Why striker fired semiautos?
- Thread starter tguil
- Start date
- Status
Dan Crocker
Member
"Striker fired guns are part of the "dumbing down" of handguns to the lowest common denominator." Yawn. Guess I'll trash my bachelor's, toss my high GRE scores, forget about grad school, and become a bum.
At least that way I can keep my striker fired pistols. For us 'lowest common denominator' types.
At least that way I can keep my striker fired pistols. For us 'lowest common denominator' types.
TurboFC3S
Member
Striker fired guns can have advantages ... trigger is in no way one of them. Yea the trigger is consistent, consistently bad. My M&P has the "best" trigger of all my striker fired guns, but I still hate it. Most life-long revolver guys I know hate striker fired guns, just like 1911 guys (like myself).
What on earth does your income or college degree have to do with your gun handling skills? When I talk about "dumbing down" I am talking about gun design, and only gun design, not talking about the owners of Glocks being dumb.
Glocks are fine weapons, and yes many seasoned shooters do choose them, although not as many as choose more traditional designs.
As far as the Grandmasters with LE ties, LE ties are the key words there. Cops get used to Glocks and carry them in their personal life, seen it many times.
I know I am part of a shrinking group that prefers a good old fashioned P220 DA/SA for a pistol, but I am far from alone among experienced handgunners.
Now an even larger group of traditionalists that carry 1911 style SA guns cocked and locked like guys trained in the FBI hostage rescue unit as well as special forces and tactical guys would probably get a real hoot out of this nonsense about one of their guns being "slower to fire". The safety is swiped off before the gun is even brought up to fire fully, so there is no delay, and 2 1/2 pound finely honed trigger of a well tuned 1911 is quicker, and far more precise than ANY Glock trigger could ever be in its wildest plastic dreams. While I am not a cocked and locked guy, some of my best friends have been for decades and I can tell you on range trips we take together they shoot rings around every Glock shooter I have seen. Sure there are some awesome team glock guys, but in general the man carrying cocked and locked is a more seasoned shooter and more skilled with his gun than the average glock guy, and prefers a more highly tuned instrument.
Glocks are fine weapons, and yes many seasoned shooters do choose them, although not as many as choose more traditional designs.
As far as the Grandmasters with LE ties, LE ties are the key words there. Cops get used to Glocks and carry them in their personal life, seen it many times.
I know I am part of a shrinking group that prefers a good old fashioned P220 DA/SA for a pistol, but I am far from alone among experienced handgunners.
Now an even larger group of traditionalists that carry 1911 style SA guns cocked and locked like guys trained in the FBI hostage rescue unit as well as special forces and tactical guys would probably get a real hoot out of this nonsense about one of their guns being "slower to fire". The safety is swiped off before the gun is even brought up to fire fully, so there is no delay, and 2 1/2 pound finely honed trigger of a well tuned 1911 is quicker, and far more precise than ANY Glock trigger could ever be in its wildest plastic dreams. While I am not a cocked and locked guy, some of my best friends have been for decades and I can tell you on range trips we take together they shoot rings around every Glock shooter I have seen. Sure there are some awesome team glock guys, but in general the man carrying cocked and locked is a more seasoned shooter and more skilled with his gun than the average glock guy, and prefers a more highly tuned instrument.
Dan Crocker
Member
Okay, I misunderstood what you were going for. Thanks for clearing it up.
Great question.....
Why indeed?
My theory is that they are cheap to make, and offer a short consistent pull for rookie cops and those without a strong firearms background.
I prefer my guns with a REAL hammer, a heavy chunk of steel that beats the living daylights out of even the hardest primers. A gun like my P220 SIG. I don't want some "limp wristed" striker that won't set off hard primers, and won't allow a second trigger pull if needed.
Take any striker fired gun and do a search for "light primer strikes" and you will see what I mean.
Striker fired guns are part of the "dumbing down" of handguns to the lowest common denominator.
I have always owned and fired DA/SA guns for the most part, and with my P220 can pull my gun out in a flash and put a shot between the eyes of a target at 40-50 feet every single time with the first DA shot, and then follow that up with a hole right next to it with the SA shot. It's just a matter of training / practice. This rush to Glocks and other striker fired guns is not for me personally. Glocks are great for rookie cops with minimal firearms experience, and there are plenty of them out there.
But most seasoned handgunners either go SA cocked and locked or DA/SA in my experience.
I don't disagree with the facts here - but the interpretation of events that leads to the between the lines conclusions is where I differ.
Striker fired handguns aren't necessarily cheaper to make - I'd like a firearms accountant to back that up. What they do offer is exactly what some prefer - no exposed hammer.
Take a long look at military and police design and you'll see the continuing trend to eliminate the exposed hammer. I contend it's dangerous in and of itself. It requires additional safeties to control it's movement and prevent accidentally hitting the primer. A striker is inherently safer because of it's lighter mass. They seem to work just fine in bolt action rifles over the last 100 years, so I don't want to go on a limb and fault them too much.
There hasn't been a rush to striker fired arms - but there has been a complete sea change. They are the primary type used by military and LEO. It's taken 25 years to get there, and the primary reason was to simplify handling to the same level of the revolver, especially with the Glock. Saying that seasoned handgunners use hammer fired handguns points out the exact problem - most users aren't seasoned handgunners. The vast mass of users gets enough training to be proficient, but it's less than 1/4 of the typical enthusiast. It could also be said that you have to practice a lot more with hammer guns because they are so complicated to use.
As for the concept they must be cheap - polymer frames are a much larger part of that, not the striker mechanism. All that still rides in a steel slide with machined parts.
Personally, I rather have the striker fired, lighter, higher capacity weapon, and the market place agrees. Hammer fired handguns are antiques and not serviceable on the street or the battlefield - so says DOD and most PD's.
Why indeed?
My theory is that they are cheap to make, and offer a short consistent pull for rookie cops and those without a strong firearms background.
I prefer my guns with a REAL hammer, a heavy chunk of steel that beats the living daylights out of even the hardest primers. A gun like my P220 SIG. I don't want some "limp wristed" striker that won't set off hard primers, and won't allow a second trigger pull if needed.
Take any striker fired gun and do a search for "light primer strikes" and you will see what I mean.
Striker fired guns are part of the "dumbing down" of handguns to the lowest common denominator.
I have always owned and fired DA/SA guns for the most part, and with my P220 can pull my gun out in a flash and put a shot between the eyes of a target at 40-50 feet every single time with the first DA shot, and then follow that up with a hole right next to it with the SA shot. It's just a matter of training / practice. This rush to Glocks and other striker fired guns is not for me personally. Glocks are great for rookie cops with minimal firearms experience, and there are plenty of them out there.
But most seasoned handgunners either go SA cocked and locked or DA/SA in my experience.
I don't disagree with the facts here - but the interpretation of events that leads to the between the lines conclusions is where I differ.
Striker fired handguns aren't necessarily cheaper to make - I'd like a firearms accountant to back that up. What they do offer is exactly what some prefer - no exposed hammer.
Take a long look at military and police design and you'll see the continuing trend to eliminate the exposed hammer. I contend it's dangerous in and of itself. It requires additional safeties to control it's movement and prevent accidentally hitting the primer. A striker is inherently safer because of it's lighter mass. They seem to work just fine in bolt action rifles over the last 100 years, so I don't want to go on a limb and fault them too much.
There hasn't been a rush to striker fired arms - but there has been a complete sea change. They are the primary type used by military and LEO. It's taken 25 years to get there, and the primary reason was to simplify handling to the same level of the revolver, especially with the Glock. Saying that seasoned handgunners use hammer fired handguns points out the exact problem - most users aren't seasoned handgunners. The vast mass of users gets enough training to be proficient, but it's less than 1/4 of the typical enthusiast. It could also be said that you have to practice a lot more with hammer guns because they are so complicated to use.
As for the concept they must be cheap - polymer frames are a much larger part of that, not the striker mechanism. All that still rides in a steel slide with machined parts.
Personally, I rather have the striker fired, lighter, higher capacity weapon, and the market place agrees. Hammer fired handguns are antiques and not serviceable on the street or the battlefield - so says DOD and most PD's.
Geronimo45
Member
Not many things more traditional than a striker-fired pistol. Savage 1907, anybody?
That's the answer to the question, by the way. The 1907 is a neat little semi in my beloved .32 ACP. Holds 10 rounds of .32 and weighs in at the same or a little less than the PPK. Neat little gun.
That's the answer to the question, by the way. The 1907 is a neat little semi in my beloved .32 ACP. Holds 10 rounds of .32 and weighs in at the same or a little less than the PPK. Neat little gun.
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Most folks who shoot 1911s use the so-called "high thumbs" grip, where the strong hand thumb rests on the thumb safety. In using such a grip the thumb safety is disengaged when the shooter takes a firing grip on the gun, just as the grip safety is likewise disengaged.
No, it is not a fact. It's your opinion. Every time there's a thread like this someone who admittedly is not a 1911 shooter makes this ridiculous claim that disengaging the 1911 thumb safety is an extra step. It simply isn't the case for the majority of 1911 shooters.
Being a wheel gun fan I still decided to pick up a SR9. I love it. It eats anything I feed it. The trigger was a bit gritty at first but smoothed up after a few hundred rounds and is really nice now. I think it's simply a matter of personal preference. Rent a few at the range and get what you like.
easyg
Member
Actually, it IS a fact that disengaging a manual safety is a an extra step vs shooting a weapon with no manual safety.
Sure, there are many many shooters who disengage their manual safety automatically upon "clearing leather" or upon getting their target in their sights, but this is still a learned action to deal with an additional step that must be taken before firing.
As for "why striker fired semiautos?"....
I don't know.
Both striker-fired and hammer-fired pistols work just fine.
Heck, I like both.
Perhaps one is better than the other for certain applications, but when it comes to practical defensive shooting, I don't think one offers any advantage over the other.
KBintheSLC
Member
I have both striker fired DAO pistols, and a couple of Sig DA/SA pistols. I like them both for different reasons. DAO striker guns are very simple and relatively "stupid resistant" as long as you keep your finger off the trigger till you need it.
DA/SA guns offer a bit more versatility, and can make great target guns as you can lighten up that SA pull quite a bit.
For concealed carry, I prefer DAO in autos and revolvers. I don't really need single action to add to my already vast potential liabilities. For target shooting, small/medium game hunting, and other high precision requirements, DA/SA is a good choice.
DA/SA guns offer a bit more versatility, and can make great target guns as you can lighten up that SA pull quite a bit.
For concealed carry, I prefer DAO in autos and revolvers. I don't really need single action to add to my already vast potential liabilities. For target shooting, small/medium game hunting, and other high precision requirements, DA/SA is a good choice.
KBintheSLC
Member
None of those credentials will exist during combat when your brain power is reduced to your most basic level of reactive training.
On that note, you should use the type of gun you are most comfortable with and can operate most naturally with. For some it is a DAO striker gun, for others it is a 1911, for others it is a snubbie revolver.
There is no right answer for everyone... unless you are a communist.
...
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
No it's not. It's impossible for the manual safety to stay engaged when I take a firing grip on the weapon. The safety is turned off by my taking a firing grip on the weapon. The way I, and many other 1911 shooters, grip the weapon for firing instantaneously disengages the thumb safety just as it instantaneously disengages the grip safety.
I don't: 1) Draw 2) disengage grip safety 3) disengage thumb safety 4) take firing grip.
I do: 1) Draw 2) take firing grip [both thumb & grip safeties are disengaged as this happens].
It doesn't matter WHEN you take the gun off-safe. And sure you can be good at it. It can be so natural that you don't realize you're doing it.
(I've dropped quail and I didn't know how I shouldered the gun, disengaged the safety, swung or pulled the trigger. Hardly even remember seeing the bird rise. That doesn't mean I didn't have to DO those things. Haven't shot a human attacker, but if you've practiced beforehand, I have no doubt that the experience would be similar.)
It is still a step required to use a gun with a manual safety, and it has to be executed at some point, in sequence, with an additional motion that requires skill.
To assert otherwise is just plain silly. There really is no way to support the assertion that a step isn't a step.
Also, I did not say that it's "slow." I said it's an additional possible point of failure under stress. That is irrefutable. That's also true about the grip safety on a 1911 or and XD. I just find the specific tradeoff with the XD more to my liking than the 1911.
The fact that I choose a hi-cap .45 striker pistol as a nightstand gun in no way implies that I don't know how to shoot a 1911. I'm not overly enamored with the things like some people are, but that's another issue.
Note also the context: "Why striker fired semiautos?" The question wasn't, "Why should nobody ever carry a 1911?" There's nothing about answering the queston, "Why X?" that implies "Why do 1911s suck?"
So why exactly do the 1911 fanboys come out and answer as if it was? Y'all are sounding too much like Glocknuts.
And I LIKE 1911s, whereas if I got a free Glock, I'd do nothing but put it up for sale within 5 minutes.
(I've dropped quail and I didn't know how I shouldered the gun, disengaged the safety, swung or pulled the trigger. Hardly even remember seeing the bird rise. That doesn't mean I didn't have to DO those things. Haven't shot a human attacker, but if you've practiced beforehand, I have no doubt that the experience would be similar.)
It is still a step required to use a gun with a manual safety, and it has to be executed at some point, in sequence, with an additional motion that requires skill.
To assert otherwise is just plain silly. There really is no way to support the assertion that a step isn't a step.
Also, I did not say that it's "slow." I said it's an additional possible point of failure under stress. That is irrefutable. That's also true about the grip safety on a 1911 or and XD. I just find the specific tradeoff with the XD more to my liking than the 1911.
The fact that I choose a hi-cap .45 striker pistol as a nightstand gun in no way implies that I don't know how to shoot a 1911. I'm not overly enamored with the things like some people are, but that's another issue.
Note also the context: "Why striker fired semiautos?" The question wasn't, "Why should nobody ever carry a 1911?" There's nothing about answering the queston, "Why X?" that implies "Why do 1911s suck?"
So why exactly do the 1911 fanboys come out and answer as if it was? Y'all are sounding too much like Glocknuts.
And I LIKE 1911s, whereas if I got a free Glock, I'd do nothing but put it up for sale within 5 minutes.
Last edited:
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
I was simply addressing what I felt were inaccuracies in some statements in regard to 1911 type pistols.
Again, with the grip safety it's disengaged by simply grasping the gun properly. With the grip I use on 1911s the thumb safety is likewise disengaged as a function of gripping the weapon properly. Our opinions appear irreconcilable, and I'll not argue the semantics any further.
On this count you are correct. I have not addressed the original question.
So, why striker fired pistols?
Simplicity of operation, reduced manufacturing cost, and often a very consistent trigger pull. With a quality design that's properly executed they're just as reliable as any other type of pistol.
Dan Crocker
Member
Zerodefect
member
My Glock 23 is much faster to draw than my Kimber TLE 1911. Both are way faster than old school da/sa triggers.
Heres why
assuming a close threat where a high speed draw and fire from the retension postion is required)
1)The Glock is a little shorter than the 5" 1911. I have to lift the 1911 higher out of the holster before the barrel clears and can be rotated onto target. This is not a problem with shorter 1911's.
2) It takes serious cordination to pull the trigger, drop the safety, and squeeze the frame, all while drawing. On my 1911's sometimes my grip is compromised while drawing and sweeping the safety at the same time. The gun fails to fire because the grip safety is not engaged. My solution is to practice drawing more, and/or carrying with the safety off when the odds of needing my 1911 increase. Often I get the grip pulled and the trigger pulled before I drop the safety and the safety dropping is what triggers the gun. Drawing the 1911 with the safety off is just as fast as the Glock and allows me to retain a good grip and decent speed. I still have all my toes.
The Glock has 0 safeties. Draw, pull trigger. Very easy to do fast over and over again. I still am ok with 1911's though. My Glock is faster, much faster though.
Da/sa guns have to hard of a pull and my leverage on the trigger is compromised on a real fast draw. Less accuracy due to the stiff trigger. Much worse than 1911's and Glocks to draw. I will never, ever carry a da/sa gun ever again after experiencing the difference at a advanced pistol course.
3)Weight, a lighter gun is noticeably faster to move about.
4) No external levers to get catch on my clothing. I got a HK USP tangled up in my shirt during a course one time. It took 10 minutes for my instructor to stop laughing at me. smooth sides of the Glock help quite a bit. Kahr, Walther, SW all have relatively smooth sides. No safeties, decockers,etc.
5) I can make the Glock trigger faster still. I've recently been able to shoot a Glock that belongs to one of the guys working at my local gunshop/range. its trigger was much nicer than my stock trigger. Probally the second best trigger I've ever shot. (1911 triggers still rule) So its not like a striker fired pistol has to have a bad trigger. Its just that noone is willing to pay an extra $100-200 for a better trigger on a utilitarian gun. Except for me, oh yes it will be mine..........
Simple, speedy striker fired pistols, that don't need safeties or any kind of special rain dance to fire are where its at. Every split second counts when most gun fights are less than 10 seconds and 10 feet distance.
Heres why
assuming a close threat where a high speed draw and fire from the retension postion is required)1)The Glock is a little shorter than the 5" 1911. I have to lift the 1911 higher out of the holster before the barrel clears and can be rotated onto target. This is not a problem with shorter 1911's.
2) It takes serious cordination to pull the trigger, drop the safety, and squeeze the frame, all while drawing. On my 1911's sometimes my grip is compromised while drawing and sweeping the safety at the same time. The gun fails to fire because the grip safety is not engaged. My solution is to practice drawing more, and/or carrying with the safety off when the odds of needing my 1911 increase. Often I get the grip pulled and the trigger pulled before I drop the safety and the safety dropping is what triggers the gun. Drawing the 1911 with the safety off is just as fast as the Glock and allows me to retain a good grip and decent speed. I still have all my toes.
The Glock has 0 safeties. Draw, pull trigger. Very easy to do fast over and over again. I still am ok with 1911's though. My Glock is faster, much faster though.
Da/sa guns have to hard of a pull and my leverage on the trigger is compromised on a real fast draw. Less accuracy due to the stiff trigger. Much worse than 1911's and Glocks to draw. I will never, ever carry a da/sa gun ever again after experiencing the difference at a advanced pistol course.
3)Weight, a lighter gun is noticeably faster to move about.
4) No external levers to get catch on my clothing. I got a HK USP tangled up in my shirt during a course one time. It took 10 minutes for my instructor to stop laughing at me.
smooth sides of the Glock help quite a bit. Kahr, Walther, SW all have relatively smooth sides. No safeties, decockers,etc.5) I can make the Glock trigger faster still. I've recently been able to shoot a Glock that belongs to one of the guys working at my local gunshop/range. its trigger was much nicer than my stock trigger. Probally the second best trigger I've ever shot. (1911 triggers still rule) So its not like a striker fired pistol has to have a bad trigger. Its just that noone is willing to pay an extra $100-200 for a better trigger on a utilitarian gun. Except for me, oh yes it will be mine..........
Simple, speedy striker fired pistols, that don't need safeties or any kind of special rain dance to fire are where its at. Every split second counts when most gun fights are less than 10 seconds and 10 feet distance.
For me, the time to draw and fire, given the same carry mode, is no different between a Glock, 1911, Sig 220, XD, M&P, or a CZ 75B double action. I used to carry a 1911, but I went to a Glock (could have just as well been an XD, M&P, etc.) simply because of the weight and capacity. Without a doubt, I do miss the flat, thin profile of the 1911.
I know a couple of die hard 1911/2011 high speed low drag types who used to pack 1911s that went to striker fired pistols when they started doing active shooter scenarios, etc. simply because of capacity issues. According to them, when they started doing 2 man and 3 man team entry drills against 2 person active shooter teams, the added capacity proved to be a priority. Of course the best solution is a long gun.
For the average guy with a carry permit, pack what ever you want and let the other guy do the same.
I know a couple of die hard 1911/2011 high speed low drag types who used to pack 1911s that went to striker fired pistols when they started doing active shooter scenarios, etc. simply because of capacity issues. According to them, when they started doing 2 man and 3 man team entry drills against 2 person active shooter teams, the added capacity proved to be a priority. Of course the best solution is a long gun.
For the average guy with a carry permit, pack what ever you want and let the other guy do the same.
For the purposes of my comment that military and LEO no longer want to use hammer fired weapons, let's consider the real reasoning - training expense.
It takes more time and ammo to get good on target scores with hammer fired weapons because of the redundant safeties and more complicated manual of arms. Budgets just don't tolerate expensive training when anyone can learn to shoot a revolver - and consequently, a Glock.
There are hi cap 1911's, and lo cap striker fired handguns. I don't think capacity is the issue here. It's about the lack of hammer fired service autos with hammer blocks, firing pin disconnects, safety triggers, etc.
The designers don't put many out for sale - and the market won't buy them. They are too much of an alteration of the style - but they are more modern.
Funny, it's ok to improve a '57 with power and air, but improving the 1911 with better features is considered anathema now. It's a far cry from the days of double stacked frames, DA triggers, and firing pin disconnects.
Let's not forget the Hi Power was supposed the be the improved 1911 in later years. Even Browning saw the defects.
It takes more time and ammo to get good on target scores with hammer fired weapons because of the redundant safeties and more complicated manual of arms. Budgets just don't tolerate expensive training when anyone can learn to shoot a revolver - and consequently, a Glock.
There are hi cap 1911's, and lo cap striker fired handguns. I don't think capacity is the issue here. It's about the lack of hammer fired service autos with hammer blocks, firing pin disconnects, safety triggers, etc.
The designers don't put many out for sale - and the market won't buy them. They are too much of an alteration of the style - but they are more modern.
Funny, it's ok to improve a '57 with power and air, but improving the 1911 with better features is considered anathema now. It's a far cry from the days of double stacked frames, DA triggers, and firing pin disconnects.
Let's not forget the Hi Power was supposed the be the improved 1911 in later years. Even Browning saw the defects.
HippieMagic
Member
I always assumed the reason for a striker fired semi auto is if you drop it hammer down you can't bend the hammer to the point where it won't fire anymore...
NW JS
Member
I have a FNP9, I haven't had any prob. getting used to the DA/SA trigger. IMO i like as many options as i can get. It dose not have a safety on the frame, but they do make models with frame safeties, if you want that.
- Status
Similar threads
