Striker Vs. Hammer Fire

[Mysteryman]

I've carried both hammer and striker. In the late 80s to early 90s it was the Sig. P226 and P228. Mid 90s we switched over to striker fired. G22 and G27 as backup. Now I carry a G19. Honestly I like both types and would trust my life to either without reservation. The biggest downside to hammer fired is the DA first shot. The biggest advantage is second strike capability. With striker fired it's simplicity of design and consistency first shot to last.

Second strike is a bullsh*t marketing gimmick.

On several occasions, we've picked up light struck ammo from a striker, dropped it into a 1911, and got it to fire.

That said, I still carry a Glock.

Without knowing the condition of the pistol, specifically the striker spring, it's hard to diagnose the issue.

I find that the total number of parts to be largely irrelevant today. Maybe that mattered in the 70s ... dunno.... wasn't around for that. But today...?? Glock lists as having 34 moving parts meanwhile the Soviet Makarov has something like 27

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

Glock pistols are comprised of a TOTAL of 34 parts, which includes the 5 parts of the magazine. A Makarov has 28 parts. It also lacks a firing pin block making it NOT drop safe. It also has a garbage DA trigger, poorly located slide mounted safety. Heel release magazine, no interchangeable sights(shitty sights), no light rail, chambered for an inferior cartridge, difficult to acquire, more difficult to support, and spotty reliability. True, parts count isn't huge issue, but it speaks volumes when a manufacturer can make a firearm that works reliably with far fewer parts than the competition. When you compare readily available makes/models, coupled with reliable makes/models, there isn't anything that compares to a Glock.

[markm]

All of my hammer guns are beautiful and accurate, like a Corvette.

All of my strikers are like a Toyota Tundra.

Both have their place in the driveway but when I want to get work done, I’m taking the strikers.

This is exactly how I look at the 1911. It's a cool classic car that's very enjoyable on the weekend. But NOT your daily driver.

[Coal Dragger]

Small point. I have noticed, consistently, that ammo with hard primers that stop a Glock will usually run in my hammer fired guns, be it Berettas, CZs, etc. I recently found some RWS that would choke down my G30s that would run in my HK USP 45. I think it just comes down to hammers have a bit more energy.

Hammer fired guns usually have considerably more oomph than the average striker. I’ve noticed the same thing as you, ammo with hard primers that gives Glocks or other striker pistols trouble runs no problem in my hammer fired pistols.

So if I had to pick a pistol to be absolutely reliable in the widest variety of conditions, while utilizing the widest possible sources of ammunition it would be a hammer fired pistol.

[Ron3]

I too, have found that striker guns are more likely to have an ignition failure than hammer guns.

For concealed carry I like having a hammer I can press during holstering to be extra sure nothing is pressing the trigger.

i like the extra distance / pressure it takes to fire the first shot and feel it's an extra safety margin.

And I love those light, short, good-feeling SA trigger pulls on DA / SA guns.

[Coal Dragger]

I am of the opinion that a shooter who is willing to put the work in to become proficient, and is able to shoot 90%+ scores on a B8 at 25 yards with their striker fired pistol is ready to move on. They’ve outgrown the striker pistol at that point from an ability standpoint, and picking up a hammer fired pistol with equal mechanical accuracy and a far better trigger is the next step. I’ve observed this enough times to predict most proficient guys will add 3-5% to their 25 yard score moving away from their Glock to a hammer fired pistol with a good trigger. Quality hammer guns are just easier to shoot well for most people.

[556BlackRifle]

Second strike is a bullsh*t marketing gimmick.

Bullshit until it happens to you. We train to deal with it because it is a real thing and it has happened to me.

[17K]

I am of the opinion that a shooter who is willing to put the work in to become proficient, and is able to shoot 90%+ scores on a B8 at 25 yards with their striker fired pistol is ready to move on. They’ve outgrown the striker pistol at that point from an ability standpoint, and picking up a hammer fired pistol with equal mechanical accuracy and a far better trigger is the next step. I’ve observed this enough times to predict most proficient guys will add 3-5% to their 25 yard score moving away from their Glock to a hammer fired pistol with a good trigger. Quality hammer guns are just easier to shoot well for most people.

I’ve heard that same argument in reverse in the competition circles. Once you get good enough to call shots at speed and slap the trigger you’ve advanced to a level where you don’t need a light/good trigger and can run a Glock as well as any.


I just never found a good way to justify two different trigger pulls and after years I just wrote the whole TDA thing off to the result of institutional inbreeding and moved away from it altogether as it’s just adding pointless complications.

I teach a lot of new shooters and am so glad they all show up with Glocks, M&P, and XDs these days. TDA in the hands of the inexperienced are frustrating and dangerous and waste a lot of time on nothing.

[Ron3]

I’ve heard that same argument in reverse in the competition circles. Once you get good enough to call shots at speed and slap the trigger you’ve advanced to a level where you don’t need a light/good trigger and can run a Glock as well as any.


I just never found a good way to justify two different trigger pulls and after years I just wrote the whole TDA thing off to the result of institutional inbreeding and moved away from it altogether as it’s just adding pointless complications.

I teach a lot of new shooters and am so glad they all show up with Glocks, M&P, and XDs these days. TDA in the hands of the inexperienced are frustrating and dangerous and waste a lot of time on nothing.

Striker-fired and even SAO guns are simpler than DA/SA.

SAO only is probably going to be the easiest to shoot well in competition.

Not being a new shooter I prefer a DA/SA carry gun for the combination of DA safety and easier than DA or striker-type SA trigger.

[Coal Dragger]

I’ve heard that same argument in reverse in the competition circles. Once you get good enough to call shots at speed and slap the trigger you’ve advanced to a level where you don’t need a light/good trigger and can run a Glock as well as any.


I just never found a good way to justify two different trigger pulls and after years I just wrote the whole TDA thing off to the result of institutional inbreeding and moved away from it altogether as it’s just adding pointless complications.

I teach a lot of new shooters and am so glad they all show up with Glocks, M&P, and XDs these days. TDA in the hands of the inexperienced are frustrating and dangerous and waste a lot of time on nothing.

Probably depends on the discipline. I used to shoot competitive bullseye, so accuracy was king on an unforgiving target with scoring rings.

Up close go as fast as you can is a game I’m learning, and the scoring rules, and techniques are different.

[26 Inf]

Probably depends on the discipline. I used to shoot competitive bullseye, so accuracy was king on an unforgiving target with scoring rings.

Up close go as fast as you can is a game I’m learning, and the scoring rules, and techniques are different.

Amen!