Besides being much better sealed against the environment than a hammer gun, what real world mechanical advantages do strikers offer?
Fewer parts, consistent triggers, lower bore axis, less weight.
Buds is an insult... if you were 'in the know' like you said, you'd know that. Lol
Anyways, this thread was asking what people prefer. I prefer hammer guns for the reason I stated. I'm not gonna continue to have a #### measuring contest with a know-it-all Internet tough guy who uses the glock forums as his personal ####hub. Have a good life... Buds.
I'm sorry, I'm not up to par on the latest butchering of the English language slang terms. The word "buds" is plural, meaning more than one, that is if you understand grammar.
You didn't state anything, you merely posted your unfounded opinion/preference and failed to support it, made personal attacks and here we are.
Well Kidd X,
Come on out and shoot some PPC matches and you'll find out how much precision you will need regardless of front sight width at 50 meters. With good ammo you'd be surprised at how good of groups one can achieve...often the same size as what the sight is covering.
50 meters is a whole different game, but the PPQ 5" is performing well at that distance.
As I stated before determine what your needs are and choose accordingly. If all I'm interested in is hitting an IPSC A zone at 25 meters great! But that will not win trophies in all shooting sports.
Rich
having made hits at 300 metres(not on demand, took a magazine and a bit) with my Glock 19 I know longer distances can be achieved. My point is what level of precision is needed for the majority of roles/uses of a service pistol. Long range pistol competitions are not practical nor are the distances shot common. Service guns were not designed for such distances either. Always fun to see what can be done but it is by no means a barometer for what is or is not a good pistol.
Growing up and functioning a firearm safely is not learning how to run it efficiently or effectively. Manual safeties aren't worth the trouble nor are they needed on a handgun.
Well if you grow up with a firearm with a manual safety.....YOU LEARN HOW TO USE IT EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVE!
I understand this is a pistol / revolver forum but us guys in Ontario learned to shoot deer on the run through trees with manual safety rifles! Oh ya....those deer were in front of hounds so were moving a bit lol. If you can shoulder a rifle in a split second while taking off the safety and then touch the trigger to hit a running deer...or bear...you can damn sure learn how to operate a safety on a pistol....Just Saying! No I do not believe a safety is needed on all pistols due to training and experience....however...it is not a hindrance to those who are accustomed to it.
THIS BEING SAID lol........ok ..I am going to try a striker fired pistol.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, learning to shoot with your pa is not the same thing as formal training nor is it even close to a fair comparison with handgun shooting. For starters the rifle is already in hand so your only concern is the safety and then the shot. Second, you're not trying to make first round hits in under 1.5 seconds from a holster like a handgun competitor or service member is. I can appreciate the adrenaline rush and the difficulty of the shot, but it is not the same thing.
Becoming accustomed to a manual safety can be done. The question is why would you waste the time with one if you didn't have to? For those issued manual safety guns they have little choice. For the rest of us who have the freedom to choose then a gun with a manual safety is simply a step backwards and offers absolutely zero advantage over passive safety guns.
