striker fired or hammer fired guns

[JTQ]

Not to nitpick but if you give any gun to an armorer (or any redneck with a dremel tool for that matter) they can disable enough of the gun to make it unsafe to drop.

The point is not disabling the firing pin block, the point is a slide cocked striker has enough energy to fire a round without pulling the trigger.

The firing pin safety on an unmodified Glock is a very robust device. If I were to choose a gun to throw against the wall, and not have it fire, a Glock would be near, if not at the top, of the list.

 

[FL-NC]

Strikers here, except for 1911. I don't like DA or decockers, and I want the same trigger whether its my first shot or the next 14 that follow it. No decockers in my life.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

As you note, your mileage does vary.

But I've carried and shot mainly 1911s for coming up on 10 years and disengaging the safety is so ingrained into my muscle memory it is nearly impossible to bring a gun up on target without disengaging it, both from repeated action and from my firing grip resting my grip on the safety.

This also works on a BHP and Sig SAO as the safeties are of similar function and location.

To your point, however, I am not nearly as practiced in safeties not in that location, such as the CZ 75 series or any slide mounted safeties. So I would not carry either of these cocked and locked without one heck of a lot of practice.

1. Have you ever failed to disengage the safety?

2. Have you ever had to do it in the real world?

 

[JR24]

1. Have you ever failed to disengage the safety?

2. Have you ever had to do it in the real world?

1. No
2. No, only in practice or competition. Oh, and once hunting with my 10mm.

Speaking of hunting, I do plenty of wingshooting and the only time I've failed to pop a safety on a flushing grouse or pheasant was when using a borrowed shotgun with a safety in an odd position. Give me my trusty 870 or 887 and instinct does what it needs to despite having less than seconds to react to a flushing grouse (in particular)

 

[JTQ]

Keeping your finger off the trigger is a critical skill that has to be practiced every time you handle the weapon. Not just when you fire it.

I don't know why operating a thumb safety wouldn't also be considered "a critical skill that has to be practiced every time you handle the weapon"?

Nearly all 1911 shooters spend more time with their thumb on the thumb safety than they do with their finger on the trigger. Thumb on the safety is part of gripping the gun.

I have been known to pick up cordless drills and index my finger along the frame.

I suspect nearly every 1911 shooter on this forum will tell you they sweep the non-existent thumb safety off every time they shoot Glocks.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I'm sorry but you'll have to help me interpret that sentence. At your suggestion I tried Spellcheck but that didn't help, just sayin'.

That’s that auto correct feature on my IPad. But the words are spelled correctly.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I don't know why operating a thumb safety wouldn't also be considered "a critical skill that has to be practiced every time you handle the weapon"?

Nearly all 1911 shooters spend more time with their thumb on the thumb safety than they do with their finger on the trigger. Thumb on the safety is part of gripping the gun.


I suspect nearly every 1911 shooter on this forum will tell you they sweep the non-existent thumb safety off every time they shoot Glocks.

Cherry picking our response a little?

 

[JTQ]

Cherry picking our response a little?

OK?

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Isn’t it funny how a simple topic like, Who prefers striker fired over hammer fired guns, and why? Will start an argument.
Why do some feel the need to turn a simple topic into unpleasant BS?
The topic is not about which is best, just which one you like better.
It really doesn’t matter to me which one you prefer, but it’s interesting to hear why someone will chose one over the other.
My friend’s dad is in his late 60’s and loves the Browning Hi-Power, but doesn’t carry one. Up until last year he carried a Sig with a DA/SA action. He now carries a M&P 2.0. When I asked him what got him to switch over to a Striker Fire gun. He said he likes the M&P and had it for almost a year before he felt comfortable enough to care it. He gave on other reason for making the switch.

 

[il_10]

I suppose I'm decidedly in the hammer fired camp; out of the ~30 handguns in the crowd only one is striker fired and that's a '39 Luger so probably outside of the scope of this discussion. My only plastic fantastic (KT p32) is DAO hammer, and my colt 1903's are not 'hammerless' as advertised.

I'm not opposed to striker fired handguns in the least, but I prefer external safeties, have my carry bases covered, and mostly pick up weird or classic designs when I'm browsing the gun stores. I don't trust the sear setups in the baby brownings or colt .25s so I haven't yet bought one. I'll likely cave at some point since they're in my wheelhouse of classic weird cool.

 

[JTQ]

I have never carried a pistol that required me to disengage a safety before firing it so I've never been in a position in which forgetting to disengage the safety in a real world encounter was even possible. I have however forgotten to disengage the safety on my 1911 just plinking at the range and I've seen others ,many others, do so as well.

You've identified a limitation, and developed a workaround. Good choice.

I have had to draw my weapon in self-defense, more than once. I know exactly how stressful that moment is. I also know that I only have to screw up that safety one time to get myself killed.

Congratulations on surviving such harrowing experiences. I hope to never be in that position.

I have also had to point my weapon at a human being in the real world a couple of times. I remember in the moment my trigger finger glowed in the dark and I knew exactly where it was at. It was literally the only part of my body that I could feel and I remember in the middle of the situation being very surprised at how cognizant I was exactly where that finger was at.

Good feedback. Perhaps somebody that routinely shoots a gun with a thumb safety would have a similar experience with their thumb.

Bottom line, I have forgotten to take the safety off of a gun. I have never yet forgotten to keep my finger off the trigger until I was ready to shoot.

Ayoob has studied the firearm safety issue. In his research, more have been saved by a manual safety than have been harmed. Just a data point though. Every situation is unique.

The firearms that I have in use stay loaded and holstered. I do not routinely administratively handle loaded firearms. When I do the first thing I do with them is clear them and verify that they are unloaded.

I suspect nearly everybody administratively handles loaded firearms more than they actually shoot them. I don't see how one couldn't.

It has been my experience that in the real world when something goes wrong your brain's tendency is to panic. It's also been my experience that panic compounds your problems and leads you to start making mistakes while you're trying to correct the original problem. Unless you're very lucky what usually happens is you run out of time before you solve the original problem.

I don't disagree. Everybody has to weigh which panic carries greater weight, pulling a trigger before you are positive of what you're shooting, or a delay in disengaging the safety.

I quit carrying TDA guns because I had a malfunction during a shoot and move exercise at a training class. I had a misfire or possibly somebody put a dummy round in my magazine. To make a long story short while I was clearing the malfunction I accidentally engaged the safety on the gun without realizing what I did. I tried to clear that malfunctioned three more times before I figured out why the gun wasn't firing. I really don't care why that happened because I'm absolutely positive that if that happened in a real-world gunfight I would very likely be enough to get me killed.

You've identified a software error and corrected the issue with hardware. A worthwhile workaround.

I'm not projecting my limitations on others. I'm not telling anybody what kind of gun to carry. I very specifically asked the poster after he said that he's well-trained and has muscle memory of disengaging the safety over 30 years if at any time during that 30 years he'd ever forgotten to do so.

As I said earlier I've actually had to defend myself with a firearm in the real world and what I have found is everything that I can do to simplify the process is a good thing.

Every decision that I have to make an every step that I have to take between the time I perceive the threat and the time I'm defending myself is an opportunity for something to go wrong at literally the WORST possible moment.

I stated up thread and I meant it that if I ever have to defend myself with firearm again I want the dumbest (simplest) gun I can possibly have.

YMM (and very likely does) V considerably

All good. Everybody gets to make their own choices.

 

[sigarms228]

Isn’t it funny how a simple topic like, Who prefers striker fired over hammer fired guns, and why? Will start an argument.
Why do some feel the need to turn a simple topic into unpleasant BS?
The topic is not about which is best, just which one you like better.
It really doesn’t matter to me which one you prefer, but it’s interesting to hear why someone will chose one over the other.
My friend’s dad is in his late 60’s and loves the Browning Hi-Power, but doesn’t carry one. Up until last year he carried a Sig with a DA/SA action. He now carries a M&P 2.0. When I asked him what got him to switch over to a Striker Fire gun. He said he likes the M&P and had it for almost a year before he felt comfortable enough to care it. He gave on other reason for making the switch.

I think it might be feelings of insecurity. Most seem to be confident in their decisions but are open to listening what others have to say that choose different and be civil about it and understand that different people have different priorities, experiences, and circumstances. Others however seem to take when someone chooses differently as a personal challenge of their decision and knowledge which makes them feel uncomfortable and they react accordingly often resulting in heated arguments.

 

[tarosean]

The topic is not about which is best, just which one you like better.

Probably because its a non sequitur to begin with..
There are metal and poly fired strikers there are metal and poly fired hammers. Plus there are guns that have hidden hammers in Metal and Poly. So without being more specific we are left to our own devices.

Does "striker" mean a M1907/1910 etc. or a Glock/M&P etc.? That is my issue.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Probably because its a non sequitur to begin with..
There are metal and poly fired strikers there are metal and poly fired hammers. Plus there are guns that have hidden hammers in Metal and Poly. So without being more specific we are left to our own devices.

Does "striker" mean a M1907/1910 etc. or a Glock/M&P etc.? That is my issue.

Would it be any different if the question was, Which do you like better, cats or, dogs, and why?
But I do like dogs more and a Border Collie would make the top of my list.

Now I like both Hammer Fire and Striker Fire pistols. But then there are some of both that I don’t care for. A few of the ones I don’t care for have been been mentioned in this topic as guns that some members like. It really doesn’t matter if I don’t like some of those guns, because this topic is not about the guns I don’t like.
But like I said, there are some people that have to turn every topic into an argument. I’m not sure if they believe that they will change the way someone thinks or if they just like drama. But it does get old.
I enjoy guns and talking about them, where’s the fun in arguing about them.

 

[herrwalther]

Not sure how this has drifted into safety vs non safety on firearms, but sure. Lets go down this rabbit hole.

M4/M16, M9, M249, M240 are all weapons used by the US military. The other common feature they have is all of them have a safety. But yet, the only firearm that seems to get criticism for "not being fast enough" is the M9. And the new M17 gets the same safety wrap. The military trains to pop off a safety quickly without a second thought. And trains just as extensively to put it back on. One of the worst "smokings" I ever got in the beginning was for leaving my weapon off safe at the firing range during qualification. That sure was a fun 4 hours. Never made that mistake again though. On my deployment I almost got in just as much hot water for carrying my M9 in DA with the safety off. Not because I was worried about flicking the safety off in the heat of the moment, but for redundancy. I don't see the purpose of carrying a chambered firearm in DA with the safety on. With a good holster and in DA, a thumb safety does little to make a weapon "safer." The added rationale I used for my chain of command was I was one of the few soldiers required to carry a loaded and chambered firearm everywhere I went. Even to the shower. Eventually my commander came around and authorized me to carry with the safety off in DA.

Safety or not, it boils down to practice. Practice shooting, holstering, and moving.

 

[JDR]

Since almost 70% of U.S law enforcement and now all of the U.S. military have transitioned to striker-fired service pistols, I don’t see what the argument is for civilians to not carry striker fired pistols. It’s common sense & logic to train & practice with whatever you choose to shoot and carry to maintain safe proficiency with the firearm. A 1911 is a firearms enthusiast’s choice to own & carry, well a lot of military and law enforcement are not firearms enthusiasts, it’s not part of the job description. The 1911 and the M9 were both phased out of military use for reasons that enthusiasts don’t accept, but which are well documented, even if you don’t like it. I know plenty of cops who don’t necessarily like what they are forced by regulation to carry. But they qualify with them with no problems and accept that they have to carry Glocks. I know most of them have better things to worry about, such as staying safe on the streets. And I don’t know any cops who quit the force when they were requited to carry Glocks, although a lot of old-timers carped like crazy about it. And a lot of combat veterans don’t pick up a firearm or shoot another round after they leave the service, it happens all the time.

 

[Patocazador]

I am old and "grew up" on hammer-fired guns. I am used to them and I like them. I despise plastic guns even though I have a few for CC. My car gun is a hammer gun and I love it.
IMO plastic/striker guns are for CC only.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Since almost 70% of U.S law enforcement and now all of the U.S. military have transitioned to striker-fired service pistols, I don’t see what the argument is for civilians to not carry striker fired pistols. It’s common sense & logic to train & practice with whatever you choose to shoot and carry to maintain safe proficiency with the firearm. A 1911 is a firearms enthusiast’s choice to own & carry, well a lot of military and law enforcement are not firearms enthusiasts, it’s not part of the job description. The 1911 and the M9 were both phased out of military use for reasons that enthusiasts don’t accept, but which are well documented, even if you don’t like it. I know plenty of cops who don’t necessarily like what they are forced by regulation to carry. But they qualify with them with no problems and accept that they have to carry Glocks. I know most of them have better things to worry about, such as staying safe on the streets. And I don’t know any cops who quit the force when they were requited to carry Glocks, although a lot of old-timers carped like crazy about it. And a lot of combat veterans don’t pick up a firearm or shoot another round after they leave the service, it happens all the time.

But you left the question unanswered. Which do you like better and why?

 

[drband]

Hammer. Period. Just my own opinion.

 

[tarosean]

Since almost 70% of U.S law enforcement and now all of the U.S. military have transitioned to striker-fired service pistols, I don’t see what the argument is for civilians to not carry striker fired pistols.

All your lifes decisions are based on government bureaucracy?

 

[ATLDave]

1. Have you ever failed to disengage the safety?

With a sensibly-designed/located safety and a suitable technique, there's nothing to "remember" to do.

It's like asking whether you've ever failed to disengage the dingus at the center of the Glock trigger. There's exactly the same amount of conscious thought required.

 

[JDR]

But you left the question unanswered. Which do you like better and why?

Depends on what I want to use it for. I own a lot more hammer-fired than striker fired but I shoot & carry strikers more than hammer-fired

All you life’s decisions are based on government bureaucracy

What law enforcement and the military decides to buy or not buy affects the firearms marketplace. If Beretta isn’t selling the M9 to the military anymore, so they have to sell their cheaper to produce APX in the civilian marketplace to try & make up for the lost sales revenue on the military side of their customer base. You might not be able to buy the metal-framed hammer fired Berettas much longer. As an example look at what happened to the Browning Hi-Power when the British Ministry of Defense replaced their aged BHPs with the Glock 17, they had been buying Hi-Powers for almost 50 years. You may not like the SIG M17 / M19 as much as the Beretta M9 but from the standpoint of procurement for Federal Acquisition Requirements (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Requirements (DFAR) requirements, the need to replace the M9 has been well documented, the requirement was competitively solicited & evaluated, the orders have been audited and the Army negotiated fair & reasonable prices for a commercial off the shelf commodity, which was the only true modular design for a service pistol.!Although we as enthusiasts can’t appreciate that the Army bought pistols the same way they buy refrigerators, that’s essentially what they did anyway.

 

[ATLDave]

Beretta just announced a new, steel framed variant of the 92.

 

[MedWheeler]

JDR writes:

Since almost 70% of U.S law enforcement and now all of the U.S. military have transitioned to striker-fired service pistols, I don’t see what the argument is for civilians to not carry striker fired pistols.

There is no argument for "civilians to not carry striker-fired pistols." Also, what the LE and military communities do isn't necessarily an argument for civilians to follow suit. In fact, this is directly related to my current signature line (I'll box-quote it here for posterity, since I may well change it later.)

I'm not a cop (anymore.) I do not compare my "mission" as a man simply carrying a concealed firearm for defense to that of a uniformed officer. If I did, I'd carry what one does, how one does, and with whom one does.

But, I do agree with this one line:

It’s common sense & logic to train & practice with whatever you choose to shoot and carry to maintain safe proficiency with the firearm.

 

[bluejeans]

I have both hammer an striker guns..
I like hammer fired for the qualities of better trigger, option to manually recock, and it’s just more satisfying to me. However I do carry a striker gun equally as often... mostly when my daily outings prompt me to wear iwb as the striker variety tend to have smoother profiles, thus more comfortable and less snagging as well as eliminating a critical entry point for foreign debris