Striker Vs. Hammer Fire

[Mysteryman]

Your statement shows your bias. You cannot see it because you are....well...biased. You purposely put "Glocks" in parenthesis next to striker fired guns. There are other choices out there. Just as good or better. You might not think so...but others do and you are not in control of what is and isn't and cannot provide data that proves it is better (cheaper isn't better).

Glock isn't the Gold standard for reliability. It is a standard. Admittedly a good one. Nothing against Glocks at all. But that standard at times, have been matched or beaten. So are those that accomplished this "Platinum standards" then?

What I don't get with most fan boys is that if you don't pick their stuff that works for them, they somehow cannot grasp the concept that something else cannot work equally as good or better for someone else. It's weird.

Please, list me another make or model of pistol that has more positive attributes than a Glock. I'll wait.....

Please tell me what other striker fired gun(all wannabe Glocks I might add) has more positive attributes?

Someone's opinion isn't worth a damn. Facts are all that matter, and there isn't a make or model out there that offers as much as a Glock. Some come close. Same story for Glock being the gold standard. When people test new guns they're comparing their reliability to a Glock. Admittedly handgun reliability has improved across the board.

Years ago people would make jokes about Glocks. Plastic pistols were a joke, and the striker fired system was gimmicky. Now you're hard pressed to find a hammer fired gun. The clowns at Beretta submitted a striker and hammer fired gun for the US Army trials. That tells me they don't have a clue what they're doing or have no faith in their own designs. Smith and Wesson is no better. They used to be a major player in the hammer fired steel framed gun market. They quickly tried to plagiarize the Glock design(and failed, several times, not to mention they got sued as well) and now don't offer anything outside the 1911 with either a hammer or non polymer frame. Again, that tells me they're either trying to offer what the market wants, or they're out of ideas/innovation and are simply playing copy cat. They were smart enough to see the writing on the wall regarding polymer framed striker guns being the norm, hence their early adoption of the Sigma(a flop) then the M&P line. Too bad they couldn't innovate their own ideas. The list of wannabe poly striker guns is long and not one meets let alone beats a Glock in overall performance.

Like I said, I don't care what you spend your money on. What does concern me is ignorant opinions that are absent of facts being regurgitated as such. Buy what you want for whatever reason you want. Just be honest about it when the shortcomings are pointed out.

[1168]

This is probably the most kool-aid drunk thing that I have read this week. And I say that as someone that chooses to carry and shoot Glocks.

Please, list me another make or model of pistol that has more positive attributes than a Glock. I'll wait.....

Please tell me what other striker fired gun(all wannabe Glocks I might add) has more positive attributes?

Someone's opinion isn't worth a damn. Facts are all that matter, and there isn't a make or model out there that offers as much as a Glock. Some come close. Same story for Glock being the gold standard. When people test new guns they're comparing their reliability to a Glock. Admittedly handgun reliability has improved across the board.

Years ago people would make jokes about Glocks. Plastic pistols were a joke, and the striker fired system was gimmicky. Now you're hard pressed to find a hammer fired gun. The clowns at Beretta submitted a striker and hammer fired gun for the US Army trials. That tells me they don't have a clue what they're doing or have no faith in their own designs. Smith and Wesson is no better. They used to be a major player in the hammer fired steel framed gun market. They quickly tried to plagiarize the Glock design(and failed, several times, not to mention they got sued as well) and now don't offer anything outside the 1911 with either a hammer or non polymer frame. Again, that tells me they're either trying to offer what the market wants, or they're out of ideas/innovation and are simply playing copy cat. They were smart enough to see the writing on the wall regarding polymer framed striker guns being the norm, hence their early adoption of the Sigma(a flop) then the M&P line. Too bad they couldn't innovate their own ideas. The list of wannabe poly striker guns is long and not one meets let alone beats a Glock in overall performance.

Like I said, I don't care what you spend your money on. What does concern me is ignorant opinions that are absent of facts being regurgitated as such. Buy what you want for whatever reason you want. Just be honest about it when the shortcomings are pointed out.

[Adrenaline_6]

This is probably the most kool-aid drunk thing that I have read this week. And I say that as someone that chooses to carry and shoot Glocks.

Yeah...its like arguing with a progressive about politics.

[Ron3]

Yeah...its like arguing with a progressive about politics.

So, mentioning I was shooting my CZ P01 more accurately at the same speed (fact) in a few hundred rounds after 20k+ rounds through Glocks probably won't open his mind then, either, huh? Oh well.

[jesuvuah]

So, mentioning I was shooting my CZ P01 more accurately at the same speed (fact) in a few hundred rounds after 20k+ rounds through Glocks probably won't open his mind then, either, huh? Oh well.

Yeah, but didn't you realize, while shooting your p01, that the glock still had more positive attributes.

I mean, who cares what your personal experience says, the internet has a list and glock checks all of the boxes on it.

Soli Deo Gloria

[Coal Dragger]

Please, list me another make or model of pistol that has more positive attributes than a Glock. I'll wait.....

Please tell me what other striker fired gun(all wannabe Glocks I might add) has more positive attributes?

Someone's opinion isn't worth a damn. Facts are all that matter, and there isn't a make or model out there that offers as much as a Glock. Some come close. Same story for Glock being the gold standard. When people test new guns they're comparing their reliability to a Glock. Admittedly handgun reliability has improved across the board.

Years ago people would make jokes about Glocks. Plastic pistols were a joke, and the striker fired system was gimmicky. Now you're hard pressed to find a hammer fired gun. The clowns at Beretta submitted a striker and hammer fired gun for the US Army trials. That tells me they don't have a clue what they're doing or have no faith in their own designs. Smith and Wesson is no better. They used to be a major player in the hammer fired steel framed gun market. They quickly tried to plagiarize the Glock design(and failed, several times, not to mention they got sued as well) and now don't offer anything outside the 1911 with either a hammer or non polymer frame. Again, that tells me they're either trying to offer what the market wants, or they're out of ideas/innovation and are simply playing copy cat. They were smart enough to see the writing on the wall regarding polymer framed striker guns being the norm, hence their early adoption of the Sigma(a flop) then the M&P line. Too bad they couldn't innovate their own ideas. The list of wannabe poly striker guns is long and not one meets let alone beats a Glock in overall performance.

Like I said, I don't care what you spend your money on. What does concern me is ignorant opinions that are absent of facts being regurgitated as such. Buy what you want for whatever reason you want. Just be honest about it when the shortcomings are pointed out.

The US military says you’re wrong, Glock got beaten by the SIG P320 across enough performance metrics that the SIG won the contract.

Your Glock is inferior.

[YVK]

SIG never beat Glock in performance metrics. The phase were both participated, Glock outperformed SIG. Official line for SIG selection was modularity or something.

As a mass issued pistol, Glock indeed so far has the best ratio of positives to negatives.

Going forward, SIG is positioned to kick Glocks ass. Six years after release, it is already disrupting Glock's 40 years long dominance. As 320 matures more and people forget about SIG's ethics, or lack thereof, Glock's refusing to introduce any meaningful innovation while SIG pushing the envelope will have an effect. Personally, if I was starting now, in 2021, I would've likely gone SIG but I am too invested in Glocks.

On a level of a personally owned pistol, the Glock uber alles argument is retarded. People assign different weight to different attributes and may not care what other aspects there. IDGF by what means the primer is ignited in my guns, hammer vs striker doesn't factor into decision making.

[Coal Dragger]

SIG never beat Glock in performance metrics. The phase were both participated, Glock outperformed SIG. Official line for SIG selection was modularity or something.

As a mass issued pistol, Glock indeed so far has the best ratio of positives to negatives.

Going forward, SIG is positioned to kick Glocks ass. Six years after release, it is already disrupting Glock's 40 years long dominance. As 320 matures more and people forget about SIG's ethics, or lack thereof, Glock's refusing to introduce any meaningful innovation while SIG pushing the envelope will have an effect. Personally, if I was starting now, in 2021, I would've likely gone SIG but I am too invested in Glocks.

On a level of a personally owned pistol, the Glock uber alles argument is retarded. People assign different weight to different attributes and may not care what other aspects there. IDGF by what means the primer is ignited in my guns, hammer vs striker doesn't factor into decision making.

Modularity is a performance metric. Glock is inferior. Too bad.

[Adrenaline_6]

On a level of a personally owned pistol, the Glock uber alles argument is retarded. People assign different weight to different attributes and may not care what other aspects there. IDGF by what means the primer is ignited in my guns, hammer vs striker doesn't factor into decision making.

Agreed. As with MOST people here. The positives for Glocks would be reliability, aftermarket support, simplicity, price. That's pretty much it. Negatives I can think of - Trigger - meh. grip angle - meh - it is a preference though. Sights - suck.

Take a VP9 or PPQ for instance, just as reliable, ergos - infinitely better, sights- pretty decent - especially the LE models (night sights), trigger - not even worth comparing, optics ready (VP9). Negatives - price - not that much though, aftermarket support, more complicated.

So if aftermarket support, a Glock grip angle, simplicity, and price is your thing - Glock should be your choice. Other than that, it has nothing else going for it in the grand scheme of things.

In the hammer world, the same applies.

[Ron3]

Glocks and similar guns are probably easier for non-gun enthusiasts (regular folk, military, and Police officers) to learn and pass quals.

Doesn't make them better for me.