Striker and hammer fired

ATN082268 · April 14, 2015, 01:28 AM

Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?

Sevens · April 14, 2015, 01:58 AM

It seems to me that the striker fired handgun was born out of the need (or perceived need) for a duty handgun that did not require a cocked hammer for it's first shot -- or a long double action trigger pull. (which is then followed up with a short single action pull for all subsequent shots)

Striker fired handguns are well suited to a system where the pistol is NOT visibly cocked -- but a reasonably short trigger pull will fire the pistol and all shots have the same trigger pull with no transition from the first to second shot.

Whether that is significant--
seems to me to be a question for the person who carries it.

Brotherbadger · April 14, 2015, 01:59 AM

None that I can think of. A striker fired will be consistent on its trigger pull, which a DA won't(unless you cock the hammer first). I don't know if that qualifies.

Theohazard · April 14, 2015, 04:46 AM

Striker fired guns are simpler, more durable, and cheaper to produce. Hammer fired guns tend to hit the primer a little harder, which can be beneficial if you're using ammo with primers that are especially hard.

10-96 · April 14, 2015, 06:36 AM

I guess it would be significant if the employing agency mandates one over the other for safety reasons.

Some departments mandate a longer and heavier trigger pull for safety reasons. The reasoning behind such is to 'help' prevent adrenalin induced or shock induced trigger pulls. (Shock meaning- jarring as a result of running, jumping, bumping into things).

Skeets · April 14, 2015, 08:27 AM

So long as gun fires Every time trigger is pulled,it's a personal preference.

osbornk · April 14, 2015, 08:56 AM

I have both and I don' think it matters.

Jim Watson · April 14, 2015, 09:01 AM

Striker fired pistols are simpler and therefore cheaper to build.
They have been that way for over a hundred years, long before their simplicity and safety of operation were "discovered."

lee n. field · April 14, 2015, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?

"Striker vs. hammer" is one of those things that people get worked up about for not good reason. Also confused about.

IMHO & YMMV

mavracer · April 14, 2015, 12:24 PM

Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?
NO

Fishbed77 · April 14, 2015, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?

Short answer - No.

Quote:

It seems to me that the striker fired handgun was born out of the need (or perceived need) for a duty handgun that did not require a cocked hammer for it's first shot -- or a long double action trigger pull. (which is then followed up with a short single action pull for all subsequent shots)

There are also striker-fired pistols that are DA/SA. The Walther P99AS and Canik TP9 come immediately to mind.

Quote:

Striker fired handguns are well suited to a system where the pistol is NOT visibly cocked -- but a reasonably short trigger pull will fire the pistol and all shots have the same trigger pull with no transition from the first to second shot.

Don't forget that there are a number of striker-fired pistols that do have an indicator to show that the pistol is visibly cocked.

TunnelRat · April 14, 2015, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Striker fired guns are simpler, more durable, and cheaper to produce.

I would definitely agree they are typically cheaper assuming that the manufacturer had to pay for the design and it's not a situation of a clone (i.e. CZ75 pattern clones seem to be very cheap to produce and can be had for much less than say a Glock). I would also agree that striker fired pistols can be simpler, but something like a P-series HK or CZ P-07 is surprisingly simple and really has a limited number of parts. Still more I grant you, but I'm not sure how much of a difference you were implying.

What I don't think I can agree with is the more durable argument. Yes there are Glocks with 100,000+ rds, but there is also a known case of an HK USP in the same boat and the HK P30 ranks pretty high up there too.

TailGator · April 14, 2015, 01:50 PM

I have heard and read the argument that hammer-fired pistols are safer to reholster because you can place a thumb on the hammer as you do so. The argument doesn't sway me much, but it is out there.

Quentin2 · April 14, 2015, 02:39 PM

Striker fired handguns tend to have a lower bore axis and fit lower in the hand, reducing muzzle flip. They also don't need a long beaver tail frame to protect the hand from hammer bite, so they tend to be shorter and easier to conceal.

These and others already mentioned are important advantages - but like many others, I like a hammer if the pistol won't be concealed. And a well designed gun is a well designed gun, you can make either type work for you.

745SW · April 14, 2015, 02:48 PM

I believe a hammer fired pistol will be more tolerant/reliable with ill-fitting ammo. The ammo could be dinged or have headspace issues with a hammered pistol and still cycle properly. I have experienced many times over a period of years when using my ill-fitting reloads the hammer will hit/drive the slide home and still have enough energy to hit the firing pin with adequate force to fire the cartridge.

Granted all my hammer fired pistols have a conventional/OEM firing pin, steel, not titanium with a stronger firing pin spring. And I do not reduce the main spring/hammer spring force from stock. I might do some light polishing on contact surfaces but that’s about it.

BigMikey76 · April 14, 2015, 03:17 PM

I don't think there is any real advantage. To me it seems to be more of a preference and perception issue.
Proponents of striker fired handguns argue that the consistency of the trigger pull is an advantage, but I am not really sure about that. If you want consistent trigger pull from a hammer fired gun, cock the hammer. If you are in a situation where there is no time to do so, the adrenaline going through your system is likely going to make the longer stiffer trigger pull of the double action setting moot anyway.
As far as reliability and durability, There are plenty of examples of guns of both types that have thousands of rounds through them with no problems, and plenty of examples of both types that have crapped out way before that. My impression is that this is a maintenance issue. If you take care of of your guns, they will take care of you, regardless of whether they have strikers or hammers.

Viper99 · April 14, 2015, 06:01 PM

My favorites are hammer DA/SA, decocker But for CCW I always carry one of my striker fired.

dayman · April 14, 2015, 07:05 PM

For defense/duty I like the typical striker fired trigger. It's less about the consistency than the weight and length of the pull. Not quite as long or heavy as a typical DA, but not quite as light or short as a typical SA.
I'm pretty sure they make hammer fired guns that do the same thing now, but what I have works, and my "fun guns" tend to be revolvers and rifles, so I haven't tried any of them out.

All that's just a matter of preference though.
If one were truly superior the other would have probably faded away.

skizzums · April 14, 2015, 07:13 PM

I personally feel that hammer fired guns have a much nicer trigger. although I haven't owned a lot of strikers to compare, only glock, sd9ve and Taurus pt. so far as my experience goes, I haven't found a better trigger than a CZ sa

ritepath · April 14, 2015, 07:27 PM

Waiting for the "if it's not a glock, it's junk." folks to eat this thread alive.

Everyone knows glocks are striker fired and that means they're the only pistol type anyone should be allowed to own.

I have both....

carguychris · April 14, 2015, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin2

Striker fired handguns tend to have a lower bore axis and fit lower in the hand, reducing muzzle flip.

It seems to me that this has less to do with the firing mechanism and more to do with the trigger mechanism. Most modern hammer-fired designs are DA/SA and therefore require more room for the trigger mechanism, and gunmakers have typically accommodated this design requirement by making the pistol taller.

As a counterexample, most .22 rimfire target pistols are SAO hammer-fired, and these pistols generally have really low bore axes. (For the uninitiated, most common models such as the Ruger Mk-series, Browning Buckmark, Colt Woodsman, High Standard Sport King, etc. are not striker-fired as they may appear - they have internal hammers.)

Low-bore-axis DA/SA hammer-fired pistols have been done - notably including the world's first DA/SA full-power military duty pistol, the Walther P38 - but they're not commonplace for reasons of manufacturing economy.

jmr40 · April 14, 2015, 08:11 PM

Striker fired have one less opening for debris to enter the action. There is no exposed hammer to break if the gun is dropped. It is impossible for clothing, or someones hand to get between the hammer and frame in very close contact shooting that would prevent the gun from firing. It is a simpler system less likely to fail.

I'd say for heavy duty use/abuse the striker fired guns are much more desirable for military or LE.

For nightstand use it probably doesn't matter. But in the real world, especially military use guns are often abused, dropped, survive helicopter crashes, and are picked up out of the mud and expected to work.

TunnelRat · April 14, 2015, 10:12 PM

Quote:

But in the real world, especially military use guns are often abused, dropped, survive helicopter crashes, and are picked up out of the mud and expected to work.

Amazing them to think we've survived over 100 years in our current military with hammer fired guns...

Worc · April 14, 2015, 11:14 PM

I have both and they each have their advantages and disadvantages. Reliability and durability not being one of them as I put them as equals overall.

Bore axis height is only one of many aspects that affect muzzle flip/recoil. It could also be said that hammer guns tend to be heavier and that reduces muzzle flip/recoil. The reality is that weight is also but just one factor as well. No one factor will single handedly reduce muzzle flip/recoil. It's a cumulation of several that makes a particular model recoil/flip less for each individual.

Hammer DA/SA models don't normally need a beaver tail to eliminate hammer bite. My Sphinx SDP is a great example of a hammer gun that does not need the beaver tail that has one. They differ from 1911's that have the hammer recess into the beaver tail when cocked.

Worc · April 14, 2015, 11:26 PM

deleted

April 14, 2015, 01:28 AM	#1
ATN082268 Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2013 Posts: 975	Striker and hammer fired Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon?

April 14, 2015, 01:58 AM	#2
Sevens Senior Member Join Date: July 28, 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 11,775	It seems to me that the striker fired handgun was born out of the need (or perceived need) for a duty handgun that did not require a cocked hammer for it's first shot -- or a long double action trigger pull. (which is then followed up with a short single action pull for all subsequent shots) Striker fired handguns are well suited to a system where the pistol is NOT visibly cocked -- but a reasonably short trigger pull will fire the pistol and all shots have the same trigger pull with no transition from the first to second shot. Whether that is significant-- seems to me to be a question for the person who carries it. __________________ *Attention Brass rats and other reloaders:* I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.

April 14, 2015, 06:36 AM	#5
10-96 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2005 Location: Tx Panhandle Territory Posts: 4,190	I guess it would be significant if the employing agency mandates one over the other for safety reasons. Some departments mandate a longer and heavier trigger pull for safety reasons. The reasoning behind such is to 'help' prevent adrenalin induced or shock induced trigger pulls. (Shock meaning- jarring as a result of running, jumping, bumping into things). __________________ Rednecks... Keeping the woods critter-free since March 2, 1836. (TX Independence Day) I suspect a thing or two... because I've seen a thing or two.

April 14, 2015, 08:27 AM	#6
Skeets Member in memoriam Join Date: April 6, 2015 Location: Indiana Posts: 583	100% bang So long as gun fires Every time trigger is pulled,it's a personal preference. __________________ Skeets "Over Kill Never Fails"

April 14, 2015, 11:26 PM	#25
Worc Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2013 Location: Michigan Posts: 641	deleted Last edited by Worc; April 15, 2015 at 09:53 AM. Reason: Double post

April 14, 2015, 01:59 AM	#3
Brotherbadger Senior Member Join Date: November 10, 2010 Posts: 1,149	None that I can think of. A striker fired will be consistent on its trigger pull, which a DA won't(unless you cock the hammer first). I don't know if that qualifies.

April 14, 2015, 04:46 AM	#4
Theohazard Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2012 Location: Western PA Posts: 3,829	Striker fired guns are simpler, more durable, and cheaper to produce. Hammer fired guns tend to hit the primer a little harder, which can be beneficial if you're using ammo with primers that are especially hard.

April 14, 2015, 08:56 AM	#7
osbornk Senior Member Join Date: August 11, 2012 Location: Mountains of Appalachia Posts: 1,598	I have both and I don' think it matters.

April 14, 2015, 09:01 AM	#8
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 19,203	Striker fired pistols are simpler and therefore cheaper to build. They have been that way for over a hundred years, long before their simplicity and safety of operation were "discovered."

April 14, 2015, 12:24 PM	#10
mavracer Senior Member Join Date: February 27, 2008 Location: midwest Posts: 4,209	Is there any significant advantage in a striker or hammer fired handgun for heavy duty use as a law enforcement or military weapon? NO

April 14, 2015, 01:50 PM	#13
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,809	I have heard and read the argument that hammer-fired pistols are safer to reholster because you can place a thumb on the hammer as you do so. The argument doesn't sway me much, but it is out there.

April 14, 2015, 02:39 PM	#14
Quentin2 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2009 Location: NorthWest USA Posts: 1,996	Striker fired handguns tend to have a lower bore axis and fit lower in the hand, reducing muzzle flip. They also don't need a long beaver tail frame to protect the hand from hammer bite, so they tend to be shorter and easier to conceal. These and others already mentioned are important advantages - but like many others, I like a hammer if the pistol won't be concealed. And a well designed gun is a well designed gun, you can make either type work for you.

April 14, 2015, 02:48 PM	#15
745SW Senior Member Join Date: August 25, 2011 Location: California Posts: 776	I believe a hammer fired pistol will be more tolerant/reliable with ill-fitting ammo. The ammo could be dinged or have headspace issues with a hammered pistol and still cycle properly. I have experienced many times over a period of years when using my ill-fitting reloads the hammer will hit/drive the slide home and still have enough energy to hit the firing pin with adequate force to fire the cartridge. Granted all my hammer fired pistols have a conventional/OEM firing pin, steel, not titanium with a stronger firing pin spring. And I do not reduce the main spring/hammer spring force from stock. I might do some light polishing on contact surfaces but that’s about it.

April 14, 2015, 03:17 PM	#16
BigMikey76 Senior Member Join Date: December 3, 2011 Location: Bellevue, NE Posts: 981	I don't think there is any real advantage. To me it seems to be more of a preference and perception issue. Proponents of striker fired handguns argue that the consistency of the trigger pull is an advantage, but I am not really sure about that. If you want consistent trigger pull from a hammer fired gun, cock the hammer. If you are in a situation where there is no time to do so, the adrenaline going through your system is likely going to make the longer stiffer trigger pull of the double action setting moot anyway. As far as reliability and durability, There are plenty of examples of guns of both types that have thousands of rounds through them with no problems, and plenty of examples of both types that have crapped out way before that. My impression is that this is a maintenance issue. If you take care of of your guns, they will take care of you, regardless of whether they have strikers or hammers.

April 14, 2015, 06:01 PM	#17
Viper99 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2010 Location: CT Posts: 846	My favorites are hammer DA/SA, decocker But for CCW I always carry one of my striker fired.

April 14, 2015, 07:05 PM	#18
dayman Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2011 Location: The Woods Posts: 1,197	For defense/duty I like the typical striker fired trigger. It's less about the consistency than the weight and length of the pull. Not quite as long or heavy as a typical DA, but not quite as light or short as a typical SA. I'm pretty sure they make hammer fired guns that do the same thing now, but what I have works, and my "fun guns" tend to be revolvers and rifles, so I haven't tried any of them out. All that's just a matter of preference though. If one were truly superior the other would have probably faded away.

April 14, 2015, 07:13 PM	#19
skizzums Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2013 Location: Douglasville, Ga Posts: 4,615	I personally feel that hammer fired guns have a much nicer trigger. although I haven't owned a lot of strikers to compare, only glock, sd9ve and Taurus pt. so far as my experience goes, I haven't found a better trigger than a CZ sa

April 14, 2015, 07:27 PM	#20
ritepath Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2009 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,419	Waiting for the "if it's not a glock, it's junk." folks to eat this thread alive. Everyone knows glocks are striker fired and that means they're the only pistol type anyone should be allowed to own. I have both....

April 14, 2015, 08:11 PM	#22
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,978	Striker fired have one less opening for debris to enter the action. There is no exposed hammer to break if the gun is dropped. It is impossible for clothing, or someones hand to get between the hammer and frame in very close contact shooting that would prevent the gun from firing. It is a simpler system less likely to fail. I'd say for heavy duty use/abuse the striker fired guns are much more desirable for military or LE. For nightstand use it probably doesn't matter. But in the real world, especially military use guns are often abused, dropped, survive helicopter crashes, and are picked up out of the mud and expected to work.

April 14, 2015, 11:14 PM	#24
Worc Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2013 Location: Michigan Posts: 641	I have both and they each have their advantages and disadvantages. Reliability and durability not being one of them as I put them as equals overall. Bore axis height is only one of many aspects that affect muzzle flip/recoil. It could also be said that hammer guns tend to be heavier and that reduces muzzle flip/recoil. The reality is that weight is also but just one factor as well. No one factor will single handedly reduce muzzle flip/recoil. It's a cumulation of several that makes a particular model recoil/flip less for each individual. Hammer DA/SA models don't normally need a beaver tail to eliminate hammer bite. My Sphinx SDP is a great example of a hammer gun that does not need the beaver tail that has one. They differ from 1911's that have the hammer recess into the beaver tail when cocked.