Striker Vs. Hammer Fire

[AndyLate]

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.

That is why my G 17 has stock internals and my G 19's sole mod is a G 17 smooth trigger (and trigger bar).

Andy

[Ron3]

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??

I've carried concealed daily for over 20 years. Plenty of shooting and professional training, too. Owned and fired all kinds of pistols and revolvers. IMO having a DA trigger for the first shot is safer than other types of trigger.

[17K]

Only if you make sure to decock before you decide to make a mistake.

But then again, I’ve witnessed two NDs with DA revolvers.

[1986s4]

Only if you make sure to decock before you decide to make a mistake.

But then again, I’ve witnessed two NDs with DA revolvers.

Regarding a decision to make a mistake. At a very recent match a squad member got very frustrated with the course of fire involving the pistol. So frustrated he said f*#@ it ! Then threw his Glock down range and walked off. Yes, it was loaded and fortunately it's safety functions were working as it landed pointing up range.. He was dismissed from the match.

[m4brian]

Watch Earnest Langdon if you want to tap into the thinking behind the DA/SA gun. You'll find he's thought about shooting a bit, and has some decent reasoning.

Both types are used safely and well in competitions and defense. One thing the DA/SA does for me that no SF Gun (outside of the PPS and P99 - which are different animals). Most safety issues happen with holstering. I decock, then put my thumb on the hammer then holster. This provides a measure of safety I cannot get otherwise.

And for me, the longer (to do) SA pull is an advantage in my feeble brain.

[17K]

I’m a big EL fan. He’s the best Beretta plumber that I know of.

[Mysteryman]

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.

Like you said, " if you're willing to train..." Seeing as less than 1% of firearms owners ever attend any form of organized professional training, that pool is awfully shallow. Even for the skilled shooters, why would you want to spend more time learning/mastering a larger, heavier, DA/SA(or SA) gun when a striker fired poly gun does the job? I enjoy shooting, but I also enjoy honing my skills for practical purposes while I shoot. Guns for fun, are time eaters that could be better spent on more important things like open hand defense, martial arts, situational awareness skills, physical fitness, etc. I see firearms as tools. Pick the tool for the job and do work. Enjoying the work is a bonus.

For most, a Glock and a lot of ammo and training is more than sufficient. I hate to use the parallel but, all the pointy end folks are using Glocks. The list of positive attributes is undeniable and desirable.

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.

They're not unforgiving, they're honest. A blown shot with a Glock is 100% the shooter. Glock pistols will not cover up your poor form. They're hammers, any bent nails are the result of the guy swinging the hammer.

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.

What compares to a Glock? I haven't seen any other brand being tossed out of helos, shot at with 22lr, frozen, drug down the road, never cleaned, and still continue to function. Not that a lot of those experiments are overly relevant to real life, but it does show what kind of abuse a Glock can take. Why does everyone and their dog now make a wannabe Glock copy? I guess innovation has left the building. Glock was snickered at and dismissed in the early days as a "fad, or plastic crap". Who's laughing now?? Hammer fired guns are vanishing, much like the aluminum or steel frames are.

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.

Yes, only an idiot f*cks with a stock Glock outside of sights or other creature comforts. Anything from Zev or similar "custom" makers is an absolute abortion. Much like AR's, pimping your pistol for absolutely zero practical gain seems to be all the rage. If we are being honest, the vast majority of accessories sold for any firearm are nothing but window dressing or junk.

I've carried concealed daily for over 20 years. Plenty of shooting and professional training, too. Owned and fired all kinds of pistols and revolvers. IMO having a DA trigger for the first shot is safer than other types of trigger.

I'm curious how you have come to that conclusion? If it is the heavy first pull you're relying on as a "safety" the your training and target discrimination skills need work.

Watch Earnest Langdon if you want to tap into the thinking behind the DA/SA gun. You'll find he's thought about shooting a bit, and has some decent reasoning.

Both types are used safely and well in competitions and defense. One thing the DA/SA does for me that no SF Gun (outside of the PPS and P99 - which are different animals). Most safety issues happen with holstering. I decock, then put my thumb on the hammer then holster. This provides a measure of safety I cannot get otherwise.

And for me, the longer (to do) SA pull is an advantage in my feeble brain.

Reholstering isn't a race, no need to get stabby with putting the gun away. Training to put your thumb on the slide/hammer(which I do with my Glocks) is no different than training to holster slowly after clearing your cover garment from the area. Training a skill is training a skill.

[Ron3]

Like you said, " if you're willing to train..." Seeing as less than 1% of firearms owners ever attend any form of organized professional training, that pool is awfully shallow. Even for the skilled shooters, why would you want to spend more time learning/mastering a larger, heavier, DA/SA(or SA) gun when a striker fired poly gun does the job? I enjoy shooting, but I also enjoy honing my skills for practical purposes while I shoot. Guns for fun, are time eaters that could be better spent on more important things like open hand defense, martial arts, situational awareness skills, physical fitness, etc. I see firearms as tools. Pick the tool for the job and do work. Enjoying the work is a bonus.

For most, a Glock and a lot of ammo and training is more than sufficient. I hate to use the parallel but, all the pointy end folks are using Glocks. The list of positive attributes is undeniable and desirable.



They're not unforgiving, they're honest. A blown shot with a Glock is 100% the shooter. Glock pistols will not cover up your poor form. They're hammers, any bent nails are the result of the guy swinging the hammer.



What compares to a Glock? I haven't seen any other brand being tossed out of helos, shot at with 22lr, frozen, drug down the road, never cleaned, and still continue to function. Not that a lot of those experiments are overly relevant to real life, but it does show what kind of abuse a Glock can take. Why does everyone and their dog now make a wannabe Glock copy? I guess innovation has left the building. Glock was snickered at and dismissed in the early days as a "fad, or plastic crap". Who's laughing now?? Hammer fired guns are vanishing, much like the aluminum or steel frames are.



Yes, only an idiot f*cks with a stock Glock outside of sights or other creature comforts. Anything from Zev or similar "custom" makers is an absolute abortion. Much like AR's, pimping your pistol for absolutely zero practical gain seems to be all the rage. If we are being honest, the vast majority of accessories sold for any firearm are nothing but window dressing or junk.



I'm curious how you have come to that conclusion? If it is the heavy first pull you're relying on as a "safety" the your training and target discrimination skills need work.



Reholstering isn't a race, no need to get stabby with putting the gun away. Training to put your thumb on the slide/hammer(which I do with my Glocks) is no different than training to holster slowly after clearing your cover garment from the area. Training a skill is training a skill.

Okay, guys, I'll type up the translation:

-I'm all operator all the time. No time for fun. Time spent having fun is time wasted. I only spend time training how to stay alive and kill.

-If it's not a Glock throw it in the nearest trash can or you're an ignorant, wanton, fool. Tip of the spear guys are issued Glocks and even prefer them over their rifles so if you want to be tip of the spear like me, Glock.

-Glocks don't miss. Only shooters with less skill than me miss.

-Glocks cannot be broken. Stock Glocks never fail to fire. I'm laughing at all of you.

-You aren't as trained, skilled, or fast as me.

-Your safety processes are foolish and I'm the only one on this board who is perfectly trained to safely holster a firearm.

[pag23]

Like you said, " if you're willing to train..." Seeing as less than 1% of firearms owners ever attend any form of organized professional training, that pool is awfully shallow. Even for the skilled shooters, why would you want to spend more time learning/mastering a larger, heavier, DA/SA(or SA) gun when a striker fired poly gun does the job? I enjoy shooting, but I also enjoy honing my skills for practical purposes while I shoot. Guns for fun, are time eaters that could be better spent on more important things like open hand defense, martial arts, situational awareness skills, physical fitness, etc. I see firearms as tools. Pick the tool for the job and do work. Enjoying the work is a bonus.

For most, a Glock and a lot of ammo and training is more than sufficient. I hate to use the parallel but, all the pointy end folks are using Glocks. The list of positive attributes is undeniable and desirable.



They're not unforgiving, they're honest. A blown shot with a Glock is 100% the shooter. Glock pistols will not cover up your poor form. They're hammers, any bent nails are the result of the guy swinging the hammer.



What compares to a Glock? I haven't seen any other brand being tossed out of helos, shot at with 22lr, frozen, drug down the road, never cleaned, and still continue to function. Not that a lot of those experiments are overly relevant to real life, but it does show what kind of abuse a Glock can take. Why does everyone and their dog now make a wannabe Glock copy? I guess innovation has left the building. Glock was snickered at and dismissed in the early days as a "fad, or plastic crap". Who's laughing now?? Hammer fired guns are vanishing, much like the aluminum or steel frames are.



Yes, only an idiot f*cks with a stock Glock outside of sights or other creature comforts. Anything from Zev or similar "custom" makers is an absolute abortion. Much like AR's, pimping your pistol for absolutely zero practical gain seems to be all the rage. If we are being honest, the vast majority of accessories sold for any firearm are nothing but window dressing or junk.



I'm curious how you have come to that conclusion? If it is the heavy first pull you're relying on as a "safety" the your training and target discrimination skills need work.



Reholstering isn't a race, no need to get stabby with putting the gun away. Training to put your thumb on the slide/hammer(which I do with my Glocks) is no different than training to holster slowly after clearing your cover garment from the area. Training a skill is training a skill.

And the HK USP or P30 or P2000 is not vetted?

[jesuvuah]

Like you said, " if you're willing to train..." Seeing as less than 1% of firearms owners ever attend any form of organized professional training, that pool is awfully shallow. Even for the skilled shooters, why would you want to spend more time learning/mastering a larger, heavier, DA/SA(or SA) gun when a striker fired poly gun does the job? I enjoy shooting, but I also enjoy honing my skills for practical purposes while I shoot. Guns for fun, are time eaters that could be better spent on more important things like open hand defense, martial arts, situational awareness skills, physical fitness, etc. I see firearms as tools. Pick the tool for the job and do work. Enjoying the work is a bonus.

For most, a Glock and a lot of ammo and training is more than sufficient. I hate to use the parallel but, all the pointy end folks are using Glocks. The list of positive attributes is undeniable and desirable.



They're not unforgiving, they're honest. A blown shot with a Glock is 100% the shooter. Glock pistols will not cover up your poor form. They're hammers, any bent nails are the result of the guy swinging the hammer.



What compares to a Glock? I haven't seen any other brand being tossed out of helos, shot at with 22lr, frozen, drug down the road, never cleaned, and still continue to function. Not that a lot of those experiments are overly relevant to real life, but it does show what kind of abuse a Glock can take. Why does everyone and their dog now make a wannabe Glock copy? I guess innovation has left the building. Glock was snickered at and dismissed in the early days as a "fad, or plastic crap". Who's laughing now?? Hammer fired guns are vanishing, much like the aluminum or steel frames are.



Yes, only an idiot f*cks with a stock Glock outside of sights or other creature comforts. Anything from Zev or similar "custom" makers is an absolute abortion. Much like AR's, pimping your pistol for absolutely zero practical gain seems to be all the rage. If we are being honest, the vast majority of accessories sold for any firearm are nothing but window dressing or junk.



I'm curious how you have come to that conclusion? If it is the heavy first pull you're relying on as a "safety" the your training and target discrimination skills need work.



Reholstering isn't a race, no need to get stabby with putting the gun away. Training to put your thumb on the slide/hammer(which I do with my Glocks) is no different than training to holster slowly after clearing your cover garment from the area. Training a skill is training a skill.

I purchased my first pistol on my 21st birthday. It was a Beretta 92f. I bought it mostly because all the cool guys in the movies used them. After shooting it for about half a year, I learned to loath the da/sa trigger.
I eventually bought a Glock and shot them exclusively for over a decade. I would have been the guy repeating all the above mantra.

The first thing that lead me away from them was the fact that my AO is cold half the year. I also have sausage fingers. Once I throw a pair of gloves on I struggle to get my finger in the trigger guard of a glock. It was a long process, but to make this short, it eventually led me to trying out some DA/SA pistols again (although that wasn't my first move). I eventually decided on sigs with HK coming in a close second.

What I discovered was this, That now, being a well experienced shooter, the DA/SA trigger didn't bother me at all. I also discovered I was having a much easier time being a good shooter due to ergonomicsmon these pistols that worked better for me. I always struggled finding the dot on my rds equipped glocks, yet with my sigs it's always right there on presentation. I can also make shots reliably with my sig that I could not with my glock.

I also like being able to decock my pistol and thumb the hammer when reholstering, or being able to put the gun in a waistband or a pocket with no holster in certain situations without having to worry as much of something snagging the trigger.

I think the glock simplicity thing is overrated. Having detailed stripped my sigs, yes they are more complicated then a glock, but not by much. I think, like the AK, glocks are less reliable then people make them out to be, but can probably take more neglect.

As far as the tip of the spear guys, I really don't care much. I understand why they would switch to a glock (especially the 19), but it really has no bearing on my life. Not to mention it wasn't long ago and they were packing sigs and HKs, and some probably still due. I will say this, my mk25 makes a much better suppressor host then my blocks ever did.

That being said, I still own glocks, just fewer, and think they are great guns. I just get tired of the whole glock preachy thing because I used to be that guy, and at the end of the day, it's just another handgun.

Soo......back to the OP. Striker vs hammer? It's a toss up and they both have pros and cons. It's best to own both. I doubt you will see too many new models of hammer fired guns, but I don't think you will see too many of them disappearing from the market either. I have actually seen a lot of ccw folks going back to them. My main carry is still a striker, a p365, but that has much more to do with it's size to capacity ratio then anything else. I have no problem carrying a striker, but now prefer a DA/SA

Soli Deo Gloria