Advantages of striker vs. exposed hammer on semi-autos

[John Wesley]

I own both types of handguns. I am wondering what others consider the advantages are of each.

Exposed hammer - Can usually cock hammer manually. Can feel hammer when holstering to be sure trigger isn't caught on something.

Striker - No exposed hammer to catch foreign object preventing ignition.

It seems to me the striker type have easier trigger pulls than those that use an exposed hammer. I am not talking about "pre-cock" models. My PT-111 has a lighter pull than any of my exposed hammer type handguns. It doesn't "pre-cock" and has full second strike capability. - Might be just me.

What are the advantages of each type of mechanism? If 2 handguns are otherwise identical which would you prefer?

If you need an application to answer the question we'll say it will used for self defense.

 

[10-Ring]

I like both but for me, between my G19 & my USP 9, I like the second strike capability of the hammer fired system and I like the snag free contours of the Glock

 

[ZeSpectre]

Strictly in terms of CCW, I prefer a striker fired gun with a DAO trigger. No hooks or points to catch on stuff and once my finger is on the trigger I'm ready to go.

I certainly can understand why people like hammer fired in a "cocked n locked" configuration but it's not my style.

 

[Soybomb]

I like the second strike capability of the hammer fired system

My striker fired p99 has second strike... Don't confuse the action of the gun with the means it uses to drive the firing pin into the primer.

I don't think the difference is anything to really worry about. I can cock my p99 for a single action shot if I really want, although not 1 handed. I don't find second strike to be that important either. If the round doesn't go off, get it out of the chamber. Being able to hold a hammer during reholstering is nice but I certainly don't think vital.

Overall I worry about the difference as much as I worry about the color of box it came in so to me the differences are unimportant. I'm much more concerned about fit to my hand, location of mag release, and trigger reset. Ymmv.

 

[CountGlockula]

Strikers, they won't get your skin or clothing caught.

 

[foob]

Strikers, they won't get your skin or clothing caught.

Some pistols have hammers that are concealed by the slide.

 

[ABBOBERG]

I'd be curious to see what brand of guns that can have a non pre-cock striker with the same trigger force as a hammer operated gun. In practice, a well-designed DAO hammer system needs a minimum of about 6-1/2 pounds of trigger pull to properly dent a primer. That is why so many DAO guns are in the 7-8 lb range; with some more poorly-designed systems in the 10-12 lb range.

Pre-cocked strikers tend to operate in the 3-6 lb range, but non-precocked strikers would have to be operating in the 15 pound range. Why? Because a striker's straight compression spring loses force at it expands, making it a very inefficient energy-delivery device. That is why, for example, the pre-cock force on an HK P7 (squeeze-cocker) is in the 17 lb range (but then single action force is about 2 lb).

A hammer is much more efficient at delivering the energy to the primer because clever gun designers use leverage to make the mainspring provide the same force to the hammer over its entire stroke. So far, I have not seen anyone succeed at doing this with a striker.

 

[foob]

Pre-cocked strikers tend to operate in the 3-6 lb range, but non-precocked strikers would have to be operating in the 15 pound range. Why? Because a striker's straight compression spring loses force at it expands, making it a very inefficient energy-delivery device. That is why, for example, the pre-cock force on an HK P7 (squeeze-cocker) is in the 17 lb range (but then single action force is about 2 lb).

Does that mean striker-fired pistols with 2nd strike capability have 15 pound triggers?

I'm assuming they are all non-precocked strikers, since requiring a 2nd strike means striker cannot be cocked by the slide.

 

[ABBOBERG]

Why can't it be cocked by the slide?

Most strikers I know of are pre-cocked.

 

[hkusp]

I find a hammer puts a stronger hit on the primer than a striker.
Also the hammer makes it much easier to dry fire over and over.

 

[foob]

Why can't it be cocked by the slide?

Most strikers I know of are pre-cocked.

Yeah but for 2nd strike capable pistols, means 1st strike failed and slide didn't pre-cock striker for 2nd strike. Which means 2nd strike should be uncocked isn't it?

 

[ABBOBERG]

I see what you are getting at. Second-strike capable strikers would be uncocked and should need a lot more force on the trigger. Has anyone out there measured that force? I would be surprised if it were under 14 lb.

 

[mpmarty]

Wow now you're getting me confused

My striker fired pistol is a Taurus PT145 it is NOT precocked (ala gluck) at all and the trigger pull is a smoothe, even five and a half pounds now. When new it was a bit over six and not as smoothe. If the round fails to fire my finger is already on the trigger taking up slack and the second strike is less than .25 seconds away. No joy on second strike it's the old tap, rack, bang just like a 1911 or any other semi auto clearance drill. Where the hell are you guys coming up with seventeen pound triggers? That's twelve times what my .45 weighs loaded.

 

[Jamie C.]

There are mechanical advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

Strikers, for the most part, take up less room, and because of their linear action, also need lighter springs than a hammer-operated gun. They are generally more mechanically efficient

Because of this, a DAO pistol with a striker can have a pretty light trigger pull... although it'll probably be a little longer than a DAO hammer-operated gun's will be.

A good example of this is the "take-up" in a Glock's trigger... That first part of the trigger pull is actually finishing the cocking of the striker. And how little effort does that take? A pound or two?

Now take a look at, say, a Sig P220... it's trigger pull in the DA mode starts off pretty much at what it ends with. This is mostly because the hammer requires the trigger bar to move in a straight line, but transfer that linear motion into an arc. The same thing is happening with the hammer spring as well. And both the trigger and the hammer spring are generally moving over a shorter distance than the end of the hammer is.
Not exactly the most efficient way to transfer energy, but it does work. The drawback though is that it requires a stronger spring to deliver the needed force to dent the primer, and more force from the user to compress that spring.

For SA guns, the only advantage a striker has over a hammer is one of space... it takes up less room. It's disadvantage is that there's no way to re-set the striker without cycling the slide.

The funny thing is, both systems can be set up to give really light, crisp trigger pulls... except that the lawyers won't let the gun companies do it.



J.C.

 

[ABBOBERG]

The HK P7 uses a 17-pound "squeeze" to preload the striker, but this is older technology. The Glock might be a little less than that. If Taurus can have a 6 lb striker without pre-cock, they are well ahead of the other guys.

 

[Jamie C.]

ABBOBERG, the squeeze cocker on a P7 is made that hard intentionally... It doesn't have to be that heavy for the striker to fire the cartridge.

However, the designers probably thought that 17 pounds made for a safer pistol than 5 or 6 did.


J.C.

 

[ABBOBERG]

I have disassembled and studied the P7 squeeze cocker system, and it seems that about 2 pounds of the 17 pounds is used to return the squeeze lever. That means that 15 pounds is being used by the striker to dent the primer. When I look at the dented primers, they don't seem any deeper than those fired by other guns that I own. My guess is that since the P7 striker is somewhat large and heavy, it needs the 15 lbs of spring force to get it moving.

As far as Taurus is concerned, they must be using an ultra-light striker to keep the force down in the 6 pound range.