Striker-fired vs hammer-fired handguns and accuracy

[nyrifleman]

I was recently thinking about this and decided to post so that someone with more knowledge than me can chime in.

So an important factor in firearm accuracy is lock-time (i.e. the time between when the sear disengages and when the firing pin strikes the primer). This is probably more important in pistols than rifles because they usually have less points of support than a rifle and will almost always be moving during lock-time.

Anyway, would striker-fired pistols like the Glock or Springfield be inherently more accurate than a hammer-fired pistol like most revolvers or a 1911? The logic behind that being that a hammer has a longer travel time and hence longer lock time.

 

[rcmodel]

No.

While lock time is very importent, so is a good crisp & light trigger pull.

That rules out stock stiker-fired pistols right there.
They invaribly have heavy mushy triggers.

A great trigger is one of the reasons the 1911 has held every major centerfire Bullseye match record there is.

It is also the reason a box stock target sighted S&W or Colt revolver will shoot rings around a box stock Glock or XD any time, any place in SA fire.

rc

 

[MrBorland]

Well, I'm no expert, either, but I tend to think there are so many variables in "accuracy", that it's impossible to categorically say striker and hammer-fired guns have different inherent accuracies.

Target shooters do agree, though, that, all else being equal, longer lock times makes it tougher on the shooter.

 

[Confederate]

I don't think there would be a significant difference between the pistols accuracy-wise. True, a hammer takes a brief time to drop, but there's also a brief time when the firing pin lunges forward to hit the primer. I've found Glocks to be exceptionally accurate, but I'm partial to hammer-fired pistols.

 

[Seven For Sure]

Agree hammer fired in SA is more accurate than SF. Even very light SF staged can't compete to a crisp SA.

 

[56hawk]

Since everyone is mentioning the trigger pull I would like to mention that there are striker fired guns that are SA, SA/DA, DAO as well as the half cock mechanism that Glock uses. Think HK P7, Walther P99, HK VP70, etc. Not sure the lock time makes that much difference, but I will say the HK P7 is one of my most accurate handguns. It also has a really nice single action trigger.

 

[nyrifleman]

I don't think there would be a significant difference between the pistols accuracy-wise. True, a hammer takes a brief time to drop, but there's also a brief time when the firing pin lunges forward to hit the primer. I've found Glocks to be exceptionally accurate, but I'm partial to hammer-fired pistols.

Locktime of a single-action revolver is approx. 50-75 ms.
Locktime of a bolt-action rifle is approx 2-4 ms

That's a difference of an order of magnitude, and that can and does make quite a bit of difference for accuracy. In fact, for me personally it's the lock-time that gets me: when I replace hammer springs in some of my revolvers with extra power springs ( = heavier pull, shorter lock time), I get better accuracy, and when I replace them with lighter springs ( = lighter pull, but longer lock time), I get worse accuracy.

My question really is: how does the locktime of a striker-fired handgun compare to the locktime of a hammer-fired handgun? If I took a striker-fired gun and worked on the trigger to make it as crisp as that of a custom 1911, would the striker-fired gun have better inherent accuracy?

 

[rcmodel]

Not unless you could also somehow make the slide/frame fit and barrel lock-up as tight as a custom 1911.

And that would be pretty hard to do on a combat grade striker-fired Glock or XD.

Fired from a Ransom Rest, the Glock or XD will average 4"-5" or worse 50 yard groups.

A custom 1911 will put 10 shots in one ragged hole.

rc

 

[FMF Doc]

I love striker fired pistols like glock for their simplicity and consistant trigger pull, but they will never be the main stay of target pistols. DA/SA and SAO are almost exclusively the go-to guns for accuracy. There are some good stiker fired pistols out there, but if accuracy is the goal, I'll take my SIG or tuned 1911 over even the best tricked out stiker race gun.

 

[nyrifleman]

Not unless you could also somehow make the slide/frame fit and barrel lock-up as tight as a custom 1911.

And that would be pretty hard to do on a combat grade striker-fired Glock or XD.

Fired from a Ransom Rest, the Glock or XD will average 4"-5" or worse 50 yard groups.

A custom 1911 will put 10 shots in one ragged hole.

rc

It may have been a mistake for me to cite the Glock or XD as example of striker-fired guns. I don't see why a striker-fired gun with a steel frame (such as Browning's own designs) couldn't have just as tight lock-up as any 1911. Right now we're discussing failures of craftsmanship, not failures of design.

 

[Certaindeaf]

It's hard to argue with a ragged hole.

 

[Franco2shoot]

I have both a Springfield 1911 and a Walther P99, but I don't understand the difference as far as Hammer versus striker... can one of you Guru's please explain what I should look at to see the difference?

Thanks.

KKKKFL

 

[BCRider]

From my own experience I'd have to say that lock time or hammer vs striker doesn't matter as much as good trigger technique.

Reduced power vs stronger mainsprings? Many of my guns have been set up with reduced power mainsprings to aid in giving me a lighter trigger pull. In all cases MY accuracy with those guns either stayed the same or got better due to less trigger pressure being needed. Mostly they became better. The lighter trigger pressure in all cases overshadowed any reduction due to a longer lock time for me and allowed me to shoot tighter groups.

Mushy striker triggers? I'd like to say that I agree with you guys on that. I HATE mushy striker triggers. But in actual fact the times I've shot some Glocks, M&P's, SR9's and one one XD I shot the guns just fine and managed group sizes that matched or nearly matched results I get with my own guns. All thanks to good trigger technique.

I shoot a lot of DA revolver. This includes matches for speed and accuracy such as Speed Steel and recently some IDPA revolver. All this DA trigger time has really sharpened up my trigger pull technique. So much so that in slow bullseye shooting I can match my SA group size when I shoot in DA.

I've seen a few members here at THR post that time spent shooting a DA revolver makes the shooter better with any gun. I'd have to say that they are 100% correct. If you can shoot a DA revolver well I'd say that any semi auto trigger, even a mushy striker trigger, isn't going to give you much trouble at all.

Now back to the original hardware question. I've shot a buddy's Glock which had a "5.1 lb" tuned up disconnector put into it for IPSC shooting. I have to say that this gun was AMAZING! It naturally shot very tight groups for me. As tight as I get with my best revolver shooting.

But the winner for me was when I shot an STI Rangemaster 1911. My very first mag matched anything I've ever done for group size. The second mag I put through it was even tighter.

So I'd have to say if there is any difference at all the effect is buried by the other factors that go into making an accurate shooting bullseye gun.

 

[Pyro]

I like hammer fired guns because of the hammer.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I like hammer fired guns because of the hammer.

How else can you truthfully say "time to drop the hammer!"?

 

[jmr40]

Fired from a Ransom Rest, the Glock or XD will average 4"-5" or worse 50 yard groups.

I can keep all shots within 6" with any of my Glocks with a 2 hand hold at 50 yards. My 1911's or S&W revolvers are a little better, around 4". Any of them are good enough for any SD situation I'll need them for out to 50 yards. Of course none are custom. Just out of the box.

With the striker fired guns we currently have none are really designed to be precision guns like many 1911's. If someone ever designs a striker fired gun with a trigger that rivals a 1911 or quality revolve,r I see no reason why striker fired would not have the potential to be just as accurate, maybe more. But so far no one has tried.

 

[premier1]

Apples and Oranges

once again we are comparing apples and oranges here. I do armed security at Federal Courthouses in my state. It's not 1911 anymore and were not at war were I work. That's why I carry an XD in 9mm. Who the heck is shooting 50 yards When I need to qualifiy it's at 10,15 and 25 yards. Whats most important is getting a shoot off quickly before you get shot. The handguns without hammers and with a striker are made for police work the ones with hammers and safeties of all types are a whole different coat of paint.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I'm glad we have that cleared up.

 

[BCRider]

Premier1, keep in mind that this is really more of a target shooting sort of topic. But I do agree that it's certainly got a high "apples to oranges" content for very reason you give.

Does anyone that's more into the Glock, M&P and XD side of things know if there are aftermarket "match" barrels for the more popular striker guns?

 

[trickyric]

For tactical at least I prefer my Glock 34 with a ghost rocket trigger to my Sig 226. When pulling from a holster the first pull on the Sig is like 12lbs, after that the trigger is light just like a 1911 but unless you are going to carry a cocked gun in your holster without the safety on (I don't recommend that) the first pull will be heavy. Glocks let you get pairs off without much muzzle movement.
I guess it depends on what you plan to do with it.

 

[kozak6]

A quick google suggests that the Glock's lock time is somewhere around 3 milliseconds, and that the 1911's is about double that.

However, for a service pistol, I would imagine that lock time would be one of the very last things that would effect accuracy.

 

[holdencm9]

Re: Apples and Oranges

I don't disagree, it is hard to compare, but I do like the premise of the question. I think the OP's mistake initially was comparing service-type striker fired pistols to revolvers or 1911's. In reality I think it is more rhetorical. Most people would agree that bolt-action rifles are inherently more accurate than semi-autos, but that doesn't mean a tricked out match-grade AR won't beat an off-the-shelf entry-level bolt gun. But the bolt action is inherently more accurate due to less moving parts, tigher fit, etc.

I think the question needs to be rephrased, something along the lines of:

"Is a striker-fired system inherently more accurate than a hammer-fired, all else being equal?"

I think they could be more accurate if they could develop a trigger to be as crisp as a hammer-fired weapon, but I don't know if something related to the striker design limits the trigger feel? Otherwise, I imagine they could be more accurate just due in part to the shorter lock time, but also due to the in-line movement of the striker before it hits the primer. A striker is released and just slides forward, and this takes place in-line with the bore axis.... a hammer has to "swing" around a pivot point, which is somewhere behind and below the bore axis. This probably has little to no effect in practice since the mass of the hammer is negligible compared to the mass of the pistol itself. But in theory, it is interesting to think about all this.

 

[BCRider]

If we're looking at the concept of equally made and pointedly designed target pistols then the discussion makes a lot more sense. But if we're looking at service level pistols then any advantage of one style over the other is buried by other factors.

But let's look at the idea of highly tuned target match guns. One striker and the other hammer fired. And lets further assume that the triggers are both of the sort of lightness and style that works well for match target shooting.

So where does that leave us? On the one hand the issues of the swinging hammer make a lot of sense With match grade guns such things begin to become more important. But is it an issue?

Lock time. In flintlocks or even cap fired guns I can see this being an issue. But in terms of 3 to 10 ms to a human? Not so much. What IS needed is accurate and consistent repeatability. If the hammer falls the exact same way ever time and the shooter holds the gun steady through the shot as would be expected by a high level target shooter then any disturbance of the hammer within this system will be consistently repeatable. So even if there is some amount of shifting of the gun in the shooter's grip such a disturbance can be compensated for with a slight adjustment of the sights.

To bring more to this idea I wonder which system the high end match pistols these days are using? If there is a significant advantage to one over the other than the these guns would be using the one which gives the shooter that last little edge.

 

[deadin]

Here's the most accurate pistol I've ever owned:


One ragged hole at 50 Meters. (10 shots)


Guess what? Striker fired......

 

[rcmodel]

But you ain't cocking the striker with your trigger finger now are you.

rc