Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/5/2010 4:51:17 PM EDT
Im new to handguns and was wondering if there are any advatages or disavtages to a striker fired handgun to a hammer?
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 5:11:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2010 5:14:25 PM EDT by Kates]
I'm sure others will have plenty to say beyond this, but the main point I have read about is the striker-fired pistols have a lower center of gravity (since the slide is generally not as tall), which some state equates to faster follow-up shots due to less felt recoil.

I can say I have one of each type but different calibers so I cannot do a apples-to-apples comparison personally.

ETA: For pure shooting pleasure I actually prefer the hammer-fired pistol, but if I were conceal-carrying I might prefer the striker-fired because of weight, profile, etc. Main thing is to shoot both before you buy and see what you like. Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 6:29:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kates:
Main thing is to shoot both before you buy and see what you like.


That. Your personal preference for trigger feel and operating system will outweigh most other factors if we're talking about common service pistols.
I shot a Sig P228 (hammer DA/SA) and a S&W M&P 9c (striker) in a match today and got the same score in both relays. For concealed carry, I prefer the M&P because I find it easier to get the first couple hits without the DA/SA transition. YMMV.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 6:30:33 PM EDT
I think Kates is referring to the bore axis. The Springfield XD has a fairly high bore axis compared to other striker-fired designs such as the Glock and M&P.

A hammer-fired gun is easy to identify as cocked or not. Some hammer-fired guns are more likely to snag than striker-fired guns unless they have a bobbed hammer.

IMO, one isn't better than the other. Other attributes of the pistol such as durability, reliability, accuracy, ergonomics, and capacity are more important when choosing a handgun. For perspective, in my nightstand, I have a Glock (striker) and a CZ (hammer). For me, hammer/striker is up there with color in terms of importance.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 6:35:36 PM EDT
One thing about hammer fired weapons are the hammer can be obstructed and become a point of failure. Also hammer fired pistols usually have more moving parts which also are more points of failure. The striker fired are usually more simple designs which IMO make them more reliable in that part of the pistols aspect. This is not to say that striker fired pistols does not have its own cons because they do.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 9:07:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By strat81:
I think Kates is referring to the bore axis. The Springfield XD has a fairly high bore axis compared to other striker-fired designs such as the Glock and M&P.

A hammer-fired gun is easy to identify as cocked or not. Some hammer-fired guns are more likely to snag than striker-fired guns unless they have a bobbed hammer.

IMO, one isn't better than the other. Other attributes of the pistol such as durability, reliability, accuracy, ergonomics, and capacity are more important when choosing a handgun. For perspective, in my nightstand, I have a Glock (striker) and a CZ (hammer). For me, hammer/striker is up there with color in terms of importance.



Yes, bore axis. Thanks. My brain went on vacation as of Friday evening....
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 2:35:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2010 2:41:15 AM EDT by ED_P]
I prefer hammer fired pistols, though I own both.

1. Hammer fired pistols usually have a much crisper, lighter single action trigger pull (where you either cock the hammer back prior to starting to fire, or the hammer is automatically cocked after the first shot, making the remainder of the magazines shots light weight). I find this accuracy gained is a big advantage over a striker fired gun.

2. The argument is always made that a striker fired gun is better because each trigger pull is the same weight. But I counter that ONLY the first shot is heavier on a hammer fired gun, then after that you gain the big advantage of a much lighter and crisper trigger for all remaining shots. And if you have 1 second, you can always cock the hammer yourself and then even the first shot will be lighter and crisper than a striker fired gun.

3. The hammer itself is a very good passive safety. It makes the first shot require more trigger pull unlesss you take one second to cock it, but still allows you to pull the trigger without a safety, and also allows you to have your thumb on the hammer when reholstering, as an added peace of mind against an uninteded trigger pull.

4.- For competion guns, the above 3 arguments don't have much of a point. You can put a super light trigger on a striker fired competition gun and gain the same advantage a hammer fired gun has once the hammer is cocked, but I contend that gun is a bit riskier for concealed carry if it has a competition light trigger. I'm writing all of this based on my desire to have a gun that's good for concealed carry as well as accurate range shooting.

I will agree a striker fired gun, not having the hammer, has less chance of debris getting in, as the back is generally more closed.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 8:54:26 AM EDT
Get a glock end discussion
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 9:10:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By strat81:
I think Kates is referring to the bore axis. The Springfield XD has a fairly high bore axis compared to other striker-fired designs such as the Glock and M&P.


I have both, striker fired (ex: M&P, Glock) and hammer fired (ex: CZ 75B, STI Lawman) and love both. The above quote is comparing a poor hammer fired to the best striker fired. You can compare the XD to a Hi-Point in high bore axis.

You need to try both yourself. I currently like hammer fired but the M&P is closing the gap considerably.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 10:07:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2010 10:08:53 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 10:09:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Evile:
Get a glock end discussion


Link Posted: 9/6/2010 10:59:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Evile:
Get a glock end discussion


Why get a Glock it may not work for the OP not everyone has hands like mine that a Glock fits perfectly. Every person something different is required to work for them. Contribute something instead of comments like that that really have no bearing on the conversation.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:01:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Evile:
Get a glock end discussion


Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:27:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 8:28:04 AM EDT by strat81]
Originally Posted By Sopho:
Originally Posted By strat81:
I think Kates is referring to the bore axis. The Springfield XD has a fairly high bore axis compared to other striker-fired designs such as the Glock and M&P.


I have both, striker fired (ex: M&P, Glock) and hammer fired (ex: CZ 75B, STI Lawman) and love both. The above quote is comparing a poor hammer fired to the best striker fired. You can compare the XD to a Hi-Point in high bore axis.

You need to try both yourself. I currently like hammer fired but the M&P is closing the gap considerably.


The XD, Glock, and M&P are all striker-fired designs.





Originally Posted By ED_P:
2. The argument is always made that a striker fired gun is better because each trigger pull is the same weight. But I counter that ONLY the first shot is heavier on a hammer fired gun, then after that you gain the big advantage of a much lighter and crisper trigger for all remaining shots. And if you have 1 second, you can always cock the hammer yourself and then even the first shot will be lighter and crisper than a striker fired gun.

3. The hammer itself is a very good passive safety. It makes the first shot require more trigger pull unlesss you take one second to cock it, but still allows you to pull the trigger without a safety, and also allows you to have your thumb on the hammer when reholstering, as an added peace of mind against an uninteded trigger pull.



There's some confusion here between action type (SAO, DA/SA, etc.) and firing mechanism (striker vs. hammer).

For example, a traditional 1911 has the same trigger pull for every shot and is a hammer fired design. The Glock also has the same trigger pull for every shot and is striker fired.

The CZ-75B can be carried cocked and locked if it has a manual safety, giving you the same trigger pull for each shot, and is hammer fired. You can also decock the hammer manually or with a decocker and have a heavy DA first pull and a lighter SA pull on subsequent shots. The Taurus 24/7 Pro is striker fired and offers a light SA pull on all shots unless you have a bad primer and use the 'second strike capability' which is just a DA pull.

There's also the DAK and LEM triggers on Sigs and HKs, respectively, that JW mentioned above.

As JW mentioned, don't get hung up on strikers and hammers. The US Military has been using modern hammer-fired guns for almost 100 years. In law enforcement, while Glock is generally considered to be the most popular, there are a variety of guns in use including Sig, S&W M&P, S&W 3rd gen autos (hammer fired), HK, Beretta, etc.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:56:04 PM EDT
for 99.9% of end users.....personal preference

/thread
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:30:47 PM EDT
I have three hammer fired pistols, two of which are HK the other a Beretta

I recently shot a freinds Glock 19 and instantly noticed how much less "flippy" it was compared to my pistols...especially the HKs. The pistol seemed to return on target automatically.

The striker fired mechanism allows the slide to sit lower in your hand.
The difference has me wanting low bore axis striker fired pistols as my next purchases.

Fire a hammer fired pistol then rent a Glock and see if you can appreciate the difference.
For the record my Beretta is not as "Flippy" as the HKs

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:13:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 22Hertz:

The striker fired mechanism allows the slide to sit lower in your hand.



No it really doesn't. Glocks are striker fired and have a low bore axis, XDs are striker fired and have a high bore axis. 1911s are hammer fired and have a low bore axis. HKs have a high bore axis.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:40:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NVGdude:
Originally Posted By 22Hertz:

The striker fired mechanism allows the slide to sit lower in your hand.



No it really doesn't. Glocks are striker fired and have a low bore axis, XDs are striker fired and have a high bore axis. 1911s are hammer fired and have a low bore axis. HKs have a high bore axis.


What he meant was striker fired pistols that are designed properly and don't suck
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:37:27 AM EDT
I prefer hammer operated handguns for their "second strike capability, striker-fired doesn't allow that.

Plus, it's more traditional.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 7:06:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 7:07:24 AM EDT by strat81]
Originally Posted By Furyataurus:
I prefer hammer operated handguns for their "second strike capability, striker-fired doesn't allow that.


My hammer-fired 1911 does not allow second strike. The striker-fired Taurus 24/7 Pro does allow second strike.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 2:33:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By strat81:
Originally Posted By Furyataurus:
I prefer hammer operated handguns for their "second strike capability, striker-fired doesn't allow that.


My hammer-fired 1911 does not allow second strike. The striker-fired Taurus 24/7 Pro does allow second strike.


All you have to do is manually cock the hammer for a second strike. The Taurus or any other striker-fired pistol requires the slide to move to re-cock the striker, thereby ejecting the round.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 4:15:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lew:
The Taurus or any other striker-fired pistol requires the slide to move to re-cock the striker, thereby ejecting the round.


One of the greatest advantages to this pistol is the second-strike capability. If the gun fails to fire, the 24/7 OSS mechanism automatically and instantly resets to a conventional double-action long-pull position, allowing you to pull the trigger again without needing to work the slide

source
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 5:47:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 5:54:07 PM EDT by strat81]
Originally Posted By lew:
Originally Posted By strat81:
Originally Posted By Furyataurus:
I prefer hammer operated handguns for their "second strike capability, striker-fired doesn't allow that.


My hammer-fired 1911 does not allow second strike. The striker-fired Taurus 24/7 Pro does allow second strike.


All you have to do is manually cock the hammer for a second strike. The Taurus or any other striker-fired pistol requires the slide to move to re-cock the striker, thereby ejecting the round.


I think you're misunderstanding the concept of second-strike.

If I pull the trigger on a traditional 1911 and get a click, I cannot pull the trigger again for a second strike on the round (unless I manually cock the hammer or rack the slide). The same applies to Glocks (although they have no hammer to cock).

The Taurus 24/7 Pro allows you to pull the trigger again in the event of a dud. So does the Walther P99AS, another striker-fired pistol which also features a decocker. The standard CZ-75B, a hammer-fired pistol, allows for a second strike.


Of course, whether or not second strike is a good idea is debatable. I'm more inclined to run a TRB rather than take a chance on a second strike on a dud. YMMV. It is helpful with dry firing though.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:07:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NVGdude:
Originally Posted By 22Hertz:

The striker fired mechanism allows the slide to sit lower in your hand.



No it really doesn't. Glocks are striker fired and have a low bore axis, XDs are striker fired and have a high bore axis. 1911s are hammer fired and have a low bore axis. HKs have a high bore axis.


Good point.
I meant a striker fired pistol can be designed to have a lower bore axis than hammer fired pistols.
It does not mean all striker fired pistols will have a lower bore axis.
Top Top