Second stirke Or hammer/no hammer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cold dead hands

member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
162
How many here would refuse to own a gun without second (primer) strike ability? Are you ok with having to rack the slide and eject the offending round in order to be able to fire, especially in a potential life or death situation?

Do you demand DAO second strike or are you ok with SA recocking? Do you even perish the thought of carring a hammerless gun?

This isn't meant to be a "my gun maker is better" war. The reason I ask is because I demand second strike capability because it is always easier and faster to pull the trigger a second time before racking the slide for a fresh round. This is why I do not carry Glock, XD's, baby Kel-Tecs etc...

Truth is I love my autos but carry a revolver no less than 70% of the time. It is the level of perceived reliability that makes me leave my autos in the safe when I hit the streets.
 
I don't worry about "2nd strike" capability, just go to your "Tap, rack, shoot" drill. Wonder how many people have been shot while 2nd (3rd, 4th) strike attempts. With modern firearms and ammo, if it doesn't go off the first time, odds are it will never go off.
 
I don't worry about a gun having a second strike capability. I do worry about the gun when needed with factory ammo (with reloads it usually means the primer seating needs adjustment).

Tap-Rack-BANG is IMHO the "proper" drill after a click instead of bang, could be dud round or a not fully inserted mag causing an empty chamber TRB covers both cases anything else wastes precious time. A revolver rotates fresh ammo into position so its "second strike" cures both situations as well unless you are empty.

TRB should never be used when shooting old or surplus ammo though on the odd chance you experience a "hangfire".

The only thing I like second strike capability for is dry fire practice, but otherwise makes no difference as to if I buy a don't buy a particular gun.

--wally.
 
:neener:..Restrike capability. How did we ever live without it all these years...:rolleyes:
 
Sure I think it's good to have a second strike capability, and I also practice "tap, rack & bang."
 
It seems to me that second strike is a double-edged sword.

If the gun fires on the second strike then all is well and good. If it doesn't, you have wasted time that should have been spent racking the slide.
 
I could care less about "second strike", what I want is a pistol that I can do lots of dryfiring practice with.
 
I don't think second-strike is a realistic concern when choosing a defense weapon.
I believe the odds favor a TRB over a second-strike; just eject the round and get on with it.

Although this brings up an interesting point. If you had to eject the round by hand,
wouldn't a double-action weapon require the most force to overcome the long trigger pull and cycle the slide?
A striker fired weapon would be the easiest type of auto to hand-cycle wouldn't it?

Again, more of a academic exercise than a real concern,
train with your weapon and none of this will be a weak point in your defense.
 
non factor to me. Would never use 2x strike, but wouldn't preclude a pistol based on having 2x strike capacity.
 
Second strike capability is worthless.

In fact, it's far worse than worthless. If you need a handgun to go "Bang" and instead get a "Click", you need to get that chamber cleared and reloaded ASAP, not futz around wondering how many licks to get to the tootsie roll center.
 
I carry a 1911 frame (Delta Goldcup) because I anticipate the round will go BANG with relative certainty. If it only goes click, I am trained to respond instinctively. I chose the gun with that in mind.

I also occasionally Carry a S&W 69 with the same mentality...

Given proper familiarity, it REALLY doesn't matter! I suppose a person that has limited capacity to do the drill, might want to stick with a revolver.

tbu61
 
If the gun fires on the second strike then all is well and good. If it doesn't, you have wasted time that should have been spent racking the slide
Click to expand...
.

Amen. Second strike is predicated on idea that all failures to fire are due to light primer strikes. But there are many other reasons for failure to fire -- including failure to chamber a round, failure to go fully into battery, and so on. Don't waste time with a drill that addresses about 10% of the potential problems -- go with the drill that deals with all of them in one fell swoop.
 
I'll be the lone dissenter here. I'm with you cold dead hands. I like the revos b/c they can move the next round much faster than any tap rack bang drill.

I would certainly own a Glock 17 but, I would not carry it.

Over cautious? Perhaps.
But, you have to feel comfortable with your choosen CCW peic. Or, you will not carry as much. If you feel a revo is more reliable and better suited to handle the second strike capability, then that is what you carry.

To answer your question: Yes, my carry peice must have second strike capability by a simple pull of the trigger.
 
+1 i bet you could get pretty fast at TRB's but if your attacker is almost on you when you need it your f***ed, but with a wheel-gun you wont skip a beat
 
I'll be the lone dissenter here. I'm with you cold dead hands. I like the revos b/c they can move the next round much faster than any tap rack bang drill.
Click to expand...
i bet you could get pretty fast at TRB's but if your attacker is almost on you when you need it your f***ed, but with a wheel-gun you wont skip a beat
Click to expand...
Read these threads long enough, and you'll come to see that revelvers fail as often as automatics -- and usually a revolver failure cannot be cleared with a simple drill like a tap-rack-bang.
 
I don't like most handguns without a hammer...

But not for "second strike" reasons... It's just my personal preference. No real logic behind it, it's just that I dont think that most pistols look "right" with out one... Kinda like a dog without a tail.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
Read these threads long enough, and you'll come to see that revelvers (sic) fail as often as automatics -- and usually a revolver failure cannot be cleared with a simple drill like a tap-rack-bang.
Click to expand...

While I agree that revolver failures tend to be more catastrophic than automatic failures, I seriously doubt that revolvers- in civilian use- see as many failures as automatics. Put another way, I doubt there's a shooter who has put a certain amount of range time in who has never experienced an ammo/auto failure, but I imagine there are plenty of revolver shooters who haven't.

It's simply a fact with autos that ammo sensitivity is greater than with wheelguns. Ammo drives the auto in automatic- the feeding, cocking, extraction, ejection, and battery- and the mechanism is susceptible to wrong holds, blocked ejection, faulty magazines, and battery issue (all of these can be mitigated by training/practice). With ammo as a variable element, it demands a certain amount of trust in your ammo. I trust my ammunition most of the time... but if I were to line up a thousand rounds and go down the line asking each one, "Would I stake my life on you?" I imagine I'd waver in my faith. Double-strike is like asking a failed round the question a second time....

That said, I like guns of all sorts so double-strike is not something that makes or breaks a gun for me. At the range, the few times that I've had a primer fail to ignite, it has always gone off on the second strike (CZ75; also, one dud in a G19 that I ejected, rechambered, and went off the 2nd time).

For defense, my preference is a simple manual of arms. Double-strike has its place when your presence of mind to TRB is compromised under stress, it's also useful when your other hand is occupied- something likely since your weak hand is typically used to clear concealing clothing... or in a wrestling affair, to keep your assailant's body off your gun to keep it from going out of battery or having its ejection blocked/compromised.

But anything and everything can be rationalized, I don't think there's a right answer for this kind of thing, it's simply preference and faith.
 
Not in my experience

Revos are certainly much more reliable than even the most reliable semi auto.

Now do revo failures occur? Yes. But, I have only seen a revo fail b/c the ejector rod unscrewed loose, or the gun was so light that it pulled the lead bullets from their crimp.

That is why I have been using a SP101 for over 7 years as my CCW peice. It does not use the ejector rod as the 3rd locking point and therefore, does not unscrew. And it's 25 oz weight does not cause lead bullets to jump their crimp.

I have not seen but, have heard of a revolver popping a primer. But, again you have to load a round that is tested in your particular peice.

But, we diverge from the intent of my original post. If the shooter or person actually having to carry the gun feels safer with second strike capability....then they are safer. Concealed Carry is much more about your attitude and awareness of your surroundings than about the peice of equipment on your hip, ankle, or in your pocket.

Ask a Corrections Officer what their most valuable asset is in their armory and undoubtably it is their sense of awareness...not their handcuffs. (COs do not get to carry a gun inside the walls).

If a person feels safer with a revo over a semi-auto....then go ahead and carry a revo. You are still well armed.

I think Glocks are one of the most rugged designed autos in the world. If they do break you can switch out the parts yourself. No gunsmith or trip back the factory needed. But, I do not carry a Glock b/c it has no external safety and no 2nd strike capability. That's just my choice.

You gotta love diversity of choice in all the different guns being made nowadays :)

ps I have only found a small handfull of people that feel an auto is more reliable than a revo. Not that I need validation in my choices.
 
Now do revo failures occur? Yes. But, I have only seen a revo fail b/c the ejector rod unscrewed loose, or the gun was so light that it pulled the lead bullets from their crimp.

That is why I have been using a SP101 for over 7 years as my CCW peice.
Click to expand...

The SP 101 is the gun I recommend for newbies wanting a CCW piece -- for a good many reasons -- and is a fine choice for anyone.

However, somewhere back in the archives is a string of posts about SP 101s breaking the transfer bar. And when that breaks, all you have is a funny-looking club.

There are plenty of cases on this forum about revolvers locking up due to crud under the ejector star and similar problems.
 
Read these threads long enough, and you'll come to see that revelvers fail as often as automatics -- and usually a revolver failure cannot be cleared with a simple drill like a tap-rack-bang.
Click to expand...

yes revolvers can fail, but they in no way fail as often as autos, maybe on the internet they do
 
Crud under the ejector star is a much worse situation than a simple stovepipe jam. Its about the same crapiness as a failure to extract, in my experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Effect of hammer cocking?
Replies
6
Views
864
Old Fuff
O
W
  • Locked
Multi-Strike Capability - How important?
Replies
19
Views
2K
wbond
W
Z
  • Locked
Is second strike capability vastly overrated?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
MCgunner
M
I
  • Locked
recoil simulator?
Replies
7
Views
1K
threeseven
T
J
  • Locked
Hammer evolution
Replies
3
Views
572
BluesBear
B
Back
Top