Striker vs Hammer Fired Polymer Frame Pistols

Status
Not open for further replies.
Real question here. Does the hammer being cocked by the trigger on a DA/SA pistol really distract shooters? Visually, or other?

I do understand the consistent shot-to-shot trigger pull statement.
It never bothered me, but I don't like the transition from DA to SA.
 
Goodkat said:
The only striker gun I really care for is the kahr. To me, if it's going to be cocked, I want to see it. I know that glocks and xd's are perfectly safe, but subconsciously they distress me to an extent, and a big deciding factor when I purchase a gun is how much I will enjoy it.


You do know that the Glocks do not fully cock the striker spring, don't you???


Racking the slide will only partially cock the spring and even if somehow the striker overcame the firing-pin block it would not have enough energy to ignite a normal primer.

Pulling the trigger finishes cocking the striker spring and releases it.

So with a Glock you do not have a fully cocked striker spring waitting to strike the round in the chamber. This is why some people complain about the "mushy" feeling trigger on a Glock the "mush" is the striker spring being fully cocked. However it does make them much safer than other striker fired pistols that do fully cock the spring when racked.
 
I know that it probably doesn't matter whether it has a rotating hammer or a straightline striker, but perceptions matter. I've played with both and have come back to preferring hammers. Having disposed of my Glock and xD, the only striker fired pistols I still own are a Colt .22 Target Model and CZ 100. I feel safer with a hammer equipped pistol. I know that's not true, but again, perceptions count for something.
The only thing left for me to do with my other pistols is to get spur hammers installed on my S&W 908 and 6906. Raised on D/A P-38s and Model 39s, I like to hold the hammer with my thumb as I use the decock lever. Every time I see those hammers fall, EEK! Yes, I know it's safe. No, I still don't like it.
 
You do know that the Glocks do not fully cock the striker spring, don't you???


Racking the slide will only partially cock the spring and even if somehow the striker overcame the firing-pin block it would not have enough energy to ignite a normal primer.

Pulling the trigger finishes cocking the striker spring and releases it.

So with a Glock you do not have a fully cocked striker spring waitting to strike the round in the chamber. This is why some people complain about the "mushy" feeling trigger on a Glock the "mush" is the striker spring being fully cocked. However it does make them much safer than other striker fired pistols that do fully cock the spring when racked.

I am fully aware of the firing mechanism of the glock, when I said "cocked", I should have said "ready to fire." You see, I know that a DA or SA/DA hammer gun is always ready to fire, and can can easily see that a SA gun is ready when the hammer is cocked, but with a glock, I cannot visually inspect it and reassure myself that it's ready to go. Like I said, I know that glocks and Xd's are perfectly safe. It's a subconscious, irrational concern, but it is enough to lower the intrinsic value of a glock in my eyes, and prevent me from wanting one.
 
I know that a DA or SA/DA hammer gun is always ready to fire, and can can easily see that a SA gun is ready when the hammer is cocked, but with a glock, I cannot visually inspect it and reassure myself that it's ready to go.

Yeah, that's irrational.

You want a visual inspection? Do a chamber check. That's the only way to tell if a semiauto is ready to fire. Furthermore, you can't chamber a round in a GLOCK without resetting the trigger. You can't lower the striker on a live round. If a GLOCK has one in the tube, it's ready to go. On other guns, you might have to also check some other stuff... safety on/off, hammer cocked.
 
Last edited:
....but with a glock, I cannot visually inspect it and reassure myself that it's ready to go.
As GLOOB has already said, one can easily tell when a Glock is ready to fire simply by looking at the trigger:
When the Glock is ready to fire the trigger will be forward, almost in the middle of the trigger-guard.
When it is not ready to fire the trigger will be to the rear of the trigger-guard.

And of course there is a "loaded chamber indicator", that can be both seen and felt, should one not be sure if there is a round in the chamber.
 
As GLOOB has already said, one can easily tell when a Glock is ready to fire simply by looking at the trigger:
When the Glock is ready to fire the trigger will be forward, almost in the middle of the trigger-guard.
When it is not ready to fire the trigger will be to the rear of the trigger-guard.

O RLY?

Now that I did not know, I may warm up to glocks yet, now if only the grip on the sub compacts fit my hand...
 
I'm perfectly happy with both, one of my favorite carry guns in the past has been the P228 and my current carry is a G19 or a J frame.

Two thoughts that I admit to having 0 proof to support and are pure speculation (or BS if you prefer)

I think one of the things that makes the striker fired pistols like Glock and XD so reliable in the torture test is that their mechanism is much more enclosed than a hammer design.

Based just on reading forum complaints, striker fired guns seem to be more prone to light primer strikes. Not saying its a common occurrence, just relative to hammer fired seems to happen more often.
 
The reasons given for preferring striker- or hammer-fired guns are often meaningless.

Colt Model 1903 Hammerless - actually hammer-fired

Colt_Model_1908_Pocket_Hamerless_AdamsGuns_1783.jpg


Savage Model 1907 - striker-fired

Svage_Model_1907_French.jpg
 
With my CZ-82, the hammer is cocked when the slide is pulled (probably how it is on most DA/SA, I would assume?). So it is pretty much single action all the time. When I go from my XD to the CZ there is barely a difference in operation. Just rack the slide and pull the trigger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top