You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Striker/Hammer
- Thread starter SHusky57
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
janobles14
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,095
sure both have advantages and disadvantages. ill give a brief (and by no way exhaustive) listing.
STRIKERS:
pros: no snag when drawing from concealment, generally a better DA trigger pull (depending on model), often better in a "tactical" setting because of no chance of "hammer clogging" or breakage.
cons: can often result in light strikes as springs wear, no true single action (even on single/double guns), more difficult to repair (but not by much to be honest).
HAMMERS:
pros: single action available (though not as crisp as a revolver), some would say more reliable (though i think newer weps have fixed this), in many weapons its easier to tune or lighten the trigger, seldom have light strike issues
cons: snaggable, longer and generally heavier initial trigger pulls, breakage can be either to the hammer or the pin (two steps of repair), dirt or sand or debris can jam a hammer (hammer clog)
these are just some pros and cons. most of it comes down to personal preference
STRIKERS:
pros: no snag when drawing from concealment, generally a better DA trigger pull (depending on model), often better in a "tactical" setting because of no chance of "hammer clogging" or breakage.
cons: can often result in light strikes as springs wear, no true single action (even on single/double guns), more difficult to repair (but not by much to be honest).
HAMMERS:
pros: single action available (though not as crisp as a revolver), some would say more reliable (though i think newer weps have fixed this), in many weapons its easier to tune or lighten the trigger, seldom have light strike issues
cons: snaggable, longer and generally heavier initial trigger pulls, breakage can be either to the hammer or the pin (two steps of repair), dirt or sand or debris can jam a hammer (hammer clog)
these are just some pros and cons. most of it comes down to personal preference
There are a few threads out there about this, so I figured I would refresh the newest one rather than start a whole new thread. My questions stem from all of the debate of Glock Safety as well as my research for my next compact carry gun.
My dad has always been a fan of Sig, my primary gun is an SW99.
From a complexity point of view, I like my SW99 because there is no manual safety, there is a decocker, and pulling the trigger will always cycle the striker. While there are a number of conditions that the trigger/striker/chamber can be left in, if there is a round in the chamber pulling the trigger will always fire a round.
How does this differ from a hammer gun? I have read about cocked and locked, and decocked; am I correct in my assumption that my gun is set up more like a typical hammer gun than a Glock type striker gun?
My dad has always been a fan of Sig, my primary gun is an SW99.
From a complexity point of view, I like my SW99 because there is no manual safety, there is a decocker, and pulling the trigger will always cycle the striker. While there are a number of conditions that the trigger/striker/chamber can be left in, if there is a round in the chamber pulling the trigger will always fire a round.
How does this differ from a hammer gun? I have read about cocked and locked, and decocked; am I correct in my assumption that my gun is set up more like a typical hammer gun than a Glock type striker gun?
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Another advantage to the striker is that it generally allows the hand to be placed higher on the grip, thus reducing muzzle flip. With a hammer-fired gun, room has to be made in the frame for the hammer's pivot point, which lowers the backstrap of the grip slightly, and shifts the hand slightly downward on the grip.
Other than that, I can see any real particular advantage one way or the other. Striker-fired guns do give a lighter strike to the primer, but with good quality, modern ammo, this is almost never an issue. Military organizations still tend to like hammer-fired guns because of the harder strike, since some military ammo demands a harder strike to the primer, but this is far from a universal preference, as there are plenty of armies around the world issue striker-fired pistols.
Other than that, I can see any real particular advantage one way or the other. Striker-fired guns do give a lighter strike to the primer, but with good quality, modern ammo, this is almost never an issue. Military organizations still tend to like hammer-fired guns because of the harder strike, since some military ammo demands a harder strike to the primer, but this is far from a universal preference, as there are plenty of armies around the world issue striker-fired pistols.
Spyvie
Member
I like external hammers simply because I can see what's going on and I feel like I have more control... real or imagined. I'll stick with external hammers on full size pistols.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.