hammer vs. striker fire


PDA






DavidB2
November 26, 2012, 05:19 PM
What are the pro's vs.cons of the hammer fired w/de-cocker vs.striker fired pistols like the M&P?

If you enjoyed reading about "hammer vs. striker fire" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SlamFire1
November 26, 2012, 05:27 PM
I can instantly tell that the thing is cocked because it is very obvious with a hammer gun.

I can thumb cock it.

I am of the opinion that the hammer mechanisms provide more energy to the primer resulting in more reliable ignition.

And it is what I am used to. :cuss:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Pistols%20various/SigP220.jpg

JustinJ
November 26, 2012, 05:28 PM
Its largely a matter of preference and configuration. A gun with a de-cocker will be a SA/DA so when uncocked the first trigger pull is extremely long and heavy which provides some level of protection against an accidental discharge. Also, the trigger pull from the cocked position can be lighter without the associated risk of accidental discharge like in a very light striker fired gun. However, the pull from the uncocked position will generally be much longer and heavier so one must cock before firing or endure the long pull. Follow up shots however will all be from the lighter cocked position.

I think it's been clearly demonstrated that both types can be extremely reliable and durable.

rcmodel
November 26, 2012, 05:31 PM
All of what he said:

Plus:
1. Generally a much better SA trigger pull.
2. You can stuff it in your pants or pocket without it going off and shooting you.
3. It is never loaded & cocked unless you want it to be.

rc

holdencm9
November 26, 2012, 05:32 PM
Technically striker-fired guns have a shorter lock time, but hammer-fired seem to have crisper triggers IMO. I also agree hammers usually provide more energy to the primer, you rarely hear of light strikes with a hammer-fired gun. The visual aspect of "seeing it is cocked" is nice, but some guns like the XD have the pin that sticks out to indicate it is "cocked."

A decock is nice because you can return the gun to a very safe condition for carry, but still have the advantage of a crisp single-action trigger pull. You can carry DA (hammer down) safety off (heavy trigger is safe) and if you need a fast shot you won't even feel the trigger weight, then all the subsequent shots are SA. Some people hate that, prefer to have a compromise of consistent pull, although the pull is never as good as most single actions.

56hawk
November 26, 2012, 05:49 PM
What are the pro's vs.cons of the hammer fired w/de-cocker vs.striker fired pistols like the M&P?

Are you talking about just the M&P, or any striker fired pistol? For example the Walther P99 is striker fired and has a de-cocker.

I really can't tell any difference in the trigger pulls between striker fired and hammer fired pistols. For me striker fired guns have the benefit of less area for dirt to enter the firing mechanism. When carrying single action I like guns with hammers better because most holsters have a strap that goes between the hammer and slide so there is less chance for an AD.

Jaymo
November 26, 2012, 06:22 PM
I like both. It really depends on the individual gun.

CZ57
November 26, 2012, 06:37 PM
Technically striker-fired guns have a shorter lock time, but hammer-fired seem to have crisper triggers IMO.

A shorter lock-time can result in better handheld accuracy for a lot of shooters. As far as crisp triggers, that is sort of gun dependent, some are better than others. I have a PRP trigger Kit in my XDm 4.5 .45 ACP. Take-up is almost non existent. Pull weight is a very crisp 4# with no overtravel. The only triggers that I've found to be any better are on 1911s that cost twice as much or more. ;)

jmr40
November 26, 2012, 07:15 PM
Striker fired leaves one less opening for crud to get into the guns internals, or between the hammer and firing pin. No hammer to get caught in clothing etc. and prevent the gun from firing in close range engagements. No hammer to be damaged and put the gun out of commission if dropped on a hard surface during a scuffle with a bad guy.

JAshley73
November 26, 2012, 08:29 PM
I'll let my inexperience shine here, but I chose to go the striker fired route in part due to the simpler manual of arms. I like how simple it is to work the pistol. There's either one in the pipe or not. And if there's a round in the chamber, then you had to rack the slide to put it there, so the striker is cocked. Keep your finger off the trigger, and it won't go off.

Again, I remind you that I am a new shooter without a lot of experience, but the simplicity is comforting.

rcmodel
November 26, 2012, 08:33 PM
Striker fired leaves one less opening for crud to get into the guns internals,You mean like how the 1911 didn't work in the mud in the trenches in WWI?
Or the sand on the beaches in WWII?
Or the snow and ice in Korea?
Or the rice paddys & jungle in Vietnam??

Like that kind of crud?

I SEE, said the blind man to his deaf daughter when he tripped over the stump.

rc

Jaymo
November 26, 2012, 08:35 PM
We need a "dripping with sarcasm" emoticon. :) :!

56hawk
November 26, 2012, 08:38 PM
I'll let my inexperience shine here, but I chose to go the striker fired route in part due to the simpler manual of arms.

Depends on which striker fired pistol you are talking about. Some have safeties, decockers and many assorted trigger systems. Similarly you can find hammer fired guns that are single action without safeties.

Plan2Live
November 26, 2012, 08:58 PM
I rotate between a hammer fired DA/SA 9mm and a striker fired .40 caliber for my carry guns. Which one I choose depends on the day, where I'm going, etc.

I'm equally accurate with both in slow fire drills.

When clocked on a shot timer I'm faster at drawing and shooting with the striker fired.

If I am going to be unholstering and re-sholstering while seated in the vehicle, like when I go into no-carry locations, I prefer the DA/SA hammer fired gun. I just feel safer handling a hammer fired gun outside a holster than I do a striker fired gun with a round in the chamber of either.

My hammer gun digs into my side a bit.

I would sleep/have slept with a loaded and chambered DA/SA pistol under the pillow I don't sleep on. Wouldn't dare do that with a Striker.

The exposed hammer does give a combatant one more option for preventing you from firing your gun in a tussle. The exposed hammer gives you one more option for preventing a combatant from firing your gun at you in a tussle.

Hammer guns tend to be more attractive (to me) than striker fired guns.

Bottom line, personal preference.

Patrick Gookin
November 26, 2012, 09:12 PM
Striker fired leaves one less opening for crud to get into the guns internals, or between the hammer and firing pin. No hammer to get caught in clothing etc. and prevent the gun from firing in close range engagements.

The Colt 1903 / 1908 pocket pistols have a hammer located intside the slide for those very reasons. There's even another thread discussing it right now.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=686823

tarosean
November 26, 2012, 09:14 PM
Bottom line, presonal preference.

This....

TimboKhan
November 26, 2012, 09:21 PM
Lol, I can come up with a counter-point to every comment for or against one or the other in this thread!!! The point being, it really is personal preference. My two main pistols represent one of each, and I honestly don't think I could definitively say that I prefer one over the other.

snakeman
November 26, 2012, 09:33 PM
Yes RC! I love my m&p but see it only as a matter of preference. I have always wanted a 1911.

cfullgraf
November 26, 2012, 09:35 PM
I like shooting my M&Ps and M1911s but I am not comfortable carrying them loaded.

The triggers are a bit different but I shoot them similarly.

So I suffer with a DA/SA pistol for carry. I figure the first round would not hit its intended target and plan accordingly.

Walking Dead
November 26, 2012, 09:42 PM
You mean like how the 1911 didn't work in the mud in the trenches in WWI?
Or the sand on the beaches in WWII?
Or the snow and ice in Korea?
Or the rice paddys & jungle in Vietnam??

Like that kind of crud?

I SEE, said the blind man to his deaf daughter when he tripped over the stump.

rc
Best analogies ever!

JROC
November 26, 2012, 09:43 PM
My Colt Combat Elite, and CZ75 are both good guns and use hammers. My Glock 20SF is my best handgun and it's a striker fire pistol so I guess I prefer striker fired pistols even though I don't think there is anything wrong with a gun using a hammer.

coalman
November 27, 2012, 12:56 AM
What are the pro's vs.cons of the hammer fired w/de-cocker vs.striker fired pistols like the M&P?

Generally:

Striker
Pro: Consistent trigger pull. Easier to clean. Fewer parts. Fewer access points for debris. Lacks manual safety. Most with poly frame.
Con: Lacks second strike. Does not hit primer with as much force. Lighter trigger easier to ND. Lacks manual safety. Most with poly frame.

Hammer:
Pro: Hits primer with more force. DA/SA guns offer second strike. SA guns offer cocked-n-locked manual safety. Heavier trigger of DA pull or manual safety for SA harder to ND. Most with metal frame.
Con: DA/SA have different first long/heavy trigger pull vs. subsequent short/light pull. SA guns have cocked-n-locked manual safety. Generally harder to clean. More parts. More access points for debris. Most with metal frame.

I prefer shooting SA guns. I prefer thin SA manual safety hammer-fired guns for CCW (1911 and CZ). I prefer 9mm Glocks for gaming in production class.

9mmepiphany
November 27, 2012, 01:50 AM
It look like no one has yet mentioned that with a hammer fired gun, you can place your thumb over the hammer as you reholster, to ensure that nothing gets caught in the trigger guard to push the trigger back as you push the gun in.

Generally speaking a slide of a striker fired gun is lighter than that of a hammer fired one...more metal is removed from the slide for the striker mechanism

1SOW
November 27, 2012, 02:16 AM
The striker fired has the same trigger pull every time.
A single action hammered gun also has the same pull, but a shorter and crisper break.
A DA/SA has a longer heavier pull in DA and usually a little lighter and shorter pull in SA. Some offer the decocker or safety and half-cock as an option.

With some work, 6# and 2# is can usually be attained on some of the DA/SA guns, but the first pull is longer and so is the reset. With "TWO" trigger pulls, practice is needed , but with that practice, the first and second shots become second nature.

Shooters' preference.

Hammers are 'manly'.:neener::D

Jed Carter
November 27, 2012, 04:56 AM
Actually Glock safe action (striker fired) pistols first trigger pull is more like the DA pull of a DA/SA pistol, only better than most. The subsequent trigger pulls if you only release the trigger to reset, is more like a SA pistol, still better than most DA/SA pistols in SA.

fatcat4620
November 27, 2012, 05:27 AM
You mean like how the 1911 didn't work in the mud in the trenches in WWI?
Or the sand on the beaches in WWII?
Or the snow and ice in Korea?
Or the rice paddys & jungle in Vietnam??

Like that kind of crud?

I SEE, said the blind man to his deaf daughter when he tripped over the stump.

rc

Well everyone knows jesus runs a glock :p

Plan2Live
November 27, 2012, 06:18 AM
^ Case in point.

9mmepiphany
November 27, 2012, 12:09 PM
Actually Glock safe action (striker fired) pistols first trigger pull is more like the DA pull of a DA/SA pistol, only better than most. The subsequent trigger pulls if you only release the trigger to reset, is more like a SA pistol, still better than most DA/SA pistols in SA.
This is a perfect example of how YMMV often applies to your experience with other triggers. I don't doubt the sincerity of your position. I would have when I was more naive, because I was under the mistaken belief that all people shared similar firearms experience.

This is especially fresh in my mind as I just spent the weekend with a Championship level Glock shooter and we discussed the different techniques needed between different striker fired pistols as opposed to DA/SA pistols. My recent experience left me with the impression that:

1. The Glock Safe Action trigger, I just can't bring myself, given it's history, to call it a DA, has a trigger stroke similar to a serviceable revolver trigger. The SIG DAK, Para-Ord LDA or Kahr triggers have trigger closer to a tuned revolver action.

2. When release only to reset, the Glock does away with the light takeup, but keeps it's hard/spongy final press. This is nothing like any factory SA I have felt, with the possible exception of the H&K USP and P2000 family, on a DA/SA pistol...mostly because they lack the travel needed with the Glock trigger.

3. The trigger of the S&W M&P or Springfield Armory XD/XDm can be tuned closer to a good SA trigger on a hammer fired pistol

ny32182
November 27, 2012, 12:28 PM
Do you want DA/SA, or do you want all your trigger pulls consistent?

That is the only real difference. Everything else is superfulous jabber. No offense to anyone in the thread.

ATLDave
November 27, 2012, 12:35 PM
The only thing I'd add is that some posters seem to assume that striker guns don't have external safeties and hammer guns do. It ain't necessarily so on either count. My M&P, for instance, has a thumb safety. If you like a thumb safety, you can get a striker-fired pistol with one; it just won't be a (factory) Glock.

oneounceload
November 27, 2012, 02:14 PM
All of what he said:

Plus:
1. Generally a much better SA trigger pull.
2. You can stuff it in your pants or pocket without it going off and shooting you.
3. It is never loaded & cocked unless you want it to be.

Check out the P7 then - proof a striker fired pistol can do all those things, and then some - want to decock? Ease off the grip

showmebob
November 27, 2012, 04:46 PM
It seems to me that many striker fired pistols have a lower bore axis than hammer fired pistols do. This may or may not be a factor in a purchase decision.

Kiln
November 27, 2012, 06:16 PM
I have lots of both types. Each have their drawbacks. Personally I prefer striker fired guns for close range protection because clothing or body parts can interfere with external hammers if you were wrestling with somebody who is trying to hurt you.

For range use either is great but there I have a preference for hammer fired guns because for me at least, the triggers are better.

9mmepiphany
November 27, 2012, 07:59 PM
Check out the P7 then - proof a striker fired pistol can do all those things, and then some - want to decock? Ease off the grip
Including the P7 is almost cheating. There really aren't any guns safer than the P7 that can be brought into action as simply

Striker pistols generally do have a lower bore axis over the grip, but bore height is often overblown in importance...FWIW, I have a P7, a G19, a CW9 and a M&P9...as well as several SIGs

Jaymo
November 27, 2012, 11:09 PM
Buy a few of each.
Try to counterpoint that, TimboKhan. ;)

TimboKhan
November 28, 2012, 12:35 AM
Lol:neener:

Counter: go fully automatic.

hentown
November 28, 2012, 09:58 AM
Glock triggers are easy to make better, inexpensively. I use various brands of aftermarket connectors in my Glocks. I also polish all mating surfaces in the firing mechanisms. My Glocks' triggers pull from just over 3# to around 4#. Not like the trigger on my tuned 1911, but still not a bad trigger, compared to DA and many other striker-fired pistols.

F-111 John
November 28, 2012, 12:40 PM
I can instantly tell that the thing is cocked because it is very obvious with a hammer gun.
I think the striker fired Glock is also very obvious that the thing is cocked because the trigger is either reset or not reset.

Fixed Sight Training
November 28, 2012, 01:41 PM
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is because of the geometry of the hammer and slide it is unlikely a hammer gun will discharge out of battery.

I've had both XDs and Glocks discharge out of battery. The glock blew up and the owner went to the hospital. The XD just blew out the side of the case and blew hot gasses down the mag well. No damage but we could reproduce the malfunction and it would drop the striker about 3/16" out of battery. Further experimentation shows it is not uncommon. Bring the slide back and pull the trigger. Lower the slide slowly and see when it clicks.

The trigger dingus is not really a safety, if something pulls (touches) the trigger it discharges. It does force you to use too much finger on the trigger and without practice a lot of people push the shots away from their shooting hand.

The "it's the same trigger pull every shot" argument is a marketing ploy. With a little practice it becomes second nature and ALL handguns require practice.

If you enjoyed reading about "hammer vs. striker fire" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!