What's Wrong With Polymer Framed And Striker Fired Guns


PDA






kokapelli
November 1, 2013, 04:16 PM
I know a lot of people regularly decry polymer framed and or striker fired guns. Why?

If you enjoyed reading about "What's Wrong With Polymer Framed And Striker Fired Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dogguy
November 1, 2013, 04:21 PM
Nothing wrong with either. Personal preference only.

Bohemus
November 1, 2013, 04:23 PM
It just feels better to handle piece of steel with proper hammer.

Hurryin' Hoosier
November 1, 2013, 04:30 PM
It just feels better to handle piece of steel with proper hammer.
Správný!

spm
November 1, 2013, 04:32 PM
It just feels better to handle piece of steel with proper hammer.

Amen, brother.
But as previously stated, just my personal preference.

Steve

Esoxchaser
November 1, 2013, 04:36 PM
When I was a kid growing up in the 60's, firearms were made of metal. Good toys were made of metal. Cheap toys were made of plastic.

verdun59
November 1, 2013, 05:04 PM
Well we are not in the 60s anymore ......thankfully.

jimbo555
November 1, 2013, 05:08 PM
They work fine for me!

Blue Brick
November 1, 2013, 05:11 PM
Well we are not in the 60s anymore ......thankfully.

Wish I was….. Women shaped like Joan Holloway are Hot! Gota love that red hair…


Back to the topic

I have had both features, but never at the same time. Right now I have an aluminum framed striker fired pistol.

5-SHOTS
November 1, 2013, 05:29 PM
I have one which is striker and polymer, so nothing wrong with them.

PO2Hammer
November 1, 2013, 05:31 PM
I love a good poly gun.
No problems with strikers.

There are a lot of traditional gun owners out there who cling to steel and wood, and can't/won't join the 21st century.

'If a 1911 was good enough for my daddy, it's good enough for me' seems to be a common mantra.

MachIVshooter
November 1, 2013, 05:48 PM
I know a lot of people regularly decry polymer framed and or striker fired guns. Why?

Because they have no soul.

Sol
November 1, 2013, 05:50 PM
I despise both polymer and strikers, for no particular reason. More of a steel and hammers person. I like the heft and feel of wood and steel.

USAF_Vet
November 1, 2013, 06:05 PM
Of my two semi aurto handguns, one is a polymer framed striker fired, the other is a metal framed hammer fired. I like them both. Don't have a real preference of one over the other.
Revolvers are another story. Don't think I could bring myself to own a polymer framed wheel gun, but even that isn't set in stone.

I like all guns I guess, and don't hold a prejudice against them based on their color or materials or their internals.

Kiln
November 1, 2013, 06:11 PM
Both are great. It is all about preference. I do hate that most gun companies are producing mainly striker fired polymer guns these days because it reduces your options.

bikemutt
November 1, 2013, 06:23 PM
I own them both and while I don't really care for my Glocks the way I do for good 'ole steel guns, there's a lot to be said for a G17 with 18 rounds on board, or a G21 with 14, that much ammo in a full size steel gun would be pretty heavy to pack around. The polymers seem plenty accurate and run on a diet of even junk food.

For me they are my Star Wars blasters; the steel guns are my light sabers :)

csa77
November 1, 2013, 06:29 PM
I just don't like polymer, I wonder how much more svelte a striker fired gun like a glock,xd,ect could be if it had a steel frame

CajunBass
November 1, 2013, 06:33 PM
Nothing really. I've owned both, but like most here I just happen to prefer steel/aluminum and wood. Probably has something to do with being for the most part, a "revolver guy."

I've never really felt I "needed" a gun. I just happen to "want" them. If I thought I "needed" one, a Glock or something like it would be just fine. But since I'm buying what I "want", I want blue steel.

Sam1911
November 1, 2013, 06:43 PM
For me it is a performance thing. The longer I watch shooters making accurate hits in a hurry, the mo' faster they seem to be with the plastic fantastic striker guns.

I've been convinced through slow, inexorable, piling up of evidence at every match I attend, that they are the "bestest for the mostest" and the old steel and hammer guns really just don't keep up, no matter how much soul they have or how beautiful they are.

If fast hits are the goal, and no other goal really ranks as nearly so important, then most shooters tend to do better when they train with one of the polymer/striker guns.

el Godfather
November 1, 2013, 07:02 PM
I think OP actually wants to see the discourse on Glock

kokapelli
November 1, 2013, 07:18 PM
I think OP actually wants to see the discourse on Glock
Not at all, I'm just curious to see if there is a technical reason to prefer one over the other.

So far it appears that the all metal crowd just like the looks, or feel, or tradition of all metal guns.

I personally am quickly moving to polymer because they are lighter, frames don't rust and recoil seems to better absorbed by the polymer frame, but I do own a few all metal guns that I like very much and will probably never carry or sell.

grter
November 1, 2013, 07:27 PM
I hate the looks and feel of polymer but they are what I would choose if I had to carry them all day and use them frequently.

I find glocks to be light weight, rugged with high round capacity coupled with reliability and accuracy.

They work and they work better for me from a useful tool standpoint better than the pistols I like. How ironic is that.

huntsman
November 1, 2013, 07:32 PM
Well we are not in the 60s anymore ......thankfully.
yep I'm firmly entrenched in the 70's

What's Wrong With Polymer Framed And Striker Fired Guns

They're Polymer and striker fired

OregonJohnny
November 1, 2013, 07:43 PM
When I carry, it's either a Ruger LCP, Kahr CM9 or CW9, or Glock 20SF - all polymer guns.

When I want to pull a gun out of the safe just to fondle and appreciate, it's a 1911, Beretta 92, Sig 220, or one of my revolvers.

So, for "working" guns - polymer.
For "firearms appreciation" guns - steel or aluminum.

But I have no hate at all for any good semi-auto, no matter what it's made of.

kokapelli
November 1, 2013, 07:44 PM
yep I'm firmly entrenched in the 70's



They're Polymer and striker fired
Ok, but what seems to be the problem with them?

I notice you carry an LCP polymer pistol.

rebjak23
November 1, 2013, 08:01 PM
I have some of each and prefer the weight of steel guns over the polymer but for pocket carry polymer is great.

tangomike706
November 1, 2013, 08:13 PM
I own a bunch of each , and believe in there being a right gun for every occasion , sometimes it's a Glock 19 , and sometimes it's a 1911, to each his(her) own.

RussB
November 1, 2013, 08:51 PM
I like guns :)


I have some of each, and luv them all

TomJones
November 1, 2013, 09:37 PM
I have a striker fired-XDS and wouldn't mind a polymer wheel gun for pocket carry.

tuj
November 1, 2013, 09:39 PM
because the triggers all suck.

mljdeckard
November 1, 2013, 09:39 PM
I am a 1911 guy. But it's not because there is anything at all wrong with polymer-framed guns. My wife carries an XD-9.

kokapelli
November 1, 2013, 09:46 PM
because the triggers all suck.
All of them?

MyGreenGuns
November 1, 2013, 10:33 PM
I like guns

I have some of each, and luv them all
^Best answer yet. I agree 100%

I love my poly gun, it goes everywhere with me. It has a higher capacity than a metal version of it, and there is no hammer to snag on my clothes.

My only autoloader is poly. My revolvers are metal.

huntsman
November 1, 2013, 10:34 PM
Ok, but what seems to be the problem with them?

I notice you carry an LCP polymer pistol.

I carry an LCP because I'm too poor to buy a Seecamp, life is about compromise and that's as far as I'm willing to go with plastic.

It's my belief the plastic gun market is a big rip-off perpetuated by the gun industry on gullible buyers.

$500. should get a new all metal pistol not a pile of plastic. You asked, I answered.

kokapelli
November 1, 2013, 10:41 PM
I carry an LCP because I'm too poor to buy a Seecamp, life is about compromise and that's as far as I'm willing to go with plastic.
Ah, so there is a place for polymer guns.

I can assure from personal,experience the LCP is far more pleasant to shoot than the Seecamp.

danez71
November 1, 2013, 10:41 PM
IMO, the worse thing is that they all seem top heavy.

bikemutt
November 1, 2013, 10:58 PM
IMO, the worse thing is that they all seem top heavy.
Try one loaded.

MyGreenGuns
November 1, 2013, 11:05 PM
I've been reading the responses. And talking to the screen. So, I'll post some thoughts. (Not trying to be a jerk, but its been a long week and my brain is in a weird mood.)

When I was a kid growing up in the 60's, firearms were made of metal. Good toys were made of metal. Cheap toys were made of plastic.
When you were a kid, plastic was a relatively NEW technology. It has come a long way since then.


re: Joan Holloway
Very beautiful, but could never get into a girl with real short hair. You -DO- know that women still come in all shapes and sizes, right?


I like the heft and feel of wood and steel.
(Hey that rhymes!)
"Weight is a sign of reliability. Besides, if it does not work, you can always hit him with it!" -Boris the Blade (from the movie "Snatch")

I wonder how much more svelte a striker fired gun like a glock,xd,ect could be if it had a steel frame
I had to look up "svelte". It means slender and elegant. It applies to people only, not things. Metal guns are heavy and chunky, so that is probably not the right word.


IMO, the worse thing is that they all seem top heavy.
You are out of ammo.
Reload.

danez71
November 1, 2013, 11:23 PM
IMO, the worse thing is that they all seem top heavy.


Try one loaded.




You are out of ammo.
Reload.


Are you two making assumptions or trying to be funny.

I have had the MP9c with the 12 rnd mags for 4 yrs and is my primary. Ive also had a BHP since 94.

As compared to a metal framed gun.... polymer guns are more top heavy.

ugaarguy
November 1, 2013, 11:23 PM
I carry an LCP because I'm too poor to buy a Seecamp, life is about compromise and that's as far as I'm willing to go with plastic.
If you dislike polymer so much why wouldn't you buy an NAA Guardian instead of the LCP?

It's my belief the plastic gun market is a big rip-off perpetuated by the gun industry on gullible buyers.

$500. should get a new all metal pistol not a pile of plastic. You asked, I answered.
There are still quite a few all metal handguns available for $500 or less. Your belief that plastic frames are a rip off is completely unfounded though. If your fellow gun owners are as gullible as you think they are, then they're in the vast majority. Do you really think the American gun buying market is that foolish?

Magnuumpwr
November 1, 2013, 11:59 PM
If all steel frame guns were that great there would not be any polymer ones. The same goes the other way, if polymer frames were all that great there would not be any new steel ones. Personally, I have no preference, steel or poly, striker or hammer fired. Does anyone make a steel, striker fired gun? I own a poly/ hammer fired, poly/striker fired, and the venerable steel/hammer fired. Never mind, looked through my log book, Jennings and Lorcin make all metal, striker fired guns.

MedWheeler
November 2, 2013, 12:01 AM
I don't get the poll. You ask "what's wrong with them?", but only include choices related to whether or not we "like" them.

That being said, I like the heft of a good, all-steel gun, but like the lightness of a polymer-framed concealed-carry piece.

I have little experience with centerfire striker-fired guns, and the only one I own is a Hi-Point, which I have not yet fired. I shot a friend's Glock 17 a bit, but the gun just "didn't fit", and I don't think it had anything to do with either its trigger or striker mechanism.

My Ruger P95 runs quite well in my hand, better than I thought it would, but the SR9 is, to me, certainly handsome. Probably would have gotten one of them instead if the price difference were smaller.

I guess I just haven't developed a preference yet.

Blue Brick
November 2, 2013, 12:35 AM
re: Joan Holloway
Very beautiful, but could never get into a girl with real short hair. You -DO- know that women still come in all shapes and sizes, right?

The hair is shoulder length and pined back for office. And yes I know, but it’s the whole zaftig not chunky package.

….And now back to your regular scheduled thread….

9mmepiphany
November 2, 2013, 12:37 AM
Does anyone make a steel, striker fired gun?
The first one that comes to mind is the H&K P7

Tirod
November 2, 2013, 12:39 AM
I was trained on the 1911, and carried a M9 on duty. I purchased a Glock 19C, and a LCP. I sold them both in the last 30 days. Now I have a SIG P938.

Polymer vs metal: polymer can't rust, corrode, or wear down to a base layer. Metal guns these days have excellent finishes that are highly resistant, too. Polymer can assume complex shapes that are difficult to machine, and can achieve a singularly organic look. Metal guns are somewhat limited by the machining process and always have a machine like appearance. It's very difficult to modify a cast polymer part, it's easy to modify a metal part or even refinish it. A polymer gun that has aged from long use is basically a melt job with the external details worn, the metal gun aged from long use is said to have a patina, and collectors may even pay extra for it.

Strikers vs ? Must be hammers. Strikers are spring loaded firing pins held captive and released with a sear mechanism. They take up length in the slide and because of that are not compact. Strikers can be partially cocked with the trigger pull finishing the complete retraction before release. But, like bolt guns, they could be held fully back, cocked and locked like a bolt gun. Nobody is doing that, however. Hammer guns use a similar spring, but it's located vertically in the grip to actuate a hammer, which rotates the motion 90 degrees to a much shorter firing pin. The overall length of the apparatus can be the same, however, the hammer allows it to be much shorter at the slide, making the gun potentially lighter - or adding to the barrel length. A hammer fired gun can be cocked separately from the slide cycling, or uncocked, too. The length of the trigger pull is opposite, a striker requiring more travel to finish loading the spring, the pull of the hammer fired gun only that which is needed to trip the sear.

In the realm of battle pistols, a case could be made for polymer/striker guns overall superiority in harsh conditions against a plentiful enemy. The reality is that auto pistols are often more a symbol of authority, and their role is really limited to being a personal defense weapon - when a rifle isn't allowed to be chosen. In America, that means the pistol will likely be used at close range, in a very short timespan, with three shots or less fired. That puts the polymer, striker, double stack pistol at a disadvantage because of it's bulk, long trigger pull, and the unnecessary amount of ammo it contains. The metal pistol, hammer actuated, and traditionally single stack, then shows it's advantages as having the higher social ranking, a lighter weight, and easier trigger pull, enhanced with the safety of a trigger locking lever.

As a duty gun in a belt holster, the polymer gun has advantages. The metal gun with hammer works well as a small personal defense weapon with more variety of manipulating the firing mechanism's states of readiness. Or, at least, that's the way I see it this week. :evil:

ugaarguy
November 2, 2013, 12:48 AM
Does anyone make a steel, striker fired gun?
Borchardt C-93, P08 Luger, Colt 1903, Colt 1908, and FN 1910; but those are all old even compared to the HK P7. Does the now defunct CCF Race Frames aluminum frame for Glocks count in the all metal striker fired category?

frankiestoys
November 2, 2013, 01:06 AM
Not really a fan of polymer don't mind the striker fired as much I don't tend to keep them all to long I've tried several they tend to feel great in the hand ,shoot fine and be a little cheaper @ least it is to make...Most of what's in my collection these days are hunks of steal and wood . I still own a SR9c and use to carry it a lot but prefer my CZ 75c or my Smith 442 to it. I think what turns me off with the ploy guns is when it's cleaning time ,and Im holding In my hand 600+$ of Plastic Wondering what I just spent my money on ...

tarosean
November 2, 2013, 01:07 AM
To me they are just mediocre guns. horrible triggers, "combat" accurate, pathetic sights, etc. etc. There is a reason there is such a huge aftermarket for these guns....

Ive owned poly guns from SW, Sig, HK, Glock and while most functioned well enough.. There is nothing spectacular about them. Nothing at all that makes me say, Wow I like this gun..

TarDevil
November 2, 2013, 01:38 AM
I have a wooden boat I built myself. Gets lots of "oohs" and "aahs" at the boat ramp, get stopped a lot in the rivers and creeks by folks wanting a look-see. But when everyone starts paddling out through the ICW toward open water or across rock shoals and oyster beds, I just have to hang back and "wish I were there."

What Sam said!

savanahsdad
November 2, 2013, 02:21 AM
108 votes and only 49 posts :confused: .....and the best rating of OK is winning , yet most the post I have read seem to lean the other way , , nothing wrong with them , other than the one that bounces brass off my head ,

Valkman
November 2, 2013, 02:28 AM
I love my 1911's - and I love and shoot just well with my XD45's. Love both kinds. If I were going into a muddy wet nasty enviroment it'd be the XD I take with me.

gamestalker
November 2, 2013, 03:50 AM
I have both, but I prefer a good solid steel frame and a hammer. My daily carry is a SS wheel gun, so. But what I absolutely don't like, is a wheel gun made of anything but good old fashioned heavy steel.

GS

tarosean
November 2, 2013, 06:39 AM
I've been convinced through slow, inexorable, piling up of evidence at every match I attend, that they are the "bestest for the mostest" and the old steel and hammer guns really just don't keep up, no matter how much soul they have or how beautiful they are.

Yet the top dogs in the sport run just that.

Eric Grauffel
Max Michael Jr.
Travis Tomasie
Todd Jarrett
Nils Jonasson
Mike Voigt

etc. etc. etc.

course I'd be remiss in not mentioning that Dave Sevigny and Robert Vogel can absolutely dominate with them...

bannockburn
November 2, 2013, 06:50 AM
Nothing wrong with polymer frames and striker fire systems. As long as they go "Bang" every time you pull the trigger I'm fine with that.

Phaedrus/69
November 2, 2013, 07:05 AM
I'm fine with both/all types. My preference is for hammers over strikers but really that's just 'cause that's what I'm used to. For a CCW gun I'm all for poly...anything that reduces weight, plus it won't rust.

As much as I prefer a gun with a hammer and a thumb safety I do carry a Beretta Nano an awful lot.

hardluk1
November 2, 2013, 07:30 AM
It does not matter to me so long as a firearm serves your needs if its metal or poly, stricker or SA or DA , revolver or pistol. . To many whinny types out there today that don't try to own and enjoy other makes and types.

wanderinwalker
November 2, 2013, 08:38 AM
I had to vote that they are "OK". But in interest of full disclosure, I'm pistol bipolar. :p What I mean by that is I've NEVER owned a center fire semi-auto that wasn't polymer framed, striker fired and held at least a small handful of rounds. But I've also owned a bunch of different steel framed 6-shot revolvers. And currently I can open the cabinet and have an even selection between the two when I want to go shooting or carry something.

There's a good chance my next pistol purchase will be a steel-framed Commander-sized 1911, a nice, solid chunk of machined metal tossing big bullets. But I don't think it has "soul" or is in any way "superior" to the Glock I've had the past 12 years either. Just different, which makes it interesting. I can make 50-yd hits on an IDPA target with either kind of pistol (and a DA revolver) so shootability and usability are a wash in my mind.

And before somebody comes along and tells me the 1911 has the best trigger and nothing else will suffice (I agree with point 1, but will debate point 2), so long as a trigger isn't absolutely horrendous, it can be worked. It has to be a really poor trigger (CZ-52, I'm looking in your direction) to be an acceptable excuse in my mind.

Glock Doctor
November 2, 2013, 08:39 AM
I know a lot of people regularly decry polymer framed and or striker fired guns. Why?

1. At the present time ALL polymer frame pistols have either a completely unknown, or completely unstated, 'half-life'. Nobody seems to know whether or not steel lasts longer than polymer, or polymer lasts longer than steel?

2. Polymer frames vibrate, violently, every time they're fired. Again, nobody knows, or nobody is saying, how much or for how long a polymer frame can vibrate BEFORE it begins to soften up and adversely effect slide operation and recoil?

I have noticed that law enforcement agencies tend to keep their polymer frame pistols for periods of time less than 10 years. These, 'million round torture tests' are, also, limited to strictly 9 x 19 millimeter chamberings. No one really knows how well, or not, other calibers might do?

3. I'm starting to suspect that time periods of less than 10 years, and usage of less than 35 to 45 thousand rounds might be the most reliable general operational norms for polymer frames.

4. No information is available to the general public on the potentially adverse effects of prolonged exposure to sunlight on anybody's polymer frame pistols. All that is generally known is that sunlight will eventually destroy polymer. (Black polymer deteriorates more slowly than other colors.)

5. Manufacturing cost factors make the excessive, and too often inappropriate use of MIM parts attractive to the makers of polymer frames. In the present marketplace everybody's polymer frame pistols strongly suggest the use of MIM parts - Many with only marginal operating characteristics and reliability. (Yes, I know Charlie Petty likes MIM parts. I like them too - Just not so much excessive, inappropriate, and questionable use.)

6. Polymer frame pistols represent a relatively new manufacturing technology. Too often it's the general public who ends up spending their money, and becoming marketplace, 'laboratory animals' for the plastic gun manufacturers to experiment with.

SERIOUS problems with polymer frame pistols have already happened to me 3 times during the past 11 years; and I continue to marvel at the amazing lack of awareness or concern I witness on just about any internet gun forum. The general attitude seems to be, 'Go ahead and screw me; I love it!'

Decades ago I learned that skillful advertising is able to compensate for a multitude of product faults; and, when it comes to polymer frame pistols this marketplace phenomenon has never been more true. Other than these considerations polymer frame/striker-fired pistols are fine with me. (You just have to find the right one!) :D

bikemutt
November 2, 2013, 09:22 AM
Are you two making assumptions or trying to be funny.

I have had the MP9c with the 12 rnd mags for 4 yrs and is my primary. Ive also had a BHP since 94.

As compared to a metal framed gun.... polymer guns are more top heavy.
Well, an element of humor was included but, from what I've observed many folks decide if a gun is balanced by handling it at a gun counter. Polymer guns under those circumstances do tend to feel top-heavy (really they are bottom-light), the slide and barrel are still obviously made of steel and weigh more or less the same as a comparable steel gun.

Once a polymer gun is loaded (usually with a greater number of rounds of ammo than a steel gun), it then becomes more balanced, at least until one starts to shoot it, then it progressively moves back to being bottom-light.

In any event, when I judge a high capacity semi-auto's balance, I try to imagine what it's going to feel like when loaded since that's when the gun is useful, otherwise it's just an expensive rock.

verdun59
November 2, 2013, 09:30 AM
Interesting discussion, but I have to say I'm a bit puzzled about the loooong trigger pull on the striker fired guns. The reason that I say that is because my XD9 with the PRP trigger is about a hair (your choice) away from the highly acclaimed and adored 1911, with zero over travel as a bonus.

Hangingrock
November 2, 2013, 09:58 AM
Esthetics but functionality has a beauty all of its own. Functionally should be the most important attribute of a design that's the virtue of the striker fired pistol a long with the polymer frame material selection. Not to be over looked is cost effectiveness from the manufacture and consumers view point.

kimbershot
November 2, 2013, 10:14 AM
bought my first plastic handgun (xds 45). never thought i'd do it--but a move south prompted the change. the xds--light, more concealable and with the heat down here--more comfortable.

WaywardSon
November 2, 2013, 10:43 AM
While I am pretty much a revolver guy, I do own a few semi-autos. Only one of those is polymer framed or striker fired, a Glock 20. There is not much I "like" about the Glock. It is ugly, grip is huge, trigger is nothing to brag about & the "safe action" is not in my opinion, safe. So, why do I own it? Simple...it shines in the role it was developed for. In a self defense situation there is nothing better. Dead reliable, plenty accurate, and a lot of firepower in that package. If I feel the need to have something on my hip, the Glock is likely to get the call. I don't have to like it to appreciate it's virtues & be willing to use them.

huntsman
November 2, 2013, 11:58 AM
If you dislike polymer so much why wouldn't you buy an NAA Guardian instead of the LCP?


There are still quite a few all metal handguns available for $500 or less. Your belief that plastic frames are a rip off is completely unfounded though. If your fellow gun owners are as gullible as you think they are, then they're in the vast majority. Do you really think the American gun buying market is that foolish?
I haven't found the NAA locally yet or I would buy it.

Gullible in the sense that today's gun buyer seems all to willing to pay what the gun manufacturer wants, I don't believe we have the pricing pressure on the gun market (from the buyer) as we used to.

The gun industry was pretty stagnate for over a 100 years and now it seems we're moving into a plastic dominated market, with these profound changes it's natural that luddites like myself will pull back, but truth is IF I never buy another gun I'd still die a satisfied gun guy so I leave this issue to those who will actively participate in the future gun market.

FWIW I believe the growth in the plastic gun demand is a direct result in the growth in the CC movement, is this a lasting move or a fad ? time will tell.




Ah, so there is a place for polymer guns.

yeah I guess, I use a BIC but with the understanding that I'll throw it away when it's used up, I view the LCP the same way.

Quentin
November 2, 2013, 01:13 PM
I carried a Colt Series '70 Government Model for 36 years. Still love it and my other steel and walnut guns. But have to say I'm pleased with my Glock 23 and 27 now. There's a place for both types in any good arsenal. It doesn't hurt to open your mind and try out what's in common use today. I'm glad I did.

Vodoun da Vinci
November 2, 2013, 01:51 PM
I have learned to appreciate and even relish the polymer and striker fired pistols. Could *not* get my brain and "feel" wrapped around the concept until I purchased a Glock 26 and really got down and dirty with it with about 1000 rounds. Now I have the appreciation and will soon own 3 polymer framed guns to play with.

I doubt they will ever replace my intense love of Browning designed pistols from 100 years ago - nothing feels and shoots like my 1903 Model M's and 1911 .45 ACP's. The all steel pistols have a feeling and precision polymer will never achieve.

Let's face it...the polymer guns have become popular because they are effective tools but the precision, hand fitting of the all metal guns is simply too expensive and too labor intensive to be affordable today and in the future. There used to be work places full of skilled metalworkers to fit and finish (by hand in many cases) all steel pistols and there simply is not that level of craftsmen in general practice today.

Polymer will be the rule now because all steel is too expensive in terms of manufacture and final fit and finish. Polymer guns are cheap and fast and plenty good enough to appeal.

I wonder how many Glocks will be at the range or being carried and collected in 95 years like my Colt Model M's that still draw a crowd at the range? I wonder if they do survive that long if anyone will get all giddy about being allowed to handle and shoot one at the range like they do with the old Colt pocket pistols I have?

I'm cool with polymer but they will always be "economy cars" to me...cheap and effective and when the round count gets too high we'll pitch 'em in the trash and buy another plastic pistol. I love 'em like Harbor Freight tools...cheap and effective. But they ain't goosebump-proud-to-own-and-show pistols for me.

Well....maybe my new Beretta Px4 SC. :what::neener:

VooDoo

ugaarguy
November 2, 2013, 02:11 PM
Gullible in the sense that today's gun buyer seems all to willing to pay what the gun manufacturer wants, I don't believe we have the pricing pressure on the gun market (from the buyer) as we used to.
The facts contradict your opinion. MSRP on the Glock 17 was $595 in 1993, which is $964 now when adjusted for inflation. Yet, MSRP on the Glock 17 has only risen to $620. Market pressure has kept the S&W SD VE series (the current evolution of the Sigma) at $320 street price. Despite overall US market inflation inflation and the recent firearms demand spike, that's essentially the same as the Sigma's 1998 street price of $300. Having working in firearms retail I can also tell you that there's very little profit in the guns themselves. If you want to make money in the gun industry sell ammo and accessories. Having also worked in big box retail I can tell you that even ammo and gun accessory margins are a joke compared to shoes and clothes. The US consumer market has massive leverage on gun prices.

I believe the growth in the plastic gun demand is a direct result in the growth in the CC movement, is this a lasting move or a fad ? time will tell.
If the expansion of concealed carry is a fad it's a nearly 20 year old one.

I use a BIC but with the understanding that I'll throw it away when it's used up, I view the LCP the same way.
That really shows an ignorance of plastics on your part. There are Glock pistols from the early 80s that are still completely serviceable. There are countless M16 and AR-15 butt stocks and hand guards from the 70s and earlier that are still in service. Comparing a plastic gun frame from a major manufacturer to a disposable ink pen is the same as comparing a metal gun frame to a piece of aluminum foil. They're both metal, but that's where the similarities end.

kokapelli
November 2, 2013, 02:31 PM
I'm cool with polymer but they will always be "economy cars" to me...cheap and effective and when the round count gets too high we'll pitch 'em in the trash and buy another plastic pistol.
Polymers are being used extensively in the most expensive cars because it is lighter and just performs better in certain areas of a car than metal.

Zeeemu
November 2, 2013, 03:08 PM
I appreciate the beauty of finely crafted steel and quality hardwood stocks/grips but still enjoy my Nylon 66 and XP100.

huntsman
November 2, 2013, 03:31 PM
That really shows an ignorance of plastics on your part.

No it shows my real feeling about this gun, I'll use it till I'm done with it then pitch it, no sense passing it down because I doubt it'll have any real value. That's what all plastic guns are BIC's to me you may not like it but that don't change my reality.

If the expansion of concealed carry is a fad it's a nearly 20 year old one.

ok 20 years and what about 30 years of plastic? lets check back in another twenty years.

Sam1911
November 2, 2013, 03:54 PM
There's a complete false economy in the "will it last a century?" argument. How many rounds could you have put through a Glock 17 if you bought it in 1982? Let's say you only put 5,000 rounds downrange a year and they're all through that one gun.

That's 155,000 rounds. There are Glocks that have gone more than that without anything at all wrong with the frame or slide or most other parts. How's a 1911 or BHP or (LOL!) S&W Model 19 look after 155,000 rounds? Any better than that Glock? Require more or less service to keep running? Which one is closest to the end of the frame's service life?

Now if we're talking about a life of retirement as an artifact, sitting on a shelf somewhere for those three decades? Well...if the Glock's still running (and they are) I guess it passes that test. What about after a century? Well, at that point who knows? Wood and rubber and other gun materials (besides steel) certainly do dry and crack and warp over time, so that is a problem for a great many guns.

Polymers are damaged by UV rays, though gun polymers are stabilized against that kind of damage, so you probably shouldn't leave one laying outside exposed to the elements for years. Of course, what would your 1911 look like if you treated it like that?

All this to say, there's really no reason to decry polymer/striker guns as heirlooms just because steel guns have traditionally filled that role. Sure, when you're done with it you can toss it out. Your kids will call you an idiot, but I won't! Promise!

:D

Fiv3r
November 2, 2013, 04:10 PM
Like all guns:)

I have several steel hammer fired guns in the cabinet, but my HD and daily carry pieces are either striker fired polymer or a stainless wheel gun. I just don't see a downside to them short of aesthetics. They work:)

I look after my guns, clean them, and keep them ALL put away and safely stored. I don't doubt my 1911s AND my Glocks will be shooting just fine when my grandkids inherit them in, hopefully, a half century.

Vodoun da Vinci
November 2, 2013, 06:01 PM
Polymers are being used extensively in the most expensive cars because it is lighter and just performs better in certain areas of a car than metal.

Agreed. That's why I added the "for me..." context. I'm a lover of both types and voted that way. I prefer all steel but that's just like preferring red headed women.

for me, red headed women are the hottest. ;)

VooDoo

kokapelli
November 2, 2013, 06:57 PM
Agreed. That's why I added the "for me..." context. I'm a lover of both types and voted that way. I prefer all steel but that's just like preferring red headed women.

for me, red headed women are the hottest. ;)

VooDoo
Personally I prefer black hair.:)

TestPilot
November 2, 2013, 07:07 PM
Do not really care.

I have handled good feeling metal frame pistols and crappy feeling mefal frame pistols.

I have also handled both good and crappy feeling plastic framed pistols.

Most metal frame pistols come with plastic or rubber wrap around type grips, so I end up touching polymer anyway. The only reason why I'd specifically want metal frame pistol is when I want the gun to be heavy for recoil control.

aka108
November 2, 2013, 07:09 PM
I own both types. No real favorites. When I go shooting I just look at them and go by the whim that hits me. The only real horror story I've heard about polymer gun was from a guy shooting a the range I use. He had several Glocks with him. Said he had a retriever dog that had played and chewed on plastic toys all his life. One night the guy laid one of his Glocks on the coffee table, left it there rather than putting it up and went bed. Seems the dog sniffed the Glock out and took it to his bed and spent the night chewing the thing up. Guy said it was barely recognizable. Dog came out OK and the guy was really PO'ed at himself.

huntsman
November 2, 2013, 09:31 PM
All this to say, there's really no reason to decry polymer/striker guns as heirlooms just because steel guns have traditionally filled that role. Sure, when you're done with it you can toss it out. Your kids will call you an idiot, but I won't! Promise!


When you manufacture something in an economical process as is plastic there's no reason to ever run out of frames, maintain the mold and all should be the same forever.

That's not the case with machining metal, we can't economically reproduce a lot of what used to be made, but plastic frames can be pumped out of some little Podunk Chinese village for the next hundred years, No Heirloom there.

Tirod
November 2, 2013, 09:40 PM
Old internet pics of a German shepherd and his toy Glock with the grip chewed off come to mind.

Can't say many metal frames suffer that kind of abuse. Have to chalk one up there.

kokapelli
November 2, 2013, 09:56 PM
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1361/taurusrustedbusted.jpgOld internet pics of a German shepherd and his toy Glock with the grip chewed off come to mind.

Can't say many metal frames suffer that kind of abuse. Have to chalk one up there.
Yes that's true and then we have this with metal frames....

cfullgraf
November 2, 2013, 10:58 PM
Borchardt C-93, P08 Luger, Colt 1903, Colt 1908, and FN 1910; but those are all old even compared to the HK P7. Does the now defunct CCF Race Frames aluminum frame for Glocks count in the all metal striker fired category?

Actually, the Colt 1903 and 1908 are traditional hammer fired semi-autos.

They are called hammerless because the slide shrouds the hammer.

It is not a unique design, there are others with shrouded hammers.

I am happy with my S&W polymer M&Ps (striker fired) and Kel-Tec P3-AT (polymer hammer fired).

But like some others, I like them all.

ugaarguy
November 3, 2013, 01:16 AM
Thanks for the correction cfullgraf. I somehow mixed the Colts in with the FN 1910 in some corner of my brain.

ugaarguy
November 3, 2013, 01:51 AM
When you manufacture something in an economical process as is plastic there's no reason to ever run out of frames, maintain the mold and all should be the same forever.
Molds don't last forever. Even plastic molds have a service life. Sorry to burst yout bubble again.
That's not the case with machining metal, we can't economically reproduce a lot of what used to be made, but plastic frames can be pumped out of some little Podunk Chinese village for the next hundred years, No Heirloom there.
Yet, before the US ban on importation of Chinese handguns, the Norinco 1911 was regarded by many master gunsmiths as one of the best base guns to build off. The Chinese do other metal manufacturing that would also blow your mind.

12131
November 3, 2013, 02:14 AM
Nothing wrong with either. Personal preference only.
Exactly! Folks can argue until the cows come home, but in the end, that's all it is.

Ash
November 3, 2013, 07:14 AM
Angels and pin heads. But, I really hate when plastic-striker fans try to act like they are somehow wiser or smarter because of their choice, as if in doing so, they validate their own choices and intellectual superiority. I don't compete in pistol competitions so frankly competitors are irrelevant to me.

A post on the first page even smacks of elitism "There are a lot of traditional gun owners out there who cling to steel and wood, and can't/won't join the 21st century." Eh, really? Like clinging to guns and God? You do know that striker-fired comes to us from the 19th century, poly guns from 40 years ago, and nothing on any handgun is newer than that, right?

I don't like polymer striker-fired guns and yet I carry. I carry in forests and swamps - I'm a forester. I also have a Master's degree and while my watch is a wind-up and my cell phone does nothing but send and receive calls, these things are choices I make based on personal requirements made for solid reasons. I can't wear quartz because of a funky bio electrical system that makes them unreliable. I think only fools would carry a phone that is approaching the size of the bag phone I used to keep in the truck. I don't actually want to browse the internet away from home - I have a life that does not revolve around the internet (an ironic statement of course because I type this post here).

I carry revolvers or pistols made of steel and wood with the only polymer being perhaps the finish or the grips. Why? I do know about polymers and the fact they do degrade all on their own. Sure, torture tests and the like have shown poly pistols last a long time, but who has worn out a Ruger Police Service Six??? My Springfield P9 is going like a champ despite being 20 years old, my Colt Trooper is 40, my hunting rifle is 50 and my shotgun is 80 years old. They all work great. They all STILL work great.

But, I buy tools to last forever. I use Trimco pipe wrenches, my newest is 100 years old, because not only are they among the best-made wrenches, they are designed to be repaired. I don't actually WANT to throw something away. I don't WANT to use something up and discard it unless it is a styrofoam cup or a wooden pencil.

I use Williams wrenches because I want to use them until I die. They will still work for my son. I could get cheaper wrenches that will wear out, but why on earth would I want to? Why would I buy a wrench and blithely declare that it is okay if it lasts only as long as me, I won't need it later anyway when I could get a tool that WILL last that long, and longer? I still can use my great grandfather's cross-cut saw as well as his bit-and-brace and clocks. I keep time with a mantle clock that predates anyone living today. Yeah, quartz is more accurate - as long as the battery runs and I haven't had a quartz clock last more than a decade before throwing away and replacing. My clock radio died a few weeks back, and it was 30 years old.

My point? I do buy tools (and handguns are tools) that last forever when I can. That does not make me some kind of backwards hermit. I don't buy to throw away and that does not a fool make me. My specific reasons are reasoned, intelligent, and with solid merit. And my choices have YET to let me down. I don't give a rat's butt about what competitors use as I don't carry for target sport. You know, I don't wear Under Armor cleats even though professional football players do. Imagine that.

But beyond that, I have a more solid reason for my choices - and remember I do actually carry. I like hammer-fired single-action pistols because they operate exactly like my rifles and shotguns. There are just about no "safe action" long arms. Since I am already used to using a rifle and shotgun that require safeties, that operate using a hammer, why on earth would I want something that didn't? Most here accepts that rifles and shotguns make better defensive weapons than pistols, so it seems most here have nothing wrong with safeties and hammers, which seems that most here are clinging to the 19th century after all. Who uses double action hunting rifles? Shotguns? Carbines? Everyone who goes to a 3-gun event with a Glock and an AR has already conceded the merits of single-action hammer-fired firearms with safeties. I just like to remain consistent with what I shoot.

I don't like either striker-fired or poly-framed pistols (or combinations of both). You do? Fine by me, I won't call you names. Manufacturers go that route because they offer a much higher profit than the more expensive-to-make traditional models. You don't like what I like? Okay, fine by me, too. You think I am clinging to the 20th century (eh, we all cling to that period, but that's fine by me) by my choice (and by extension, that makes me somehow backwards) okay, too.

Congratulate yourself on your wisdom and smarts. I'll be out back shooting my equally reliable arms.

kokapelli
November 3, 2013, 08:24 AM
Angels and pin heads. But, I really hate when plastic-striker fans try to act like they are somehow wiser or smarter because of their choice, as if in doing so, they validate their own choices and intellectual superiority. I don't compete in pistol competitions so frankly competitors are irrelevant to me.

A post on the first page even smacks of elitism "There are a lot of traditional gun owners out there who cling to steel and wood, and can't/won't join the 21st century." Eh, really? Like clinging to guns and God? You do know that striker-fired comes to us from the 19th century, poly guns from 40 years ago, and nothing on any handgun is newer than that, right?

I don't like polymer striker-fired guns and yet I carry. I carry in forests and swamps - I'm a forester. I also have a Master's degree and while my watch is a wind-up and my cell phone does nothing but send and receive calls, these things are choices I make based on personal requirements made for solid reasons. I can't wear quartz because of a funky bio electrical system that makes them unreliable. I think only fools would carry a phone that is approaching the size of the bag phone I used to keep in the truck. I don't actually want to browse the internet away from home - I have a life that does not revolve around the internet (an ironic statement of course because I type this post here).

I carry revolvers or pistols made of steel and wood with the only polymer being perhaps the finish or the grips. Why? I do know about polymers and the fact they do degrade all on their own. Sure, torture tests and the like have shown poly pistols last a long time, but who has worn out a Ruger Police Service Six??? My Springfield P9 is going like a champ despite being 20 years old, my Colt Trooper is 40, my hunting rifle is 50 and my shotgun is 80 years old. They all work great. They all STILL work great.

But, I buy tools to last forever. I use Trimco pipe wrenches, my newest is 100 years old, because not only are they among the best-made wrenches, they are designed to be repaired. I don't actually WANT to throw something away. I don't WANT to use something up and discard it unless it is a styrofoam cup or a wooden pencil.

I use Williams wrenches because I want to use them until I die. They will still work for my son. I could get cheaper wrenches that will wear out, but why on earth would I want to? Why would I buy a wrench and blithely declare that it is okay if it lasts only as long as me, I won't need it later anyway when I could get a tool that WILL last that long, and longer? I still can use my great grandfather's cross-cut saw as well as his bit-and-brace and clocks. I keep time with a mantle clock that predates anyone living today. Yeah, quartz is more accurate - as long as the battery runs and I haven't had a quartz clock last more than a decade before throwing away and replacing. My clock radio died a few weeks back, and it was 30 years old.

My point? I do buy tools (and handguns are tools) that last forever when I can. That does not make me some kind of backwards hermit. I don't buy to throw away and that does not a fool make me. My specific reasons are reasoned, intelligent, and with solid merit. And my choices have YET to let me down. I don't give a rat's butt about what competitors use as I don't carry for target sport. You know, I don't wear Under Armor cleats even though professional football players do. Imagine that.

But beyond that, I have a more solid reason for my choices - and remember I do actually carry. I like hammer-fired single-action pistols because they operate exactly like my rifles and shotguns. There are just about no "safe action" long arms. Since I am already used to using a rifle and shotgun that require safeties, that operate using a hammer, why on earth would I want something that didn't? Most here accepts that rifles and shotguns make better defensive weapons than pistols, so it seems most here have nothing wrong with safeties and hammers, which seems that most here are clinging to the 19th century after all. Who uses double action hunting rifles? Shotguns? Carbines? Everyone who goes to a 3-gun event with a Glock and an AR has already conceded the merits of single-action hammer-fired firearms with safeties. I just like to remain consistent with what I shoot.

I don't like either striker-fired or poly-framed pistols (or combinations of both). You do? Fine by me, I won't call you names. Manufacturers go that route because they offer a much higher profit than the more expensive-to-make traditional models. You don't like what I like? Okay, fine by me, too. You think I am clinging to the 20th century (eh, we all cling to that period, but that's fine by me) by my choice (and by extension, that makes me somehow backwards) okay, too.

Congratulate yourself on your wisdom and smarts. I'll be out back shooting my equally reliable arms.
I'm scratching my head here. You criticize other posters for and I quote, "I really hate when plastic-striker fans try to act like they are somehow wiser or smarter because of their choice, as if in doing so, they validate their own choices and intellectual superiority" and then you go on to use "I" 47 times!:rolleyes:

Ash
November 3, 2013, 08:31 AM
Eh, the whole point was that MY decisions are based on what I need and that MY decisions are based on reason and merit, not on some out-moded and desperate clinging to the past.

Reading comprehension I suppose is something I cling to as well, and this is only in response to your " :rolleyes: " and evident need to scratch your head. Note, I do not tear down poly guys or their decisions. I simply need no validation for what I like nor do I need permission from you. I firmly live in the 21st Century even though my house predates the Civil War.

RBid
November 3, 2013, 10:18 AM
This debate is silly.

That statement is my constructive addendum. I hope that others will benefit from it.

kokapelli
November 3, 2013, 10:48 AM
This debate is silly.

That statement is my constructive addendum. I hope that others will benefit from it.
To begin with it should not be a debate.

The question is "What's wrong with Polymer Frames and Striker fire systems?" and so far the only negative was that dogs might chew on the polymer and all the rest IMO are just personal choices.

Janos Dracwlya
November 3, 2013, 12:52 PM
For me, there's nothing actually "wrong" with them, I just prefer metal guns with conventional hammers. I'll go for a polymer-framed gun with a hammer (I have a couple) over a striker-fired gun.

Ash
November 3, 2013, 01:23 PM
Kokaspell, the same is true about any perceived advantage over metal frames and manual safeties. However, degradation of polymers over time is a real issue that has not been fully vetted. And as far as strikers go, most semi-auto long guns use hammers, most bolt actions use strikers. There is no inherent advantage of strikers over hammer-fired weapons nor is there any inherent inferiority of manual safeties.

Indeed, considering sidearms are not considered serious combat weapons compared to rifles or carbines, it would seem that serious combat arms use manual safeties and for the most part are hammer-fired.

Of course, in defensive pistols folks have different opinions, including those of us still firmly rooted in the stone ages.

PhotoBiker
November 3, 2013, 06:36 PM
I have a striker (M&P 9mm) that I have a love/hate relationship with. I would much rather have my Belgium Browning Hi Power back, but that was stolen years ago (I still have the firing pin too).

Next 9mm will have a hammer.

GaryP
November 4, 2013, 04:23 AM
I do not see anything wrong with either, but I prefer steel. ;)
I do not own any Striker fired pistols at this time, but own several Polymer and Aluminum alloy framed pistols.


:evil:

460Kodiak
November 4, 2013, 10:59 AM
It would be interesting to post this poll in the revolver section and see the results. I'd bet on seeing a lot more negative votes for poly and striker guns.

Big_John1961
November 4, 2013, 02:45 PM
I know a lot of people regularly decry polymer framed and or striker fired guns. Why?

Given their overwhelming popularity, I'm not sure where you're coming from. There's always someone somewhere who'll "decry" something, no matter the product you're discussing.

Big_John1961
November 4, 2013, 02:52 PM
Not at all, I'm just curious to see if there is a technical reason to prefer one over the other.

So far it appears that the all metal crowd just like the looks, or feel, or tradition of all metal guns.

I personally am quickly moving to polymer because they are lighter, frames don't rust and recoil seems to better absorbed by the polymer frame, but I do own a few all metal guns that I like very much and will probably never carry or sell.

Consistency of the trigger pull plays a big part in why many can shoot the "plastic fantastics" better (I like that, Sam). Trigger control is an important part of shooting well and not having to adapt to the change from DA to SA can make a difference. I like both, but would probably choose a striker-fired pistol if I could only have one handgun. Weight and the flat profile of the guns also plays in their favor.

Big_John1961
November 4, 2013, 03:12 PM
To me they are just mediocre guns. horrible triggers, "combat" accurate, pathetic sights, etc. etc. There is a reason there is such a huge aftermarket for these guns....

Ive owned poly guns from SW, Sig, HK, Glock and while most functioned well enough.. There is nothing spectacular about them. Nothing at all that makes me say, Wow I like this gun..
If "combat accuracy" is good enough for soldiers in battle, which is what I'm assuming you mean, then it's good enough for me. I own multiple pistols of the SA/DA all metal and polymer striker fired variety and can discern no appreciable difference in accuracy between any of them. If you're talking about a pimped out competition 1911, fine, but when comparing production guns I see no difference.

Go watch some YouTube vids of Hickok45 hitting his gong at 80 yds (and all of the teensy-weensy targets in between) with a Kahr PM9 any number of Glocks or any pistol of any type for that matter if you want to see someone dispel the notion that poly guns are not accurate. Accuracy comes down to the shooter, plain and simple. I think all of this is just some folks hanging on to the guns of their youth or something.

I have and love both and probably always will, but I refuse to disparage one for the other, because my own experience tells me both styles can be outstanding.

Big_John1961
November 4, 2013, 03:27 PM
Gullible in the sense that today's gun buyer seems all to willing to pay what the gun manufacturer wants, I don't believe we have the pricing pressure on the gun market (from the buyer) as we used to.

And you base this on what, your own extensive research?

Quentin
November 4, 2013, 03:41 PM
There's a complete false economy in the "will it last a century?" argument. How many rounds could you have put through a Glock 17 if you bought it in 1982? Let's say you only put 5,000 rounds downrange a year and they're all through that one gun.

That's 155,000 rounds. There are Glocks that have gone more than that without anything at all wrong with the frame or slide or most other parts. How's a 1911 or BHP or (LOL!) S&W Model 19 look after 155,000 rounds? Any better than that Glock? Require more or less service to keep running? Which one is closest to the end of the frame's service life?

Now if we're talking about a life of retirement as an artifact, sitting on a shelf somewhere for those three decades? Well...if the Glock's still running (and they are) I guess it passes that test. What about after a century? Well, at that point who knows? Wood and rubber and other gun materials (besides steel) certainly do dry and crack and warp over time, so that is a problem for a great many guns.

Polymers are damaged by UV rays, though gun polymers are stabilized against that kind of damage, so you probably shouldn't leave one laying outside exposed to the elements for years. Of course, what would your 1911 look like if you treated it like that?

All this to say, there's really no reason to decry polymer/striker guns as heirlooms just because steel guns have traditionally filled that role. Sure, when you're done with it you can toss it out. Your kids will call you an idiot, but I won't! Promise!

:D

I certainly agree with this. I have a 1913 P08 Luger that likely has less than 20,000 rounds over those 100 years. (I've had it nearly 40 of those years and doubt I've put over 5,000 through it.) No doubt a very high round count would have required very many replacement parts! (Including major components like the barrel and frame.)

Most steel frame/receiver firearms that are approaching a century in age and still function do not have an extremely high round count. And I do carefully inspect my Luger's barrel after each outing.

kokapelli
November 4, 2013, 03:56 PM
I certainly agree with this. I have a 1913 P08 Luger that likely has less than 20,000 rounds over those 100 years. (I've had it nearly 40 of those years and doubt I've put over 5,000 through it.) No doubt a very high round count would have required very many replacement parts! (Including major components like the barrel and frame.)

Most steel frame/receiver firearms that are approaching a century in age and still function do not have an extremely high round count. And I do carefully inspect my Luger's barrel after each outing.
I have a P3AT that finally failed after we'll over 3000 rounds and it wasn't the polymer frame that failed, it was one of the metal rails that finally gave out.

jrdolall
November 4, 2013, 04:12 PM
I took a lady shooting yesterday and don't remember the exact number of handguns we carried but she shot every one from little 22s up to a full size 1911. This was a ground up lesson with grip and stance and sighting and everything in between as she hadn't fired a gun in about ten years and never had fired a pistol, just shotguns and deer rifles. Here's what she had to say bout some guns.
She didn't really care for the KT pistols but she shot them fairly well and handled the "snappiness" with no issue. Walther P-22 was about the same.
She really liked the Browning Buckmark but then who doesn't. Said it "felt better" in her hand.
She really liked the Kimber 1911 for the same reason. Solid and "felt powerful".
She absolutely loved the Colt Trooper in 357 and the Colt Detective in 38 though we fired 38 in both guns.

I agree with her that shooting those steel guns "feels better". Meanwhile I carry a P3aT most of the time. Not because it feels better but because it disappears in my pocket, is 100% reliable and I shoot it well at 10 yards.

Her expression shooting an AK-74 and an AR-15 are for a different forum.

Nuclear
November 4, 2013, 07:02 PM
They are "OK", but not great. Why are the triggers on all polymer guns worse than metal guns?? I have a Kahr P9 I carry, and the trigger on that is worse than the steel framed K9 guns. The trigger on my HK P7 is better than any polymer HK I've ever handled.

Personally I think hammers are safer than strikers, due to the visibility (in most cases) and there seems to be more issues with strikers, probably because hammer mechanisms have been around longer.

Mike J
November 4, 2013, 07:12 PM
Personally I own steel framed, polymer framed and one aluminum alloy framed semi-autos. There are different things to like about each of them in my opinion. While I can understand why some prefer steel & wood there are things to like about polymer also. I guess I just like guns.

TSH77769
November 5, 2013, 12:45 AM
Polymer farmed striker fired pistols are the best and are the way of the future.

Glock
S&W M&P
Steyr
Kahr
Bersa

etc. etc.

tsh77769

Deus Machina
November 5, 2013, 05:01 AM
Maybe polymer varies more than metal, so they allow more tolerances in the trigger to compensate? I dunno.

I don't find anything inherently wrong with either design or material, but I will say that metal-framed guns have just felt better to me, and the Ruger SR9 is the only striker-fired pistol I've ever found that feels anything remotely near good for me.

Ash
November 5, 2013, 06:16 AM
"Polymer farmed striker fired pistols are the best and are the way of the future."

A brave new world, eh?

Devilfrog
November 5, 2013, 07:50 AM
I have polymer and steel guns, love em both. But for concealed carry I tend to stay with polymers due to weight/capacity and sweat resistance (gets hot here in Florida). At home its a 1911 at my bedside.

Sam1911
November 5, 2013, 07:52 AM
A brave new world? Something like that.

As I said elsewhere...

"They are proving themselves to be the "bestest for the mostest." Hitting the sweet spot between safety, accuracy, shootability, reliability, value, etc. That's really how the shooting world changes, you know, when people try things in massive numbers, spread over the whole country, shooting in many different styles and venues, and very large percentages of them find that they succeed more easily and faster with a gun like "x" than with another gun like "y." Glock didn't take over the handgun world with slick police marketing. S&W didn't steal a huge chunk out of Glock's market share by underselling them and good advertising. These things work VERY well for MANY people. BETTER than previous designs. When folks realize that they can do competition, daily carry, LEO duties, etc., etc., BETTER with the plastic fantastic than their old steel DA-first-shot boat anchor."

To which someone replied...
Also remember that a lot of old guys on this board remember narrow ties, then wide ties, then narrow ties again. For the ladies, hemlines go up, hemlines go down, then go back up again. DA/SA was the new thing, now striker fired pistols are in fashion. May we all live long enough to see which way the fashion winds blow again.

Giving me the opportunity to offer as counterpoint:

"That supposes, of course, that the design of mechanical devices is subject entirely to the whims of fashion and does not actually progress toward perfection. (Not the Glock advertising slogan, but rather the unattainable but approachable goal of all refinement.)

That's not something I agree with.

As we study ergonomics, kinesiology, the refinement of shooting training and technique, and even psychology, I believe that we trend toward a smaller and smaller set of deviations clustered around a "bestest for the mostest" theoretical perfect design.

So, no, I really don't think we're going to wander randomly around the spectrum of service handguns and one decade find that DA/SAs are at the top of the heap again, and then three decades further on the best shooters are favoring revolvers, and then next century it's back to SA autos. I don't believe that any more than I believe we'll be riding steam locomotives again soon, or we'll drift back toward rotary-dial telephones and those "penny farthing" bicycles with the one huge wheel up front."

Tirod
November 5, 2013, 09:08 AM
Despite the common understanding of how combat handguns should be set up, the Marine Corps decided to issue newly made 1911's all tac'd out. I scratched my head on that one for a while. I figured they would just use M9's or Sigs.

Nope. Brave new world or not, they went SA single stack. Now, why would they do that when the trend for 75 years has been away from it?

First - tactics. You don't go into a firefight with just a pistol. You take some form of M16, however short or long needed, DI or piston. That includes the Marines new light machine gun, which is actually a heavy M16.

What the Marines did is place the auto pistol in the lineup of combat tools where it belongs - and it's NOT in combat, ie, on patrol in hostile territory. That's a job for a rifle, and it has been for the last 200 years.

Nope, what the pistol does is personal defense in close quarters when the rifle is a disadvantage - or unavailable. We're seeing it carried on R&R, inside the wire, or green zones. Which, as we all know, aren't. They just mostly are. There is still a threat, and the 'stans who flip and start shooting aren't being ignored.

No different than sitting in a movie theater or going to the mall. Soldiers still need weapons. Since those altercations aren't free fire zones, and the individuals can't take their rifles, they need something to handle those specific threats. And a SA single stack pistol is suited to the job.

What we are seeing as the dawn of a new age is thinking about what tool to use for the job rather than slavishly copying an eccentric view that a combat pistol is used in trench warfare. What evolved from WW1 was DA double stack, and lots of engineers jumped on the bandwagon to solve the problems. It was the adolescence of auto pistol design, how much can we stuff into this package? Well, all that and full auto, too. The only real limit is the caliber and performance - big magazines and a forward grip were even included.

But that isn't necessarily what is needed. What we get in the hands of users is a lot of ammo capacity and a propensity to use it. How many NY cops does it take to shoot a perp? Just one - the rest of the squad seems to hit the innocent bystanders. More than a dozen hits on the intended target, and half a dozen in the crowd.

Which in the case of statistics tends to fly in the face of reality - armed conflict on the streets is more a matter of three feet, three seconds, three shots. No, that's not a guarantee, but it highlights the point - you can carry a cocked and locked SA single stack pistol with a 100 year old design and it meets the job requirements. A high cap DA gun is nice to have for that 1 in 100 situation.

The brave new world has been the last 25 years as the LEO's traded in their 6 shot revolvers and started using 19 shot auto pistols. It has had it's detractions - the plastic DA guns must have trigger guard holsters, they don't have any other safety to prevent the user reflexively pressing the trigger at the wrong time, and they are bigger and heavier overall. What were the Europeans doing just prior to that? Issued interesting new designs in single stack like the P7. They had already looked at DA double stacks and it wasn't a big sell for them in daily carry.

Now, the hottest used gun on the market for CCW is the P7. The price is reaching past it's retail and still going up. The 1911 is selling like hotcakes, and even SIG has come out with a compact 9mm on that design.

Nope, the brave new world ahead of us is putting the overstuffed heavy trigger guns back in the safe and carrying a light single stack with SA trigger that is a short, crisp, and easy to pull when needed.

Polymer DA being the wave of the brave new future? Been there, done that, the boring everyday reality on the hip of nearly every cop in the USA. Millions have been sold for decades.

The brave new future is SA single stack. Or, at least the Marines think so.

kokapelli
November 5, 2013, 09:28 AM
Despite the common understanding of how combat handguns should be set up, the Marine Corps decided to issue newly made 1911's all tac'd out. I scratched my head on that one for a while. I figured they would just use M9's or Sigs.

Nope. Brave new world or not, they went SA single stack. Now, why would they do that when the trend for 75 years has been away from it?

First - tactics. You don't go into a firefight with just a pistol. You take some form of M16, however short or long needed, DI or piston. That includes the Marines new light machine gun, which is actually a heavy M16.

What the Marines did is place the auto pistol in the lineup of combat tools where it belongs - and it's NOT in combat, ie, on patrol in hostile territory. That's a job for a rifle, and it has been for the last 200 years.

Nope, what the pistol does is personal defense in close quarters when the rifle is a disadvantage - or unavailable. We're seeing it carried on R&R, inside the wire, or green zones. Which, as we all know, aren't. They just mostly are. There is still a threat, and the 'stans who flip and start shooting aren't being ignored.

No different than sitting in a movie theater or going to the mall. Soldiers still need weapons. Since those altercations aren't free fire zones, and the individuals can't take their rifles, they need something to handle those specific threats. And a SA single stack pistol is suited to the job.

What we are seeing as the dawn of a new age is thinking about what tool to use for the job rather than slavishly copying an eccentric view that a combat pistol is used in trench warfare. What evolved from WW1 was DA double stack, and lots of engineers jumped on the bandwagon to solve the problems. It was the adolescence of auto pistol design, how much can we stuff into this package? Well, all that and full auto, too. The only real limit is the caliber and performance - big magazines and a forward grip were even included.

But that isn't necessarily what is needed. What we get in the hands of users is a lot of ammo capacity and a propensity to use it. How many NY cops does it take to shoot a perp? Just one - the rest of the squad seems to hit the innocent bystanders. More than a dozen hits on the intended target, and half a dozen in the crowd.

Which in the case of statistics tends to fly in the face of reality - armed conflict on the streets is more a matter of three feet, three seconds, three shots. No, that's not a guarantee, but it highlights the point - you can carry a cocked and locked SA single stack pistol with a 100 year old design and it meets the job requirements. A high cap DA gun is nice to have for that 1 in 100 situation.

The brave new world has been the last 25 years as the LEO's traded in their 6 shot revolvers and started using 19 shot auto pistols. It has had it's detractions - the plastic DA guns must have trigger guard holsters, they don't have any other safety to prevent the user reflexively pressing the trigger at the wrong time, and they are bigger and heavier overall. What were the Europeans doing just prior to that? Issued interesting new designs in single stack like the P7. They had already looked at DA double stacks and it wasn't a big sell for them in daily carry.

Now, the hottest used gun on the market for CCW is the P7. The price is reaching past it's retail and still going up. The 1911 is selling like hotcakes, and even SIG has come out with a compact 9mm on that design.

Nope, the brave new world ahead of us is putting the overstuffed heavy trigger guns back in the safe and carrying a light single stack with SA trigger that is a short, crisp, and easy to pull when needed.

Polymer DA being the wave of the brave new future? Been there, done that, the boring everyday reality on the hip of nearly every cop in the USA. Millions have been sold for decades.

The brave new future is SA single stack. Or, at least the Marines think so.
the plastic DA guns must have trigger guard holsters, they don't have any other safety to prevent the user reflexively pressing the trigger at the wrong time, and they are bigger and heavier overall.
You must not be aware that some polymer guns like the SR9 series do have safeties.

"Bigger and heavier" hardly, that same SR9 that carries almost twice as many rounds as the 1911 is almost half the weight of an all Steel 1911.

Sam1911
November 5, 2013, 09:35 AM
The few 1911s the Marines are buying for the special forces are an interesting droplet in the ocean, to be sure! A great, HUGE, deal can and should be made over the 200,000+ Marines getting to wield ... well, up to about 5% of them at most (but in reality, less) getting to wield, maybe ... those 12,000 pistols. Comparing that against the deluging tide of history is a bit like saying the popularity of Lotus kit cars indicates that soon we'll all be giving up seat belts, air conditioning, and power steering.

Sam1911
November 5, 2013, 09:50 AM
No different than sitting in a movie theater or going to the mall. Soldiers still need weapons. Since those altercations aren't free fire zones, and the individuals can't take their rifles, they need something to handle those specific threats. And a SA single stack pistol is suited to the job. And that's exactly what this newly re-adopted 1911 WON'T be used for. But good point!

But that isn't necessarily what is needed. What we get in the hands of users is a lot of ammo capacity and a propensity to use it. How many NY cops does it take to shoot a perp? Just one - the rest of the squad seems to hit the innocent bystanders. More than a dozen hits on the intended target, and half a dozen in the crowd. This doesn't make a valid point, but it is droll in a "truthy" kind of way.

It is truly forward-thinking to say that, since sometimes folks shoot shots they shouldn't take, or miss the shots they should take, they should carry LESS ammo. It took generations of soldiers (dying) to get the Army to abandon their practically suicidal adherence to ammo conservation doctrines for the infantry man. (Refusing to adopt cartridge weapons over caplocks, repeaters vs. single-shot, mag disconnects, who needs an autoloader anyway?) But maybe it makes sense to limit ourselves so we ... what, won't be tempted to shoot until the threat is stopped? (This old line of thinking is a bit insulting as it logically suggests that folks make a conscious decision to take a lot of extra shots, or shoot randomly at unrelated targets, when they have a pile of extra ammo in the gun. In reality, the only result is that folks run out and then have an empty gun, whether the threat is stopped or not.)

Which in the case of statistics tends to fly in the face of reality - armed conflict on the streets is more a matter of three feet, three seconds, three shots. No, that's not a guarantee, but it highlights the point - you can carry a cocked and locked SA single stack pistol with a 100 year old design and it meets the job requirements. A high cap DA gun is nice to have for that 1 in 100 situation. Again, "truthy" but not true. Those statistics and theorizims have been discredited as not reflecting reality very well. Yeah, you can probably do the job just fine with a SA single-stack (and many do!) but it isn't BETTER to do so, inherently, and if folks -- generally, across society -- seem to make better hits, faster with a striker-fired polymer gun, then leave the SA for the specialist and the enthusiast. Don't force-feed it to the average Joe who's better served in another way.

The brave new world has been the last 25 years as the LEO's traded in their 6 shot revolvers and started using 19 shot auto pistols. It has had it's detractions - the plastic DA guns must have trigger guard holsters, they don't have any other safety to prevent the user reflexively pressing the trigger at the wrong time, and they are bigger and heavier overall.I'm sure this is merely meant to be ironic, but...
Neither Glocks, NOR REVOLVERS have "any other safety to prevent pressing the trigger at the wrong time."
And Glocks/M&Ps, etc. are not bigger and/or heavier than a standard service revolver in ANY important way. They're usually easier to carry and slimmer.

Nope, the brave new world ahead of us is putting the overstuffed heavy trigger guns back in the safe and carrying a light single stack with SA trigger that is a short, crisp, and easy to pull when needed. You should try a Glock or xD or M&P sometime. It will open your eyes and we'll all share a chuckle at this "heavy trigger" comment.

The brave new future is SA single stack. Or, at least the Marines think so.Naah. They bought a paltry few cool guns for their select few "go-fast" guys to play with. It means absolutely nothing in the big picture.

TestPilot
November 5, 2013, 11:26 AM
Nope. Brave new world or not, they went SA single stack. Now, why would they do that when the trend for 75 years has been away from it?

First - tactics. You don't go into a firefight with just a pistol. You take some form of M16, however short or long needed, DI or piston. That includes the Marines new light machine gun, which is actually a heavy M16.

What the Marines did is place the auto pistol in the lineup of combat tools where it belongs - and it's NOT in combat, ie, on patrol in hostile territory. That's a job for a rifle, and it has been for the last 200 years.

Soooo, you're saying single stack is fine because Marines will always have a long gun. But, AT THE SAME TIME, you are saying that a pistol is for when that long gun is not available or creates a disadvantage.

Am I the only person who see a paradox in that argument?


The bottom line is this:

It does not matter if I have a rifle with me. If I am shooting someone who is trying to kill me with a pistol, that 30 rounds I may or may not have in a my rifle is IRRELEVANT at the time. Only thing that matters at that moment is what I have in my pistol. That means more capacity the better, and presence of a rifle does not in any way negate the importance of pistol ammo capacity.

I am pretty sure that the 30 ~ 200 rounds in your box or drum rifle magazine, or may be the empty or jammed rifle slung over you, won't make you feel any better if your torn apart and dying in your pool of blood with your empty pistol in your hand when you transitioned to your pistol for whatever reason.

9mmepiphany
November 5, 2013, 12:40 PM
The brave new world has been the last 25 years as the LEO's traded in their 6 shot revolvers and started using 19 shot auto pistols. It has had it's detractions - the plastic DA guns must have trigger guard holsters, they don't have any other safety to prevent the user reflexively pressing the trigger at the wrong time, and they are bigger and heavier overall.
These two sections, plus...

Nope, the brave new world ahead of us is putting the overstuffed heavy trigger guns back in the safe and carrying a light single stack with SA trigger that is a short, crisp, and easy to pull when needed.
would lead me to believe either an overwhelming bias or a distorted view based on a lack of experience, while...

What were the Europeans doing just prior to that? Issued interesting new designs in single stack like the P7. They had already looked at DA double stacks and it wasn't a big sell for them in daily carry.
this would lead me to believe much of the opinion put forth is based on half-truths.

1. The only DA/SA (there were no DAO) pistol at the time of the German LE trials was the S&W M59...which wasn't submitted for the contract
2. The hadn't looked at double stack pistols because their LE had always carried single stack sidearms. The trials where held to replace the 7.65 calibre pistols then in used by most of LE
3. They specifically wanted DA/SA pistols, which disqualified the FN P-35, for the safety factor. The P7 almost wasn't allowed to enter the competition.
4. Only a couple of German agencies adopted the P7 (GSG-9, Bavaria), with most opting for the DA/SA SIG P6

anothernewb
November 5, 2013, 12:52 PM
I have nothing personally against them. polymer components are going to be more corrosion resistant than metal. I can grip them just fine. My buddy's XDm feels good in my hand with the right grip on it, But count me in among those that the darn triggers give me hell and I jerk them so badly you're in more danger standing beside me than in front of me if I shoot one.

But I can go back and forth between my smith 19 and my hipower and my 1911 with little issue - so I know I'm the oddball there.

KeithET
November 5, 2013, 01:08 PM
Nothing wrong with either. For me when the Glock was introduced it was just to new and different then what I was familiar with. Once I had a chance to handle and shoot both plastic and striker fired guns I have no real issue. They are just different. I don't expect them to feel or behave like a 1911. As long as I take them at face value I have no problems shooting or owning.

If you are still undecided on how to answer this question for your self perhaps you need more time to ponder the question and form your own opinion. While doing so do some shooting with whichever gun rings your bell.

KeithET

Fastcast
November 5, 2013, 01:14 PM
Angels and pin heads. But, I really hate when plastic-striker fans try to act like they are somehow wiser or smarter because of their choice, as if in doing so, they validate their own choices and intellectual superiority. I don't compete in pistol competitions so frankly competitors are irrelevant to me.

A post on the first page even smacks of elitism "There are a lot of traditional gun owners out there who cling to steel and wood, and can't/won't join the 21st century." Eh, really? Like clinging to guns and God? You do know that striker-fired comes to us from the 19th century, poly guns from 40 years ago, and nothing on any handgun is newer than that, right?

I don't like polymer striker-fired guns and yet I carry. I carry in forests and swamps - I'm a forester. I also have a Master's degree and while my watch is a wind-up and my cell phone does nothing but send and receive calls, these things are choices I make based on personal requirements made for solid reasons. I can't wear quartz because of a funky bio electrical system that makes them unreliable. I think only fools would carry a phone that is approaching the size of the bag phone I used to keep in the truck. I don't actually want to browse the internet away from home - I have a life that does not revolve around the internet (an ironic statement of course because I type this post here).

I carry revolvers or pistols made of steel and wood with the only polymer being perhaps the finish or the grips. Why? I do know about polymers and the fact they do degrade all on their own. Sure, torture tests and the like have shown poly pistols last a long time, but who has worn out a Ruger Police Service Six??? My Springfield P9 is going like a champ despite being 20 years old, my Colt Trooper is 40, my hunting rifle is 50 and my shotgun is 80 years old. They all work great. They all STILL work great.

But, I buy tools to last forever. I use Trimco pipe wrenches, my newest is 100 years old, because not only are they among the best-made wrenches, they are designed to be repaired. I don't actually WANT to throw something away. I don't WANT to use something up and discard it unless it is a styrofoam cup or a wooden pencil.

I use Williams wrenches because I want to use them until I die. They will still work for my son. I could get cheaper wrenches that will wear out, but why on earth would I want to? Why would I buy a wrench and blithely declare that it is okay if it lasts only as long as me, I won't need it later anyway when I could get a tool that WILL last that long, and longer? I still can use my great grandfather's cross-cut saw as well as his bit-and-brace and clocks. I keep time with a mantle clock that predates anyone living today. Yeah, quartz is more accurate - as long as the battery runs and I haven't had a quartz clock last more than a decade before throwing away and replacing. My clock radio died a few weeks back, and it was 30 years old.

My point? I do buy tools (and handguns are tools) that last forever when I can. That does not make me some kind of backwards hermit. I don't buy to throw away and that does not a fool make me. My specific reasons are reasoned, intelligent, and with solid merit. And my choices have YET to let me down. I don't give a rat's butt about what competitors use as I don't carry for target sport. You know, I don't wear Under Armor cleats even though professional football players do. Imagine that.

But beyond that, I have a more solid reason for my choices - and remember I do actually carry. I like hammer-fired single-action pistols because they operate exactly like my rifles and shotguns. There are just about no "safe action" long arms. Since I am already used to using a rifle and shotgun that require safeties, that operate using a hammer, why on earth would I want something that didn't? Most here accepts that rifles and shotguns make better defensive weapons than pistols, so it seems most here have nothing wrong with safeties and hammers, which seems that most here are clinging to the 19th century after all. Who uses double action hunting rifles? Shotguns? Carbines? Everyone who goes to a 3-gun event with a Glock and an AR has already conceded the merits of single-action hammer-fired firearms with safeties. I just like to remain consistent with what I shoot.

I don't like either striker-fired or poly-framed pistols (or combinations of both). You do? Fine by me, I won't call you names. Manufacturers go that route because they offer a much higher profit than the more expensive-to-make traditional models. You don't like what I like? Okay, fine by me, too. You think I am clinging to the 20th century (eh, we all cling to that period, but that's fine by me) by my choice (and by extension, that makes me somehow backwards) okay, too.

Congratulate yourself on your wisdom and smarts. I'll be out back shooting my equally reliable arms.

After reading 5 pages :scrutiny: I believe Ash won this debate awhile ago, IMO.....Some people will never have an appreciation what he's talking about and that's alright I suppose.

Too many, newest = bestest, always has, always will....In their frenzied world billaseconds is all that matters.

Sure, I shoot O/Us or Auto Loaders better at controlled targets, than I do a SxS but when I leave the range and go back to the real world (Grouse country) and I need an off balance snap shot, the ole-washed up SxS most always puts a bird in my bag to bring home. While the better "target" guns have left me shaking my head and disappointed. :confused:

madFive
November 5, 2013, 04:40 PM
What's wrong with polymer framed and striker-fired guns?

Metal guns just feel more solid. There are obviously trade-offs: plastic guns are cheaper, generally can fit higher magazine capacity, and can have a more cushioned feel to the recoil because of the give in the material. But metal guns can take more direct abuse, and the extra weight gives them a more balanced feel in the recoil. I own both, and I'd say I would rather carry a plastic gun all day long, but for range trips a metal gun is more fun to shoot.

As far as the trigger and firing system, I will never buy another striker-fired gun. I've owned a few Glocks, and they have their place. But once you get used to a good single-action trigger, even the best striker-fired just doesn't compare. That cleaner, lighter, crisper "click" to the trigger pull means faster and more accurate shots.

TestPilot
November 5, 2013, 04:41 PM
I find the "polymer guns have bad trigger" argument to be fundamentally flawed.

It is purely based on the subjective feel of the person making the comment. Even their idea of a "good trigger" is totally subjective and arbitrary.

Define a good trigger. To me, a good trigger is one that gives me the most combat effectiveness. The primary reason why I went to M&P 40 is the trigger. Trigger of the M&P 40 will not impress anyone with its smoothness. It's not the shortest pull, nor is it the lightest. It's not one of those that leave people in awe for its pleasant feel.

So, why would anyone go for an M&P specifically because of the trigger?

M&P trigger has enough resistance to give me a good feed back when pulling, and enough resistance that I can pull out the slack and prep the trigger without worring about firing before I intend to because the pressure I applied with my trigger finger was just a pound or so more than what I thought it was. It has a short enough pull distance to rapid fire multiple shots without putting extra effrot to move the finger back and forth a long distance. It's not the smoothest trigger, and it is not the lightest, but the resistance not too heavy for for me to fire when I intend to without significant delay to build up pressure, but also not worry about trigger being too light.

That is not universal for everyone, but that is how it works for me and countless others.

Sure, the DA pull of SIG, or Beretta, etc., were lot smoother. They feel better. But, "feel better" does not mean it is better for combat. I shoot more accurately and faster with the 3 kg or slightly less resistance M&P trigger than 5 kg resistance DA pull of most metal frame guns. That's why I liked DAK SIG, with its 3 kg or so pull. DAK was impressively smooth. It felt good. But, I have measurably better performance with the shorter travel M&P trigger, even if it does not "feel" as good.

1911's 2 kg or so pull is too light for me, and I do not want to deal with thumb lever type manual firing inhibitors or "grip safety." Also, I shot my M&P with 1911s side by side, and I do not shoot a 1911 any faster or more accurate. Some praise 1911 trigger that "breaks like a glass rod" but I detest trigger that "breaks" abruptly like a glass rod. For me that is not a good trigger.

If you say a good 1911 trigger "breaks" around 2 kg, I would agree with you. If you say 1911 generally have way shorter travel compared to striker fired gun, I also have no objection. But, if you say 1911 is better because of it, that is not a general fact. It's just you over generalizing your preference as something good for everyone else.

Some praise below 2 kg trigger, like some race tuned 1911 or even striker guns with mod kits, but I do not need a trigger to be that light to shoot it well, and that light of a trigger does not give my a good feed back when I shoot it.

What that meas is that your idea of a "good trigger" is not universal.

The 2.5~3 kg resistance with a longer than most SAO trigger travel distance but shorter than 1cm with the slack pulled out is the right spot for me for triggers, and I do not want to deal with thumb lever type manual firing inhibitors or "grip safety." That is the requirments for a good trigger for me, and It's not as if I am not aware that there are ligher and smoother pulling triggers.

leadchucker
November 5, 2013, 05:50 PM
The question is (was?) "What's Wrong With Polymer Framed And Striker Fired Guns?"

The current results of the poll:

Don't like either-----31----10.20%
Don't like Polymer--10-----3.29%
Don't like strikers---20-----6.58%
Both are ok----------243---79.93%

Looks like nearly eighty percent of those responding have no problem with polymer or striker fired guns.

Makes me wonder how the numbers would be in a poll asking, "What's Wrong With All-Steel and Hammer Fired Guns?"

Sam1911
November 5, 2013, 06:00 PM
But once you get used to a good single-action trigger, even the best striker-fired just doesn't compare. Probably shouldn't use "you" there. "I" is ok, but "you" suggests that this should or will happen to others. Many others (as myself) started off in the old-school camp with tuned single-action pistols and gravitated toward plastic & striker-fired because the better results achieved couldn't be denied.

That cleaner, lighter, crisper "click" to the trigger pull means faster and more accurate shots.Here you probably should use "seems" somewhere. Because faster and more accurate hits need to be proved with a timer and a scored target. When the majority of top-performance scores shot across practical pistol matches all over the country tend to be shot with pastic/striker guns, this feeling that folks should/will get better results with a crisp light trigger appears to be unfounded.

YOU might. But you won't know without trials against a timer.

The smiling swordsman
November 5, 2013, 07:36 PM
I like to have the second strike ability of a hammer fired pistol. However, my EDC is a SW Shield so obviously I don't see it as much of a problem.

9mmepiphany
November 5, 2013, 09:21 PM
But once you get used to a good single-action trigger, even the best striker-fired just doesn't compare.
That certainly isn't universal. I grew up with tuned 1911 and tuned S&W revolver triggers (we tuned everything back then) and I had very little trouble transitioning to the Glock trigger...and my S&W M&P9 with Apex Tactical FSS parts will hang with most 1911s in high speed shooting

That cleaner, lighter, crisper "click" to the trigger pull means faster and more accurate shots.
I'll grant that faster would be arguable if you are just talking about mechanical actuation, but since both triggers will reset in less time than the slide takes to cycle, it really is a moot point.

More accurate puts you on much more shaky ground as the crisper trigger tempts more shooters to flinch than the longer travel of most striker triggers. It doesn't make much difference to Top Tier shooters as their trigger management has been honed through countless repetitions, but for most lessor folks a Rolling Letoff is the preferred trigger break for faster shooters...as it is easier to prep the trigger while waiting for the sights to settle

Tirod
November 5, 2013, 09:59 PM
The problem with saying "polymer guns have horrible triggers" is that the current popular design uses a striker at half cock, and finishes it. Well, the P7 preloads the striker with the grip actuator, and then just trips it with the trigger. It's really no fault of polymer at all - it's just what Glock has done and everyone copied.

So, compared to a Single Action with a fully cocked hammer and short pull trigger, the generality exists that they have a "better" trigger. It's really a SA/DA comparison. When you have to finish cocking the firing pin, it's not going to be as light or short.

There is a poly 1911 out now: http://www.handgunsmag.com/2013/03/04/rock-river-arms-poly-1911-review/

The point of poly really isn't corrosion resistance, it's mass production economics. You can make the frame cheaper if you make enough of them. The average poly gun is about $150 cheaper than metal. There's plenty of anti corrosion treatments out now - lets not forget the most well known polymer gun has a metal slide with Tenifer finish. I'd worry about the springs not failing, they aren't polymer.

As for the weight, depends on how you stack the deck -a SIG P938 with 6 round mag weighs about 18 oz. The Glock 41, 40 oz. A Glock 17, 30 oz. Add two double stack magazines, and it starts getting to be a union complaint to the commander. The bat belts are getting too heavy, just like the soldiers load is.

Sure, it's easy to nitpick some details about things, but the "truthy" part is there have been trends and we are seeing things getting reversed. The pendulum swings.

BTW, I was trained on the 1911 and carried a M9 when mobilized. Owned a 92SF, Glock 19C, and LCP, all gone now. Bought the P938.

Use what fits the job.

Ash
November 6, 2013, 05:33 AM
"More accurate puts you on much more shaky ground as the crisper trigger tempts more shooters to flinch than the longer travel of most striker triggers."

Yeah, but precision rifles always have crisp triggers. Sure, these are handguns, not rifles, but longer travel leading to greater accuracy is on equally shaking ground.

In the end, though, my rifles, shotguns, and pistols all have the same kind of trigger. They all require safeties. Of course, in fairness, when I carry a revolver in the swamps, it can be double action or single action and they don't have safeties. But auto guys held a funeral for the revolver decades ago and they keep getting made.

Since I'm not interested in competing in shooting supports, arguments that support such doctrines fall on deaf ears in an alien language. They mean nothing. Nobody can find a polymer-framed striker-fired handgun that is more reliable than what I carry. And I do carry, often in places that are filthy and in the middle of nowhere. When I carry an auto, it is hammer-fired and has a steel frame. I do have to worry about weight - but incumberance is equally important. Often what I have is a Springfield P9 in .45acp. Sometimes a 9mm in similar design. Sometimes a Ruger Police Service Six sometimes I bring my gasp of all gasps Ruger Mini 14 GB as well.

If I have to stay out there, I sleep just fine.

Sam1911
November 6, 2013, 06:56 AM
Yeah, but precision rifles always have crisp triggers.Well, "precision" rifles may, but firing a service/defensive handgun is nothing like firing a precision rifle. And it may be interesting to note that the newest breed of competition rifle triggers (for ARs set up for 3-gun competition, for example) actually have a rolling break to be more similar to the function of a Glock or M&P, etc.

Since I'm not interested in competing in shooting supports, arguments that support such doctrines fall on deaf ears in an alien language.This hints at a common theme we hear sometimes -- that what competition guys do is irrelevant to what normal shooters need because they aren't in competition. The thing is, competition is the proving ground, the test bed, the crucible, that distills out the best and the fastest techniques and equipment. You don't have to CARE who won what match or what the rules all are or even care to know the differences between competition disciplines to reap the rewards of that real-world organic research being performed over and over in the thousands and tens of thousands every week across the country.

But all that does rather gloss over a point: No one's trying to convince YOU to give up YOUR gun that YOU like and go buy something else. If you're happy with what you have, use it by all means! It obviously meets your needs well enough to please you -- and maybe your dedicated experience with it would mean that the effort of transitioning to some other design would never reap cost-effective benefits for you.

What we're talking about here is trends and movements in the broader shooting world and why some things become more popular and others fade (however slowly and lingeringly) into history.

9mmepiphany
November 6, 2013, 11:50 AM
Yeah, but precision rifles always have crisp triggers. Sure, these are handguns, not rifles, but longer travel leading to greater accuracy is on equally shaking ground.
Rifle and shotgun techniques usually don't transition to handgun techniques well as they offer 50% more interaction points with the shooter...one of them being a consistent reference position for the aiming eye.

Since we are talking about handguns, specifically service size/style autoloaders, I was trying to be generous when using the term shaky. I guess I'll have to be more blatant, so be it:

The longer travel before letoff, when shooting a service handgun, has proven to be more accurate at speed than a pistol with a crisp/sharp break, because:
1. The shooter isn't tempted to snap the trigger when the sights are perfectly aligned on the target
2. The shooter can prep the trigger while waiting for the sights to align, thus lessening both the additional force used for the final press on the trigger and shortening the time between perception of the aligned sights and that final press.

If you are taking your time aligning your sights and pressing off your shot (>.5 sec), you likely wouldn't notice.

BTW: This isn't a technique that started with polymer pistols, it was realized and refined by 1911 shooters back in the 70s; it just happens that most polymer pistol's already have this type of trigger from the factory...it just needs to be smoothed

krupparms
November 6, 2013, 12:21 PM
I have shot & used them since they came out. They are just fine in my opinion & keep getting better.

el Godfather
November 6, 2013, 04:16 PM
I voted 'Both are ok', because of Glock!

Heck its better than ok- its great ;)

Teachu2
November 6, 2013, 04:25 PM
For me it is a performance thing. The longer I watch shooters making accurate hits in a hurry, the mo' faster they seem to be with the plastic fantastic striker guns.

I've been convinced through slow, inexorable, piling up of evidence at every match I attend, that they are the "bestest for the mostest" and the old steel and hammer guns really just don't keep up, no matter how much soul they have or how beautiful they are.

If fast hits are the goal, and no other goal really ranks as nearly so important, then most shooters tend to do better when they train with one of the polymer/striker guns.


Amen to that! I'm not selling my 1911s. but I only carry polymer/strikers at the moment.

Ash
November 6, 2013, 06:15 PM
Thanks for being generous. It's quite an eye opener to learn that real-world in the rough experience does not apply nearly so much as sports do. Shooting games trump all other experiences. Practical, real world firearms use depends entirely on having a half second off here or there. Reliability and accuracy are important, but unless you can get that extra shot in that tenth of a second, it is just fading away and obsolete.

Of course, one problem with shooting games/sports is that they focus on a narrow need and are not reflective of all firearms needs. There are many shooting disciplines, and practical combat shooting holds no particular crown as the best or most reflective of what a handgun should be any more than cowboy action shooting does.

Sam1911
November 6, 2013, 10:12 PM
Certainly not. There are many reasons one might enjoy shooting a handgun. Big hunting revolvers are unparallelled for what they do. Flintlock belt pistols have an undeniable charm. XP-100s and T/C Contenders are handguns that similarly need not be concerned with any of the points we're raising in this disucssion.

Not all handgunning is defensive shooting. However, the core raison d'etre of the handgun is as a defensive arm, and we've generally come to recognize that the fundamental use of such an arm has certain characteristics -- those principally being accuracy at speed, when speed is measured in fractions of a second and life and death do hang on the outcome of your personal contest.

The points I've been hammering away at belong entirely to the realm of defensive, combative, life-and-death shooting needs, and that's where these things matter (and that's what the gun games so eloquently distill). These things really can come down to 100ths of a second and hits that are good enough, fast enough, or not. That is never to say that you cannot defend yourself, or indeed meet whatever other handgun-related needs you might perceive, with anything from a SIG to a Howdah. Only that as humans we refine and develop and strive to excel, both individually and collectively, and as that is applied to handguns and handgunning techniques and technology, polymer framed, striker fired guns represent the next iteration.

That's not a threat to you or your choices any more than the increasing popularity of hybrid cars represents a threat to the fact that you enjoy driving your '69 Camero. That's not where the new trend is heading, for good reasons, but your choice still works just fine.

zignal_zero
November 7, 2013, 07:14 AM
I've owned/carried/shot plenty of each. There isn't anything "wrong" with polymer or striker fired guns. I do not personally prefer them and edc an alloy framed hammer fired pistol.

Danez71 - yes, they do seem top heavy to me too
Bikemutt - it doesn't STAY loaded :D

I sold my G23. It was my duty AND off duty gun for many years. There was a strong bond there due to the fact I generally worked w/o backup and (often) the G23 felt as though it was my only "friend" in the world. So I anticipated missing the gun. I don't.

As far as fastest shot placers (as sum1 noted) I believe that is shooter specific because my fastest recorded group was with a Beretta 92 and I had one group that we KNOW was clearly faster than that one and it was with a P220 but we didn't have a stopwatch on that group. I could NEVER attain the level of proficiency with a striker fired (I agree their triggers suck). However, I had a polymer framed hammer fired gun that I could rock like a wild man - P250. I actually ask my wife, "can I play around with YOUR pistol for a little while?" Sweetheart that she is, she always tells me "You can have it back if you want." But I could never do that because she found the gun as easy to shoot as I did :)

woodwrkr
November 7, 2013, 08:55 AM
The last time I performed the pencil test I tested a Springfield Armory XDs striker fired pistol and I compared it to one of my 1911's.

The striker mechanism of the XDs would launch the pencil into the air just high enough to clear the muzzle but not much more.

My 1911 would launch the pencil more than four feet into the air.

This has got to have an effect on ultimate reliability.

I prefer the hammer mechanisms and I carry a full size 1911.

Sam1911
November 7, 2013, 09:03 AM
That does sound significant, except that pencils aren't cartridges and I (and many many others) have had far fewer malfunctions with xD pistols than we've experienced with our beloved 1911s. That test doesn't seem to translate to ACTUAL failures to go bang.

woodwrkr
November 7, 2013, 09:08 AM
All quite true of course, but the pencil test does tell us how hard the striker or firing pin strikes the primer.

And my 1911's run 100%. I won't leave them alone until they do.

wickedsprint
November 7, 2013, 09:22 AM
My hobby guns are metal.

My work guns are polymer.

Different horses for different courses.

Chuck R.
November 9, 2013, 09:51 AM
I never liked polymer, and pretty much disparaged them for years, right up until I started viewing a handgun as a tool.

When I started CCWing frequently, shooting IPDA and attending classes, I started to appreciate the “inner beauty” of a plastic gun, with more capacity, less weight that basically put a hole in a target just as well as one of my steel or aluminum framed guns, all the while being actually cheaper.

Oh, and while I’m confessing, I also used to run around saying chit like “SD calibers start with a .4” till I started actually reading stuff about ballistic testing.

Chuck

tarosean
November 9, 2013, 10:04 AM
I (and many many others) have had far fewer malfunctions with xD pistols than we've experienced with our beloved 1911s.

:what:

Im thinking you need to change your screen name.... :neener:

miles1
November 9, 2013, 10:35 AM
Im sorry but when someone spouts about how poly guns have no "Soul" guess what? neither does the metal ones.They are ALL tools.Usually it's the 1911 guys that preach about "real" guns versus more modern and better tolerance designs.I have both but when it counts it will always be a poly gun (Glock 19) currently.As far as if poly guns will last as long as the metal ones.....I havent seen or heard a glock or XD or M&P distintegrate yet.

csa77
November 9, 2013, 10:43 AM
you know I really dislike polymer but I like the idea of striker fired and the benefits you have from that design. I might break down and buy a used glock/m&p/xd too see what I might be missing....I just wont tell my family about it. Id be too embarrassed


If I do buy one, that mongrel will be kept far away from my more civilized guns like my hi-power and 1911 :D

Sam1911
November 9, 2013, 11:24 AM
Im thinking you need to change your screen name.... :) I won't give it up. But, hey, that's what my folks named me.

tarosean
November 9, 2013, 11:30 AM
If I do buy one, that mongrel will be kept far away from my more civilized guns like my hi-power and 1911

I promise they get along without name calling and fighting.... Unlike the owners... :)
http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj507/tarosean/7BF60448-B0FC-4863-A197-4EB5967ED13D-1268-000001B856FD1161_zpse131a3a2.jpg

kokapelli
November 9, 2013, 12:36 PM
Couldn't agree more. I sold my 1911 and both Hi Powers after I realized that I liked my polymers better for all around use.

That's as far away I can get them, although I do still have 2 CZ's.

My pistols are tools, not pieces of art.

carbuncle
November 10, 2013, 07:59 PM
I got started handgun shooting after the introduction of polymer guns, and my first pistol was a polymer/striker model (the much-hated SW40F). I like all types of handguns equally, and have carried pretty much every common action over the years (including an SA Blackhawk): there is something to be said for all, and if you do your job they all do theirs.

Revolver Ocelot
November 10, 2013, 08:07 PM
Both are fine, they just aren't my preference. I'm a revolver guy so that translates into preferring hammer fired pistols because of the similar pull, and metal guns because of the similar weight and feel.

kokapelli
November 10, 2013, 08:23 PM
Both are fine, they just aren't my preference. I'm a revolver guy so that translates into preferring hammer fired pistols because of the similar pull, and metal guns because of the similar weight and feel.
What hammer fired pistol has a trigger closer to a revolver than the striker fired Kahr pistols?

Revolver Ocelot
November 10, 2013, 08:43 PM
What hammer fired pistol has a trigger closer to a revolver than the striker fired Kahr pistols?

I have never fired a kahr pistol, that being said I'm speaking generally. I find that a lot of hammer fired pistols have a trigger that feels similar to revolvers in the contour of the trigger and the feel in da trigger pull. They aren't going to feel exactly the same, but I haven't fired a striker fired pistol that feels as close to the same as a revolver...yet.

kokapelli
November 10, 2013, 08:55 PM
I have never fired a kahr pistol, that being said I'm speaking generally. I find that a lot of hammer fired pistols have a trigger that feels similar to revolvers in the contour of the trigger and the feel in da trigger pull. They aren't going to feel exactly the same, but I haven't fired a striker fired pistol that feels as close to the same as a revolver...yet.
You really need to try a Kahr, it feels like a tuned revolver trigger.

9mmepiphany
November 10, 2013, 10:41 PM
That is true, the Kahr trigger feels like a tuned S&W K-frame's trigger. The SIG DAK feels like an un-tuned K-frame

hemiram
November 13, 2013, 04:58 AM
I don't like striker guns at all, most of the really bad guns I had on my bad gun streak that never seemed to end were striker fired. I even had bad striker fired blank guns when I was a kid. I don't trust them at all.

The polymer thing I just didn't buy into, I like heavy guns, the heavier the better, and until a friend bought a hammer fired Taurus 809, I had no desire to buy a polymer gun. It was the polymer gun that pushed me over the edge, and I finally bought one. His is great, mine, not so good, not good at all, actually. So far, it's continued the bad striker fired gun streak, and it's gone back to Taurus for repair. Out of the box, with about 300 rounds put through it, it's very touchy about ammo, and requires a death grip or it will jam no matter what ammo is in it. If Taurus' service department's work is as bad as it was 35 years ago with my Model 83, I would imagine the 809 is going to be gone soon.

angrymike
November 13, 2013, 05:14 AM
Y-all seem a lot smarter than me, but in the winter, when guns are more easily concealable I carry a Glock 23, but in the summer I carry a llama 380, so in my book your both right.. ;-)

TParrish
November 13, 2013, 11:26 AM
I do not decry polymer handguns. I hear they are wonderful. I purchased metal (steel or aluminum alloy) because of the tendency of the added weight to mitigate recoil, and because of my personal tendency to make technical mistakes in shooting that are significant enough to affect my accuracy when shooting lighter handguns, but not heavier ones. My best shooting has been with a 1911 (SW1911), and my worst has been with lighter guns, even metal framed guns like the Walther PPK.

I use full sized metal framed handguns for this reason. Perhaps as my technique improves I will consider buying polymer.

On An Island
November 13, 2013, 04:41 PM
Both for me. I like some steel/hammer pistols and some poly/striker pistols. It all depends on how comfortably they fit my hand and how well I can shoot them (the two may be related :) ).

The first time I ever handled a full-size Glock was their .45 (BIL's duty weapon, a G21 I think) and I shot it nearly as well at 25-yards as my long-time favorite S&W 1006 10mm. I'd been a nay-sayer based on some other polygun experiences, but that episode really opened my eyes as to the functionality/accuracy that is sometimes possible with a plastic-fantastic.

hariph creek
November 15, 2013, 12:32 PM
I'm ok with polymer. I like metal, too. Really depends on the intended application of the firearm.

I don't like strikers. I'm not saying they aren't good or don't work. Actually, given a good duty holster and minimal training. I think a poly/striker pistol is the superior choice for a LE or military sidearm. They're cheap to make, reliable and generally have a very basic manual of arms (hopefully shortens the learning curve).

I happen to like the FEEL of a nice action, not a "bang switch." Mainly though, I like to cover an external hammer with my thumb, while reholstering. I also prefer restrike capability (yes I'm well versed in "tap, rack, bang).

JDR
November 16, 2013, 07:50 PM
I took my Gen4 G-21 back out to the range today, third time out with it, ran another 100 rounds of Tula "trashcans" through it and man, I'm just loving the way this thing punctures targets, I'm having a lot of fun at the range with it. And that's really what it all comes down to in evaluating a firearm, and all I really need to say about this one, so to each his own!

If you enjoyed reading about "What's Wrong With Polymer Framed And Striker Fired Guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!