Hammer Fire vs Striker Fire...

Certainly their share of the new gun market has shrunk, but don’t count them out yet.

I’d expect the classic designs and models to remain for many more years...no different than the 1911 or wheel guns. But face it, the market demands will drive business decisions, and the striker fire pistol is the popular kid these days, for various valid reasons.

Buzznrose said:

and the striker fire pistol is the popular kid these days, for various valid reasons.

Click to expand...

Sorry- that caused a soda blow out the nose.

Thing of the past? No. I just think there’s more striker guns than ever before that the proportion of hammer guns is smaller than it was. But it isn’t gone.

I mean some have gone away like Rugers and S&W, but even with the P320 and P365 series guns, Sig still has the majority of its guns as hammer fired, and so does HK, CZ, and Berreta. FN produces the FNX guns. Then there’s 1911s.

Ratio has changed, that’s all.

Things are being made the way they are because they make more profit for the manufacturers. I could point to a whole bunch of automotive changes that cost the consumer more, once he starts maintaining his vehicle, but made vehicles cheaper to manufacture, and made more profit when sold at the same prices as the old model.

I think this is what is happening to the pistol industry. Striker fired pistols must be cheaper to make and most buyers are not good enough shots to appreciate a good trigger, and so, if they don't make it, you won't be buying it.

460Shooter said:

I mean some have gone away like Rugers and S&W,

Click to expand...

SW's newest shield EZ is in fact hammer fired.



Both have been around for over 100yrs.. I dont believe either is going the way of the Dodo anytime soon.

With the exception of 1911 range fun, I live a striker fired life.

There haven't been any new long guns designed with an exposed hammer for over 100 years. About the same time cars stopped using wooden wheels. Striker fired is simply a better, more reliable design and it's use in shotguns and rifles prove that. The real question is why did it take so long.

Striker fired pistols must be cheaper to make and most buyers are not good enough shots to appreciate a good trigger, and so, if they don't make it, you won't be buying it.

Click to expand...

No reason striker fired can't have a good trigger. My bolt action rifles are striker fired and have the best triggers of any rifle design. Most out of the box 1911's have trigger pulls exactly the same as a Glock or most other striker fired pistols. In fact my Sig and Rugers with striker fired systems have lighter trigger pulls than my 1911's.

My first pistol was a beretta 92D.....it was the only full size hammer semi I had before trading as part of a revolver purchase....the only other hammer pistol I had was an original LC9......after adding 2 strikers to the fold i got a hankering for a full size hammer da/sa semi and settled on sig 2022 40 sw.

I dislike the “plastic fantastic” pistols as I call them. I like hammer fired guns, and I like old styles of manufacturing.

But I hate to admit it, I do think striker fired guns are more advanced in their operation and in their manufacturing process. I think forever their will be a place for both. Some for practicality, some for that nostalgia of when things were made solid and well.

I do think hammer fired revolvers will never be obsolete of course

Well, you have to be comfortable carrying the gun and fire control system that you choose. There are lots of things to consider. Carrying every day has different requirements than carrying occasionally.

Personally, I prefer that my carry pistol does not have any potential energy stored in the fire control system when I am carrying. The easy answer is that any striker fired pistol or SA cocked and locked pistol is disqualified.

But, the H&K P30SK with the LEM trigger (V1) conflicts with the above statement. While the main spring is cocked to reduce trigger pull, the hammer is down and hammer blocks are in place should the main spring accidentally release without a pull of the trigger. I have both an H&K P30SK with the V1 and V3 triggers and I'm warming to the V1 trigger.

Personally, under the current conditions that I carry a pistol, I'd never carry a striker fired pistol. The risks for collateral damage are too great in my circumstances, in my opinion, for the rewards that might be gained.

Striker fired pistols have had their manual of arms reduced to the lowest user skill level. This is proven by people posting saying they don't want a pistol with a manual safety because they don't want to forget the safety during a gunfight or they don't a DA/SA because they like one consistent trigger pull or they don't like (meaning they can't master) the transition to single action. This is a skill issue not a platform issue.

I prefer a DA/SA, hammer fired pistol, especially for concealed carry. There are numerous examples of foreign objects other than the user's finger finding their way into the trigger guard while holstering. On a hammer fired, DA pistol the user can place their thumb on the hammer while holstering and feel the hammer moving if that happens. In South Carolina there are numerous places I can't legally carry so I am forced to un-holster the re-holster blind (OWB at 3:30) while seated in my truck. Doing that holstering maneuver with a striker fired pistol causes me undue concern.

I can see reasons why certain military personnel (special ops) might find a striker fired pistol preferable but for the civilian market I think most shooters lean toward striker fired due to the above mentioned skill issues.

I know this perspective will offend some.

I have 1 striker fired gun and I don't like it.

Hammers are not necessary anymore and strikers are more efficient designs, imo.

That said, in my area DA/SA is making a comeback.
CZ's success in the competitive shooting arena is part of this, I think.

I prefer hammers (don't own a strikers yet) but recognize that it is an older way to accomplish the same thing.

Hammers are simply no longer necessary and are less efficient.

jmr40 said:

No reason striker fired can't have a good trigger. My bolt action rifles are striker fired and have the best triggers of any rifle design.

Click to expand...

I think this is wrong. There is a reason that, in a semi-auto pistol, you can't. In most striker-fired designs, the striker rides in the slide, and the sear/release-mechanism rides in the frame. Moreover, it is only held in place by spring tension, not rigid locking lugs that are manually closed. That means there is always going to be some slop between the two, since the slide and frame must be able to move in relation to one another. Moreover, because of this inherent slop, a gunsmith cannot safely reduce the engagement between the striker and sear/release too much.

Hammer-fired pistols are different. Both the hammer and the sear are held in precise and fixed relationship to another by the frame. The frame doesn't move in relation to the frame (setting aside flexing during recoil, which occurs after what we're talking about).

jmr40 said:

My bolt action rifles are striker fired and have the best triggers of any rifle design.

Click to expand...

And if you have any semi-automatic rifles with good triggers, I bet they are internally hammer-fired.

Corpral_Agarn said:

Hammers are simply no longer necessary and are less efficient.

Click to expand...

There are mechanical reasons you cannot easily get a semi-auto trigger that is as good with a striker as with a hammer.

Striker fired pistols must be cheaper to make and most buyers are not good enough shots to appreciate a good trigger, and so, if they don't make it, you won't be buying it.

Click to expand...

I can't say that I find most stock DA/SA triggers "good". Usually I consider the DA pull a hurdle and the SA trigger OK to decent, often worse than common stock striker triggers, especially in a world where the Walther PPQ, VP9 and the flat trigger 320 triggers exist. Then again, triggers are entirely subjective.

Now tuned triggers and SAO are a different story.

Myself, I prefer a consistent trigger and so I prefer either a SAO or striker.

Michael A Ferber said:

As for Glock, Walther, and a few others, don't count on any to produce DA/SA guns!

Click to expand...

You don't need a hammer for DA/SA gun, Walthers excellent P99 proves this.

ATLDave said:

There are mechanical reasons you cannot easily get a semi-auto trigger that is as good with a striker as with a hammer.

Click to expand...

100% agree.

People like you and I really appreciate that mechanically superior trigger.

But it isn't *that* important to many.

I think they the post about the simplest manual of arms may be part of it too

Why is a striker fired pistol a "controversal" thing, but no one makes a big deal about striker fired bolt action rifles?

Bolt guns are striker fired and arguable have some of the best triggers going.

mcb said:

Why is a striker fired pistol a "controversal" thing, but no one makes a big deal about striker fired bolt action rifles?

Bolt guns are striker fired and arguable have some of the best triggers going.

Click to expand...

See my post above. When the striker and sear are either in the same frame/assembly, or are in two assemblies forced into precise, replicable relationship by tight lugs, you can get strikers very good.

Strikers in a slide that is held closed by a recoil spring and has to have enough slop to reciprocate freely under recoil and spring forces? Very, very difficult to safely remove all the slop and creep.

I suspect the ability to cram levers into the trigger mechanism of rifles may also help, but I'm just conjecturing on that one.

Carried a striker fired pocket pistol yesterday that was made in 1913. I'm carrying a newer one today; it's from 1924.

Striker fired handguns are not anything new but one of my favorite hammerless pistols lies.

Corpral_Agarn said:

100% agree.

People like you and I really appreciate that mechanically superior trigger.

But it isn't *that* important to many.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. Many people don't want a carry or home-defense gun with a good trigger. They want an acceptable trigger.

Some people don't want a car that can go 0-60 in under 5 seconds. That kind of responsiveness does marginally increase the chances of accidentally losing traction or overrunning the car ahead of you.

Most of the big gun manufacturers can very efficiently turn out C-plus to B-grade striker fired triggers with high mechanical reliability and safety. Since a lot of people affirmatively want a B-minus trigger, that's fine. Since a lot of other people have never shot a pistol with even an A-minus trigger, that will also work for them.

There are absolutely reasons striker-fired pistols are popular. There are also reasons that hammer-fired guns will remain prominent for guns that are above service-grade.

ATLDave said:

See my post above. When the striker and sear are either in the same frame/assembly, or are in two assemblies forced into precise, replicable relationship by tight lugs, you can get strikers very good.

Strikers in a slide that is held closed by a recoil spring and has to have enough slop to reciprocate freely under recoil and spring forces? Very, very difficult to safely remove all the slop and creep.

I suspect the ability to cram levers into the trigger mechanism of rifles may also help, but I'm just conjecturing on that one.

Click to expand...

I have an XD that has a remarkably good trigger. There is only enough pre-travel to disengage the strike block and zero over travel. Its every bit at crisp as my Remington R1 Limited double stack 1911 trigger though that has had minimal work. But then again I shoot a double action revolver as well or better than I shoot either of those guns so a Trigger-Snob I am not.

I no longer have any striker fired handguns.

I just can't get into mushy triggers.