Why do some choose hammer fired over striker fired? Other than a 1911, I haven't owned a hammer fired handgun in several years. Not really sure why, but striker is where I'm at these days.

Usually better triggers, more reliable with suppressors generally. 

Double strike capability for one and an inherently safer design than Striker Fired

I'm not a fan of pulling the trigger a second time as opposed to applying remedial action.

Taurus 24/7 Pro was striker fired with double strike.

Double strike is a bad excuse and all the big trainers shoot that theory down. The only reason for hammers in 2017 are for sweet triggers. And that’s not a bad reason.

There are other reasons. One, hammer fired have less hangover at the rear where strikers have to house the spring etc. So the slides on hammers are more forward, on strikers more rearward. This could be dismissed as just looks but there it is. Putting the hammer spring vertically in the grip does shorten the length of the slide behind the magazine. I would contend that an incremental weight savings can occur because of it.

You can thumb cock a hammer, not a striker (pls don't preach HK P7.) A hammer with DA/SA might also have a decocker/safety which allows hammer down but DA fire with no safety to thumb up. Think 3Gen S&W autos. Some people don't like a trigger with two weight pulls, others appreciate the option.

Exposed hammers are potentially more prone to ND if dropped on them, but the P320 proved strikers aren't any less prone. And Glocks are known to go full auto if debris gets into the striker channel, which is more pronounced and does sit higher exposed in a holster. It really goes to manufacturers testing in depth which is an expense that raises costs. Auto manufacturers are even worse about it.

You can play with the style of hammers and how much of a thumb spur you want, no such option with strikers. Some hammer guns are DAO no spur and if partially cocked on slide chambering it's arguable which is "superior." You at least get a visual indicator right in your sight picture aka LCP.

Second strike capability of hammer fired isn't just about a hard primer, it could be debris clogging it and immediate action to charge another cartridge isn't going to fix it. Another hammer fall can and if it fires you are still in the fight. On stopping at the rear with extraction complete it could dislodge the rest of the debris. A striker can be less prone to it but if there is a hard primer then you have no other choice but to implement immediate action. Most strikers aren't DA as factories cut the costs and leave it out.

Because hammers allow for a shorter slide behind the mag they have extended beavertails to protect the web of the hand which stand proud of the frame. This may have the potential for snagging, where that same length of beavertail on a striker covers the longer slide containing the striker mechanism. Either can be as close to the rails as possible to lower the barrel height over the hand, which is an arguable issue for the average shooter ie serviceman or cop.

Hammers tend to have lighter shorter trigger pulls, strikers longer and slightly heavier, but this is not absolute and there are plenty which cross over others in comparisons. Hammers tend to have safeties and strikers do not but again there are safeties, or not, on both.

Less of a chance of a negligent discharge with a Hammer fired. I have better things to do with $60,000 the to give to a lawyer to defend me if i had a N/D.

Now that the superficial benefits of hammers have been discussed, how about now we talk about why strikers are superior.

Faster lock time
No external moving parts to be fouled (in a struggle for example)
Lower bore axis = less muzzle rise = faster follow up shots
Crisp light single action triggers are for old guys shooting benchrest at bullseye targets, not gunfights*



*Under stress a 5lb Glock trigger feels like a 1lb 1911

It's something you can feel if it's moving when holstering.  Although I will say I'm not sure it's that big of a bonus with single action but it is with DA/SA or DAO.

The most accurate guns for me have been pistols with a hammer.   But I'm far from trying all the striker fired guns.

A lot of big trainers are the PT Barnum of their time.

Hammer types are just plain sexier.

I just split the difference and have a DA/SA decocker with a striker.

The real answer is what do you like...  Each has benefits and con for hammer fired you can tune them more, you have the hammer that can be controlled during holstering (for AIWB more peace of mind you are not going to blow you junk off), DA\SA heavier first pull and lighter second one shots for some this gives that extra barrier that prevents accidental or negligent discharge of the first round (how much I do not know), and to have a single action trigger pull that is light is pretty nice.

I like both I can recognize the advantages and disadvantages of each but honestly neither is a game changer they all have the exact same end result.

Yup, one reason why I like the SCD on my Glocks. I can reholster with the same confidence as with my berettas or 1911s.

For double strike proponents, how many times do you pull the trigger before going to remedial action?

I have used the double strike capability before on one of my CZ's.  I was shooting harder primers with a lighter hammer spring that required double strikes on a few rounds.  This was all at the range breaking in the pistol after doing trigger work.

Ignoring the fact that if my gun didn't work after "trigger work" I'd call that bad gunsmithing, the question is really, is that what you would do in a competition or defense scenario?

Not saying it's a huge deal, but this is where the revolver shines.  You just keep going.    It doesn't happen very often but I just had one the other day and it fired the 2nd time.   I kept going with the cylinder but stopped after my 5 shots and unloaded and looked at the primer.  The dent looked a little shallow but the primer looked a bit deep.  So I put it back in my gun and it fired.  And of course the gun didn't need any action while shooting being that it was a revolver.  

I know, a small upside.  But it is one.

Not bad gunsmithing just to light of a hammer spring for primers I was using not every problem is attributed to bad gunsmithing.  Sometimes trial and error is part of gunsmithing you would know this if you have extensive experience that not everything goes according to plan, not every gun is exactly the same, and why you test after changing parts.  Even the spring seller stipulates the light spring can have weak primer ignition with certain primers.  In a comp or defense scenario no I would run the slide because if it did not go the first time their is probably a reason (bad primer, no\bad powder, or the planets aligned disrupting the gravitational forces causing that round not to go off) in any case get that bad round out and move on.

Ill say it, I like how hammer equiped pistols look better than striker fired, more specifically the 1911 and similar "old school" pistols. I LOVE the aesthetics which is why I own them, even though I shoot Glocks better

I mostly shoot my reloads and find hammer guns are less sensitive to hard primers. Also, I like steel framed guns which tend to be hammer guns.

1. The ability to reholster the pistol in a safer manner (thumb on hammer, preventing it from falling or being drawn back by the trigger if the trigger is impinged upon by an object in holster, etc.).

2. Safer to carry to a degree. Many striker designs have the striker either fully to the rear or far enough to the rear to allow enough force to potentially touch off a primer should your firing pin safety fail. In many cases, carrying a striker fired gun is akin to carrying a series 80 1911 with the hammer fully (or mostly) cocked and the thumb and grip safeties deactivated. What you’re left with is a firing pin safety, a longer (but not quite DA) trigger pull, and a mostly or fully drawn back striker. Most people just don’t think of it in that manner because the striker’s position is not visible to the shooter. Combine this with point #1 and it is easy to see why some Glock carriers have decided to install a Tau striker control device for safer reholstering.

3. The trigger pull is often better in a hammer-fired pistol.

Those are the big three in my mind. Carry whatever you want though. No skin off my back.

It's all preference. I use both striker and hammer fired for different purposes and go through phases of what I like more.

I think if more people spent any significant amount of time training with DA/SA guns they would realize it doesn't really matter. Use whatever you like. Proficiency and training is what matters. I personally am in love with my Shadow 2 right now. One of its features that I like best, the weight, is also it's downfall. Too heavy to lug around on duty all day so I'll stick to my Glock for that.

And truthfully it's not like the Shadow makes me a better shooter, I just like it more.

Edit to add:

Ernest Langdon has a 3 part series on the DA pull. While I don't necessarily agree with everything 100% check out the vids and try it out if you can. Might change your opinion.

Here's some key points:
1) most don't know how to properly pull the trigger. Constant pressure and smoothness helps.
2) don't think of it as 2 different trigger presses, think of it as 1 reset.

https://youtu.be/FsoX26OhDCY

And again, I'm not advocating for one type of trigger system over another. I like them both. It's just a training (and knowledge) issue. Both have positives, both have negatives. What you like and are comfortable with is what matters.

This is the attraction for me. You can get that replacement plate for the Glock, if I carried one I would put one on it.

I have a number of both. I have several H&K P7M13 and M8 pistols (best hammer fired pistols) as well as a CZ 75B, Walther P1, several 1911 pistols and a few others. Both have their place. I really like my H&K P713 pistols because they are - bar none - the safest pistols to carry or handle with a loaded chamber. No accidental discharges ever happening with them. The Glock, not so much. Numerous accidental discharges have occurred with Glocks by careless individuals holstering them.

I always owned, shot, and carried striker fired guns. I bought a sig m11-a1 as a novelty range toy, at first I was much slower with the DA/SA gun than my glock or m&p but after a while the times got closer and closer until eventually I came to the conclusion that at my skill level what gun I was using really didn't matter. I am not a good enough shooter for mild mechanical differences to affect my performance or times.

I ended up really digging the m11-a1 so it's been my primary carry gun for a year and a half or so. My glock 19 would do everything my m11-a1 does and save some weight but my sig earned its spot, It took me outside my comfort zone and forced me to become a better shooter plus it's just plain neat.

HK P7 is a squeeze cocker striker fired pistol.

Are P7s not striker fired?

This pretty much sums up my reasoning for carrying a DA/SA. 

I like them, I shoot them well, and I feel I have a larger margin for error when handling it under stress. 

They are the squeezing of the grip pulls the striker back.

Just the first time.

What hammer guns are your favorite for carrying?

Realistically the biggest reason for the strikers popularity is because it is cheaper and simpler. DA/SA has two different trigger positions along with associated pulls. SA hammer guns have an external hammer which can be annoying. The biggest reason imo is the cost. Hammer guns have more parts and cost more. If you look at manufacturers that make both, hammer is almost always significantly more money.

Makarov, PPK, P2000, P239

Damn nice write-up.  Touches on all salient points. 

Attached File

1911, Beretta 92 & PX4 series, SIG P22x and SP2022 series.

I would like to get John Wayne's input on this on too.  I think it's a Beretta, but now I can't remember if I ever knew.  

And dang that 92 compact looks downright small next to the .45.  You are a man after my own heart, hogue grips in the right color no less.    White just looks so right on there.  And the real question is, does the 92c feel that much wider than the 19 or heavier, when carrying?   Do you carry it AIWB?

I love shooting my hammer fired guns including Beretta 92, 1911, and revolvers.

I love carrying my Glocks.

1) Better trigger pull
2) Gun can be left decocked with no safety on, for a hard DA pull. This allows me to put it in a nightstand without a holster. I won't leave any of my striker fired guns locked and loaded outside of a holster. There is just no margin for error.

I say this as I carry a striker-fired glock 42 right now. Hammer fired and Striker Fired both have their advantages and disadvantages I like both for different reasons.

I carry a HK P2000 9mm V3. 

smart man, remarkable gun

I always have a Glock on the nightstand or desk loaded with no holster. What do you consider the risks to doing this?

Trigger ferries!  They magically pull striker fired pistols triggers.  Do not get me started on the gnomes.

Maybe so, but you asked why and you got their answer.

Thank you sir.

True and that's why I only spoke for myself. Some find that characteristic beneficial.

It’s my hammer fired G19. Love it.