Hammer fired guns in a Striker fired world

[MSparks909]

Its abundantly clear that as times have changed, so have firearm preferences. This year saw the adoption of the Sig P320 as the next US Military sidearm, ending a 116 year period of using hammer fired sidearms as the "official" sidearm. I'm not much one for nostalgia, but I do find the trend interesting. It's clear that the market demand for striker fired guns is at an all time high, with CZ, Beretta and FN introducing new models in the past 6 months alone. We also have Sig, Walther, HK, Canik, Steyr, Ruger, Remington, (insert favorite brand here) that have all introduced their ideal version of the "Glock killer" striker fired handgun.

I'm curious how many of you in here still carry and prefer to shoot hammer fired guns? I'm not limiting this to one category; it could be a 1911, a DA/SA (any brand), HK LEM, whatever. If you do carry a hammer fired gun, regardless of what it is, I'd be curious to hear your specific reasons why.

On the same token, if you carry a striker fired gun, regardless of brand, I'd also like to hear why as opposed to a DA/SA or 1911. I'd like to leave "fanboy-ism" out of this thread if possible.

If all you've ever shot is striker fired guns and have never tried a hammer fired gun please post up as well.

I personally grew up shooting Glocks, and I began seriously training about 4 years ago. I dipped my feet into DA/SA Berettas, and now they are my primary carry. I still own Glocks, but prefer a hammer gun for day-to-day carry and competitive shooting. I like the extra safety margin I have with the long DA first shot, and I like how every shot after that is a nice, crisp SA break. I like thumbing the hammer as I reholster (I carry appendix). I incorporate the press-out into my draw and like that I can be more aggressive with my DA first shot as I have a longer trigger travel, as opposed to a striker fired gun. Those are my reasons and I'd like to hear yours.

[Clint]

I still own Glocks, but prefer a hammer gun for day-to-day carry and competitive shooting. I like the extra safety margin I have with the long DA first shot, and I like how every shot after that is a nice, crisp SA break. I like thumbing the hammer as I reholster (I carry appendix). I incorporate the press-out into my draw and like that I can be more aggressive with my DA first shot as I have a longer trigger travel, as opposed to a striker fired gun. Those are my reasons and I'd like to hear yours.

^ This pretty much sums up my thought process as well.

Cocked and locked 1911 style may be safe enough, but requires manually flipping off the safety, something that could be screwed up in a panic situation. (even though men that carry .45 don't panic)

Striker fired is ready to go and even a t-shirt getting caught in the trigger can result in the loss of your favorite parts when carrying AIWB.

DA/SA strikes a nice balance of no external safety to manipulate and long first trigger pull from a decocked hammer.

Thumbing the hammer makes it impossible to fire.

The combination is very safe, yet very easy to deploy.

[_Stormin_]

You didn't put up the option for a mix of carry so I selected "Yes" because I carry a hammer fired pistol along with striker fired from time to time. I have a blend of Sig/1911/G19 in rotation and really feel that I am confident with each firearm in any situation. For a while all I carried was the G19, but I am more accurate with my 1911s and the decision to rotate them back in was made.

[SomeOtherGuy]

I personally grew up shooting Glocks, and I began seriously training about 4 years ago. I dipped my feet into DA/SA Berettas, and now they are my primary carry. I still own Glocks, but prefer a hammer gun for day-to-day carry and competitive shooting. I like the extra safety margin I have with the long DA first shot, and I like how every shot after that is a nice, crisp SA break. I like thumbing the hammer as I reholster (I carry appendix). I incorporate the press-out into my draw and like that I can be more aggressive with my DA first shot as I have a longer trigger travel, as opposed to a striker fired gun. Those are my reasons and I'd like to hear yours.

I started shooting with DA/SA Rugers, got 1911, then moved into the striker-fired world and mostly shot Glocks for 5-6 years. I am now moving back to DA/SA for exactly the reasons underlined. Also, I hate plastic triggers, and only a few striker-fired guns have metal triggers.

Although plenty of DA/SA guns have terrible DA pulls, a good selection have very good to excellent pulls. In my experience the discontinued Ruger P-series have really great DA pulls. The CZ-75, quality clones, and Beretta 92 all seem to have very good DA pulls as well. I'm not entirely a fan of how the CZ-75 doesn't have the hammer fully down when decocked using the lever (on my CZ-75BD or a P-07); I prefer the hammer fully down so it can't snag or get something wedged between hammer and firing pin.

There is more to trigger pull than just the weight to break. The smoothness of pull, friction and bumps or lack thereof, trigger shape and stiffness all seem to matter for accurate shooting. I hated the flimsy hinged trigger on a M&P even though its pull weight wasn't too heavy.

I like 1911s for range use but prefer not to carry cocked and locked or to worry about the grip safety, and I've finally fully rejected chamber-empty carry for all the obvious reasons.

[RND]

"Broken record."

[amd5007]

HK p2000 in traditional DA/SA. I have been carrying a G19 for awhile, but the p2000 handles much better for me.

[SpecWired]

I don't think it really matters if you commit to training and proficiency.

On a commercial side, obviously Glock's success is something many companies want to tap into so they intro their own competing products to siphon off Glock sales.

I'm sure the simplified manufacturing and new mags or increased demand for existing mags with new striker pistols increases company margins as well.

Personally I happen to like CZ DA/SA pistols and largely don't give much thought to the striker or hammer debate.

[seant8]

I was introduced to shooting in Law Enforcement and my first pistol was a Glock 31. Since then I've been able to shoot Sigs, 1911s, and a few other manufacturers' guns. I appreciate them all for different reasons, but I still run a Glock 17. I must be the rare human they designed the Glock grip for, because it suits me perfect finger grooves and all. I'll probably run a Glock 17 with talon grips and Warren Tactical fiber optic sights until laser guns are a thing. I prefer the consistent trigger pull and the simplicity of it. I run my concealed carry at 4 o'clock. I can understand why appendix carriers would want to run a DA/SA gun, although I think striker fired guns are fine in that position too with due diligence from the shooter.

[C-grunt]

I voted yes even though I really dont carry a hammered gun very often. Not because I think my Glock is better, but more that my Glock is my duty gun and if I shoot someone off duty with it (as long as it's a good shoot) I will be covered by the department. Hell I just picked up a H&K USP9 Compact today.

[sasquatchoslav]

I don't think it really matters if you commit to training and proficiency.

The 'ol P226 probably won't ever fall out of favor with me, but I do like the G19. Picked one up last year, fed it all kinds of ammo eats it all just like my Sig which is great. I don't recognize any benefit over my Sig simply b/c of muscle memory at this point ~ 25 years. I think if I used the G19 for as long as the Sig it very well could become my go to. I didn't buy the Glock b/c I have any reservations with my ability to perform with the Sig, but rather b/c of a sweet deal. If I 'had' to carry one or the other I'd feel just as confident. Both great handguns.