Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by BobinNC, Jul 28, 2021.
Really? I thought the FN 1910 was a striker.
You had ready replied with 4 paragraphs to my question of.
Then you went on and on as if I never said (so I'll post is a 3rd time)
Because it's almost literally at the point of two kids arguing on the playground, when one says "did not" and the other says "did too."
I have, and like, handguns with and without a manual safety. I have experienced an accidental discharge with a revolver, and a 1911 safety disengaged in the holster.
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.
Thats what some of us have been saying all along.
They all have safeties too, some more apparent than others.
Let's try to keep focused on the topic and not on each other.
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.
1910 as pictured is striker..
Perhaps the similar looking 1903 is what you were thinking of, as it had a hidden hammer?
Yes, let's keep things accurate and on topic. 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.
I was not discussing what you think might be a typical or average trigger or firing mechanism characteristic for different guns. If you want to discuss perceived norms for different guns, please do so, but that has no bearing on the case I presented.
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.
According to this, the M&P 9c 1.0 trigger is .300" rest to fire.
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.
Using a CZ75B as an example, Glock would have you believe their partially cocked striker is the same as a CZ75B in the half cock position. At the half cock, the CZ75B doesn't have enough energy to ignite primers, because it really isn't "half" cocked, it's just back a little way. The Glock striker is really more like the CZ75B in single action mode, where the trigger cams the hammer farther back before it releases, but at rest in single action mode, before camming back the CZ75B has enough energy to ignite primers, just like the partially cocked Glock.
The thing that keeps the Glock safe in a drop condition is the robust firing pin safety and not the partially cocked striker.
A couple of Ernest Langdon data points
skip to the 2:20 mark
Another from Ernest Langdon https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27185-Semi-Auto-Triggers-market-trends-choices-and-consequences
Ain't that the bottom line, here? You interested in a gun, make up your own mind. Nothing I've read in this or the bazillion previous threads will alter my choice in handgun safeties.
“Are Manual Safeties on Striker Fired Handguns Heresy??” Mine won’t have them, that’s all that matters to me.
If you do not like them - YES.
If you like them - NO.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
(Although, I think the OP, and many here are forgetting there is such a thing as a single-action striker fired pistol, which for safety sake, should have a manual safety.)
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).
Interesting on the M&P travel distance being only 0.3". Do you know how that's measured? It looks like it's measured at the overtravel stop, not at the tip of the trigger as would be normally done. Maybe it's because they don't consider the tip to be part of the trigger?
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.
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.
As for the part of my post you didn't address, why do you think that no manufacturer of any hammer fired gun (even manufacturers who also make striker-fired guns) recommends that it be carried cocked without the manual safety applied while the manufacturers of striker-fired "DAO" type pistols (even those who also make hammer-fired guns) are ok with their guns being carried in the trigger-forward, chamber-loaded condition?
As previously, you simply dismissed what I wrote and spun off on some screed that you dreamed up.
I suggested comparing two guns with the same trigger pull and travel, which is not a difficult proposition. However, you added identical in every respect before declaring such would be two purely hypothetical guns and used the conditions you created as the basis for your spurious disagreement.
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.
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 have one word for you - Walther. The trigger travels of Walther's Double-Action striker-fired pistols include: PPS 0.20", CCP 0.27", PDP 0.28", and the PPQ has a whopping 0.40" travel.
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.
That is so true!.. You want opioids?, Big Pharma gives you all the opioids you can buy. You want to be an addict? The Vape shop will sell you all the Juuls you want. You want to gamble your life savings away, well, there are one heck of a lot of casinos out there. Industry will give you what you want, even though it will make you dependent, destitute or dead. I heard that the internet companies model humanity as simple creatures, only satisfying their basest wants and instincts. And for such a simple model, it is very robust. They assume, perhaps rightly, humans cannot control their urges, and only hear, and see, what want to hear and see.
Cult Cocked and Locked has their own creation myths about the origins of the 1911, because they want to play quick draw and have that wonderful single stage trigger instantly available.
The thing is, you want a gun to play quick draw games, industry has responded. And of course, private owners can be as irresponsible as they want to be, the liability of shooting themselves, or others, is on their head.
Now, lets say you are the Army, and Robert McNamara sends you another 100,000 McNamara morons to use, what do you do? The Project 100,000 idiots sent over to Vietnam, were more of a danger to themselves, and their fellow grunts, than they were to the enemy. What kind of gun are you going to give those guys?
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"
Blue threat, Vol 18 Ed 5 https://www.safety.marines.mil/Portals/92/Docs/Blue Threat/CSAC-Edition-5.pdf
People in positions of responsibility over people and budget, they prioritize things differently from a bunch of games men who want to win quick draw games.
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.
I provided correct information based on the guns I have available.
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.
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/
Which means that during the timeframe the document is referencing, the Marines were using the M9, a TDA hammer-fired design with a manual safety. The same one that Langdon uses.
List some specific differences that are significant in determining the propensity of two guns to fire when their triggers are pulled.
What differences do you think relate to safety?
Do we need to consider the size of the trigger guards to determine whether foreign objects might get into one more easily than another?
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?
You are avoiding the question by suggesting nebulous and unidentified factors to claim the question is too complex to address.
You made an inaccurate generalization from a limited sample and you were not even aware your sample was skewed.
Ah--that's quite different from the original context I was responding to.
When "their triggers are pulled" is a very specific case to evaluate vs. when "being carried".
If you want to change the comparison to being focused exclusively on only when the triggers are actually being pulled, then I agree that the same standards should apply to both.
On the other hand, carry involves a lot more than just actually pulling triggers. It involves loading the firearm for carry, the possibility of dropping a firearm, it involves holstering and drawing a firearm. The possibility of trigger snags, etc., etc. Each of the two designs likely take different approaches to mitigating the potential dangers.
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.
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.
I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but those are exactly the kinds of things that need to be considered when evaluating a design overall for safety of carry.
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 ...
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 list I gave you above of some of the most common striker fired pistols on the market...
"... Glock to S&W M&P, SIG P320, HK VP9, Walther PPQ, Beretta APX ..."
are there any that claim to be "less cocked" than Glock?
The "DAO" claim of most striker fired guns is probably technically correct, in that every trigger pull retracts the striker father before release. However, most, nearly all, retract the striker most of the way when the slide is racked and only a small fraction of striker cocking is done by the trigger. They are in no way close to the hammer position of a DAO revolver, Beretta 92D, P226 DAK, or even an HK LEM.
Edit to add: In reference to the OP's question, I'm not advocating for a manual safety on striker fired guns, but folks who choose striker fired guns need to understand what is hiding under that closed slide since they can't see the status of the striker.
It should be at the middle of the trigger as that where it makes sense to take it and normally is.
Which is also where the measurement is taken with trigger weight as well .
Standard of consistency and consistency of standard.
It doesn't make sense to measure pull weight or distance at the tip or close to the pivot because thats not where your finger is pulling (as well as possibly not deactivating the trigger dingle, if so equipped, allowing the trigger to move at all)
All of those are less than the .30" of the M&P which of course amounts to being FAR less than the claim below.
John, If you're sure about that claim, can you share more info because it doesn't seem believable on its face nor does taking the measurement from the tip where the force/finger is not applied? Help me understand.
This is true.
Because I work with young shooters and because most of my handguns are old school, I train them in the use of manual safeties. If the gun they are shooting doesn't have one, it's a clean swipe. Manual safeties don't insure safety but add another step that must be taken before the gun will fire. I am no pro, but have concluded that in my situation, they reduce the most likely forms of risk. Heresy? I am no fan of dogma.
Separate names with a comma.