Striker designs

[Road_Clam]

The only issues I experienced with striker fire systems is the fact they typically have heavy triggers. My G22 Glock has a long and stiff trigger, but it's the nature of the beast with LEO/military type handguns. I tried a Glocktriggers drop in trigger kit and yes it did lighten up the trigger pull but thereafter I started getting frequent light primer strikes. I returned my trigger back to stock specs and no more light primer strikes. My Baretta Nano is also a striker fire and it too has a long and harsh trigger.

[RKG]

As others have described, the original M&P is a true single action pistol. Any rearward movement of the striker as the trigger is pulled results from the fact that the sear rotates out of engagement (versus slides out of engagement).

The unintended discharge risk of a single action striker-fired pistol has two components. One is trigger movement caused by wayward trigger fingers. The mitigation of this comes from the length and weight of trigger pull. The difference between the Glock and the M&P is that in the Glock, part of the weight of trigger pulls derives from the force of the mainspring working against being further cocked, while with the M&P, trigger weight is 99% a function of the rating of the trigger return spring.

The other component of risk comes from "jar off," caused (if at all) by dropping the pistol so that when it impacts with the ground momentum of the sear causes it to disengage. Mitigation of this risk comes from the striker block, which prevents the striker from traveling far enough forward to contact the primer unless the trigger is held in full rearward travel.

A grip safety offers nil mitigation of the wayward trigger finger, since 99% of the time any wayward trigger finger will be attached to a hand that is fulling gripping the pistol and thus releasing the grip safety. Likewise, a grip safety offers no marginal mitigation of the jar off risk of a pistol that includes a functional Series 80 style firing pin block. (I'm pretty confident that the grip safety was included in the M1911 design because, prior to the Series 80, it had no firing pin block; and if I'm right about that, the grip safety on 1911-style pistols became vestigial on Series 80 pistols.)

[44 AMP]

But, I recognize that anything that can be done with a hammer-fired pistol can be replicated by a striker fired system

How do you "lower the hammer"??

And yes, I'm the kind of stuck in the past guy who's first thought when someone says striker fired pistol is a Luger.

[DaleA]

I'm pretty confident that the grip safety was included in the M1911 design because, prior to the Series 80, it had no firing pin block; and if I'm right about that, the grip safety on 1911-style pistols became vestigial on Series 80 pistols.

I'd like some of the knowledgeable 1911 folk comment on this.

A question though, are you thinking the grip safety on the pre Series 80 style1911 blocks the firing pin?

It does not, the firing pin can go forward whether or not grip safety is engaged. Unless you have the 'Swartz Block' which according to this article was patented in 1939 but was not regularly installed in all 1911 style pistols.

http://www.m1911.org/images/swartz01.jpg

And as always I'm willing to be corrected on this and I SHOULD be corrected if I'm wrong.

[sils79]

How do you "lower the hammer"?

my p99 has a button for that

[Jim Watson]

Lower the "hammer" on a striker fired pistol? Pull the trigger. After looking to see that it is empty. Done every stage of an IDPA or IPSC match.

It has been a long time since I carried Condition 2 so I have no need to lower the hammer over a loaded chamber of a SA auto.

[44 AMP]

Lower the "hammer" on a striker fired pistol? Pull the trigger. After looking to see that it is empty.

What you are describing is dry firing, not "lowering the hammer".

We're going to disagree on terms, here. When I say "lower the hammer" I mean, without FIRING the gun. Decock, if you prefer. Ok, if you got a button (or a lever) that does it, cool. If you don't then its something you can't do without a hammer.

I'm pretty confident that the grip safety was included in the M1911 design because, prior to the Series 80, it had no firing pin block;

You may be pretty confident, but you'd be wrong.

The grip safety was an original part of Browning's design. In fact, it was the ONLY safety on the prototype submitted for original testing.

Browning considered that the grip safety, alone was enough. There are earlier Browning designs that only have a grip safety. Browning was a genius at gun design, but he wasn't a soldier, or a gun fighter. Features that users might consider important didn't always occur to him, until pointed out.

The Army tested his pistol, and the Cavalry (the most influential branch at the time) wanted a different safety. A positive, manual safety. (the concern was the risk re-holstering a cocked pistol with only a grip safety)

Browning then added the "safety lock" commonly called the thumb safety, to his next prototype, and that design was accepted, and became the 1911. It had nothing at all to do with the design not having a firing pin block.

if I'm right about that, the grip safety on 1911-style pistols became vestigial on Series 80 pistols.

I don't see how it can be considered vestigial on series 80 pistols, the grip safety on series 80 pistols does exactly the same job, exactly the same way as it has since the original design. And that job is not, and never was to keep the firing pin from moving without the trigger being pulled. That job is done by other parts. The job of the grip safety is to keep the pistol from firing if the trigger was pulled without the hand in the proper firing grip.

Remember, it's a mistake to apply current standards of thinking to things designed over 100 years ago. People had a different idea of acceptable risk in those days than we do today. The 1911 design, with its inertia firing pin, grip safety, and a manual safety was one of, if not the most "drop safe" guns of its era.

And the thinking of that era did not require a pistol to be 100% drop safe unlike today. 98 or 99% was considered really safe, not just good enough.

[Fishbed77]

The design of the fire control group of the Walther P99AS is considerably different from that of most other modern polymer striker-fired designs (with the exception of it's licensed copies and clones), as it simulates the operation of a DA/SA pistol with decocker. It also happens to have what is likely the best trigger feel of all modern striker-fired pistols.

[DaleA]

Thank you 44 AMP for posting the correct 1911 information.

I appreciate the folk on this site that are willing to give freely the expertise they have on these subjects.

[Jim Watson]

The grip safety was an original part of Browning's design. In fact, it was the ONLY safety on the prototype submitted for original testing.

Depends on how far back you want to go to get to "original testing."
The Army shot 1902 .38 Autos.
The Army shot a 1905 .45.
Neither had a grip safety or any safety except the inertial firing pin and half cock.

The Army requested a grip safety and got it in the 1907, 1909, 1910, and 1911 guns.

[RKG]

With respect to the comments of DaleA and 44 Amp:

1) Consider two different and distinct potentials for an unintended discharge: (a) that caused when pistol in Condition 1 or 2 is dropped and lands muzzle down, firing pin continues to move forward because of momentum, round goes off, and (b) that caused when pistol in Condition 1 is dropped and lands (not necessarily muzzle down), sear or trigger continues to move because of momentum, round goes off. Former is the classic firing pin drop discharge worry; latter is known as "jar off."

2) The M1911 grip safety was, I believe, intended to deal with jar off. However, putting "intent" aside, with the grip safety at rest (i.e., not depressed) sear cannot move on account of its own momentum or on account of trigger movement on account of trigger momentum.

3) By itself, grip safety offers no mitigation of firing pin drop discharge, nor do I think I implied to the contrary.

4) The Series 80-type firing pin block was, I believe, intended to deal with firing pin drop discharge risk. By itself, it doesn't prevent sear movement. However, in a series 80 pistol, even if the grip safety was eliminated (or locked in the depressed position), and even if pistol were dropped and sear jarred off, the firing pin safety would prevent the round from discharging. Hence, "vestigial." Put a different way, yes the grip safety performs the same function on a Series 80 pistol as on a Series 70 pistol, but in a Series 80 pistol a jar off doesn't lead to discharge, while in a Series 70 pistol (at least in theory) it can.

5) "The job of the grip safety is to keep the pistol from firing if the trigger was pulled without the hand in the proper firing grip." This statement could be interpreted two ways. It could refer to the "pistol firing" as a result of being dropped (and, by definition, not being held in the hand); if so, such was my point. Or it could refer to the "pistol firing" with a weak or partial grip by the shooter; if so, well, perhaps but I'm not aware of any evidence that such was the design intent.

6) Debating what was in the mind of the designer may not be the best way to address the current discussion, since none of us knows. What we can do is evaluate what potential discharge modes are or are not mitigated by what particular design elements. My underlying point was that, today, a Series 80-type firing pin block, if it works, captures a set of discharge risks that includes those that are susceptible of mitigation by a grip safety. Is there anything inherently wrong with having two mechanisms to capture the same risk? Not necessarily; consider the rebound slide and the hammer block on the S&W DA revolver. But on the other hand, can one say that the absence of a grip safety on a pistol that includes a firing pin block leaves an unintended discharge mode unmitigated? I don't believe so, but if I've overlooked something, tell me how.

7) I agree 100% with 44 Amp's comments about what might be considered "safe enough" at various times and the absurd notion of insisting on a zero risk. I did not intend to get into such judgments, but rather only to illuminate how the mechanisms work.

[tipoc]

6) Debating what was in the mind of the designer may not be the best way to address the current discussion, since none of us knows.

We actually do know what was in the minds of the designers (at least as far as the development of the gun is concerned and the relevant part of their thinking) because there is a written record of the tests and development of the 1911 and there are patents that cover the various design features of the gun with explanations of the point of them.

The Army wanted a gun that would not fire if dropped. The grip safety was one of the first efforts, either the second or third remedy, to satisfy this demand.

I should mention that the first was the half cock notch, or "safety notch" as Browning called it. Not unique to the 1911.

It took several attempts to get to the grip safety that we know today. The one which blocks the rearward movement of the trigger until gripped. This simple design prevented the gun from firing due to the trigger bouncing rearward when dropped and engaging the sear.

The second effort (as I recall off the top of my head) was to place a stronger spring around the firing pin to prevent the firing pin from moving forward under inertia if dropped on the muzzle, etc. This satisfied the army.

Finally the thumb safety.

Each of these evolved and was placed in the gun without the displacement of the other features of the original 1911.

In 1938 Colt placed a new safety on the commercial versions of the Government Model. This was the Swartz safety, Kimber runs a version of that today. It blocks the forward movement of the firing pin until the grip safety is depressed. It was placed on commercial models and some models sent to Argentina under military contract. It also appeared in some 38 Super guns.

The Swartz safety was developed because of reports, a good many, of people carrying or storing a 1911 cocked but not locked. Cocked but without the thumb safety engaged. This is what happened in the well known instance where a young Lt. George Patton in 1916 stomped his foot in a bar and caused the hammer to slip from cock and fire from a piece with a worn sear.

No branch of the U.S. military wanted this device on their guns as war approached. Colt dropped it. The U.S. military, as did other countries that used the 1911 found the safety devices on the gun from it's beginnings to be safe.

Beginning in the late 1970s Colt began installing the Series 80 firing pin safety. This blocked the firing pin from moving forward. It works off the trigger. It is considered by many to be the best of such devices on the market.

I should add that a few variations of the 1911 pattern gun were produced without the grip safety. The Ballester Molina from Argentina being one.

Many guns inspired by the 1911 dropped the grip safety as not-needed. However, because it still does the job it was intended to do it is retained on 1911s.

tipoc

[44 AMP]

It might be worth mentioning that Colt didn't add the firing pin block mechanism until after California decided that pistols had to pass their arbitrary drop test in order to be sold in that state...

[tipoc]

I think that's about right. I think also that a good many police admins had decided that da/sa guns were "inherently" safer than single actions and superior. For a couple of decades da/sa and dao guns dominated law enforcement. They were an "essential tool" for law enforcement...till Glocks appeared and the procedures were rewritten to conform with cost.

The Series 80 firing pin blocks were added to appeal to law enforcement, at least in part.

tipoc

[Fishbed77]

The only issues I experienced with striker fire systems is the fact they typically have heavy triggers.

Depends on the pistol.

The P99AS has a 4.5lb. single-action trigger and Glock adversities a 5.5lb. trigger (though every Glock I've owned measures higher than that). For a defensive pistol, I see no need for a trigger to be much lighter than that.

[Bill DeShivs]

Budischowski, guys.