Why Striker?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by roashooter

bingo...which translates to greater profit.....gun makers are not in the business of pleasing the user...they are in it for the profits...

I guess I don't think they can't both make profits and please the user. For years you've still been able to find hammer fired pistols and I imagine you will continue to be able to find hammer fired pistols for years to come. The lower cost pistols seem to be the ones selling and that typically means striker fired polymer pistols. Even if they're not your cup of tea, it seems to me that manufacturers are pleasing the customer in offering what the majority of them seem to be buying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jr24]

For me, I prefer a single consistent trigger pull. Easier to train for.

My preference is SAO, followed by strikers.

[K_Mac]

TunnelRat, I think that long-term profits are only realized by making products that meet the demands of the consumer. There are many who don't like polymer striker fired pistols, but most of us are very happy with light weight, reliable, durable, and accurate high capacity pistols. When you add reasonably priced to the list it is no wonder they are are a huge part of the market.

BigJim, I am also over 60. I think 1911s are beautiful handguns. I understand why many who grew up with them are not willing to consider striker fired polymer pistols.

[44 AMP]

Discussions like this trip my trigger in several ways, but the biggest one that irks me is how easily (and often) sweeping blanket statements are used, and accepted as 100% fact when they aren't actually 100% fact. (RANT WARNING!!!)

One can, (and many do) ignore the exceptions, or consider them inconsequential, but when you make a blanket statement and don't allow for the exceptions, I think it weakens the statement, and possibly calls your objectivity, and accuracy, into question.

There hasn't been a new rifle or shotgun designed with an exposed hammer in well over 100 years.

What about the Browning BLR??

Of course, if your definition is broad enough, you could say there haven't been any NEW gun designs in over 100 years. ALL our guns today are simply refinements of designs more than 100 years old. Bolts, levers, pumps, semis and revolvers all existed more than 100 years ago. My definition isn't quite that broad, however.

Simple is always better, striker fired guns are more reliable.

I realize the possibility of an exposed hammer being jammed, so in that regard, striker fired is more LIKELY to be reliable. But, again, I find the blanket statement that striker fired guns are more reliable to be...over reaching. Such a statement implies ALL striker fired guns are more reliable all the time, and that, simply is not true. The Luger is a striker fired gun. I believe that right there shoots holes in the validity of "always more reliable".

Perhaps people shoot them better because of faster lock times?

Perhaps. Personally, I don't put a lot of weight into that as a factor. A faster lock time MIGHT make a difference, but I think it would have to be an exceptional individual to be able to make use of it in a gun that isn't built to give better than a couple inch groups at 25yds. What makes a difference in a rifle, shot from a rest, with the intent to put all the shots in a single hole doesn't have the same degree of importance, I think.

You can make a hammer fired pistol with a consistent trigger pull. HK LEM, SIG DAK, S&W 3rd Gen DAO, and other examples too. But it won't be as short of a trigger press.

Again, overly broad statement. Seems focused on DA hammer guns, ignoring SA hammer guns which DO have a short "trigger press".

The trigger pull is consistent

This one fall short on many levels. I THINK the author is referring to striker fired trigger not having the change from DA (long) to SA (short) pull, but there isn't enough said to be certain.

One of the Glocks I've shot had a horribly INCONSISTANT trigger pull. Over 200 rounds, and virtually every shot fired with a different feeling length and weight of pull, at random. That gun was probably individually defective, but it certainly wasn't consistent as far as trigger pull went.

Sometimes striker fired guns have consistent trigger pulls that are consistent crap.

And then there's the biggest blanket of all,

Striker fired guns are cheap to make

SOME of them are. Current design Polymer framed striker fired guns, are. A Luger is NOT.

Yes, I'm a pain in the rear about this. If you're talking about polymer framed striker fired guns, particularly those made in the Glock style, SAY SO.

Don't just say "striker fired", because that covers every design of striker fired pistol ever made, more than a few of which have virtually nothing in common with the striker fired polymer framed service type pistols, other than the fact that they are pistols and are striker fired.

If you want to restrict discussion to a certain class of pistol, all with similar features, that FINE. Just SAY SO. Otherwise, you open the door to snarky folks like me.

I realize I'm being a pest about this, but when all we do is repeat overbroad generalities and blanket statements the discussion really has little merit.

I've got a striker fired pistol, with a very fast lock time, terrific trigger pull, polymer grip frame, shoots MOA size groups and has a couple hundred yards of easily usable range. It's a terrific gun. It's also a terrible choice for personal protection, and concealed carry is only an option under a poncho or something similar. If your discussion's limit is (only) striker fired, fairness means that one must be included, as well.

Not saying the group doesn't know what its talking about, only that we should express ourselves with more accuracy.

As to the fading away of the popularity of DA/SA semi autos in favor "more consistent" trigger pull of a Glock style striker fired gun, or a DAO type trigger, it makes me wonder if Jeff Cooper wasn't right (about that) all along.

Cooper said (for decades) that the DA semi auto was an ingenious solution to a problem that did not exist. PERHAPS people are actually starting to realize this, though without often recognizing it??

[BigJimP]

Yup, 1911's are the way to go, in my opinion ... I am very fond of my Wilson's in 9mm and in .45 acp...both have been solid and well made guns.

I think hammer fired as well as other ( non poly, non stryker ) weapons will continue to be in the market...Wilson Combat has a new alloy frame, double stack hybrid coming out pretty soon / not sure I want one, but a buddy has one on pre-order, so I'll be able to fire it a little when he gets it.

I think I will just stick with my traditional, 5", 1911's...

[RickB]

I was reading a review of the new Walther Creed, which, though it has an enclosed slide, is hammer-fired.
One of the reasons cited for it being hammer- rather than striker-fired is that the former is cheaper to make.

I suspect that striker systems, completely enclosed within the all-steel slide, are easier to engineer than a system that divides the ignition components between the slide and frame, and also results in fewer openings through which "gunk" (technical term) can get into the gun.

[Skolnick]

  

[TunnelRat]

I think some folks are getting #triggered by this thread.

Again, overly broad statement. Seems focused on DA hammer guns, ignoring SA hammer guns which DO have a short "trigger press".

It was 100% focused on DA pistols. I was countering those that brought up DA/SA pistols as the example of non-safety-equipped hammer fired pistols (as IMightBeWrong said, revolvers with higher capacity). There's also the fact that when it comes to law enforcement and the like the last major pushes from many of the big manufacturers in the hammer fired field were DAO variants. But if my exclusion of SAO or other pistols offering a cocked and locked type condition offended you, then you have my apologies.

Not sure why "trigger press" needs to be in quotes.

[Paladin7]

What a thread... My opinion, is that modern Striker fired pistols offer certain advantages that have made them very popular over the years...

1. Consistent "DAO-like" trigger pull with no DA/SA transition or need for cocked and locked carry, no decocking levers, etc.

2. Simpler firing mechanism design, vs a hammer fired mechanism (talking Glocks and similar pistols here)

3. They offer a simpler manual of arms. Point and shoot, finger off the trigger and you are safe. No levers, unless you want one

4. Their polymer construction offered less weight to power vs the competition at the time

In the case of the Glock and similar pistols, they were offered to LE Agencies at very competitive prices.

YMMV...

[Pond, James Pond]

I'm curious....:

How much of the current popularity of striker-fired guns is down to cashing in on Glock's strength in the market?

[K_Mac]

Pond, how much of the popularity of electric lights is a result of cashing in on Edison's work? Or the popularity of automobiles a result of Ford's work? Glock introduced a product whose time had come and who still has a huge share of the market. All of the major manufacturers sell variants though. I think the popularity of polymer striker fired pistols by other manufacturers has far more to do with demand than Glock's market share.

[Independent George]

I think it comes down to a much shorter learning curve - it's easy to shoot a striker gun well.

I personally prefer DA/SA, but it literally took thousands of dry-fire repetitions to get just reasonably 'ok' at it. Even now, I'm nowhere near as accurate in DA as I am with a striker or with SA, but it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make for the psychological comfort of that heavy DA pull.

[Bart Noir]

I like all types of handguns and try to shoot them all half-way competently.

In fact, this weekend may be time to put an edge on the flint and clamp it into the jaws of a muzzle-loading pistol. Don't stand downwind of me!

little flippy things on the triggers

I like that phrase!

Bart Noir

[ShootistPRS]

I simply prefer a hammer fired pistol. I can "decock" the hammer with a round in the chamber and the gun is then "safe", meaning that unless you pull the trigger (in DA) or cock the hammer and pull the trigger (in a SA) the gun won't go off. I don't like the "safety" triggers with the skinny lever in the middle any more than the two stage trigger of the 03A3. I want the trigger to move when I start to pull it and I want it to affect the release of the hammer.
I own two striker fired semi-autos and neither of them are equipped with a "de-cocker" mechanism. You have to pull the trigger to release the striker. My bolt action rifle will de-cock if I close the bolt with the trigger pulled - with or without a round in the chamber. I use that function when I store the empty rifle. My pistols have to be fired (without a round in the chamber) in order to store them in a relaxed state.
The best safety that can always be counted on is your trigger finger and the trained use of it. Safeties are mechanical devices that can and will malfunction. I don't use them. People who do use them (there are exceptions) get used to trusting the safety and feel that it preempts the safe handling rules. There are a lot of folks who blame an accidental shooting of another person on a safety malfunction when if the muzzle had been pointed in a safe direction the faulty safety would only produced a unintentional discharge.
Why a striker? Hey, if you like striker fired guns then go for it. Enjoy them and use them safely. I like a hammer on my handguns and even on my rifles and shotguns. I also shoot bolt guns that are striker fired and love the accuracy and ease with which they can be used. Whether a striker fired handgun is cheaper to make or not has a lot of components and the striker fired double action can have the same number of parts or more than some hammer fired guns. Price is based on a level of profit and what the market will allow. Brand name of good reputation demand a higher price even if they are less expensive to manufacture. A new product costs a great amount of money to change or setup the new tooling and education of employees. All that has to be regarded in the initial pricing. If the market demand is higher than the product produced the price goes up. If the new product doesn't sell well then the line is a loss and the product is suspended or deleted with the costs passed on to other more successful lines. Businesses have to make a profit or they won't be "in business" for very long. They have to serve a demand and keep the customers happy so the can sell more products.
Right now, striker fired pistols are a larger section of the market because that is what most are buying. There is still a serviceable market for hammer fired guns too and I don't see that going away any time soon.

[K_Mac]

Safeties are mechanical devices that can and will malfunction. I don't use them. People who do use them (there are exceptions) get used to trusting the safety and feel that it preempts the safe handling rules. There are a lot of folks who blame an accidental shooting of another person on a safety malfunction...

I get weary of reading this kind of post. It is absolute nonsense to claim that although there are exceptions, the folks who trust mechanical safeties are more likely to disregard safe gun handling practices. I'd love to see some evidence of this. While your trigger finger is an important safety device, the most important safety is between your ears. A Glock, 1911, or revolver is only as safe as the person who carries it. There are no exceptions.

[ShootistPRS]

K_Mac,
If you want to see evidence of people blaming safety malfunctions on the injury to another just look up "Remington safety/trigger problems". One guy tried to sue Remington for the death of his family member when his Remington fired as a result of a "faulty" safety when the bullet went through their trailer and killed a person who was on the other side. There are a number of other examples that came to the forefront during the law suit.
You will note that I was careful not to include "most" or even a high percentage of people. The small percentage of shooters that rely on safeties over proper gun safety still constitute "many" in my opinion. The people who I know as safe gun handlers rarely rely on or even use the gun's safety.

As far as the safety of the trigger finger is concerned you should note I stated, "The best safety that can always be counted on is your trigger finger and the trained use of it. That would agree with your point, "...the most important safety is between your ears." and I totally agree.

I could have worded my opinions differently but I failed to think that it would offend someone, for that I apologize.

[noonesshowmonkey]

Why not just use cap & ball muskets? Aw, hell, let's just go back to flintlocks.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by noonesshowmonkey

Why not just use cap & ball muskets? Aw, hell, let's just go back to flintlocks.

Okay. Where did you find all the straw for that straw man of yours? Borrow it from Dorothy? I don't see anyone advocating anything remotely along those lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[K_Mac]

Shootist I had a long response typed into my phone and hit the wrong button, erasing it. I hate technology sometimes.

The Remington example is interesting. You're right that safe handling practices would preclude anyone getting killed. A gun that fires when it shouldn't is dangerous though, and selling rifles with known defective safety/trigger mechanisms is hard to understand.

I shoot with guys that I trust and respect who shoot a variety of handguns. Some have external safeties and some don't. I know others that shoot those same guns that I don't shoot with because I don't trust their judgement. My point is, it is not what they shoot that matters.

[ShootistPRS]

K_Mac,
Most of the Remingtons that were examined as part of the law suit showed incorrect modifications by the owners or "gunsmiths". With the hundreds of thousands of 700s sold it was less than a tenth of 1% that had problems. Most were modified and some were just neglected. As the original designer stated, neglecting to maintain the gun properly could cause the trigger sear plate to rust between the plate and trigger causing engagement problems. The firing control group was never found to be defective in any way. They did change the trigger mechanisms in the 700 as a part of a settlement and used an adhesive to bond the two parts together. In the first run of the new triggers there was a problem noted where too much adhesive had been applied and it caused problems, Remington quickly recalled the guns causing quite a few people to believe that the trigger "problem" was finally being admitted by Remington. It was a completely different problem with a completely different trigger. As a long time Remington owner I have never had any problems with the triggers. All of my Remingtons have after market triggers installed. The triggers were replaced to get better trigger pulls and had nothing to do with failures or concerns of future failures.

The folks I shoot with, I trust with my life. The shooters I associate with is a different group of folks. I am an RSO (NRA trained) and I am constantly reminding people that the muzzle should remain pointing down range. I get real tired of hearing, "its not loaded" or "the safety is on" and I am sometimes harshly short with those who continue to make the same mistake. I do wish that I could select those using the range while I am there, but that can't happen and I try to keep a patient and light demeanor when privately reinforcing gun safety rules.

[K_Mac]

Shootist I admire your patience in dealing with the public at your range. I would not last as the safety officer at most ranges. Life is too short to deal with idiots. While idiots make up a small percentage of the shooting public, it only takes a few... I am fortunate that I don't have to deal with the general public where I shoot.

I thought I read that Remington had admitted there was a flaw in the 700 trigger/safety design. I can't imagine that something I read online wasn't true!

[ShootistPRS]

K_Mac Shootist I admire your patience in dealing with the public at your range. I would not last as the safety officer at most ranges. Life is too short to deal with idiots. While idiots make up a small percentage of the shooting public, it only takes a few... I am fortunate that I don't have to deal with the general public where I shoot.

I thought I read that Remington had admitted there was a flaw in the 700 trigger/safety design. I can't imagine that something I read online wasn't true!

They did! They admitted that some of the new triggers had too much adhesive applied and that it could interfere with the safe operation of the gun. A lot of people who were less informed than they believed just took it for granted that this was the "long term" problem with the original trigger. It wasn't but the internet is still flooded with information about how Remington finally admitted that they had produced a faulty trigger all along. BTW of all the suits in the past over the original trigger they never lost even one case. The last "class action" suit was settled out of court because it was cheaper than going through the same old BS. They agreed to change the trigger design (which was already being planned) to get rid of the bad press that the few cases had brought. It was a "win - win" solution that would have been very successful had it not been for the error in applying glue to the new triggers.

Well, just remember that quote about truth and the internet from Abraham Lincoln... and don't forget your sense of humor!

as for dealing with the public - Well I kind of asked for it. I took the class and paid for it and even renew it, so I can only blame me for it. I just try to keep two things in mind:
1. My mom used to ask, "how important is it going to be in ten years?"
2. Don't take life too seriously; nobody gets out alive.

I tend to be pretty thick skinned (or thick headed), having grown up with 8 brothers and 3 sisters. I'm not perfect - or even close to perfect - but I have remained mellow throughout the years.

[Pond, James Pond]

Pond, how much of the popularity of electric lights is a result of cashing in on Edison's work? Or the popularity of automobiles a result of Ford's work? Glock introduced a product whose time had come and who still has a huge share of the market. All of the major manufacturers sell variants though. I think the popularity of polymer striker fired pistols by other manufacturers has far more to do with demand than Glock's market share.

My point was more that Glock, as far as I'm aware, was the first major manufacturer to make their entire line striker-fired. They've been extraordinarily successful with their product and it seems that since then other companies have launched their own. Even hammer-fired bastions like CZ....

My question was would we be seeing the same level of striker-fired contributions by other brands if Glock had never been?

[flphotog]

I've gotten rid of all but 2 of the striker fired pistols I had. I'm pretty much all CZ DA/SA and 1911's now and very happy with the decision.

[pete2]

Why?
Gaston Glock is a good salesman.
They are cheaper.
The military and police buy from the lowest bidder.