What's Wrong With Polymer Framed And Striker Fired Guns

They are "OK", but not great. Why are the triggers on all polymer guns worse than metal guns?? I have a Kahr P9 I carry, and the trigger on that is worse than the steel framed K9 guns. The trigger on my HK P7 is better than any polymer HK I've ever handled.

Personally I think hammers are safer than strikers, due to the visibility (in most cases) and there seems to be more issues with strikers, probably because hammer mechanisms have been around longer.

 

Personally I own steel framed, polymer framed and one aluminum alloy framed semi-autos. There are different things to like about each of them in my opinion. While I can understand why some prefer steel & wood there are things to like about polymer also. I guess I just like guns.

 

Polymer farmed striker fired pistols are the best and are the way of the future.

Glock
S&W M&P
Steyr
Kahr
Bersa

etc. etc.

tsh77769

 

Maybe polymer varies more than metal, so they allow more tolerances in the trigger to compensate? I dunno.

I don't find anything inherently wrong with either design or material, but I will say that metal-framed guns have just felt better to me, and the Ruger SR9 is the only striker-fired pistol I've ever found that feels anything remotely near good for me.

 

"Polymer farmed striker fired pistols are the best and are the way of the future."

A brave new world, eh?

 

I have polymer and steel guns, love em both. But for concealed carry I tend to stay with polymers due to weight/capacity and sweat resistance (gets hot here in Florida). At home its a 1911 at my bedside.

 

A brave new world? Something like that.

As I said elsewhere...

"They are proving themselves to be the "bestest for the mostest." Hitting the sweet spot between safety, accuracy, shootability, reliability, value, etc. That's really how the shooting world changes, you know, when people try things in massive numbers, spread over the whole country, shooting in many different styles and venues, and very large percentages of them find that they succeed more easily and faster with a gun like "x" than with another gun like "y." Glock didn't take over the handgun world with slick police marketing. S&W didn't steal a huge chunk out of Glock's market share by underselling them and good advertising. These things work VERY well for MANY people. BETTER than previous designs. When folks realize that they can do competition, daily carry, LEO duties, etc., etc., BETTER with the plastic fantastic than their old steel DA-first-shot boat anchor."

To which someone replied...

Giving me the opportunity to offer as counterpoint:

"That supposes, of course, that the design of mechanical devices is subject entirely to the whims of fashion and does not actually progress toward perfection. (Not the Glock advertising slogan, but rather the unattainable but approachable goal of all refinement.)

That's not something I agree with.

As we study ergonomics, kinesiology, the refinement of shooting training and technique, and even psychology, I believe that we trend toward a smaller and smaller set of deviations clustered around a "bestest for the mostest" theoretical perfect design.

So, no, I really don't think we're going to wander randomly around the spectrum of service handguns and one decade find that DA/SAs are at the top of the heap again, and then three decades further on the best shooters are favoring revolvers, and then next century it's back to SA autos. I don't believe that any more than I believe we'll be riding steam locomotives again soon, or we'll drift back toward rotary-dial telephones and those "penny farthing" bicycles with the one huge wheel up front."

 

Despite the common understanding of how combat handguns should be set up, the Marine Corps decided to issue newly made 1911's all tac'd out. I scratched my head on that one for a while. I figured they would just use M9's or Sigs.

Nope. Brave new world or not, they went SA single stack. Now, why would they do that when the trend for 75 years has been away from it?

First - tactics. You don't go into a firefight with just a pistol. You take some form of M16, however short or long needed, DI or piston. That includes the Marines new light machine gun, which is actually a heavy M16.

What the Marines did is place the auto pistol in the lineup of combat tools where it belongs - and it's NOT in combat, ie, on patrol in hostile territory. That's a job for a rifle, and it has been for the last 200 years.

Nope, what the pistol does is personal defense in close quarters when the rifle is a disadvantage - or unavailable. We're seeing it carried on R&R, inside the wire, or green zones. Which, as we all know, aren't. They just mostly are. There is still a threat, and the 'stans who flip and start shooting aren't being ignored.

No different than sitting in a movie theater or going to the mall. Soldiers still need weapons. Since those altercations aren't free fire zones, and the individuals can't take their rifles, they need something to handle those specific threats. And a SA single stack pistol is suited to the job.

What we are seeing as the dawn of a new age is thinking about what tool to use for the job rather than slavishly copying an eccentric view that a combat pistol is used in trench warfare. What evolved from WW1 was DA double stack, and lots of engineers jumped on the bandwagon to solve the problems. It was the adolescence of auto pistol design, how much can we stuff into this package? Well, all that and full auto, too. The only real limit is the caliber and performance - big magazines and a forward grip were even included.

But that isn't necessarily what is needed. What we get in the hands of users is a lot of ammo capacity and a propensity to use it. How many NY cops does it take to shoot a perp? Just one - the rest of the squad seems to hit the innocent bystanders. More than a dozen hits on the intended target, and half a dozen in the crowd.

Which in the case of statistics tends to fly in the face of reality - armed conflict on the streets is more a matter of three feet, three seconds, three shots. No, that's not a guarantee, but it highlights the point - you can carry a cocked and locked SA single stack pistol with a 100 year old design and it meets the job requirements. A high cap DA gun is nice to have for that 1 in 100 situation.

The brave new world has been the last 25 years as the LEO's traded in their 6 shot revolvers and started using 19 shot auto pistols. It has had it's detractions - the plastic DA guns must have trigger guard holsters, they don't have any other safety to prevent the user reflexively pressing the trigger at the wrong time, and they are bigger and heavier overall. What were the Europeans doing just prior to that? Issued interesting new designs in single stack like the P7. They had already looked at DA double stacks and it wasn't a big sell for them in daily carry.

Now, the hottest used gun on the market for CCW is the P7. The price is reaching past it's retail and still going up. The 1911 is selling like hotcakes, and even SIG has come out with a compact 9mm on that design.

Nope, the brave new world ahead of us is putting the overstuffed heavy trigger guns back in the safe and carrying a light single stack with SA trigger that is a short, crisp, and easy to pull when needed.

Polymer DA being the wave of the brave new future? Been there, done that, the boring everyday reality on the hip of nearly every cop in the USA. Millions have been sold for decades.

The brave new future is SA single stack. Or, at least the Marines think so.

 

You must not be aware that some polymer guns like the SR9 series do have safeties.

"Bigger and heavier" hardly, that same SR9 that carries almost twice as many rounds as the 1911 is almost half the weight of an all Steel 1911.

 

The few 1911s the Marines are buying for the special forces are an interesting droplet in the ocean, to be sure! A great, HUGE, deal can and should be made over the 200,000+ Marines getting to wield ... well, up to about 5% of them at most (but in reality, less) getting to wield, maybe ... those 12,000 pistols. Comparing that against the deluging tide of history is a bit like saying the popularity of Lotus kit cars indicates that soon we'll all be giving up seat belts, air conditioning, and power steering.

 

And that's exactly what this newly re-adopted 1911 WON'T be used for. But good point!

This doesn't make a valid point, but it is droll in a "truthy" kind of way.

It is truly forward-thinking to say that, since sometimes folks shoot shots they shouldn't take, or miss the shots they should take, they should carry LESS ammo. It took generations of soldiers (dying) to get the Army to abandon their practically suicidal adherence to ammo conservation doctrines for the infantry man. (Refusing to adopt cartridge weapons over caplocks, repeaters vs. single-shot, mag disconnects, who needs an autoloader anyway?) But maybe it makes sense to limit ourselves so we ... what, won't be tempted to shoot until the threat is stopped? (This old line of thinking is a bit insulting as it logically suggests that folks make a conscious decision to take a lot of extra shots, or shoot randomly at unrelated targets, when they have a pile of extra ammo in the gun. In reality, the only result is that folks run out and then have an empty gun, whether the threat is stopped or not.)

Again, "truthy" but not true. Those statistics and theorizims have been discredited as not reflecting reality very well. Yeah, you can probably do the job just fine with a SA single-stack (and many do!) but it isn't BETTER to do so, inherently, and if folks -- generally, across society -- seem to make better hits, faster with a striker-fired polymer gun, then leave the SA for the specialist and the enthusiast. Don't force-feed it to the average Joe who's better served in another way.

I'm sure this is merely meant to be ironic, but...
Neither Glocks, NOR REVOLVERS have "any other safety to prevent pressing the trigger at the wrong time."
And Glocks/M&Ps, etc. are not bigger and/or heavier than a standard service revolver in ANY important way. They're usually easier to carry and slimmer.

You should try a Glock or xD or M&P sometime. It will open your eyes and we'll all share a chuckle at this "heavy trigger" comment.

Naah. They bought a paltry few cool guns for their select few "go-fast" guys to play with. It means absolutely nothing in the big picture.

 

Soooo, you're saying single stack is fine because Marines will always have a long gun. But, AT THE SAME TIME, you are saying that a pistol is for when that long gun is not available or creates a disadvantage.

Am I the only person who see a paradox in that argument?


The bottom line is this:

It does not matter if I have a rifle with me. If I am shooting someone who is trying to kill me with a pistol, that 30 rounds I may or may not have in a my rifle is IRRELEVANT at the time. Only thing that matters at that moment is what I have in my pistol. That means more capacity the better, and presence of a rifle does not in any way negate the importance of pistol ammo capacity.

I am pretty sure that the 30 ~ 200 rounds in your box or drum rifle magazine, or may be the empty or jammed rifle slung over you, won't make you feel any better if your torn apart and dying in your pool of blood with your empty pistol in your hand when you transitioned to your pistol for whatever reason.

 

I have nothing personally against them. polymer components are going to be more corrosion resistant than metal. I can grip them just fine. My buddy's XDm feels good in my hand with the right grip on it, But count me in among those that the darn triggers give me hell and I jerk them so badly you're in more danger standing beside me than in front of me if I shoot one.

But I can go back and forth between my smith 19 and my hipower and my 1911 with little issue - so I know I'm the oddball there.

 

Nothing wrong with either. For me when the Glock was introduced it was just to new and different then what I was familiar with. Once I had a chance to handle and shoot both plastic and striker fired guns I have no real issue. They are just different. I don't expect them to feel or behave like a 1911. As long as I take them at face value I have no problems shooting or owning.

If you are still undecided on how to answer this question for your self perhaps you need more time to ponder the question and form your own opinion. While doing so do some shooting with whichever gun rings your bell.

KeithET

 

After reading 5 pages I believe Ash won this debate awhile ago, IMO.....Some people will never have an appreciation what he's talking about and that's alright I suppose.

Too many, newest = bestest, always has, always will....In their frenzied world billaseconds is all that matters.

Sure, I shoot O/Us or Auto Loaders better at controlled targets, than I do a SxS but when I leave the range and go back to the real world (Grouse country) and I need an off balance snap shot, the ole-washed up SxS most always puts a bird in my bag to bring home. While the better "target" guns have left me shaking my head and disappointed.

 

Metal guns just feel more solid. There are obviously trade-offs: plastic guns are cheaper, generally can fit higher magazine capacity, and can have a more cushioned feel to the recoil because of the give in the material. But metal guns can take more direct abuse, and the extra weight gives them a more balanced feel in the recoil. I own both, and I'd say I would rather carry a plastic gun all day long, but for range trips a metal gun is more fun to shoot.

As far as the trigger and firing system, I will never buy another striker-fired gun. I've owned a few Glocks, and they have their place. But once you get used to a good single-action trigger, even the best striker-fired just doesn't compare. That cleaner, lighter, crisper "click" to the trigger pull means faster and more accurate shots.

 

I find the "polymer guns have bad trigger" argument to be fundamentally flawed.

It is purely based on the subjective feel of the person making the comment. Even their idea of a "good trigger" is totally subjective and arbitrary.

Define a good trigger. To me, a good trigger is one that gives me the most combat effectiveness. The primary reason why I went to M&P 40 is the trigger. Trigger of the M&P 40 will not impress anyone with its smoothness. It's not the shortest pull, nor is it the lightest. It's not one of those that leave people in awe for its pleasant feel.

So, why would anyone go for an M&P specifically because of the trigger?

M&P trigger has enough resistance to give me a good feed back when pulling, and enough resistance that I can pull out the slack and prep the trigger without worring about firing before I intend to because the pressure I applied with my trigger finger was just a pound or so more than what I thought it was. It has a short enough pull distance to rapid fire multiple shots without putting extra effrot to move the finger back and forth a long distance. It's not the smoothest trigger, and it is not the lightest, but the resistance not too heavy for for me to fire when I intend to without significant delay to build up pressure, but also not worry about trigger being too light.

That is not universal for everyone, but that is how it works for me and countless others.

Sure, the DA pull of SIG, or Beretta, etc., were lot smoother. They feel better. But, "feel better" does not mean it is better for combat. I shoot more accurately and faster with the 3 kg or slightly less resistance M&P trigger than 5 kg resistance DA pull of most metal frame guns. That's why I liked DAK SIG, with its 3 kg or so pull. DAK was impressively smooth. It felt good. But, I have measurably better performance with the shorter travel M&P trigger, even if it does not "feel" as good.

1911's 2 kg or so pull is too light for me, and I do not want to deal with thumb lever type manual firing inhibitors or "grip safety." Also, I shot my M&P with 1911s side by side, and I do not shoot a 1911 any faster or more accurate. Some praise 1911 trigger that "breaks like a glass rod" but I detest trigger that "breaks" abruptly like a glass rod. For me that is not a good trigger.

If you say a good 1911 trigger "breaks" around 2 kg, I would agree with you. If you say 1911 generally have way shorter travel compared to striker fired gun, I also have no objection. But, if you say 1911 is better because of it, that is not a general fact. It's just you over generalizing your preference as something good for everyone else.

Some praise below 2 kg trigger, like some race tuned 1911 or even striker guns with mod kits, but I do not need a trigger to be that light to shoot it well, and that light of a trigger does not give my a good feed back when I shoot it.

What that meas is that your idea of a "good trigger" is not universal.

The 2.5~3 kg resistance with a longer than most SAO trigger travel distance but shorter than 1cm with the slack pulled out is the right spot for me for triggers, and I do not want to deal with thumb lever type manual firing inhibitors or "grip safety." That is the requirments for a good trigger for me, and It's not as if I am not aware that there are ligher and smoother pulling triggers.

 

The question is (was?) "What's Wrong With Polymer Framed And Striker Fired Guns?"

The current results of the poll:

Don't like either-----31----10.20%
Don't like Polymer--10-----3.29%
Don't like strikers---20-----6.58%
Both are ok----------243---79.93%

Looks like nearly eighty percent of those responding have no problem with polymer or striker fired guns.

Makes me wonder how the numbers would be in a poll asking, "What's Wrong With All-Steel and Hammer Fired Guns?"

 

Probably shouldn't use "you" there. "I" is ok, but "you" suggests that this should or will happen to others. Many others (as myself) started off in the old-school camp with tuned single-action pistols and gravitated toward plastic & striker-fired because the better results achieved couldn't be denied.

Here you probably should use "seems" somewhere. Because faster and more accurate hits need to be proved with a timer and a scored target. When the majority of top-performance scores shot across practical pistol matches all over the country tend to be shot with pastic/striker guns, this feeling that folks should/will get better results with a crisp light trigger appears to be unfounded.

YOU might. But you won't know without trials against a timer.

 

I like to have the second strike ability of a hammer fired pistol. However, my EDC is a SW Shield so obviously I don't see it as much of a problem.

 

The problem with saying "polymer guns have horrible triggers" is that the current popular design uses a striker at half cock, and finishes it. Well, the P7 preloads the striker with the grip actuator, and then just trips it with the trigger. It's really no fault of polymer at all - it's just what Glock has done and everyone copied.

So, compared to a Single Action with a fully cocked hammer and short pull trigger, the generality exists that they have a "better" trigger. It's really a SA/DA comparison. When you have to finish cocking the firing pin, it's not going to be as light or short.

There is a poly 1911 out now: http://www.handgunsmag.com/2013/03/04/rock-river-arms-poly-1911-review/

The point of poly really isn't corrosion resistance, it's mass production economics. You can make the frame cheaper if you make enough of them. The average poly gun is about $150 cheaper than metal. There's plenty of anti corrosion treatments out now - lets not forget the most well known polymer gun has a metal slide with Tenifer finish. I'd worry about the springs not failing, they aren't polymer.

As for the weight, depends on how you stack the deck -a SIG P938 with 6 round mag weighs about 18 oz. The Glock 41, 40 oz. A Glock 17, 30 oz. Add two double stack magazines, and it starts getting to be a union complaint to the commander. The bat belts are getting too heavy, just like the soldiers load is.

Sure, it's easy to nitpick some details about things, but the "truthy" part is there have been trends and we are seeing things getting reversed. The pendulum swings.

BTW, I was trained on the 1911 and carried a M9 when mobilized. Owned a 92SF, Glock 19C, and LCP, all gone now. Bought the P938.

Use what fits the job.

 

"More accurate puts you on much more shaky ground as the crisper trigger tempts more shooters to flinch than the longer travel of most striker triggers."

Yeah, but precision rifles always have crisp triggers. Sure, these are handguns, not rifles, but longer travel leading to greater accuracy is on equally shaking ground.

In the end, though, my rifles, shotguns, and pistols all have the same kind of trigger. They all require safeties. Of course, in fairness, when I carry a revolver in the swamps, it can be double action or single action and they don't have safeties. But auto guys held a funeral for the revolver decades ago and they keep getting made.

Since I'm not interested in competing in shooting supports, arguments that support such doctrines fall on deaf ears in an alien language. They mean nothing. Nobody can find a polymer-framed striker-fired handgun that is more reliable than what I carry. And I do carry, often in places that are filthy and in the middle of nowhere. When I carry an auto, it is hammer-fired and has a steel frame. I do have to worry about weight - but incumberance is equally important. Often what I have is a Springfield P9 in .45acp. Sometimes a 9mm in similar design. Sometimes a Ruger Police Service Six sometimes I bring my gasp of all gasps Ruger Mini 14 GB as well.

If I have to stay out there, I sleep just fine.

 

Well, "precision" rifles may, but firing a service/defensive handgun is nothing like firing a precision rifle. And it may be interesting to note that the newest breed of competition rifle triggers (for ARs set up for 3-gun competition, for example) actually have a rolling break to be more similar to the function of a Glock or M&P, etc.

This hints at a common theme we hear sometimes -- that what competition guys do is irrelevant to what normal shooters need because they aren't in competition. The thing is, competition is the proving ground, the test bed, the crucible, that distills out the best and the fastest techniques and equipment. You don't have to CARE who won what match or what the rules all are or even care to know the differences between competition disciplines to reap the rewards of that real-world organic research being performed over and over in the thousands and tens of thousands every week across the country.

But all that does rather gloss over a point: No one's trying to convince YOU to give up YOUR gun that YOU like and go buy something else. If you're happy with what you have, use it by all means! It obviously meets your needs well enough to please you -- and maybe your dedicated experience with it would mean that the effort of transitioning to some other design would never reap cost-effective benefits for you.

What we're talking about here is trends and movements in the broader shooting world and why some things become more popular and others fade (however slowly and lingeringly) into history.