What are the pro's vs.cons of the hammer fired w/de-cocker vs.striker fired pistols like the M&P?
Technically striker-fired guns have a shorter lock time, but hammer-fired seem to have crisper triggers IMO.
You mean like how the 1911 didn't work in the mud in the trenches in WWI?Striker fired leaves one less opening for crud to get into the guns internals,
I'll let my inexperience shine here, but I chose to go the striker fired route in part due to the simpler manual of arms.
Striker fired leaves one less opening for crud to get into the guns internals, or between the hammer and firing pin. No hammer to get caught in clothing etc. and prevent the gun from firing in close range engagements.
Bottom line, presonal preference.
Best analogies ever!You mean like how the 1911 didn't work in the mud in the trenches in WWI?
Or the sand on the beaches in WWII?
Or the snow and ice in Korea?
Or the rice paddys & jungle in Vietnam??
Like that kind of crud?
I SEE, said the blind man to his deaf daughter when he tripped over the stump.
rc
What are the pro's vs.cons of the hammer fired w/de-cocker vs.striker fired pistols like the M&P?