Striker Fired: What am I Missing?

[Alllen Bundy]

The main reason that I carry a striker fired pistol, with a manual safety, with a trigger hinged at the top, and without a trigger dongle (inertial trigger safety) for self defense, is greater fault tolerance under adverse conditions. If you are not carrying the pistol for self defense, then pistol reliability and fault tolerance isn't of much concern and any pistol of your liking will do.

For me the striker fired Sig P365 series is the answer to my carry needs. It may be the most easily customizable pistol in existence.

 

[Zendude]

One feature on some of the polymer striker handguns that you might like is the ability to change backstraps (or frames) to create a custom fit to your hand.

 

[.38 Special]

I personally am in the camp which holds that Glock triggers are bad, and that opinion never fails to trigger (ha!) the Glock folks. Perhaps we can put a damper on the debate by dropping the word "bad" and substituting the word "different". That is to say, if a fellow appreciates a light, crisp trigger, he may not enjoy a Glock trigger.

That leaves, of course, the folks who insist that any handgunner worth his salt needs to be able to manage a bad - excuse me, "different" - trigger, along with the fellows (honest, I just met one right here on THR!) who claim that soft, mushy triggers are actually better than light crisp ones, but it may still be a start...

 

[.38 Special]

So for the OP, I don't believe you are missing anything. Glocks et al. dispense bullets in about the same way as everything else, which is fine if dispensing bullets is all you're looking for. Otherwise, it might be hard to get all that worked up about one. And yeah, for people who use and enjoy what traditionally has been thought of as a "good" trigger, the striker-fired versions may be "different" enough to leave you cold.

 

[trackskippy]

I guess some of us just dont see what the big deal is. I just spent the past hour or so doing dry fire presentations with a Glock 47 and 26, a Colt 1911, a Model 10 S&W (DAO), and an AR. None of them left me cold, or the least bit chilly. And while I suppose you could call them all "different" if you focused specifically on them (something you shouldn't do by the way), they all accomplished the task required of them without issue or thought.

I use and enjoy all of them, and a bunch of others, and they all shoot well for me too. Maybe its just easier if you accept the fact they are all "good" (barring true mechanical and safety issues of course), and don't worry on them. Just put all those worries in the drawer with the grip angle worries, capacity worries, sight type worries, and all that other stuff people worry about that gets in the way of the Zen of shooting. Just let all that stress go.

 

[vindag]

I personally am in the camp which holds that Glock triggers are bad, and that opinion never fails to trigger (ha!) the Glock folks. Perhaps we can put a damper on the debate by dropping the word "bad" and substituting the word "different". That is to say, if a fellow appreciates a light, crisp trigger, he may not enjoy a Glock trigger.

That leaves, of course, the folks who insist that any handgunner worth his salt needs to be able to manage a bad - excuse me, "different" - trigger, along with the fellows (honest, I just met on

I personally am in the camp which holds that Glock triggers are bad, and that opinion never fails to trigger (ha!) the Glock folks. Perhaps we can put a damper on the debate by dropping the word "bad" and substituting the word "different". That is to say, if a fellow appreciates a light, crisp trigger, he may not enjoy a Glock trigger.

That leaves, of course, the folks who insist that any handgunner worth his salt needs to be able to manage a bad - excuse me, "different" - trigger, along with the fellows (honest, I just met one right here on THR!) who claim that soft, mushy triggers are actually better than light crisp ones, but it may still be a start...

I enjoy shooting a different variety of handguns. Whether it is my Glocks, Beretta M9, Colt 1911, Walther P38, HK P2000sk LEM, Sig P229, Colt Python, Diamondback, Detective Special, Springfield XD-40, Ruger P90 they all are different and enjoyable to shoot. I have mastered the trigger on all of them, and people that say this trigger is “bad” are just making excuses for their lack of shooting skills. Your making it to complicated by trashing a gun that with practice you can shoot fast and accurate.

 

[.38 Special]

...people that say this trigger is “bad” are just making excuses for their lack of shooting skills. Your making it to complicated by trashing a gun that with practice you can shoot fast and accurate.

That sword cuts both ways: people who think five inch groups at seven yards is "accurate" don't need good triggers, and probably have never tried one anyway.

Insults aside, there is one key point that often is overlooked: a five inch group at seven yards is perfectly appropriate in some situations, especially those where speed is paramount. I suspect the overwhelming majority of the "Glocks are fine, learn how to shoot" crowd are pursuing that type of performance, and in that scenario, they are right: Glocks are fine. There are a lot of folks, though, who are pursuing other goals. Some of us, for example, may be trying for five inch groups at fifty yards, or seeing if we can hit that shotshell hull at twenty-five, or trying for a beer can at seventy - and we find that a light, crisp trigger helps immensely. (We also find that the same light, crisp trigger works fine for fast and close work, but that the heavy, mushy trigger makes distance and/or precision shooting much harder.)

Or, to put it bluntly, try telling the Olympian that he needs to get rid of his one-pound "breaking glass" trigger, replace it with seven pounds of mush, and "learn how to shoot".

 

[vindag]

That sword cuts both ways: people who think five inch groups at seven yards is "accurate" don't need good triggers, and probably have never tried one anyway.

Insults aside, there is one key point that often is overlooked: a five inch group at seven yards is perfectly appropriate in some situations, especially those where speed is paramount. I suspect the overwhelming majority of the "Glocks are fine, learn how to shoot" crowd are pursuing that type of performance, and in that scenario, they are right: Glocks are fine. There are a lot of folks, though, who are pursuing other goals. Some of us, for example, may be trying for five inch groups at fifty yards, or seeing if we can hit that shotshell hull at twenty-five, or trying for a beer can at seventy - and we find that a light, crisp trigger helps immensely. (We also find that the same light, crisp trigger works fine for fast and close work, but that the heavy, mushy trigger makes distance and/or precision shooting much harder.)

Or, to put it bluntly, try telling the Olympian that he needs to get rid of his one-pound "breaking glass" trigger, replace it with seven pounds of mush, and "learn how to shoot".

Getting a 5-inch group at just 7 yards isn't very good with any handgun, let alone a Glock pistol. I can do better than that with my hardest handgun to shoot accurately, which is my Colt Detective Special 2 inch, even when shooting hot 38+P's. I'm assuming your trying to get a tight group, because you obviously took the time to measure the 5-inch group. Now if I'm just rapidly firing with the Colt Detective Special in double action, and just trying for hits on the paper then yes, I can see, but I normally wouldn't bother to measure those, as that was not my stated purpose for shooting.

 

[.38 Special]

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or if that really is what you got out of that.

 

[trackskippy]

I think part of the problem here, like a lot of other things gun related is, a lot of people are only aware of what they are aware of, and don't take into account, that there's a big picture and there are a lot of ways to shoot. Not just how "they" shoot.

5" at 7 yards could be a good solid bunch of "hits", or it could be a pretty lousy "group", all depends on how you shoot it. Been through this very thing more than once in forums with shooters who told me that was a horrible group I posted, and think all your groups should be 1" when they don't realize that what I shot, was shot on my feet and while I was moving, while I was shooting, over and over multiple times, not sitting at a bench taking 10 minutes trying to shoot that one, 1" group.

On the other hand, at that same 5 yards with most of the handguns I have, regardless of what type of trigger they have, I can shoot 1"-2" groups pretty easily if I stand still and focus on trying to shoot a group. Could I shoot 1"-2" groups at 25 yards, not likely these days and the way I normally shoot. Maybe if I sat down and shot the gun over a rest, and took my time, but even then, probably not. On the back side of that hump now these days and Im just doing my best to just keep up. Could I still make "good hits"at that distance? You betcha! And I wouldn't have to be sitting down at a rest to do it.

So much of this is what your experiences are and what youre accustomed to. I do still believe though, that if you are still at the point that you are dwelling on what the trigger, or anything else the gun is doing for that matter, while youre shooting, regardless how you shoot, youre focusing on the wrong things, and need to get past all that.

 

[vindag]

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or if that really is what you got out of that.

I apologize and have edited my comment.

 

[.38 Special]

I apologize and have edited my comment.

I appreciate that - but I think my point still might not have made it across. I do not mean that a 5" group at 7 yards is good accuracy, but rather that folks who primarily work on "acceptable hits at top speed" are perfectly fine with it - and don't need "good" triggers to accomplish it. Meanwhile, folks who are primarily concerned with precision - and who don't worry about speed much if at all - find that traditionally "good" triggers are useful for such work, and that modern striker-fired-type triggers make it harder, to the point of being the limiting factor.

 

[.38 Special]

I think part of the problem here, like a lot of other things gun related is, a lot of people are only aware of what they are aware of, and don't take into account, that there's a big picture and there are a lot of ways to shoot. Not just how "they" shoot.

5" at 7 yards could be a good solid bunch of "hits", or it could be a pretty lousy "group", all depends on how you shoot it. Been through this very thing more than once in forums with shooters who told me that was a horrible group I posted, and think all your groups should be 1" when they don't realize that what I shot, was shot on my feet and while I was moving, while I was shooting, over and over multiple times, not sitting at a bench taking 10 minutes trying to shoot that one, 1" group.

On the other hand, at that same 5 yards with most of the handguns I have, regardless of what type of trigger they have, I can shoot 1"-2" groups pretty easily if I stand still and focus on trying to shoot a group. Could I shoot 1"-2" groups at 25 yards, not likely these days and the way I normally shoot. Maybe if I sat down and shot the gun over a rest, and took my time, but even then, probably not. On the back side of that hump now these days and Im just doing my best to just keep up. Could I still make "good hits"at that distance? You betcha! And I wouldn't have to be sitting down at a rest to do it.

So much of this is what your experiences are and what youre accustomed to. I do still believe though, that if you are still at the point that you are dwelling on what the trigger, or anything else the gun is doing for that matter, while youre shooting, regardless how you shoot, youre focusing on the wrong things, and need to get past all that.

I'm going to start falling back on my "Olympians" bit whenever this comes up: if supremely accurate shooting can be achieved simply by "becoming used to" a heavy, mushy trigger, why do Olympians spend so much time and money on light, crisp triggers? Or, put another way, would anyone seriously argue that 50 Meter Free competitors would hit just as well with a soft seven pound trigger as with their 75 gram "snapping icicles"?

Beyond that, I think you are right: Glock triggers are perfectly adequate for what people tend to do with Glocks, and people who complain about those triggers are usually doing so not from a standpoint of "Glocks are useless because of their triggers", but rather as "Glock triggers make some kinds of shooting harder than they need to be". Whether that matters to a given shooter is, of course, up to a given shooter...

 

[vindag]

I appreciate that - but I think my point still might not have made it across. I do not mean that a 5" group at 7 yards is good accuracy, but rather that folks who primarily work on "acceptable hits at top speed" are perfectly fine with it - and don't need "good" triggers to accomplish it. Meanwhile, folks who are primarily concerned with precision - and who don't worry about speed much if at all - find that traditionally "good" triggers are useful for such work, and that modern striker-fired-type triggers make it harder, to the point of being the limiting factor.

Thank You for clarifying that. Like I said my most difficult handgun to be accurate with is my 45-year-old Colt Detective Special .38 2-inch barrel. Now if I slowly take my time and fire every shot in single action, I can get decent groups with it. But if I rapidly fire all 6 rounds in double action the groups will be considerably larger. I can definitely shoot my Glock 26 more accurately than the little Colt, but still love to shoot the famous Detective Special. I started shooting handguns in 1973, and the 1st 10 years only shot revolvers. So, when Glocks came on the market, I found them so easy to shoot.

 

[.38 Special]

Thank You for clarifying that. Like I said my most difficult handgun to be accurate with is my 45-year-old Colt Detective Special .38 2-inch barrel. Now if I slowly take my time and fire every shot in single action, I can get decent groups with it. But if I rapidly fire all 6 rounds in double action the groups will be considerably larger. I can definitely shoot my Glock 26 more accurately than the little Colt, but still love to shoot the famous Detective Special. I started shooting handguns in 1973, and the 1st 10 years only shot revolvers. So, when Glocks came on the market, I found them so easy to shoot.

Nothing like a snub to teach some humility! And yes, I certainly shoot Glocks more accurately than snubs - but I hit better than either with a tuned 1911, at least when time becomes less important than accuracy.

 

[tarosean]

So much of this is what your experiences are and what youre accustomed to. I do still believe though, that if you are still at the point that you are dwelling on what the trigger, or anything else the gun is doing for that matter, while youre shooting, regardless how you shoot, youre focusing on the wrong things, and need to get past all that.

I will have to disagree you have to know exactly what that gun is doing every shot, how it recoils, how your controlling the recoil.

There is a reason your local hardware store sells hundreds of different tools.. I am not going to use a 5lb sledge to hammer brad nails, just as I will not be heading to the National Trophy Match with one of my Glocks. I'll use the correct tools for the job at hand. Using the incorrect tools can sure mess up a lot of things quickly.

I will agree with one thing though. All the ones complaining about Glock triggers need to go out and buy/rent a PPK. Then report back to us what a truly horrible trigger feels like.

 

[trackskippy]

I'm going to start falling back on my "Olympians" bit whenever this comes up: if supremely accurate shooting can be achieved simply by "becoming used to" a heavy, mushy trigger, why do Olympians spend so much time and money on light, crisp triggers? Or, put another way, would anyone seriously argue that 50 Meter Free competitors would hit just as well with a soft seven pound trigger as with their 75 gram "snapping icicles"?

Beyond that, I think you are right: Glock triggers are perfectly adequate for what people tend to do with Glocks, and people who complain about those triggers are usually doing so not from a standpoint of "Glocks are useless because of their triggers", but rather as "Glock triggers make some kinds of shooting harder than they need to be". Whether that matters to a given shooter is, of course, up to a given shooter...

Once you get to the "Olympian" level, you're also talking about "specialty" shooting/shooters with specialty guns that are beyond all but the top shooters, and certainly not safe for any kind of realistic use. Same goes for bench rest shooters, etc. There has to be some reality in the comparisons.

Where we seem to differ with the "Glock triggers are perfectly adequate...." thing is, I see that as this, "___________ triggers are perfectly adequate" and it really doesn't matter what you fill the blank with.

Maybe this is a "God Complex" thing. Some of us are fine slumming it and shooting with the lowly masses issue stuff, where others think they are at the God level and can only shoot with things acceptable on Olympus.

 

[vindag]

I will have to disagree you have to know exactly what that gun is doing every shot, how it recoils, how your controlling the recoil.

There is a reason your local hardware store sells hundreds of different tools.. I am not going to use a 5lb sledge to hammer brad nails, just as I will not be heading to the National Trophy Match with one of my Glocks. I'll use the correct tools for the job at hand. Using the incorrect tools can sure mess up a lot of things quickly.

I will agree with one thing though. All the ones complaining about Glock triggers need to go out and buy/rent a PPK. Then report back to us what a truly horrible trigger feels like.

My Interarms Walther PPK/S has a decent single action trigger, and good reset. The double action is very heavy though.

 

[.38 Special]

Once you get to the "Olympian" level, you're also talking about "specialty" shooting/shooters with specialty guns that are beyond all but the top shooters, and certainly not safe for any kind of realistic use. Same goes for bench rest shooters, etc. There has to be some reality in the comparisons.

Where we seem to differ with the "Glock triggers are perfectly adequate...." thing is, I see that as this, "___________ triggers are perfectly adequate" and it really doesn't matter what you fill the blank with.

Maybe this is a "God Complex" thing. Some of us are fine slumming it and shooting with the lowly masses issue stuff, where others think they are at the God level and can only shoot with things acceptable on Olympus.

Lots and lots of people participate in precision shooting sports, and the desire to hit tiny targets is perfectly realistic. "Good" triggers are part of that recipe, regardless of a fellow's skill in his particular game.

As you note, different people have different perspectives. It may not be perfectly fair to apply a blanket "bad" descriptor to Glock triggers - but it certainly is not fair to argue that anyone wanting a better trigger just needs to learn how to shoot!

 

[Bcwitt]

I was to understand that JMB started experimenting w striker mechanisms before going w a hammer design. A striker type mechanism would have been very difficult to produce w the metallurgy of his day. Requires a very high quality spring alloy & temperment.

 

[tarosean]

I was to understand that JMB started experimenting w striker mechanisms before going w a hammer design. A striker type mechanism would have been very difficult to produce w the metallurgy of his day. Requires a very high quality spring alloy & temperment.

Incorrect, It definitely wasnt a metallurgy/spring issue as striker fired handguns existed prior i.e. Borchart C-93, etc. JMB also designed/sold several striker fired pistols before his most famous design. i.e. Colt 1903, FN 1910, etc..

I am guessing your thinking of just the 1911? It traces back to the M1900 and was always hammer fired.

 

[Slamfire]

Incorrect, It definitely wasnt a metallurgy/spring issue as striker fired handguns existed prior i.e. Borchart C-93, etc. JMB also designed/sold several striker fired pistols before his most famous design. i.e. Colt 1903, FN 1910, etc..

I am guessing your thinking of just the 1911? It traces back to the M1900 and was always hammer fired.

Yupe.

If you have a couple of hours, these are interesting.

 

[Bcwitt]

Incorrect, It definitely wasnt a metallurgy/spring issue as striker fired handguns existed prior i.e. Borchart C-93, etc. JMB also designed/sold several striker fired pistols before his most famous design. i.e. Colt 1903, FN 1910, etc..

I am guessing your thinking of just the 1911? It traces back to the M1900 and was always hammer fired.

What is your source of info?

 

[tarosean]

What is your source of info?

Source of what? history? Many books are out there.

1st striker fired gun = Lefever hammerless shotgun. It predates JMBs 1st gun design at the ripe old age of 13yrs old in 1879.

We won’t even delve into the millions of straight pull rifles, P08’s etc. that are still floating around today.

 

[Bcwitt]

Incorrect, It definitely wasnt a metallurgy/spring issue as striker fired handguns existed prior i.e. Borchart C-93, etc. JMB also designed/sold several striker fired pistols before his most famous design. i.e. Colt 1903, FN 1910, etc..

I am guessing your thinking of just the 1911? It traces back to the M1900 and was always hammer fired.