Hammers or Strikers?

[Dobe]

+1 ...

 

[joeturner]

None of J.M.B.'s designs used strikers, so neither do I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_model_1910

 

[Dobe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarence
None of J.M.B.'s designs used strikers, so neither do I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_model_1910

That's not a striker fired handgun. It uses a hammer.

 

[joeturner]

That's not a striker fired handgun. It uses a hammer.

Okay, so that was my bad. I read the "It incorporated the standard Browning striker-firing mechanism" line and figured that's what it meant. So did Browning have any striker fired designs?

 

[BHPshooter]

None of J.M.B.'s designs used strikers, so neither do I.

Simply not true. The Colt Vest Pocket, the Baby Browning, the Grand Rendement... and a few others I can't recall off the top of my head.

It's okay not to like them -- I am not all that fond of them, but that's simply because strikers don't have the striking force that a hammer has.

Wes

 

[Deus Machina]

In all my law enforcement training I have never seen a training protocol or instructor who ever taught officers to try to pull the trigger again for a "second strike" of a round in the chamber.

Okay, you're right, and I really would not suggest relying on a second strike to set off a primer that didn't ignite the first time.

Let me rephrase: double-action, IMO--and, I believe, traditionally if not purely technically--should be able to fire a gun from an uncocked position.

That said, this isn't the thread to argue it and, aside from the 'constant half-cock' many striker-fired pistols are in, I really just find fault with the particular guns themselves. Nothing against them as a whole, and they have their merits, but they just don't work for me.

 

[GLOOB]

There's functionally no difference, unless you're the guy who cocks his gun as he draws, then ND's the hammer back down with his thumb. If you wanna do that, buy a striker-fired P7 and have it all.

The main benefit of a striker is that it simplifies the gun, especially the frame. This can reduce production cost and allows for a smaller backstrap. It also allows for design of a lower bore axis, ala Steyr, GLOCK, and P7. Have you held a P7? Where would you have room to stick a hammer on that thing? The main benefits of a hammer are hammer bite, greater chance of snagging on clothing during the draw, exposes more of the gun's internals to dirt, and the ability to perform an ND with greater variety. Well, ok, there's at least 2 benefits. A hammer can be made larger. And it is also static when compared with the sear/trigger group. So it is likely easier to produce a better trigger pull for a hammer-fired pistol, but that depends a good deal on design, as well.

Other than that, you're arguing about specific qualities of individual guns, not the mechanism, itself. Trigger action, safeties, etc, are all qualities distinct from the manner in which the firing pin is propelled.

I'm sure you have a lot of better reasons to not like Glock or XD then the fact that there's no hammer. You've already mentioned several... trigger feel, trigger action, manual safety, etc. In addition, you have mentioned the fact that you actually like one particular striker-fired pistol - one of the Steyrs.

 

[DougDubya]

"JMB never used a striker..."

Saive turned Browning's striker design for the Hi-Power back into a hammer design. Browning's Hi-Power also would have been single-stack, and I believe .45 auto too.

 

[Cards81fan]

No contest, hammers work more reliably.

Pray tell, how so? What is inherently more reliable about an external hammer versus an internal striker-fired pistol?

 

[Dobe]

Hammer fired handguns do generally hit the primer harder. With modern primers, does this make hammer guns more reliable? Perhaps not.
Would it matter, if your striker had grit and gunk in the firing pin chamber? Perhaps it would.

 

[desperado8605]

now gentleman here is an arugement i've heard one to many times espicially the part about if the glock was designed by browning and the 1911 designed by gaston glock the young guys would carry 1911's and the old guys glocks. not true i'm 22 years old and carry a 1911 everyday and my buddy carries a pt845 usually, and my other friend a witness out of 4 people i no that carry everyday only one carries a glock. i prefer the 1911 it has a better trigger feel ya i've got an xd and my dad has an old gen 1 g17 but i dont like the way they feel i prefer hammer but voted i carry both

 

[sidheshooter]

I see no difference in safety or reliability between the two, but I prefer hammers because striker guns seem to have universally terrible triggers. They feel like nerf guns.

+1.

I am perfectly content in terms of safety with either design, but I really prefer the *feel* of hammer guns. Everything that I own currently has a hammer. I used to carry a G19 (sproingy trigger and all), though, so whatever floats your boat.

 

[lawboy]

I carry hammered guns because I like them. I could carry striker guns with equal confidence. Have carried a sharp stick and would have been quite handy with it. My weapon is between my ears.

 

[1SOW]

DA/SA hammer:

I like the condition 1 option AND the DA option and the double strike option (I've used that once in competition). I like the visual sign of condition.

They do take some additional practice, but with a little 'tuning' DA to SA transition is not that big of a deal.