A very dumb thought process. If someone can't remember to keep their finger off the trigger which is the same rule for ALL FIREARMS then they surely won't remember to apply a mechanical safety. You can't fix stupid you can only train people to be proficient. The "problem" with ND's is not the equipment it's the user.
Firing Pin VS Striker Pistols Opinions
- Thread starter Ontariooutdoorsman
- Start date
A very dumb thought process. If someone can't remember to keep their finger off the trigger which is the same rule for ALL FIREARMS then they surely won't remember to apply a mechanical safety. You can't fix stupid you can only train people to be proficient. The "problem" with ND's is not the equipment it's the user.
This is a question that can be argued for centuries until the concept of cartridge fired handguns become obsolete to the next breakthrough in weaponry technology, and is always going to come down to a matter of opinion.
Any firearm in the hands of someone who has trained to use it will succeed in whatever it is they intend to do with it. The key is training. There are only two questions I believe that can be answered with pure, hard learned facts.
1.) striker fired pistols are a simpler design. This can either be a benefit, or a hinderance, again depending on the shooter. The fact remains that they are inherently simpler by design.
2.) A Glock handgun will outlive any other current pistol design in terms of longevity. Have a chat with any clerk in a rental range and I guarantee they will tell you the handguns that require the least amount of downtime/parts replaced are glocks. Ask to see the log books on each of their various rental guns and you'll see the same thing.
*As a side note, I'm considering this from a controlled environment aspect such as a range. We're not talking operational environments that are subject to a much greater spectrum of possible causations of failures.*
Now, before everyone gets their panties in a wad, this doesn't mean that glocks/striker guns are the best guns out there.
Simply put, the best design or the best handgun is the one that does it's intended task, to the best of your ability. Period.
Most people will scoff at this answer because we humans crave to know "what is best" but it's never going to be a simple 1-2-3 answer.
If you can get out and try the different designs, do that and see what works best for your purpose.
If not, buy a Glock.
Any firearm in the hands of someone who has trained to use it will succeed in whatever it is they intend to do with it. The key is training. There are only two questions I believe that can be answered with pure, hard learned facts.
1.) striker fired pistols are a simpler design. This can either be a benefit, or a hinderance, again depending on the shooter. The fact remains that they are inherently simpler by design.
2.) A Glock handgun will outlive any other current pistol design in terms of longevity. Have a chat with any clerk in a rental range and I guarantee they will tell you the handguns that require the least amount of downtime/parts replaced are glocks. Ask to see the log books on each of their various rental guns and you'll see the same thing.
*As a side note, I'm considering this from a controlled environment aspect such as a range. We're not talking operational environments that are subject to a much greater spectrum of possible causations of failures.*
Now, before everyone gets their panties in a wad, this doesn't mean that glocks/striker guns are the best guns out there.
Simply put, the best design or the best handgun is the one that does it's intended task, to the best of your ability. Period.
Most people will scoff at this answer because we humans crave to know "what is best" but it's never going to be a simple 1-2-3 answer.
If you can get out and try the different designs, do that and see what works best for your purpose.
If not, buy a Glock.
Well all the new recruits are not nearly the genius you are. Even the Senior NCO's and Officers who are charged with the responsibility of protecting their troops lack the incite you seem to manage post after post. I am truly amazed how brilliant you seem to be. Exactly what do you do for a living? What ever it is you are just in the wrong profession, assuming you are not now in an executive position in any of the multi- nationals or holding down a General Officers position with the Armed Forces or LEO organization.
Without any knowledge of the issues of training, liability, budget constraints or mental assessment of the end users, requirements laid down by the best guess needs of the US Army or all the environments the Army operates under; you know their decision was based upon " A very dumb thought process". Truly brilliant. Maybe you do and maybe the the thought process was dumb but then most likely you don't.
Take Care
Bob
Bob your thinly veiled ad hominem attacks are well just thin. I'm sure you're an expert on the US militaries requirements then? Common sense(which is far from common) indicates that adding a step to a process only complicates it as opposed to simplifying it. I will say it again, if your average dumb grunt(no offense just using the term as it seems to be a common belief) is incapable of keeping his finger off the trigger or controlling the muzzle then I'm absolutely confident that the same grunt will fail to use the mechanical safety.
The requirement for a mechanical safety was decided by the brass and not the grunts using the pistols. It was also the brass who decided a forward assist was both useful and necessary on the AR rifle for it to be adopted. Anyone with a room temperature IQ or higher is well aware that the FA is a useless appendage on the AR rifle. Some more tidbits of info for you, all of the US SOCOM community as well as many other SF units around the Globe are using Glock pistols. You know, the one without a mechanical safety. What's even more telling is that before they switched to the Glock they were using SIG pistols that also do not have a mechanical safety.
It happens sub consciously until it doesn't. There is no benefit to a mechanical safety on a handgun, not opinion, fact.
- Location
- Kawartha Lakes
Well I didn't expect this discussion to become heated lol.
I asked because I had seen that IWI was coming out with a striker pistol and was curious as to why when the Jericho seems to be such a well built firearm.
I have gotten some really good information from this discussion however.
I personally like the feel and weight of metal... so far. I am used to a safety and comfortable learning on that platform although not huge on the safety of the Jericho as the CZ seems more natural to push down than the push up of Jericho but that is just me. Although I love the feel of the Jericho and the weight.....have not shot a polymer yet so may have to give it a try.
Was also wondering about quality of hammer vs striker but as has been pointed out both are quality and reliable so that has satisfied my curiosity.
I asked because I had seen that IWI was coming out with a striker pistol and was curious as to why when the Jericho seems to be such a well built firearm.
I have gotten some really good information from this discussion however.
I personally like the feel and weight of metal... so far. I am used to a safety and comfortable learning on that platform although not huge on the safety of the Jericho as the CZ seems more natural to push down than the push up of Jericho but that is just me. Although I love the feel of the Jericho and the weight.....have not shot a polymer yet so may have to give it a try.
Was also wondering about quality of hammer vs striker but as has been pointed out both are quality and reliable so that has satisfied my curiosity.
Still alive
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rainy mosquito infested part of BC
Companies have to innovate and produce ( for good or worst) or lose market significance. IWI is just doing what other companies are doing with a polymer gun. IMO, they may be a bit late in playing catch up.
I agree about liking the push down safety a la 1911 and BHP better vs the push up of the Berettas, Jericho and older S&Ws. It’s a more natural motion to me. I rack my slide overhand so the safety on the slide becomes a hindrance. Nothing repeated use and training can’t fix, mind you.
The best safety is still no manual safety! That’s why Glocks are my favorite gun! Others may disagree and this is just my personal choice and opinion.
I agree about liking the push down safety a la 1911 and BHP better vs the push up of the Berettas, Jericho and older S&Ws. It’s a more natural motion to me. I rack my slide overhand so the safety on the slide becomes a hindrance. Nothing repeated use and training can’t fix, mind you.
The best safety is still no manual safety! That’s why Glocks are my favorite gun! Others may disagree and this is just my personal choice and opinion.
- Location
- Kawartha Lakes
Well I don't mind the weight, and if it was my only gun the safety would be no issue at all as that it what I would get accustomed to I guess. However, I do have a CZ and refer that type although could get very used to both.....actually looking at a Beretta that has same safety system as Jericho and may become more accustomed to that style. Me I like the DA/SA...for now... I Personally feel the best pistols I have held in hand that felt comfortable were the CZ's...Jericho, Beretta's and a few Sigs's I cannot afford right now lol.....Looking at a Canuck High Power as well.
I have smaller hands and the weight of these models feels very comfortable although I wish adjustable back straps were more common. I bought slimmer grips for the CZ and Jericho is fine OK for smaller hands...Trying to buy what feels comfortable I guess.
[/QUOTE]It happens sub consciously until it doesn't. There is no benefit to a mechanical safety on a handgun, not opinion, fact.[/QUOTE]
Certainly an opinion, and a poorly considered one at that. There are a multitude of reasons to have a safety on a SAO hammer fired gun like the 1911 or BHP. Whether you believe that system to be obsolete is your own business, but once again opinion.
Fun fact; just because certain organizations publicize their primary procurement contracts, doesn't mean that's what their men and women carry while working. Professionals tailor their tools to the job at hand.
Certainly an opinion, and a poorly considered one at that. There are a multitude of reasons to have a safety on a SAO hammer fired gun like the 1911 or BHP. Whether you believe that system to be obsolete is your own business, but once again opinion.
Fun fact; just because certain organizations publicize their primary procurement contracts, doesn't mean that's what their men and women carry while working. Professionals tailor their tools to the job at hand.
It happens sub consciously until it doesn't. There is no benefit to a mechanical safety on a handgun, not opinion, fact.[/QUOTE]
Certainly an opinion, and a poorly considered one at that. There are a multitude of reasons to have a safety on a SAO hammer fired gun like the 1911 or BHP. Whether you believe that system to be obsolete is your own business, but once again opinion.
Fun fact; just because certain organizations publicize their primary procurement contracts, doesn't mean that's what their men and women carry while working. Professionals tailor their tools to the job at hand.[/QUOTE]
On a BHP you're right, but that design is also outdated and inferior. The 1911 does not require a manual safety.
Professionals use what is issued in most circles. In the circles with near limitless budgets and freedoms, they choose Glock pistols, guns without mechanical safeties.
Certainly an opinion, and a poorly considered one at that. There are a multitude of reasons to have a safety on a SAO hammer fired gun like the 1911 or BHP. Whether you believe that system to be obsolete is your own business, but once again opinion.
Fun fact; just because certain organizations publicize their primary procurement contracts, doesn't mean that's what their men and women carry while working. Professionals tailor their tools to the job at hand.[/QUOTE]
On a BHP you're right, but that design is also outdated and inferior. The 1911 does not require a manual safety.
Professionals use what is issued in most circles. In the circles with near limitless budgets and freedoms, they choose Glock pistols, guns without mechanical safeties.
Sure they do; just like helicopters fly by magic and unicorns exist. Once again, most people doing the job tailor their tools to the job. When there is a low probability of engagement with a sidearm, a light/low-maintenance/compact sidearm is ideal. When more specialized demands exist, more specialized tools are used.
I'm not going to argue the point with you; you've clearly drank the Glock kool-aid, and if that's what works best for you in the way you shoot I'm happy for you. While I concede that as a general duty sidearm the Glock is currently king it doesn't matter in the civilian context. Doubly so in Canada where handguns are hobbies, vice practical tools for 99% of users. When a Glock tops every division of every competition, is used by 100% of government agencies 100% of the time, and works for 100% of the population is the day I'll concede Glock rules all.
In the meantime I'll be happily shooting my SAO hammer guns, knowing that I shoot them better than the other options. Use what works for you; the professionals do.
Helicopters fly because of physics although the ride is magical and unicorns well, I haven't seen one.
Wow... Have a look around, the vast vast majority of LE use Glock pistols or similar striker fired guns. The go to pistols for several decades in the SOF world have been either DA/SA guns like a 226 or striker fired guns like a Glock. MEU SOC adopted a 1911 and quickly abandoned them after repeated failures, they now use Glock pistols. A pistol that lacks a manual safety and/or a hammer is the go to choice but that is not my opinion it is logical fact based reality. Adding another step to the draw stroke/firing sequence does not make the user or gun any safer or faster.
One other side note, what manufacturer now doesn't offer a striker fired pistol?? Is that the brands just cashing in on the "fad" or are they on to something??
As for your "low probability, carried lots used little" comment. A lot of the groups or users who have logistical freedom are not carrying them as a secondary. There are plenty who rely on a handgun as their primary and only firearm. Take a guess what they're carrying... A smaller, lighter, easier to shoot, more reliable pistol that carries more rounds is in no way a compromise, it's a wise choice.
I really don't care one bit what is used in "GAMING" competitions, none of which have anything to do with the practical use of a firearm. By their very nature the gamer is looking for any advantage(perceived or real) they can to shave time and beat the clock. The practical user is trying to beat another human. Losing a match on a gamble of a technique or new piece of gear is a small price to pay in comparison.
Glock pistols fit anyone and everyone with a hand as large(and the strength) as an 11 year old girl. If you can't shoot a Glock(or any service pistol for that matter) then it's because you can't shoot. You like your SAO guns because they're heavy and have short soft triggers that cover up your poor form. I see that countless times at the range and I hear the same tired excuse "this gun shoots better for me.." No, the gun doesn't shoot better, the gun simply covers up your poor form.
Oh here's a link to one Ernest Langdon. A well known and very well respected firearms guru. Well You don't have to read his bio but he is the only guy to win IDPA CDP divison with a.... DA/SA pistol. a SIG 220 in 45ACP no less.
http://www.langdontac.com/Experience.html
Here's the quote: "Two Time IDPA Custom Defensive Pistol National Champion, 2003 & 2005. First and only person to win CDP Division with a traditional double action gun.
Two Time IDPA Stock Service Pistol National Champion, 1998 & 2000, First person to win high overall at IDPA Nationals in Stock Service Pistol Division Only person to ever win High Overall with a traditional double action gun. "
Last edited:
Guys this man is the real deal. Not a Glock paid tiger woods....
I'll share a world pro's comments:
http://www.vogeldynamics.com/gear/
"Since the beginning of 2006 I have shot Glock pistols exclusively in competition. Prior to this I had shot 1911 style pistols (STI) for three solid years. My number one reason for preferring the Glock is the grip I am able to get on the pistol. Because of the grip angle, ergonomics and low bore axis of the pistol I can get a much higher and more secure grip with both hands. This in effect translates into a shooting platform that is more effective in controlling recoil.
For me the trigger on a Glock is actually a plus. With the double action type trigger it allows for more of a “surprise break” type shot. This has allowed me to shoot more aggressively and has made trigger freeze less of an issue. I will admit that before switching to Glocks I had to set aside a number of preconceived notions that I had about them. This was easily done by concentrating on the only thing that really mattered to me: The results."
I'll share a world pro's comments:
http://www.vogeldynamics.com/gear/
"Since the beginning of 2006 I have shot Glock pistols exclusively in competition. Prior to this I had shot 1911 style pistols (STI) for three solid years. My number one reason for preferring the Glock is the grip I am able to get on the pistol. Because of the grip angle, ergonomics and low bore axis of the pistol I can get a much higher and more secure grip with both hands. This in effect translates into a shooting platform that is more effective in controlling recoil.
For me the trigger on a Glock is actually a plus. With the double action type trigger it allows for more of a “surprise break” type shot. This has allowed me to shoot more aggressively and has made trigger freeze less of an issue. I will admit that before switching to Glocks I had to set aside a number of preconceived notions that I had about them. This was easily done by concentrating on the only thing that really mattered to me: The results."
Last edited:
My first handgun was a GSG 1911 .22 hammer fired with safety. Fun gun (hate cleaning it though) Anyways..
I'm still fairly new to handguns, so take this with a grain of salt. When I first started researching what to buy for my first 9mm handgun, I was really leaning toward striker fired pistols (glock) and was sure the G17 would be my first 9mm. But the more I researched the more DA/SA hammer fired seemed to appeal to me. When the first trigger pull is DA it is heavier and requires a little more focus, but also I felt like this would require a more conscious effort on my part. Most of the time at the range with a safety instead of decocker it's SA anyway. Also I began to think a heavier steel gun would be a softer shooting and more controllable gun for me (until I became more proficient). I ended up getting the CZ Shadow, and love it at the range. I really like the DA/SA, the SA shots after the first shot are smooth and light. I will probably get a striker fired polymer pistol at some point, but don't regret going the hammer fired DA/SA route at all.
Last edited:
Let me offer some tidbits.
Striker fired guns have a consistent trigger pull from first round to last round.
Most striker fired guns have no positive/manual safety which means there's nothing to forget to engage or disengage when shooting.
Striker fired guns have fewer parts than their hammer fired cousins.
Most striker fired guns weigh less than their hammer fired cousins.
Most striker fired guns have a lower bore axis than their hammer fired cousins.
I see no disadvantage to a striker fired gun.
The Shadow is not a true DA/SA gun. To use the gun in DA you must manually lower the hammer with the use of the trigger. This is neither safe nor a smart design. The problem with DA/SA guns is that 99% of shots fired will be done SA as no one enjoys the struggle of a long and heavy DA trigger pull. The time required to master the DA then train yourself to use the SA trigger is simply not worth the effort. Add in the need to decock before holstering and your manual of arms is now quite involved.
