allow foreign material into the guns internal workings.

In a close range SD shooting situation clothing, etc can get between the hammer and firing pin of a hammer fired gun preventing it from firing.

If the gun is dropped in a struggle with an attacker the external hammer can become damaged and no longer work.

Gats Italian · April 23, 2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

While it's true that these guns generally have more massive firing pins pushed by much stouter springs, IMHO this just helps to prove that it has more to do with the design details of the particular system than any inherent problem with the general concept.

There's nothing conceptually wrong with all kinds of engineered systems—until one tries to shrink them.

Fishbed77 · April 23, 2012, 07:34 PM

I've never had a round fail to fire in my Walther P99AS, which happens to be both DA/SA and striker-fired.

Sturmgewehre · April 23, 2012, 11:14 PM

I believe the striker system is more reliable.

The amount of force applied to the primer is fairly consistent between a hammer fired gun and a striker fired gun. They are designed to deliver a set amount of force to the primer to avoid puncturing it. A hammer fired gun doesn't have any more "force" to it, however it may seem that way because you can see a hammer falling. In the end, they both hit with about the same force.

The striker fired system is a closed system which prevents the ingress of debris. Hammered designs typically have more moving parts than a striker system. The Glock for example has very few moving parts, fewer than most other designs out there. Fewer parts means less parts to break and generally equates to better reliability.

There's a reason double action autos are slowly disappearing and are being replaced by striker fired pistol designs. Back in the 1980's double action autos were all the rage... today fewer and fewer new designs use the double action system in favor of the striker fired system. The reason is simplicity and ease of operation.

April 21, 2012, 06:37 AM	#4
Josh17 Senior Member Join Date: February 26, 2012 Location: Colorado Posts: 196	Well, say perhaps the trigger is a little stiff or in poor condition and you can't quite pull it all the way back for it to make the hammer pull back and plunge forward. (worst case scenario, unlikely to happen, but just an example) So you manually cock it. Chances are even with a bad trigger, since the trigger pull will be so light, it'd be more likely to fire. I guess that's the only REAL advantage of having the hammer cocked back. But that situation is very likely to happen. But how about my main question? Hammer SA/DA vs Striker fired. Let's say there is a mag problem with both guns. Meaning you have no Magazines in the guns. So you just have a SINGLE shot loaded into the chamber. Which wins in terms of reliability? Hammer fired vs striker fired? Or is there no real answer? Last edited by Josh17; April 21, 2012 at 06:42 AM.

April 21, 2012, 07:23 AM	#7
Mrgunsngear Senior Member Join Date: May 13, 2011 Location: Carolina Posts: 3,415	The only difference in 'reliability' is second strike capability and that's not what you're asking so indeed there is no answer. In this case, spring weight and the cleanliness of the firing pin channel would be the only difference in reliability, not the system. __________________ Mrgunsngear Youtube Channel

April 21, 2012, 08:55 AM	#8
Slugthrower Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2006 Posts: 823	The hammer driven firing pin is "more reliable". I have many different pistols and from a practical standpoint they all have gone bang when they should. Save a few .22LRs. But that was the ammunition. Back to the point. when you have a striker fired pistol. The friring pin will be driven by a spring. This essentially means that the force of the spring is what pushes the pin hard enough into the primer to cause it to ignite. With a hammer driven design you have a hammer that drives the pin. Yes is it driven by a spring as well. The difference is that you have a hammer that is many times more massive than just a spring driven pin. This translates to a much more forceful impact into the primer. Those of you that have a Kahr PM9 and a hammered pistol can prove this to yourself. Take a pencil slide it into the barrel and make sure the eraser is butted up to the breechface. Pull the trigger. Don't be surprised when the pencil barely moves or just does fall out the barrel. Now take the hammer driven pistol and do the same, you will notice that it is shot out of the barrel with more force. Does it matter? For the most part it will not. As a rule primers are plenty soft and will go off reliably in either design. Under typical conditions that the typical user will put their particular pistol in. Now if the conditions are not ideal, you have a cruddy firing pin channel, it will put a constant drag on the pin itself and this is where the hammer has an advantage. If you are using some military ammo with a harder primer the same can be said. Not that it is the same thing, but that is why an AR shooting 7.62x39mm can be unreliable. The primers are harder in the old soviet stuff and ARs don't provide as much force as the AK would. Ask yourself. If I take a nail and compress it up against up against a spring and release it. Will it drive the nail deeply? How much effort will I have to apply to get that required force? Now how much more effective is just using a plain old hammer? Momentum is the primary difference and it does matter. For most of us it will not make a bit of difference the type we choose. For others it could be very imortant. I hear people quite often ask why the US armed services don't use Glock as their issue side arm. Not that it has been said, but I suspect it is the fact that it is a striker design. M9, M1911,Sig 226, are all hammer designs. Just a thought. I like many different types and trust them with my life. I am in no way saying that a striker fired design is a liabiliy. On the contrary I carry my PM9 all the time as opposed to my larger hammer fired pistols. But I would not expect it to hold up in a field environment where maintaining it may not happen for a long time. Since I am not going to war it is moot. IE it is debateable that my preference for hammer designs means anything at all. Go with what fits you and you shoot well with. So long as it fits you and handles well all the rest will be gravy for your prime rib. __________________ History is a freak show and a dark comedy. Mankind is a spectacle all to itself. Play your role, let the jesters play theirs. In the end...who has the last laugh? Last edited by Slugthrower; April 21, 2012 at 09:03 AM.

April 21, 2012, 10:03 AM	#10
Slugthrower Senior Member Join Date: October 22, 2006 Posts: 823	I agree, ScotchMan. Given the choice I'd take a hammer design. Also I'd take into consideration that the smaller pistols that use hammers have alot of problems in that they need the space for their hammers and those hammers are smallish where a striker may well be more "effective" in the dimensions available. 6 in one, half dozen in the other. __________________ History is a freak show and a dark comedy. Mankind is a spectacle all to itself. Play your role, let the jesters play theirs. In the end...who has the last laugh?

April 22, 2012, 05:19 PM	#14
David9X19P Junior Member Join Date: March 18, 2012 Location: Oregon Posts: 12	Slugthrower, a very good reply! I have been "going through" a number of DA/SA 9mm autos the past three years, including the SIG 220/226/229, the CZ75, Browning BPMD, S&W 5906, Beretta M9, Polish P64, and have shot most of the striker fired pieces too. Recently been using a Walther P99 mostly, and the other day tried some cheap Tula Russian steel case/Berdan ammo. Second round was a FTF. Instead of the usual execution of a tap/rack drill, I simiply pulled the trigger again and it went bang. I second your notion that a hammer fired pistol is an advantage with certain types of bargain ammo! Your visual demo of putting a pencil down the bor is an apt one. Probably no difference with quality stuff, as the P99 had run 100% with all other stuff I've tried including S&B ball, Federal, Remington, Winchester ball, Federal and Speer JHP.

April 21, 2012, 06:11 AM	#1
Josh17 Senior Member Join Date: February 26, 2012 Location: Colorado Posts: 196	Hammer fired DA/SA VS Striker fired - RELIABILITY? I know everyone prefers their own kind. But I'm not talking about peference here. I'm talking about realibity, in a "one shot only" situation. Why one shot only? Let's say you have a magazine problem. So both your guns (one striker fired and one Hammer SA/DA) have no mags in them. So you are only able to manually put just ONE single round into the chamber. All you got is one shot. Which wins in terms of reliabilty? #1. STRIKER FIRED - You pick a Glock, with no mag in it, but one round in the chamber. You aim, and pull the trigger. vs #2. SINGLE/DA ACTION HAMMER - You pick a Beretta, with no mag in it, but one round in the chamber. BUT YOU COCK THE HAMMER BACK FIRST, then aim, and pull the trigger. Which one is MORE likely to NOT have a FTF issue? My GUESS is that the Hammer fired would win in reliability, at least for just firing the one shot in the chamber. I guess this because I figured the force of the hammer plunging forward would "force" the chambered round out and cause it to fire. While a striker fired gun on the otherhand, with just one round in the chamber, doesn't have the hammer so there is no real "force" like a hammer being plunged forward to make the chambered round fire. Last edited by Josh17; April 21, 2012 at 06:54 AM.

April 21, 2012, 06:29 AM	#2
RT Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2000 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 2,194	Why would you manually cock the hammer on a DA/ SA gun?

April 21, 2012, 06:34 AM	#3
ChaseReynolds Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2012 Location: Fort Riley, Kansas Posts: 186	^^^I don't believe that I understand the question that well either. I see no reason why it wouldn't fire if the hammer is just falling forward.

April 21, 2012, 06:40 AM	#5
ChaseReynolds Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2012 Location: Fort Riley, Kansas Posts: 186	I don't believe that there is a real answer. You are comparing a striker fired pistol that some people believe are flawless and hammer fired guns are hard not to go bang either. So yes, they will both fire. Unless there is something wrong with the ammo.

April 21, 2012, 06:51 AM	#6
Josh17 Senior Member Join Date: February 26, 2012 Location: Colorado Posts: 196	Hmm, I kinda figured there wasn't a real answer, but since searching found me no results I figured I'd ask to be 100% certain. I just wasn't sure when it came to just having ONE single round in the chamber, if having the "force of the hammer plunging forward" would make it MORE reliable to fire off that single round in the chamber vs a striker fired pistol that has no hammer to plunge forward and force the single chambered round out.

April 21, 2012, 10:47 AM	#11
ScotchMan Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2011 Posts: 1,368	Good point. That right there may be the takeaway of this thread; strikers are better suited to small carry guns, and hammers are better suited for mid to full size weapons.

April 21, 2012, 12:15 PM	#12
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	There is NO difference in reliability based solely on the use of a striker vs the use of a hammer. The pencil trick proves nothing except that in SOME hammer type pistols the firing pin is free to move out beyond the breech face where in MOST striker fired pistols it protrudes only a short distance. Jim

April 22, 2012, 03:16 AM	#13
Josh17 Senior Member Join Date: February 26, 2012 Location: Colorado Posts: 196	Thanks Slugthrower you answered the question to a T. You explained exactly what I was wondering. Thanks.

April 22, 2012, 05:55 PM	#15
hogwiley Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2011 Posts: 277	Thousands of rounds through glocks and I have never had a misfire, even with crappy ammo, so I dont see it as an issue. The chance of it happening with high quality self defense ammo is incredibly slim in a properly maintained quality striker fired pistol like a glock. In the unlikely event it does happen, its a pretty easy fix. Go tap rack bang, problem solved. The one misfire I did have was with a hammer fired gun, a beretta m9, and it was the fault of the ammo. I have read Taurus striker fired guns can have issues with some ammo due to light strikes.

April 22, 2012, 07:10 PM	#16
wrdwrght Member Join Date: November 13, 2011 Location: New Hampshire Seacoast Posts: 27	Another way of getting at the answer you seek is to ask: which action pointed at you would make you feel safer? I think the answer is "neither", because both are reliable enough. ETA: Your magazine-out scenario would disqualify my striker-fired M&P40c and Ruger SR-40c. Each has a magazine disconnect... Last edited by wrdwrght; April 22, 2012 at 10:04 PM. Reason: Added thought

April 23, 2012, 07:51 AM	#17
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	This sort of sounds like the kind of discussion people were having a hundred years ago when they were thinking about switching from revolvers to automatics. It's the reasoning that resulted in having lanyard loops on .45 auto magazines. As it is, striker fired pistols have been around just about as long as hammer fired pistols. A Luger is striker fired, is it not? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

April 23, 2012, 08:35 AM	#18
Strafer Gott Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2011 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,315	OK, let's try this spin. The striker is an HK, and the hammer is a Taurus. Who's safer now?

April 23, 2012, 10:29 AM	#20
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	How many have fired their magazine fed pistol without a magazine in place? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

April 23, 2012, 06:14 PM	#21
dgludwig Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2005 Location: North central Ohio Posts: 7,486	I guess it might depend on whether the pistol has a magazine disconnect or not. __________________ ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED ...Aristotle NRA Benefactor Life Member

April 23, 2012, 07:24 PM	#22
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,808	Striker fired is more reliable. It is a more closed design with one less opening to allow foreign material into the guns internal workings. In a close range SD shooting situation clothing, etc can get between the hammer and firing pin of a hammer fired gun preventing it from firing. If the gun is dropped in a struggle with an attacker the external hammer can become damaged and no longer work.

April 23, 2012, 07:34 PM	#24
Fishbed77 Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2010 Posts: 4,862	I've never had a round fail to fire in my Walther P99AS, which happens to be both DA/SA and striker-fired. Last edited by Fishbed77; April 23, 2012 at 09:46 PM.

April 23, 2012, 11:14 PM	#25
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,212	I believe the striker system is more reliable. The amount of force applied to the primer is fairly consistent between a hammer fired gun and a striker fired gun. They are designed to deliver a set amount of force to the primer to avoid puncturing it. A hammer fired gun doesn't have any more "force" to it, however it may seem that way because you can see a hammer falling. In the end, they both hit with about the same force. The striker fired system is a closed system which prevents the ingress of debris. Hammered designs typically have more moving parts than a striker system. The Glock for example has very few moving parts, fewer than most other designs out there. Fewer parts means less parts to break and generally equates to better reliability. There's a reason double action autos are slowly disappearing and are being replaced by striker fired pistol designs. Back in the 1980's double action autos were all the rage... today fewer and fewer new designs use the double action system in favor of the striker fired system. The reason is simplicity and ease of operation. __________________ Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more. Ex Mea Sententia