AR15.Com Archives
 Striker fired vs. hammer fired
conflictandsecurity  [Member]
1/6/2008 7:20:29 PM
After spending a day at the funstore, I came across a very opinionated gun-shop employee. He told me that hammer fired weapons may as well be obsolete as hammers only add one more complication to weapons that need not have as many parts as they do. As the proud owner of a soon-to-arrive P226 Elite 9mm, I dont know that I agree. So ARF.com-ers...what are your thoughts?
allenNH  [Team Member]
1/6/2008 7:23:49 PM
Hammers work fine.

Pro: You can see them and know they are working. Some striker fired (XD's) are visible as well though.

Con: 'Stuff' can get in there and prevent the hammer from doing its job.

I have and enjoy both types, only the XD is striker fired.
ALPHAGHOST  [Team Member]
1/6/2008 7:32:27 PM
hammer fire will be obsolite? i seriously doubt it

i dont see how a hammer really adds any more complications vs a striker (which is basically a spring loaded FP); a couple more parts usually, but nothing more

i dont see how both striker and hammer systems cant co-exist, since they both have thier benefits and cons

great thing about hammers is they can be made to double strike (say for hard primers and has a DA trigger)--cant really do that w/ a striker fired system

then again, striker systems are internal (vs open hammers) take up a little less space usually

SGB  [Team Member]
1/6/2008 8:13:41 PM

Originally Posted By conflictandsecurity:
After spending a day at the funstore, I came across a very opinionated gun-shop employee. So ARF.com-ers...what are your thoughts?



The gun-shop employee needs to keep his uneducated inbred opinions to himself.
chris157c  [Team Member]
1/6/2008 8:26:55 PM
All of my handguns have hammers. I guess I'm going to die if I ever have to use them to defend myself. They are SOOOO obsolete...
Reverend_Deadboy  [Member]
1/6/2008 8:40:56 PM
Obsolete? Say this to him.

"Load it, put it to your chest and pull the trigger and see how obsolete."

Until particle beam weapons, magnetically driven slugs or microwave weapons become the norm, nothing since the Colt Single Action will be fucking obsolete.

Somebody shot with a hi-power is just as dead as somebody shot with a glock.

Seriously, all guns are wonderful. Just because a Lee-Enfield is different than a noveske N4 doesn't mean one is necessarily better overall. Just better at different things.

My P7M8 is 23 years old and still kicking ass. My 1911s are still on a par with the best out there.

This guy is a moron. I used to be an over-opinionated gunshop employee and he makes us all look bad.

Rabon  [Team Member]
1/6/2008 10:04:20 PM
There are some very nice, well entrenched hammer fired autopistols (1911, Sig, HK, etc etc) they arent going away anytime soon, but I think the better striker fired autopistols (which will only get better) are showing some of the others the way to the Pasture.
BSheppard  [Member]
1/6/2008 11:34:27 PM
I like both. They both have there advantages.
TomJefferson  [Team Member]
1/6/2008 11:36:02 PM

Originally Posted By BSheppard:
I like both. They both have there advantages.


Me too, so not much help from me. I haven't had problems with either but then I may buy inexpensive guns but not cheap ones.

Tj
polik6887  [Member]
1/7/2008 12:50:37 AM
striker fired guns have less to snag on when carrying concealed.
ronin556  [Member]
1/7/2008 2:42:58 AM
I prefer hammers on revolvers

But autos I prefer strikers because you can have a lower bore axis, less muzzle flip. though got to admit the browning high powers are pretty low, the only hammer fired auto I really like.
ED_P  [Team Member]
1/7/2008 9:00:58 AM
I have yet to shoot a striker fired gun that has as crisp a trigger pull as a DA/SA gun's SA pull.

I'm sure it's mechanically possible.


BUIS  [Member]
1/7/2008 12:09:25 PM
John Browning used hammers, nuff' said.
akconvert  [Member]
1/12/2008 8:48:24 AM
Here is a good rule of thumb. If you hear it in a gun store, it is usually incorrect.

I know. I owned a gun store for 3 years and ran another for 5. Most guys who work in them don't know crap.

Of course, there are some guys who are very good. Once you find a knowledgable guy your GTG.
KnightofTheOldeCode  [Team Member]
1/12/2008 10:43:09 AM
I like both and both work fine. Hammer fired guns have advantages, the ability to strike a round that go off the first try for instance.

By the way the Browning hi power was originally designed as a striker fired gun, he made 2 versions one with and one without a hammer. both were in the early stages when he died but he was favoring the striker fired version. the Belgium Army insisted on a Hammer fired gun though and that's what they got. Also many other early browning gun like the colt hammerless were striker fiired.

Mister-Z  [Team Member]
1/12/2008 11:51:26 AM

Originally Posted By ED_P:
I have yet to shoot a striker fired gun that has as crisp a trigger pull as a DA/SA gun's SA pull.

I'm sure it's mechanically possible.




That's a big part of it for me. I also like the ability to both see and feel the weapons condition that is afforded with an external hammer and safety.

Sounds like gunshop guy had a commision bump in play on something striker fired.
Or he just an idiot.

As for being obsolete - somebody should really mention that to the US military, they seem to have missed the memo.
legonas  [Team Member]
1/12/2008 11:53:41 AM
i prefer hammer over striker having owned and shot both.

its just a cosmetic prefence.
Marksman14  [Member]
1/12/2008 12:27:47 PM
Hmmm...*browsing through the gunsafe*....

That would mean that my Glocks are the pinnacle of firearm engineering...

And my MK23's, USP Tactical, 1911, HK45, Beretta 92fs are just lousy designs that should have never existed in the first place.

Somehow I think that gunstore employee gets to call his mother and father "aunt" and "uncle" as well.
BUIS  [Member]
1/12/2008 1:12:48 PM

Originally Posted By Marksman14:
Somehow I think that gunstore employee gets to call his mother and father "aunt" and "uncle" as well.

I don't get it, but it was funny