hammer or striker


PDA






carbonyl
January 17, 2013, 05:02 AM
Disregarding manufacturers, what type of autoloader do you think is more rugged and reliable, hammer or striker fired?

If you enjoyed reading about "hammer or striker" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jakk280rem
January 17, 2013, 05:17 AM
Too many makes and models on both sides of the equation. I will say that over the years I have become fond of triggers that feel the same for every shot. So call it single action with a hammer, or a strikers, but not really a fan of a TDA.

jmr40
January 17, 2013, 05:30 AM
Hammers can be damaged if the gun is dropped making the gun useless. It is also possible to get clothing, hair, etc. between the hammer and firing pin preventing the gun from firing in very close range SD situations. Striker fired guns have 1 less opening to allow debris into the action of the gun.

Trigger pulls can be equal with either type.

The only advantage a hammer fired gun has is 2nd strike capability if the round does not fire. But only on DA designs. Since the odds of a round firing on the 2nd attempt run less than 50%, I don't see this as much of an advantage. If a round doesn't fire, I'll be ejecting it and loading a fresh round with any gun rather than wasting time trying to make a dud round fire.

Plan2Live
January 17, 2013, 06:18 AM
I have one of each that I rotate between for concealed carry. If I am going places where I am likely to have to unholster and reholster while seated in my vehicle due to entering no-carry zones (school, stores, etc.) and having to leave the pistol in my vehicle then I carry DA/SA hammer fired. If I am going places where I am unlikely to have to unholster then I carry Striker. They are similar yet different tools and I choose the tool based on the job.

tarosean
January 17, 2013, 06:46 AM
hammer or striker


Honestly that would be at the very bottom of any comparison list I could dream up... Both have been around for over a hundred years... kinda proven themselves by this point and time.

ku4hx
January 17, 2013, 07:23 AM
Striker fire for the simple reason it's fully enclosed and protected from externally induced damage.

Not all strikers are 100% fully enclosed, but the difference hardly seems significant in most cases, they're still protected inside a very strong shell.

I don't think either design is inherently more reliable than the other all things being equal.

SouthernYankee
January 17, 2013, 08:07 AM
This is really just a preference, but I really like having a hammer. It provides me with a sense of greater control. cock, decock, second strike all simple matters with a hammer. Snag from pocket draw? Not a problem, for me, because my hand is wider than the gun so forces an expanded path opening for the hammer as I draw (practiced repetitively). I'm more comfortable with a hammer and it is more a control issue for me. A concealed striker pin gives me less of that IMHO.

Fishbed77
January 17, 2013, 08:48 AM
The only advantage a hammer fired gun has is 2nd strike capability if the round does not fire

There are striker-fired pistols with 2nd strike capability. The Walther P99AS immediately comes to mind.

Honestly, though, there is no real difference in reliability or durability between the two systems among the major reputable firearms manufacturers. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

RUT
January 17, 2013, 08:59 AM
>>I will say that over the years I have become fond of triggers that feel the same for every shot.<<

Same on this end. Thus, not a fan of single/double action.

g_one
January 17, 2013, 10:03 AM
+1 for above sentiment. I don't mind if it's striker or hammer fired, but if it's hammer fired I definitely prefer SAO models

Godsgunman
January 17, 2013, 10:43 AM
I own both but my personal preference is hammer fired. I like the ability to decock the hammer, just makes me "feel" a little safer when carrying but I do carry striker fired also. Hammer or striker fired both require keeping the booger hook away from the trigger.

Kiln
January 17, 2013, 01:27 PM
Hammers can be damaged if the gun is dropped making the gun useless. It is also possible to get clothing, hair, etc. between the hammer and firing pin preventing the gun from firing in very close range SD situations. Striker fired guns have 1 less opening to allow debris into the action of the gun.

Trigger pulls can be equal with either type.

The only advantage a hammer fired gun has is 2nd strike capability if the round does not fire. But only on DA designs. Since the odds of a round firing on the 2nd attempt run less than 50%, I don't see this as much of an advantage. If a round doesn't fire, I'll be ejecting it and loading a fresh round with any gun rather than wasting time trying to make a dud round fire.
Valid points.

I prefer a striker type pistol too for the reasons you stated. I also wouldn't carry a hammer fired gun that couldn't be carried cocked and locked.

460Kodiak
January 18, 2013, 11:04 AM
Both are rugged and both are reliable. I like hammers better.

Corpral_Agarn
January 18, 2013, 11:12 AM
I like a hammer because I can thrust the gun down in to a holster or pocket with my thumb on the hammer without worrying about the trigger getting snagged on anything I don't know about and going off, among other reasons already stated.

I also like the 10# pull of the first shot on a DA/SA. No mistakes there, you have to commit to shooting. It makes a darn good safety, IMHO.

Its just piece of mind for me. Both systems have proven outstanding in their own right.

Skribs
January 18, 2013, 01:14 PM
As to double strike, the Taurus striker pistols have double strike capability.

For use with snap caps, Striker pistols (and the LDA similars) will require cycling the slide and loading a new snap cap to work on dry-firing. Double action pistols can just have the trigger pulled again, single-action can have the hammer cocked and then trigger pulled again (DA/SA can be done either). Of course, the Taurus pistols are an exception to the rule that striker pistols can't do this. (I know, of all manf...it's Taurus).

I like striker pistols because LDA isn't that common, and a striker pistol gets you a decent trigger pull (worse than SA, better than DA) and doesn't require a manual safety to be safe. They also tend to be cheaper than quality DA or SA pistols of the same size (don't like the differing trigger pull in DA/SA weapon).

horsemen61
January 18, 2013, 01:17 PM
Striker for sure that is what glock uses.

mgmorden
January 18, 2013, 03:26 PM
My semi-autos tally up to 9 hammer fired and 3 striker fired, but I actually prefer striker fired. Or - more aptly, I like a consistent trigger pull that is 6.5lbs or less but higher than 3 or 4 for carry.

That mostly means striker fired guns, but the pre-tensioned DAO hammer guns like the Beretta PX4 C-type, the upcoming Walther PPX, etc, all give me that same capability.

carbonyl
January 18, 2013, 03:56 PM
Honestly that would be at the very bottom of any comparison list I could dream up... Both have been around for over a hundred years... kinda proven themselves by this point and time.

Sorry I guess I'm not nearly as gun savvy as you. ;)

Ehtereon11B
January 18, 2013, 04:22 PM
For the most part I like striker fired pistols because the components are enclosed. They do make pistols with enclosed hammers but they are few and far between.

dcarch
January 18, 2013, 04:31 PM
Hammers here. But that will probably change in a few months... planning on picking up an M&P 9.

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