Striker vs. Hammer

[Danoobie]

One version explaining "glock leg syndrome" is after a shooting, a LEO would holster his loaded, cocked glock,
once the pistol was cocked there is no way to uncock it. Shortly thereafter, the weapon's light SA trigger would be
pressed, by either the operator's finger, or, as many trained professional observers have claimed, some other inanimate
object, resulting in the pistols inadvertent discharge.

IMO, the issue here is there is no simple way to un-cock a glock design, or tell if it is cocked, in the first place.

 

[rbernie]

the issue here is there is no simple way to un-cock a glock design, or tell if it is cocked, in the first place.

A Glock is cocked (at least the final stages of cocking) by pulling the trigger fully to the rear - this completes the tensioning of the striker and ultimately releases the striker at the end of the pull. That's why Glocks will never have a short/crisp trigger pull.

Because of this design, there is no way to cock or decock/uncock a Glock - all Glocks are partially-cocked (but not completely cocked and not yet able to fire) once the slide goes into battery. A partially-cocked Glock (striker pretensioned by the slide running into battery) cannot fire inadvertently - the striker does not yet have enough energy to light off a primer, should the striker fall, and the striker/firing pin block will prevent the striker from falling until the trigger is pulled fully to the rear.

If a Glock discharges during holstering, it's because a finger or other object pulled the trigger fully to the rear.

I have no need to tell if a Glock is cocked. It's either not ready to fire (finger hasn't completely pulled the trigger to the rear) or it's fixin' to get loud (trigger is pulled to the rear).

So, why would one choose a striker-fired handgun over a hammer-fired handgun? Or, the opposite.

One of my students asked me this week about the Army dropping the M9 etc etc. After explaining the politics and economics that are involved in government procurement, I added that the Army may have just wanted to go to a striker-fired gun. After having said that, I realize that I can't think of single reason why either might be better than the other.

I prefer strikers, for their shot-to-shot trigger consistency and ability to be ready from the first shot without having to intentionally manipulate a safety.

Having said that - I miss the ability to tune the pistol's recoil and trigger characteristics via hammer spring tension.

 

[JTQ]

A partially-cocked Glock (striker pretensioned by the slide running into battery) cannot fire inadvertently - the striker does not yet have enough energy to light off a primer,...

I don't believe that to be true. Above is a link to a guy that was able to get the partially cocked firing pin to ignite primers.

...should the striker fall, and the striker/firing pin block will prevent the striker from falling until the trigger is pulled fully to the rear.

Regardless of whether the partially cocked striker has enough energy, unless modified with an aftermarket part, the chance of a Glock firing pin safety failing is nearly impossible.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Stick anything in the trigger guard, tug or pull, and the gun goes Bang.


The Glock and many other copycats lack any safety preventing the gun’s discharge when the trigger, for whatever reason, is activated. At the same time, they lack the long, heavy pull typical of DA revolvers and semi-autos, which gives you ample time and physical warnings to help you notice that something is happening, and can not really be overcome by a simple tug or by toddlers’ fingers.

And that's why I say the Glock safety is not a safety. It will in no way prevent an accidental pulling of the trigger.

 

[SharpDog]

And that's why I say the Glock safety is not a safety. It will in no way prevent an accidental pulling of the trigger.

I moved into Glocks from 1911's a couple decades ago. Swayed by their sexy trigger pulls and alluring magazine capacities. Was I put off by their plastic floozy looks ? ... not at all. Afterall if you get waylaid and have a good outcome, what is there to looks ?

Since then, I have been worried about premature discharges and so I moved along to my new love, the Sig DA/SA p2xx series. I love they their trigger plays hard-to-get and then rolls over for my easy shooting.

So they're these new striker-fired models on the market. But I'm not swayed. I am faithful to my true love ... for now.

PS. Some of the Glock NG discharges have been reported to be caused by hybrid holster leather flaps 'pulling' the trigger on reholstering. I love to ride my Sig's hammers (and hammer my Sigs) !

 

[D.B. Cooper]

no safety can prevent all possible ways a gun can be fired unintentionally.

Beretta M9/92FS: Round in the chamber, safety decock the gun. Safety is on. Beat on the hammer or pull the trigger for all you're worth, it ain't going to fire.

This does not negate the need for safe/responsible handling of the gun, as others have mentioned. (The Remington 700 safety issue comes to mind.)

 

[JohnKSa]

Beretta M9/92FS: Round in the chamber, safety decock the gun. Safety is on. Beat on the hammer or pull the trigger for all you're worth, it ain't going to fire.

Those are not "all possible ways a gun can be fired unintentionally".

The most common cause of an unintentional discharge is intentionally pulling the trigger. Dryfiring, if you prefer. A person who wants to dryfire a Beretta 92FS will put the safety in the fire position to pull the trigger because that's how dryfiring works. The safety is functioning perfectly but the user defeated it by placing it in the fire position and pulling trigger because they thought the gun was unloaded.

Just as even if the Glock trigger safety is functioning perfectly the user can still fire the gun unintentionally if they pull the trigger without meaning to fire the gun--as when they believe it is unloaded.

It will in no way prevent an accidental pulling of the trigger.

Are you saying that a firing pin safety is not a safety because it doesn't prevent an accidental pulling of the trigger? What about a hammer rebound or hammer block safety? What about a drop safety?

If you want to come up with your own personal definition of what a safety is or isn't, that's your prerogative. Of course, you should expect problems when you try to communicate with people who are using the accepted meaning of the term or when you try to convince people that your personal definition is the only right one.

 

[Kano383]

This... Striker fired, crisp single action trigger, chambered round yet fully decocked till needed, ready in a blink, no levers to fumble with and still safer than anything else ever built. And it’s written H&K on the side...

 

[stchman]

And that's why I say the Glock safety is not a safety. It will in no way prevent an accidental pulling of the trigger.

The Glock "dingus" is a trigger safety.

 

[Kano383]

The Glock "dingus" is a trigger safety.

That's what Glock calls it, but the only practical role of the trigger tab is to prevent the trigger being pulled rearwards under its own inertia, in the remote scenario of the gun hitting a hard surface at just the right angle and speed. Nothing to do with making the manipulation of a cocked gun any safer.

Think for a second: in order to be able to pull the trigger, you have to... Pull the trigger? In other words, that trigger "safety" prevents the trigger from being pulled, unless it is pulled? Duh...

 

[Danoobie]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Kind of like calling grease on a precipice a "guard-rail"...

 

[JTQ]

In other words, that trigger "safety" prevents the trigger from being pulled, unless it is pulled?

By anything.

 

[someguy2800]

The trigger blade is not meant to prevent you from pulling the trigger. Its really just for drop safety and to make it a little less likely that the trigger will get pushed by an object. The analogy comparing it to the 1911 grip safety is a pretty good one.

 

[Danoobie]

I can't figure it out, usually the folks who sing the praises of glocks go on endlessly about how 1911s suck.
Now we're comparing(?) the grip safety of a 1911 to whatever that thing is on a glock-style trigger...

 

[Old Dog]

So, why would one choose a striker-fired handgun over a hammer-fired handgun? Or, the opposite.

One of my students asked me this week about the Army dropping the M9 etc etc. After explaining the politics and economics that are involved in government procurement, I added that the Army may have just wanted to go to a striker-fired gun. After having said that, I realize that I can't think of single reason why either might be better than the other.

So I'm weighing in after four pages and a couple of weeks since the OP.

Neither is better than the other.

I've been shooting handguns since the '60s, started with S&W revolvers and after enlisting, fell in love with the 1911 ... having since been issued striker-fired pistols (Glocks and S&Ws), I have figured out after all these years that I can see the benefits of either hammer-fired or striker-fired. While my preference is for hammer-fired (due no doubt to sentiment and experience), I enjoy, and am fairly proficient with striker-fired pistols (of course, I know have to use one on my job). I think the main priority in choosing one's handgun should be whether the trigger is what feels the best and is what one shoots the best -- and there are great triggers available now in both hammer-fired or striker-fired pistols. I still love blued steel and nice wood stocks, but I believe black plastic pistols will be the norm in the near future ... so hopefully, enough folks will always be around who appreciate that firearms can be works of art and finely crafted tools.

 

[Bo]

the 1911 trigger is by far my favorite. After that, I'd have to go with the Springfield XD. I consider it to be a SA trigger. The striker is already cocked and with a Powder River Trigger, well, it's just a sweet trigger.

 

[mongoslow]

I lean towards the hammer but I like strikers too