Striker fired handguns. Why not?

[BreechFace]

Who cares, one likes what one likes.

I used to carry a CZ PCR for quite some time, really like the options of a decocker and didn't mind the DA pull from a decocked position and transition to SA wasn't bad. Before that it was a Shield 40S&W.

Once Glock came out with the G48 and Shield Arms came out with their S15 magazines it was all over for me with the CZ PCR, the Glock shaves pretty good amount of weight and is thinner, thus carrying better.

And to be perfectly honest in my mind a quality striker fired handgun will be more reliable in my opinion as the striker assembly is sealed from the elements much better than a hammer fired gun. Re-strike ability with the CZ while nice, is probably not a habit that I want to get into, if a cartridge fails to fire, it's best to get that pitched out of the chamber and and a fresh one in its stead when time is of the essence.

Do I still enjoy my hammer fired guns, absolutely. But for a self-defense weapon I want high quality, simple, reliable and durable. My carry piece is a tool, not a show piece. A common slight to Glocks and other poly weapons is that they are "ugly", or have no "soul." Really? Because that is why I strap a firearm in my waistband every morning because it's pretty and has soul? Where do people come up with this stuff?

I have firearms that have more character and redeeming visual qualities than my Glock's, but when push comes to shove; I want hammer driving a nail simple; few parts, uncompromised reliability and good accuracy. I'm not out in the world shooting bowling pins at 100 yards, expecting that to be my self-defense scenario.

I'll give you my two cents, "carry what you want, not because it's cool to unholster and play show and tell, but because it's the right firearm for you when you need it most." If that's a Sig P226, great; a CZ 75, even better ; a Glock, nice. People get so wrapped up in what others think about their own choices on things that don't matter, it's quite comical.

 

[BreechFace]

As long as you are aware of how far away from "not fully-cocked" a Glock striker is (is it 10% cocked, or is it 75% cocked), and what level of "not fully-cocked" it takes to ignite a round.

Stock Glock's strikers are ~60-70% energized from what I've been told/read, and Glock has done tests showing that a stock glock's striker has a high probability of not having enough force to ignite a primer, nothing is perfect.

 

[dh1633pm]

I have two striker fired and going to pick up a third today. Like said earlier this is a ford versus chevy type argument and a big can of worms. I also have three hammer fired pistols. I do have to say the triggers on the Hammers have a better feel. I do not have any small hammer fired. It is nice to have a small pistol without a hammer to get caught on things. Safety or no safety doesn't bother me on a striker. I have one with the safety and keep it off at all times. Worried about it being on when I need it most. I see the need for consistent trigger pull. If you practice enough, even a bad trigger can be memorized. I did get a full size striker. Will try to pick it up today. I got it mostly to practice on to see how I do feel about strikers. They are certainly less expensive (relative term I know).

 

[Rexster]

As long as you are aware of how far away from "not fully-cocked" a Glock striker is (is it 10% cocked, or is it 75% cocked), and what level of "not fully-cocked" it takes to ignite a round.

It is enough, for me, that the trigger needs to be pulled, a measurable distance, against the weight of the actual striker spring, to move the striker an actual, measurable distance. This would, I believe, have been enough to prevent the SIG P320 inertia-fire-when-dropped scenario. To be clear, I am not hating SIG. My P229R DAK is in honored retirement, being my longest-serving individual duty pistol. It is simply a matter of .40 S&W being a bit much, for my aging hands, when fired from the alloy-frame, high-bore-axis P229. A P220, .45 ACP, had served as a duty pistol, earlier in my career. I bought these with my own money. I may yet, eventually, acquire a 9mm SIG P226, or one of the all-stainless steel P220 pistols, that I see listed, occasionally.

 

[mcb]

Even an XD with its fully cocked striker is as safe if not more so than a hammer fired gun. The sear has the grip safety that must be depressed to let the sear move and there is a striker stop in the slide that will stop the striker unless the trigger is held back. On top of all that it has the trigger tab that keeps the trigger from moving to the rear if the gun is drop on the back of the slide grip. Most of the other striker fired handguns have a similar suite of safety devices. In my experience I don't see striker fired guns an any more or less safe than hammer fired guns.

 

[JTQ]

This would, I believe, have been enough to prevent the SIG P320 inertia-fire-when-dropped scenario.

The SIG P320 problem was with the effectiveness of the firing pin safety and not the amount "cocked-ness" of the P320 striker. When SIG recalled the guns they addressed the firing pin safety workings and didn't reduce the level of "cocked-ness".

When the early SIG P320's, pre-recall, went through their unintended discharges, a bunch of folks on another forum (to include some industry insiders, armorers, and some deep dive tinkerers) started dropping various striker fired guns, and smacking these guns with rubber mallets to see if they could get their favorite striker fired guns to fire or at least drop their strikers.

I don't recall all the details, but I think it was pretty consistent they could get the P320 to fire a primer (pre-recall P320), and the Walther PPQ and HK VP9 were both fairly easy to drop the striker. The PPQ and VP9 were so easy, that they could, on occasion, get the strikers to drop just with an overly aggressive mag change. However, due to their properly functioning firing pin safeties, neither would ignite a primer, but the guns were left with decocked strikers and dead triggers, until the slide was racked to re-cock the striker.

Digging into the Glock, they couldn't get the Glock to drop it's striker, but some proceeded to bypass the Glock's firing pin safety mechanisms to see if they could get that partially cocked Glock striker to ignite a primer. Those that were able to bypass the firing pin safety devices found there was enough energy in the partially cocked Glock striker to ignite primers. In addition, the man who invented the Striker Control Device that I linked to above (who is pretty deep into the inner workings of the Glock, and is a fan), said the thing that keeps a Glock safe is not the partially cocked striker, there is enough energy available in the normal partially cocked state to ignite a round, but rather the robust firing pin safety devices Glock uses. His point was that Glock's are very safe, but once you start replacing factory triggers, connectors, etc., with aftermarket parts you have a very good chance of reducing the safety aspects of the Glock, because it is the factory safety devices and not the partially cocked striker that provides the level of safety with a Glock.

 

[BreechFace]

Digging into the Glock, they couldn't get the Glock to drop it's striker, but some proceeded to bypass the Glock's firing pin safety mechanisms to see if they could get that partially cocked Glock striker to ignite a primer. Those that were able to bypass the firing pin safety devices found there was enough energy in the partially cocked Glock striker to ignite primers. In addition, the man who invented the Striker Control Device that I linked to above (who is pretty deep into the inner workings of the Glock, and is a fan), said the thing that keeps a Glock safe is not the partially cocked striker, there is enough energy available in the normal partially cocked state to ignite a round, but rather the robust firing pin safety devices Glock uses. His point was that Glock's are very safe, but once you start replacing factory triggers, connectors, etc., with aftermarket parts you have a very good chance of reducing the safety aspects of the Glock, because it is the factory safety devices and not the partially cocked striker that provides the level of safety with a Glock.

Do you have reference to those Glock tests where they bypassed the firing pin safety and were able to get primers to ignite? I have an email into Glock getting some clarification of points I mentioned previously, but would like to read about the tests you shared above.

I had it in my mind that I read that Glock and other agencies that utilize their handguns had performed tests bypassing the firing pin safety and that there was a high probability with the state of energy in a cocked stock Glock striker that it wouldn't ignite common commercial primers. But maybe I'm misremembering or the information I received is erroneous.

Sorry OP: we are getting into the weeds, @JTQ feel free to PM me so we don't take this thread in the wrong direction for the OP.

 

[JTQ]

Do you have reference to those Glock tests where they bypassed the firing pin safety and were able to get primers to ignite?

I no longer provide those links. It's no longer worth my effort to find and give the links. I've done it a half dozen times, or so, on this forum, and a member will either not read them, or understand them, and then claim "Glock says that's impossible", or "I have a buddy that looked into the theory of that, and he says that couldn't happen." I'll share the information, if somebody thinks it requires some more research, they can do it, but some are convinced the other way, and I'm not going to bother wasting the effort on those folks.

In addition, the member on the other forum, who created the Striker Control Device (SCD) had also owned that particular forum, deleted all of his posts on that forum when he left.

You can probably do an internet search for "rubber mallet to striker fired guns" or something similar, and you can probably find it.

Edit to add: Perhaps a search for "Striker design considerations and Safety" may be a useful search phrase.

 

[lee n. field]

I ask this because I see numerous posts stating that they will not own or carry a striker fired handgun. Why the dislike for them? I am more curious than anything.

Triggers tend to be a bit nastier. Not always.

I currently have 3 tupperware guns a Hellcat, M&P9c, M&P40 and at one time owned a Glock 26, all of which are striker fired and all are/were very shootable and accurate. Things I appreciate about them are they carry well, have consistent triggers and the lack of an external safety.

Things people in the Internet Gun Social Media Herd Mind allege as features/advantages of striker fired vs. hammer fired, usually aren't inherent in either type.

I would assume that one of the things someone might not like about them is the trigger, although consistent each time fired they aren’t comparable to a hammered fired gun and will not have second strike capability if a failure to fire occurs.

Most Taurus striker fired autoloaders "feature" second strike capability.

 

[doubleh]

They are OK but I am basically a hammer guy. I suppose because in my formative years the few handguns I was around all had hammers is why I prefer them. I have owned a few over the years but after scratching my head to remember I can only find one striker fired handgun in my safe, a 22rimfire. The reason it is there is because it does things very well.

 

[Old Dog]

the Internet Gun Social Media Herd Mind

Mostly this.

Others, like myself are Luddites, typically hide-bound traditionalists who were slow to even acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon (even though striker-fired handguns are not as recent a development as many believe) and refused to accept that a striker-fired pistol could possibly be safe (the initial reaction, "No manual safety? Bad gun!"),accurate, reliable, durable and possess a good trigger ("Oh no! Stupid trigger dingus!").

My department switched from a DA/SA with a manual safety/decocker (that most of us disliked and widely mocked) back in the early 2000s. When we adopted our plastic pistol, sans safety, we expected an uptick in NDs. Which we certainly saw (I personally witnessed two, and that doesn't count the numerous NDs I saw on the range during training and quals). BUT -- what we also saw was skyrocketing improvements across the board in our pistol qualification scores. So there's that.

Early issues with Glock was criticism of its ergonomics. Though the company has tweaked the grips over the years, alas, though improved, still not perfection. But I like my 19X and my 43X.

My biggest issue was always the trigger, the trigger, the trigger. Although I personally dislike the Glock trigger, it does have an appreciable audible and tactile reset. The early S&W M&P triggers sucked, not so much with the 2.0 or the Apex replacement. Then I discovered the SIG P-320, which has a very nice trigger. The P-365 series, even better. I've lately become acquainted with SA's Hellcat, which also feels great in the hand and has excellent sights along with a pretty good trigger.

So, I have evolved. I grudgingly accept the existence of striker-fired pistols and now own... several, mostly SIGs, M&Ps and a couple Glocks. I've shot the Walthers (they seem quite worthy), the SAs (nice), no experience with the CZ (as a CZ-75 fan, I have to draw the line somewhere) strikers, shot a couple mags through a Canik (unexpectedly good), and that's about it. The SIG P-320 Carry, 320 X Carry, P-365XL, S&W M&P 2.0 and 2.0C, Glock 43X are my current favorites.

 

[trackskippy]

Most Taurus striker fired autoloaders "feature" second strike capability.

Ive never understood the "second strike" mentality thing as being a positive. In fact, I think even suggesting it is a bad thing. If the gun doesnt go bang, you shouldnt be wasting time on something that historically, usually doesnt go bang on the second, third, fourth, or whatever strikes following the first, you should have immediately moved on at the "click", done your TRB, and fired the next round.

If a second strike is in your onboard malfunction solution locker, you need to be rethinking some things.

 

[ericuda]

Lol, this is going no where. Second strike as said won't work if it doesn't on first. The famous 1911's don't even have this. Ole barney is right, one bullet one shot.

The old story of the guy on the cliff. Throw me down a striker fired gun and odds are 99 percent it will fire.

 

[DeepSouth]

I'll give you my two cents, "carry what you want, not because it's cool to unholster and play show and tell, but because it's the right firearm for you when you need it most." If that's a Sig P226, great; a CZ 75, even better ; a Glock, nice. People get so wrapped up in what others think about their own choices on things that don't matter, it's quite comical.

This is a sentiment I find myself thinking more and more as I browse THR, maybe it has come with age. My thoughts have been “carry what like and enjoy” that seems to changing slightly to “carry what you believe fills your needs”
But to be fair to the OP, he was asking out of curiosity and I understand that. I have wondered in the past why some people had a dislike for somethings and once they explained it I understood, didn’t necessarily agree but I understand and at no point did I personally care why they disliked something for any reason other than curiosity and education.

For an example, the trigger on KAHR’s, I like them and when I first heard someone say they didn’t I couldn’t imagine why. After they explained their problems with it, I understood what they are getting at. So now if someone asked me how I like my KAHR I tell them…. I also make sure to point out the trigger… it’s a love it or hate it thing so figure it out before you buy if at all possible.

 

[trackskippy]

Lol, this is going no where. Second strike as said won't work if it doesn't on first. The famous 1911's don't even have this. Ole barney is right, one bullet one shot.

The old story of the guy on the cliff. Throw me down a striker fired gun and odds are 99 percent it will fire.

Back when Glocks were first showing up here, Glock had a sales video that the salesmen were showing around to the dealers. They were taking a mix of loaded guns, well, guns with loaded mags/unloaded chambers, and that were cocked and ready to go otherwise, and then throwing them down an Olympic type ski jump (Austria ya know. ) and letting them fall to the ground way down at the bottom. The guy at the bottom would pick up the gun, or what was left of it, check to see if it had "fired", clear any snow in the barrel, if it had any, and then cycle the slide and try and shoot it.

It was pretty amazing the number of guns that didnt survive the fall (most of them), at least not fully intact and shootable at the end. The Glock did it with flying colors (of course! ). With most of the others, everything from mags and rounds blowing out of the guns to the guns coming apart on impact seemed to be the normal result.

 

[mcb]

I have seen the second strike capability work well. The prime example is slightly high primers, a case with a high primer that still chambers normally but does not go off with the first strike will almost always be set it off with a second strike. A buddy of mine loaded a batch of ammo on a new press with the priming system not quite adjusted right. So he had a batch of ammo with a moderately high rate of high primers. We figured that out at at a local club level USPSA match, but since he was shooting a second strike capably CZ at the match he made it through using the second strike capability at least once per stage. Obviously after the match that batch of ammo got reworked and the press adjusted correctly but at least in that one fairly unique case the second strike capability saved him a fair bit of time and he still beat far more shooter than he lost to that match.

 

[ericuda]

Mcb so pure operator error and bad ammo. Normal off the shelf either will go bang or will not. I would guess besides 22lr bad ammo from manufactures has a very low failure rate.

 

[mcb]

Mcb so pure operator error and bad ammo. Normal off the shelf either will go bang or will not. I would guess besides 22lr bad ammo from manufactures has a very low failure rate.

I did say it was a fairly unique case. The operator error was on the reloader not as the shooter. The shooter in the match did anything but make an error, he still beat the overwhelming number of us despite the bad ammo because he knew his gun gave him second strike capability and used it too full effect to offset the bad ammo. Is that a strong reason to choose a second strike capable handgun? No, but it does show that a shooter with a flexible mind can make use of the feature (and many others) in an unlikely scenario.

 

[jmr40]

Most people who dislike striker fired guns do so because of the unusual trigger pull. But the only reason most striker fired handguns have such triggers is due to the lack of a manual safety. They are trying for a light DAO trigger that usually ends up being neither fish nor fowl.

It is quite possible to design a striker fired handgun with a very nice trigger, but if you do so a manual safety would be a good idea. The Sig M17 and M18 are 2 such examples. Their triggers are much better than a typical "Glock" style trigger, but they retain a 1911 style safety.

IMO this gives the best of both worlds. Smith & Wesson and Ruger also offer similar designs and I'm fond of all of them.

I never understood the appeal of an exposed hammer on a handgun. There hasn't been a new rifle or shotgun design with an exposed hammer in over 100 years. And striker fired bolt rifles are the most rugged, dependable rifle action type. Exposed hammer lever guns the least rugged and dependable. There are more bad things that can happen with exposed hammers than good things. The better question is; why did it take so long for striker fired guns to become popular?

 

[JTQ]

I never understood the appeal of an exposed hammer on a handgun.

I'm not trying to convince you, feel free to like what you like, just some potential reasons why someone would prefer a hammer fired gun.

 

[Targa]

I didn't think that was the question the OP was asking, but rather...I ask this because I see numerous posts stating that they will not own or carry a striker fired handgun. Why the dislike for them

Exactly. Definitely did not intend for a which is better thread, striker fired platforms get the most criticism and I was just wondering why people don’t like them.

 

[BreechFace]

@JTQ that's a good run down of pros to a DA/SA, quick and to the point; with really good real world examples of it's pros.


While I still really enjoy a DA/SA and was in that camp at one time, it didn't change my thoughts on replacing my CZ PCR with my Glock 48. But if it gets someone to more information to consider in choosing a platform, that's great.

 

[BreechFace]

Back to the OP. I think the dislike of strikers come from a few different reasonings (whether right or wrong):

1. A segment of gun owners who like hammered guns will want to suppress strikers. The explosion of strikers on the market has definitely took market share away from new platforms in the DA/SA, SA, DA realm.
2. Tradition, people progressed from revolvers to hammer semi's which felt like a natural progression, not seeing the ignition source in a striker is foreign enough to not like it.
3. Hammer guns are more safe, takes a deliberate removal of safety (SA) or long pull (DA); and re-holstering one can have a pulse on any movement of the hammer, and have an idea what condition the gun is in (which can be a weakness).
4. Striker trigger pulls are mushy compared to a DA; and too heavy compared to a SA.
5. Strikers have no soul, often made with polymer and belong in a tupperware drawer; I guess people baptize their firearms with a soul?
6. Most strikers can't double strike a round, which can get you killed.
7. So many striker models don't provide a manual safety.
8. Strikers are cheaper, thus they aren't as good.
9. Most strikers use a trigger dongle, and that's too weird.

 

[Simple Shooter]

I do not feel comfortable with putting a striker fired pistol in a CCW holster and like having a hammer to ride/block when reholstering. And I am a trigger snob. So, it is usually a Sig 229SAO or a 1911 riding my hip.

That said, if you prefer striker, DA/SA, DAO, wheellock, etc., that is what you should carry. Gather your information and carry what you consider as reasonable and prudent for you. (Goes for caliber and capacity as well.)

 

[JTQ]

... striker fired platforms get the most criticism and I was just wondering why people don’t like them.

I disagree. As Langdon said in the linked video, this is a striker fired world. Even in this thread, where you asked for "why people dislike them", you got more responses why they are superior, and the faults of non-striker fired guns.

You'll get a whole lot more "Beretta 92FS and their backwards operating safety", or "a manual safety will get you killed on the streets", or some comment on how could you ever defend yourself with a low capacity revolver, than you ever see criticism of striker fired guns. I'm not saying folks don't take pot shots at striker fired guns, but it is significantly less than other guns.