Striker Vs. Hammer Fire

[17K]

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.

For sure. I only shoot Uspsa and some IDPA and outlaw matches where speed is king.

I wouldn’t make a bullseye shooter. I’ve had some of the best custom built 1911s and can’t do ‘em justice.

[Mysteryman]

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.

You're mistaking the pursuit of minimal gains in accuracy as being the priority over size, weight, reliability, ease of use, cost, speed of performance, or support. A DA/SA gun is as another pointed out, unnecessary complications for zero gains.

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

Not sure who or where you've trained, but a failure to fire(type 1 stoppage) is cured with an immediate action drill, you know, TAP RACK.. Pulling the trigger again on what you HOPE is a hard primer is false economy. Of course, it could be an out of battery slide, dud round(many reasons) or an empty chamber. Both of which won't be solved by pulling the trigger again, but you carry on..

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.

SA guns are not simpler than striker fired or DA/SA guns. SA guns require a manual safety which requires additional dexterous movements before being able to send rounds. Additionally, a DA/SA gun offers no additional safety. If you think it does, you need more training.

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.

You're right, depends on the discipline. I thought this was M4C? Do we not primarily centre the discussions around practical(see defensive) use of a firearm and avoid the games??

[Dennis]

You're mistaking the pursuit of minimal gains in accuracy as being the priority over size, weight, reliability, ease of use, cost, speed of performance, or support. A DA/SA gun is as another pointed out, unnecessary complications for zero gains.
....

You're right, depends on the discipline. I thought this was M4C? Do we not primarily centre the discussions around practical(see defensive) use of a firearm and avoid the games??

Absolutely agree. I love and own all kinds of guns and shooting but my life revolves around my duty/off-duty pistols that were always chosen off a very short dept approved list. I learned to shoot a 92F and S&W 4566 because I didn't have much choice.

When Glocks finally got approved in 2003 I thought I was in heaven. Over the next decade I ultimately realized that 98% of my actual skillset was about everything that happens before pulling the trigger. Yes, it's totally an advantage that I'm a strong shooter, but that's not gonna keep me alive by itself and is the last thing on a long list of skills that are required in "tactical" situations.

So now that things have progressed to where I could carry a 1911 or STI I have much less desire to switch. I have put the time in on a Glock, it works when run hard, it's lightweight, minimally sized, and a vertically integrated system with sizes and mags that makes carrying multiples very easy. I keep up my shooting skills because it's fun but I prefer to spend excess time on tactics and mindset instead of constantly attempting to perfect new pistol systems.

Dennis.

[Coal Dragger]

You're mistaking the pursuit of minimal gains in accuracy as being the priority over size, weight, reliability, ease of use, cost, speed of performance, or support. A DA/SA gun is as another pointed out, unnecessary complications for zero gains.




Not sure who or where you've trained, but a failure to fire(type 1 stoppage) is cured with an immediate action drill, you know, TAP RACK.. Pulling the trigger again on what you HOPE is a hard primer is false economy. Of course, it could be an out of battery slide, dud round(many reasons) or an empty chamber. Both of which won't be solved by pulling the trigger again, but you carry on..



SA guns are not simpler than striker fired or DA/SA guns. SA guns require a manual safety which requires additional dexterous movements before being able to send rounds. Additionally, a DA/SA gun offers no additional safety. If you think it does, you need more training.



You're right, depends on the discipline. I thought this was M4C? Do we not primarily centre the discussions around practical(see defensive) use of a firearm and avoid the games??

A Glock is a great general issue tool for the average guy or gal who needs a gun, but it’s not the end all be all of handguns. I won’t fault the reliability or durability of a Glock, and I certainly won’t criticize the simplicity of use; particularly administrative handling and maintenance. I wouldn’t feel bad carrying a Glock, or being issued one.

That said, for the not average shooter, for the guy or gal who is willing to train and maintain equipment, they will gain capability by moving on to a pistol with a more refined trigger. Particularly when the need arises to put accurate fire onto low probability targets or targets that are at what many would consider extended range for a handgun.

Does that extra shootability of something like a 2011 (I’m not wedded to DA/SA) apply all the time? No of course not, but if we’re only concerned with averages not too long ago a 6 shot wheel gun got the job done most of the time with less than 6 rounds. That doesn’t prevent us from carrying more ammo in the gun than an LEO might have had in the gun and in dump pouches 30 years ago.

As long as the alternative in question is mechanically reliable would you rather be using say a well tuned 2011 to take a 55 yard shot on a dirtbag, or a box stock Glock? If a sidearm is all I had to get that job done I’d pick the 2011 every time, but I recognize that I have to maintain the pistol and train to stay on top of the more complex manual of arms. No problem for me, I like to shoot, and I believe in cleaning and lubricant even on Glocks. Does that mean I would issue 2011’s to a large organization or recommend one to a new shooter? Absolutely not. Same for a DA/SA pistol, good tool for those willing to put in the work and beautiful to shoot once they’re in SA mode, but again not a good choice for wide scale issue.

[pag23]

A Glock is a great general issue tool for the average guy or gal who needs a gun, but it’s not the end all be all of handguns. I won’t fault the reliability or durability of a Glock, and I certainly won’t criticize the simplicity of use; particularly administrative handling and maintenance. I wouldn’t feel bad carrying a Glock, or being issued one.

That said, for the not average shooter, for the guy or gal who is willing to train and maintain equipment, they will gain capability by moving on to a pistol with a more refined trigger. Particularly when the need arises to put accurate fire onto low probability targets or targets that are at what many would consider extended range for a handgun.

Does that extra shootability of something like a 2011 (I’m not wedded to DA/SA) apply all the time? No of course not, but if we’re only concerned with averages not too long ago a 6 shot wheel gun got the job done most of the time with less than 6 rounds. That doesn’t prevent us from carrying more ammo in the gun than an LEO might have had in the gun and in dump pouches 30 years ago.

As long as the alternative in question is mechanically reliable would you rather be using say a well tuned 2011 to take a 55 yard shot on a dirtbag, or a box stock Glock? If a sidearm is all I had to get that job done I’d pick the 2011 every time, but I recognize that I have to maintain the pistol and train to stay on top of the more complex manual of arms. No problem for me, I like to shoot, and I believe in cleaning and lubricant even on Glocks. Does that mean I would issue 2011’s to a large organization or recommend one to a new shooter? Absolutely not. Same for a DA/SA pistol, good tool for those willing to put in the work and beautiful to shoot once they’re in SA mode, but again not a good choice for wide scale issue.

My first gun was a Glock and being a new shooter at that time, I was really not a great shot with it and I really didn't improve my skills until I tried a friends Beretta 92 and then Sig P229. Getting over that first DA pull was an issue at first but I got better and then became a better shooter even with the Glock. When I got a Staccaco C2 that practice with the Other DA/SA guns helped a bit but the Staccaco really improved my shooting, especially trigger control. Not saying that I don't need to shoot more and become more proficient with the Glock, but in hindsight I would have learned a bit more on the fundamentals with a DA/SA gun...

[17K]

I have found Glocks to be pretty unforgiving and require a lot of work to maintain proficiency compared to other pistols, but I use one for the reasons Dennis mentioned.

As far as reliability and durability? Glock is hardly exceptional on either front and I’ve always wondered where that reputation came from.

[Coal Dragger]

Exceptional durability and reliability? By today’s standards a Glock is not exceptional in that regard, we have a plethora of super reliable and durable handguns to choose from today. Compared to a lot of available pistols 35 years ago an argument can be made that the Glock was exceptional at the time, particularly when cost was figured in.

[1986s4]

They just work. 1911 this and that, blah blah. Striker fired guns work

Glocks work when left relatively unmolested. In today's today's two gun match virtually every Glock on my squad was modified and all malfunctioned, all of them.

[Coal Dragger]

I witnessed a similar result at my first USPSA match.

All the temperamental 2011’s running like raped apes, all the CZ DA/SA guns running like tops, SIG P320 X5’s working fine, my HK ran fine. Two of my squad mates with modded Glocks were the only malfunctions I witnessed. Possible ammo related, both failures to get ignition. Could have been old primers, improper seating, or the gun.

[26 Inf]

I witnessed a similar result at my first USPSA match.

All the temperamental 2011’s running like raped apes, all the CZ DA/SA guns running like tops, SIG P320 X5’s working fine, my HK ran fine. Two of my squad mates with modded Glocks were the only malfunctions I witnessed. Possible ammo related, both failures to get ignition. Could have been old primers, improper seating, or the gun.

I'd guess that they had lighter striker springs installed, a lot of times a 3.5lb won't set off harder primers such as CCI.