This question has bothered me for a while. As someone who owns both (Glock, 1911, Sig, etc), I guess it's a question I should ask myself, but I guess I've kind of accepted the conventional "wisdom". Anyway. Nearly everyone would be uncomfortable taking a Single Action pistol (1911, BHP, P226 SAO, etc) chambering a round, hammer back, no safety on, holstering it, and going about their day. Yet, no one (who carries one) thinks twice about doing the same with a striker gun. Why? If you're using newer versions of the SAOs (series 80, etc) that have firing pin safeties, you're essentially in the same situation with both (odd balls like the P99 excepted): round chambered, firing mechanism under tension, no mechanical safeties in place, only requiring the trigger to be disturbed enough, and it goes off. So why is it accepted that striker guns don't need safeties, but hammer guns do (and the fact that they are all metal vs polymer might even give a slight advantage in terms of a more secure trigger)? Edit: I realize that a handgun of makers offer their striker fired with a thumb safety option, but the overwhelming majority sold don't. I'm not actually looking for recommendations (I only a Glock and an XD and I'm oddly finew with them). I'm just trying to understand the "theory", if you will, behind this discrepancy - just because to me ithat seems so big, but yet is basically never talked about.