Right, so now you have an apples to apples comparison with a custom 1911.
Striker-fired vs hammer-fired handguns and accuracy
- Thread starter nyrifleman
- Start date
- Status
Right, so now you have an apples to apples comparison with a custom 1911.
Certaindeaf
member
He's blowing air. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Certaindeaf
member
Don't think so. Look at the original posit/question. There are more now than then. Unless you're talking horseapples, of course.
Well if I understand the original question. It's about the lock time difference between a hammer fired and a striker fired pistol effecting accuracy. Which most people agree doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
However, some people have been trying to compare a custom built hammer fired single action to a stock striker fired gun with the pre-set trigger system used on a stock Glock.
My comment was that 'deadin' was making the comparison between his custom striker fired pistol and 'rcmodels' custom hammer fired 1911. Much more apples to apples.
deadin
Member
Actually, if by stock you mean "as it left the factory", my Hammerli is "stock".
No customizing or gunsmithing at all......
No customizing or gunsmithing at all......
Last edited:
JohnGalt88
Member
If you are speaking about strictly mechanical accuracy all things being equal, we can ignore the human element, barrel accuracy, slide fit, etc.
In a striker system you have a striker/firing pin/plunger moving in line with the barrel to strike the primer.
In a hammer system you have a hammer hitting a pin/plunger that strikes the primer.
It appears that the striker system has a faster lock time which is a plus for absolute mechanical accuracy.
A hammer system has more moving parts and more mass all things being equal. Moving parts inside a gun affect the gun even if the effect is almost imperceptible. The hammer also moves in an ark not in line with the barrel. I would think that this weight moving in such a way would affect the position of the gun even if it was only a very small amount.
This leads me to believe that a striker fire system would have a higher degree of mechanical accuracy, which in no way reflects practical accuracy.
Sadly that means that this conversation doesn't really translate into X gun is more accurate than Y gun because their are to many variables in the air at once. So in conclusion you should trade in your glocks for CZ75's.
In a striker system you have a striker/firing pin/plunger moving in line with the barrel to strike the primer.
In a hammer system you have a hammer hitting a pin/plunger that strikes the primer.
It appears that the striker system has a faster lock time which is a plus for absolute mechanical accuracy.
A hammer system has more moving parts and more mass all things being equal. Moving parts inside a gun affect the gun even if the effect is almost imperceptible. The hammer also moves in an ark not in line with the barrel. I would think that this weight moving in such a way would affect the position of the gun even if it was only a very small amount.
This leads me to believe that a striker fire system would have a higher degree of mechanical accuracy, which in no way reflects practical accuracy.
Sadly that means that this conversation doesn't really translate into X gun is more accurate than Y gun because their are to many variables in the air at once. So in conclusion you should trade in your glocks for CZ75's.
ExMachina
Member
aren't all/most bolt guns striker fired?
yeah yeah, i know this is a handgun thread but the principle is pretty well proven I think...the trick probably lies in getting a decent striker/trigger mechanism into a handgun size platform...so really a matter of design rather than concept.
If all you're looking at is the accuracy of the weapon, lock time is irrelevant. The Ransom Rest isn't going to move from the time the trigger breaks until the primer ignites. The only benefit of reduced lock time is the reduction in the amount of time the shooter can screw up the shot with poor technique.
Which even though the question was posed from a purely mechanical point of view, is all this thread has revolved around.
If someone made a single action striker fired handgun it could have the lock time of a Glock/XD/etc... and still have the trigger of a 1911. It would have the potential to be the most practically accurate design available. It would introduce the need for a safety since the striker would be fully cocked all the time making it not nearly as practical for carry as the modern double action striker fired pistol, but from a target shooting standpoint...
micromontenegro
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12
I've also owned a 152... but I also own one handgun that outshoots mine, even if it shouldn't:
Hammer fired!
- Status
