Crowman
Member
How about a semi auto rocket pistol from the Soaring Sixties? ...no need for striker here...fires rocket propelled projectiles.
Would there be any merit to a striker fired revolver?
- Thread starter Kookla
- Start date
- Status
Kaeto
Member
Would these Harrington & Richardson Safety Hammerless revolvers qualify as striker fired?
Mizar
Member
So, you say that a striker fired, DAO revolver is something new and unheard of? Hmmmm...
Master Blaster
Member
You would need to lengthen the back of the revolver where the hammer resides now to accommodate a striker. The striker would need to be more powerful than what is in a Glock, with a heavier / longer spring because of the cylinder and ammo configuration of a revolver and the fact that there is more variance in the ammo to firing pin distance. The lock time would be slower not faster. You would eliminate the single action functionality of the revolver and there would need to be a different lock work arrangement to cycle the cylinder and cock and release the striker, that would probably result in a much Longer and heavier trigger pull with substantial stacking at the end of the stroke.
Kaeto
Member
And what is a striker but an internal hammer that hits the firing pin?
Mizar
Member
Well, according to SAAMI the min/max headspace tolerance of 9mm Luger is 0.022" and on .357 Magnum is 0.01"...
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,275
Well not really. A striker is a spring loaded assembly that sits in a striker channel under partial or full tension, that is released by the trigger. The impact that ignites the primer is largely based on the tension in the striker spring being released. As far as I know the firing pin is integral to the striker in every case, and the striker only has a single plane of travel, forwards to fire and backwards to cock.
With an internal hammer there is a spring loaded weight that's on a pivot point, and literally hits a firing pin to send it forward with force enough to ignite a primer. On older guns the firing pin was on the hammer, but it is still a pivoting weight rather than a spring loaded striker system traveling in two directions.
While the result is the same and the function of the trigger may feel similar on some guns, what's going on inside the guns is very different, and require different construction and different dimensions to accommodate ditterent mechanisms.
When you look at the dimensions of the gun in Mizar's above post, you can see that in order to accommodate a striker channel, you would need to bring the cylinder forward, which would increase the dimensions of the gun, and make them rather nose heavy on longer or heavy barreled guns. Or, you could bring part of the mechanism back so it sits atop the web of your hand. However, thinking about this dimensionally, this would bring the cylinder back further, and over the trigger mechanism, which would in turn bring the barrel cylinder gap closer to potentially burning the shooter's hand. This could require a blast shield to keep the shooter's hand from being injured. I suppose some sort of self sealing lockup could be used like on the old Nagant revolvers, but that adds cost.
In either case, I think you would have a gun where the shooter is potentially in harms way, which would require safety mechanism be built into the function of the gun, adding weight and cost, or you would have a cumbersomely large gun more akin to the dimensions of the Kriss SDP pistols.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
That's the problem. An automatic has to have a long slide, compared to the barrel length, and that provides room for the striker mechanism. A revolver wouldn't have that room, and the frame would have to be extended waaaaay to the rear.
The most compact possible design for a revolver is hammer-fired.
If you look at the Rock Island M206, one of the problems it has is that the hammer pinches the web of you hand when it comes all the way back. Granted you could fix it with a different hammer design, but if you incorporated a striker, wouldn't it allow a higher grip on the revolver?
gotboostvr
Member
I'd say there's no merit in trying to shoehorn a striker into a "traditional" revolver alá a Smith or Ruger. With some other design changes it could be "the next step in revolver evolution".
Something along the lines of a Chiapa Rhino may be possible but you still have the issue of needing the trigger to advance the cylinder. Figure a way to do that without relying on a traditional double action trigger and you may be onto something.
Something along the lines of a Chiapa Rhino may be possible but you still have the issue of needing the trigger to advance the cylinder. Figure a way to do that without relying on a traditional double action trigger and you may be onto something.
Nailed it. In order for a striker-fired revolver to make any sense at all, you'd have to start with a completely different layout than what people think of when you say "revolver".
Once you decide you're doing that, then a striker is just another firing mechanism that can be put behind the cylinder. Whether that has any benefit? Who knows...
There is a striker-fired revolver prototype going around the trade shows, incidentally... Remember what I said about having to throw the traditional design away?
I don't think that the classic DA revolver designed can be "improved" to any significant degree but I do believe that if someone were to introduce a striker fired design it would sell like hotcakes only because it was "new" and "unique" etc. etc. etc. Personally I think it is a totally goofy idea and you couldn't give me one.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The DA revolver is like the bicycle -- mature technology. Better materials and a few improvements are possible, but no quantum leap is likely to occur.
Tacoma
Member
I'm all about not fixing what ain't broke.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Eh, the recumbent bicycle was a pretty significant leap, it's just different enough that it's suited for a different set of roles despite being objectively better in a number of ways. That spacegun is basically a breaktop single shot Contender...only it holds five shots. Hard to say that's anything but an improvement.
An HK P7-style or S&W-style lemon-squeezer hand cocking lever is how I would go about adding 'double action' capability to a revolver striker system. Pull lever to set the sear, at which point a kinetic or plain-jane double action can handle subsequent shots. A kinetic striker recocking system would be ideal since revolvers are usually more powerful for their weight, and strikers work on linear motion; at that point your DA trigger would just be advancing the cylinder, so the trigger pull could be better than the finest Korth in weight & smoothness.
TCB
gotboostvr
Member
That would work, but only for the first shot. You would need to loosen and tighten your grip between each shot.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
Like 460shooter wrote, hammers swing or pivot. Just like a hammer you hold with your hand to drive nails.
Strikers don't swing or pivot, but are released in a straight line. More or less.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Note my point about a kinetic striker; recoil resets the striker spring (not the same as a true automatic). O/U shotguns work this way.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
There are some semantics weiners that claim a striker is that which hits the primer directly when a sear is released, a hammer hits a separate firing pin, which is dumb since revolvers originally had pins mounted but weren't strikers, and most modern guns besides Glocks have two or more piece firing pins anyway for decockers/mechanical safeties.
Mizar
Member
Sorry, but they don't work like that. On a double barrel with an inertial single trigger the recoil operates a switch, that only shifts between the sears. Both hammers are cocked when you break open the shotgun. I'm with Vern and Drail on this one - hammer fired all the way. It's just the more compact, simple and reliable design.
zaitcev
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,271
See my proposal for a low-barrel, self-loading revolver a few messages above, which addresses these concerns. It's still an idea with a limited application, but at least your objections are not insurmountable.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,275
Interesting. This is more of a bullpup revolver carbine than a handgun. It's really an apples and oranges comparison considering we are talking about traditional revolver handguns. None the less I could see some benefit if one was chambered for 460 Mag or 500 Mag. Extra barrel length and all.Nailed it. In order for a striker-fired revolver to make any sense at all, you'd have to start with a completely different layout than what people think of when you say "revolver".
Once you decide you're doing that, then a striker is just another firing mechanism that can be put behind the cylinder. Whether that has any benefit? Who knows...
There is a striker-fired revolver prototype going around the trade shows, incidentally... Remember what I said about having to throw the traditional design away?
However, I don't know that the pictured gun would offer much that a pistol caliber chambered lever action rifle wouldn't offer.
- Status
