Mulliganpaintdee
Member
Can someone explain to me the pros and cons of both? Ive searched here and on the net and got no specific answers. What is prefered and why?
Cheers
Denton
Cheers
Denton
So if Im reading correctly, hammer strikers are basically just another form of a safety feature?
If you have ammo with very hard primers or the gun is extremely dirty, ignition reliability is a little greater with a hammer than a striker (IMO). A hammer hits the firing pin with both its own weight and the spring pressure behind it, while the striker only has the spring pressure. But, this is only a very minor - in fact, mostly theoretical - disadvantage. If I find that a given pistol of mine does not "like" certain ammo, I just don't use that ammo. And I keep my guns reasonably clean.Mulliganpaintdee said:Is there any cons about striker fired pistols that anyone would like to share?
Even then, most strikers have some visual cue that they are cocked. For example, the Springfield XD and Walther P99 have the striker protrude from the rear of the slide, exposing a red line. And Glocks have their triggers in the forward position.SDC said:I don't think you can go that far with it, but an external hammer DOES let you see right away whether or not that hammer is cocked; really, these are just two separate ways of doing the same thing.
It's a firing pin safety, same as the series 80 Colt 1911's and innumerable other guns. If the gun were dropped hard on the muzzle end, the gun can't fire unless the trigger is also depressed (and sear released, for the Glock).I can't imagine any situation where that safety could save an accidental discharge..
... when I find a striker fired pistol with a short crisp trigger that breaks like an external hammer does in SA mode, I'll certainly add it to my collection.