Is it proper to describe a handgun

[Iron Sight]

Is it proper to describe a handgun with an internal hammer as "Striker Fired"?

I see a part described as a hammer inside a Chiappa Rhino. I see descriptions of the Rhino as a striker fired revolver?

Thanks

 

[Jim Watson]

No

But I am not familiar enough with the Rhino to say anything about it.

 

[Varminterror]

No. An internal hammer revolver is that - an internal hammer.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Two different things. The Rhino is not striker fired

 

[AlexanderA]

Look at the analogy with rifles. The M1 Garand, the M1 carbine, the AR-15, etc., are all hammer fired although the hammers are not externally visible. Most bolt action rifles, on the other hand, are striker fired. With a striker, the energy applied to the firing pin comes from an in-line spring rather than a swinging hammer.

 

[herrwalther]

On Semi-autos there is an assumption that if there isn't a hammer visible, it is striker fired. However, there are plenty of firearms with internal hammers, Taurus TCP immediately comes to mind and dozens more if I sit thinking long enough. Calling an internal hammer a striker is intentionally misleading at the very least.

 

[Iron Sight]

Thanks for the excellent observations and replies. Im more gun smart now.

 

[MedWheeler]

I made this mistake decades ago with the Ruger Mk-II. I assumed that the lack of a visible hammer meant there wasn't one, even though I knew that many revolvers have completely-enclosed hammers. The only other .22 pistol I owned at the time, a Jennings did indeed have a striker mechanism.

I don't consider the hammer on the Taurus TCP or similar guns (like those from Kel-Tec own) as "internal hammers", since I can still see them. I consider those as having "shrouded" hammers.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Thanks for the excellent observations and replies. Im more gun smart now.

Then, of course, ya gotta love the old Colt "Pocket Hammerless" automatics- which of course had an internal hammer.