JR24
Member
That FN has a hammer.
Really? I thought the FN 1910 was a striker.
That FN has a hammer.
I was simply trying to answer your question.
Has '1911 or S&W leg' happened enough to earn the term/phrase?
I'm sure it happens but just don't see the phrase used.
But of course people are referring to modern 5.5ish lb partially cocked triggers in many common plastic guns. Frankly there are hammer guns like the Sig DAK and HK LEM that would be just as susceptible to the same "Glock Leg" syndrome if handled without care, yet they get a pass in the accusations of unsafe gun designs.
Thats what some of us have been saying all along.NOTHING IS INFALLIABLE. ESPECIALLY SOMETHIING MECHANICAL...OR WHICH LIVES BETWEEN MY EARS.
The different standards for hammer- and striker-fired pistols generally make no sense. Take two pistols, one hammer-fired and the other striker-fired, and each one with a 5-pound trigger pull and 1/4" trigger travel. People tend to become agitated at the idea of the hammer-fired gun being carried cocked without a manual safety engaged, while never saying a word of complaint about the striker-fired pistol being carried cocked with no safety.
In the interest of keeping things accurate, the two things are not necessarily equivalent.The different standards for hammer- and striker-fired pistols generally make no sense. Take two pistols, one hammer-fired and the other striker-fired, and each one with a 5-pound trigger pull and 1/4" trigger travel. People tend to become agitated at the idea of the hammer-fired gun being carried cocked without a manual safety engaged, while never saying a word of complaint about the striker-fired pistol being carried cocked with no safety.
That FN has a hammer.
In the interest of keeping things accurate, the two things are not necessarily equivalent.
While any hammer-fired gun has all the energy stored necessary to fire the gun when the hammer is cocked, that is not a given in a typical striker-fired "DAO" design in the chamber-loaded condition.
Also, 1/4" of trigger travel is pretty short for a striker-fired "DAO" type pistol. A more realistic number is 2-3x longer than that.
Finally, striker-fired "DAO" type pistols without manual safeties are designed to be safe when carried chamber loaded with the trigger forward--that is a recommended carry mode by the manufacturer. I don't know of any manufacturer who recommends that their hammer-fired gun be carried hammer back without a manual safety engaged.
In other words, it's quite obviously not two different standards, it's clearly two different things, each with its own standard.
Also, 1/4" of trigger travel is pretty short for a striker-fired "DAO" type pistol. A more realistic number is 2-3x longer than that.
Here are the technical specs from S&W's site:
Model: M&P
Caliber: 9mm Capacity: 12+1
Barrel Length: 3.5"
Front Sight: Steel Ramp Dovetail Mount (Tritium Sights Optional)
Rear Sight: Steel Novak® Lo-Mount Carry (Tritium Sights Optional)
Trigger Pull: 6.5 lbs.
Trigger Travel: Rest to Fire .300 in.
Trigger Reset: Approx. .140 in.
Frame: Compact Finish: Slide and Barrel Black Melonite®, 68 HRc Overall Length: 6.7" Material: Zytel Polymer Frame, Stainless Steel Barrel/Slide and Structural Components
Weight Empty (No Mag): 21.7 oz.
Overall Height: 4.3"
Width: 1.2"
Sight Length: 5.75"
We've done this about a half dozen times and I've grown tired of supplying the links, but there are several Glock armorers across the internet that have found the partially cocked Glock striker has enough energy to ignite primers. Nearly every (certainly there are some that don't, like a Walther P99) striker fired gun, from Glock to S&W M&P, SIG P320, HK VP9, Walther PPQ, Beretta APX have enough stored energy in their cocked position to ignite primers.In the interest of keeping things accurate, the two things are not necessarily equivalent.
While any hammer-fired gun has all the energy stored necessary to fire the gun when the hammer is cocked, that is not a given in a typical striker-fired "DAO" design in the chamber-loaded condition.
Also, 1/4" of trigger travel is pretty short for a striker-fired "DAO" type pistol. A more realistic number is 2-3x longer than that.
OK, so here is a statement that many will not like. This whole thing is the gun communities own fault!
The race has been on to see which manufacturer could build a gun with the shortest and lightest trigger on a striker fired gun for years. Between the aftermarket kits for striker fired guns to the updates to current guns from major manufacturers and new guns hitting the market, it is pretty clear that the customers want as close to a 1911 trigger as they can get, but with no manual safety. The whole culture has gone to the BS bravado of "keep your booger hook off the bang switch dude" mentality. We have developed an acceptance for basically single action guns with no safeties. I have been around long enough to remember when a certain striker fired gun hit the market and most of the top guys in the community thought it was ridiculous to have a trigger that short and light with no safety. But here we are, about 30 years later and all anyone wants is a short light trigger on a striker fired a gun. Not to mention all the people that complain about the trigger tab.
When the 320 hit the market, everyone was raving about how great the trigger was and the fact that it did not have a trigger tab. Here we have a fully cocked gun, with no external safety of any kind, and we thought it was great. Sales went through the roof and almost nobody said, hey wait a minute, physics are at play here, what kind of weird magic are they using to keep that thing from firing when it hits the ground. Every other manufacturer that builds a striker fired gun has some kind of trigger tab that keeps the gun from firing when it gets dropped. And what was our answer? "Shut up man, keep your booger hook off the bang switch dude".
At what point will we accept the fact that we are all not Tier One Operators and these things are threat management tools, not just toys we use at the range. If you're so damn good that you never make mistakes and you can use a 1911 with no safeties, then learn how to shoot a gun that sets an example for the rest of us mear mortals.
I for one make mistakes, get scared, and do stupid stuff some times. I will just be over here in the corner with my TDA guns trying to learn how to shoot them better.
I don't have a ton of DA revolvers to check, the one I pulled out of the safe has a DA trigger travel distance of 7/8", or 3.5x 0.25". The original figures I quoted were from a Glock--trigger travel is about 0.5" (2x) and from a Kahr--trigger travel is about 0.75" (3x).Not the M&P. At least not compared to a BHP. I've shot them back to back many times. I would have never bought it if it was.
I'd guess 1.5X MAX but I'd really guess more like 25%.
3X seems more like DA revolver distance.
Nothing in that paragraph contradicts the statement it's addressed to because that statement isn't addressed exclusively to Glock pistols, nor does it claim that there is no such thing as a striker-fired pistol with enough energy stored in the chamber-loaded/trigger-forward position to ignite a primer.We've done this about a half dozen times and I've grown tired of supplying the links, but there are several Glock armorers across the internet that have found the partially cocked Glock striker has enough energy to ignite primers. Nearly every (certainly there are some that don't, like a Walther P99) striker fired gun, from Glock to S&W M&P, SIG P320, HK VP9, Walther PPQ, Beretta APX have enough stored energy in their cocked position to ignite primers.
If you want to make the point that a double standard exists in the real world, then the comparison needs to make sense in the real world.I specifically described the silliness of thinking two triggers with exactly the same trigger pull and travel have substantially different safety factors because one uses a hammer and the other uses a striker.
If you want to make the point that a double standard exists in the real world, then the comparison needs to make sense in the real world.
If you really do wish to compare two purely hypothetical guns, that are identical in every respect except for the fact that one is hammer fired and the other is striker-fired, I would agree that they should be treated exactly the same in terms of safety. Also, I would agree that if they weren't treated exactly the same in terms of safety that it would be a double standard.
Once we depart from that hypothetical comparison to talking about real world hammer-fired/striker-fired handguns that differ in more than just one way then things get a bit more complex.
JohnKSa said:Also, 1/4" of trigger travel is pretty short for a striker-fired "DAO" type pistol. A more realistic number is 2-3x longer than that.
Another from Ernest Langdon https://pistol-forum.com/showthread...iggers-market-trends-choices-and-consequences
I can assure you, I read what you wrote, thought about it and then responded to it. I disagreed with it, but I did not "simply dismiss" it....you simply dismissed what I wrote...
I provided correct information based on the guns I have available.After I suggested comparing pistols with the same trigger pull and travel, you couldn't resist interjecting your negative opinion about the trigger travel I suggested.
I didn't say it was difficult. It is simple--the problem is that it is too simple. The implication is that if the triggers are the same weight and travel, then those are the only things that matter and therefore treating them differently is a double-standard. That's simply not true. There's only a double standard if there's nothing else of significance in the designs that is different. If there are, in fact, other significant differences in the designs that relate to safety, then all those differences must be evaluated to determine if a double standard really exists.I suggested comparing two guns with the same trigger pull and travel, which is not a difficult proposition.
Again, simply knowing the trigger travel and trigger weight isn't enough to be able to compare the two designs unless there are no other significant differences in the designs.Here are two very real guns to compare: a factory-spec Walther PDP and a 1911 with the trigger tuned to 5.6 pounds and 0.28" travel. Now you can proceed with discussing the double standard for manual safeties on those two specific guns.
It's probably worth pointing out that the Marines didn't start fielding the new striker-fired pistols until late in 2020. That document is from 2018. https://www.safety.marines.mil/Safety-Promotions/Combatting-the-Blue-Threat/When service members shoot themselves, it costs the services lots of money. "From FY16 to date, Marines have lost more than 1,700 days of work and millions of dollars due to ND's"
I didn't say it was difficult. It is simple--the problem is that it is too simple. The implication is that if the triggers are the same weight and travel, then those are the only things that matter and therefore treating them differently is a double-standard. That's simply not true. There's only a double standard if there's nothing else of significance in the designs that is different. If there are, in fact, other significant differences in the designs that relate to safety, then all those differences must be evaluated to determine if a double standard really exists. Again, simply knowing the trigger travel and trigger weight isn't enough to be able to compare the two designs unless there are no other significant differences in the designs.
Clearly there are a lot of internal design differences between the Walther PDP and a 1911 and all of those that affect the safety systems of the firearm need to be evaluated side-by-side before any sort of an intelligent assessment could be made.
I'm not saying that it's impossible that there is a striker-fired pistol out there that, when carried chamber loaded is essentially the same as a hammer-fired pistol carried cocked and manual safety off. What I'm saying is that pretending that the only things that matter in the comparison is trigger pull and trigger travel is an oversimplification.
I provided correct information based on the guns I have available.
Ah--that's quite different from the original context I was responding to.List some specific differences that are significant in determining the propensity of two guns to fire when their triggers are pulled.
When "their triggers are pulled" is a very specific case to evaluate vs. when "being carried".People tend to become agitated at the idea of the hammer-fired gun being carried cocked without a manual safety engaged, while never saying a word of complaint about the striker-fired pistol being carried cocked with no safety.
From the measurements I've done, the width of the trigger relative to the width of the triggerguard does vary quite a bit and there is obviously potential for a wider triggerguard combined with a narrow trigger to cut down a bit on the chance of trigger snags. Definitely something to consider.Do we need to consider the size of the trigger guards to determine whether foreign objects might get into one more easily than another?
I think this is less of an issue, but it is true that a sliding trigger can be actuated at the same pull weight if something snags anywhere on the face while a pivoting trigger is more resistant to being activated if it is snagged near the pivot point vs. near the tip due to the leverage involved. Another factor along those lines, and probably one that's more important is that trigger safeties can render some parts of the trigger essentially inert. In the jointed versions, everything above the joint is pretty much snag resistant. In the trigger tab designs, the sides and top of the trigger are the equivalent of the upper part of a jointed trigger.Or should we look at whether a trigger moves on a pivot or straight back and the potential effect of angular force on trigger movement?
The reason why you've probably seen those comments before is because I've given you links to them to you over and over and over in these threads, yet you still keep making the bold claim ...Nothing in that paragraph contradicts the statement it's addressed to because that statement isn't addressed exclusively to Glock pistols, nor does it claim that there is no such thing as a striker-fired pistol with enough energy stored in the chamber-loaded/trigger-forward position to ignite a primer.
For what it is worth, I have seen claims that Glocks do have enough energy stored to fire a primer without the trigger pulled and some of those claims seem to have merit. On the other hand, I haven't seen evidence to support the assertion that "nearly every" striker fired gun is similar in that respect--nor does that even seem to be a common claim.If you want to make the point that a double standard exists in the real world, then the comparison needs to make sense in the real world.
Glock's are "less cocked" than many other striker fired pistols, with a few exceptions such as the P99 in some conditions, but nearly all of them have enough energy to ignite primers in their cocked/partially cocked chamber loaded state. Their safety lies in the the strength of their firing pin safeties and not in their level of "partial cocked-ness", unless we're talking, about something like the aforementioned P99 in its' DA mode, which is relatively rare among this category.In the interest of keeping things accurate, the two things are not necessarily equivalent.
While any hammer-fired gun has all the energy stored necessary to fire the gun when the hammer is cocked, that is not a given in a typical striker-fired "DAO" design in the chamber-loaded condition.
Interesting on the M&P travel distance being only 0.3". Do you know how that's measured?
Also, 1/4" of trigger travel is pretty short for a striker-fired "DAO" type pistol. A more realistic number is 2-3x longer than that.
The reason why you've probably seen those comments before is because I've given you links to them to you over and over and over in these threads, yet you still keep making the bold claim ...