Firing Pin VS Striker Pistols Opinions

O

Ontariooutdoorsman

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Kawartha Lakes
If this has been covered before I do apologize.
Having somewhat recently gotten involved in hand gun I had purchased hammer mechanisms.

What are the main advantages or disadvantages of a striker fired pistol.
 
Last edited:
john92awd said:
The advantages of striker fired pistol are typically simplicity, ease of use and reliability
Click to expand...

Not to disagree with you, but I'm curious where you got this information from. I can't see where any of these things would be provided by a striker fired FA and not a hammer fired one. I have both, but I prefer hammer over striker - you can release a hammer without dry firing (and fiddling with snap caps, or empty shell casings). Not a big deal for many, particularly on centre fire, but having my "formative years" being steeped in my dads .22 - I still cringe if I dry fire.
 
Most guns are made with real world applications in mind - not competitions. But most competitions are intended to be skill building for the real world.

No competition can induce the laser focus and adrenaline dump that a gun fight would produce, but having to shoot with both accuracy and speed is the best we can do to mimic the condition.

So consider Glock vs. 1911 vs CZ75. Each is a first class pistol.

The 1911 is carried with the hammer cocked, safety on. I can fill the Skydome (49,500 seats) with guys that have drawn, aimed, pulled the trigger, then remembered they have to take the safety off. This adds one more thing to do against the clock or to fight for your life. It can be learned. But the trigger is light and crisp, once the saftey is clicked off.

The CZ75 (a single/double action hammer pistol). is carried loaded, hammer down. It is drawn and the trigger is pulled. This is a long heavy pull as it fires the first shot double action. ("Double" means pulling the rigger does 2 things -#### and then fire.) The subsequent shots are single action, much like the 1911, and the trigger is light and crisp.


The Glock (sticker fired) is carried loaded (round in the chamber). It is drawn and the trigger is pulled. BANG! The trigger is not as crisp as the 1911, but in the heat of a competition or a fight, it is not noticed nearly as much as it would be in a bullseye match.

The Glock (striker) advantage is simplicity. Draw and pull the rigger. Nothing to remember. Every shot feels the same.


I have at least one of most of the makes of striker pistols and my latest, the Canik TP9 FSx has an excellent trigger. Not as good as a 1911 (nothing is) but so good that it is not an issue. I expect other makers to respond with better triggers, troo.
 
Ganderite - I agree with everything you've said - but - a lot of us just shoot for "fun" at a range. I don't do "competitions" and I doubt that more than a handful of us will ever have the misfortune of being involved in a gunfight. My shooting style is more methodical (boring ?) and I really appreciate the clean/crisp break of a hammer fired gun (some more than others). I have a couple of Glocks (a 20 & a 21) and the triggers on both of them are my absolute least favourite - I am more use to them, now that I've run them for a while - but they still suck large, compared to my 1911's. Too bad you're so far away - I'd really like to try your TP9.
The only flaw that I can think of with a hammer fired HG (your observations not withstanding) is the hammer spur could get hung up on your clothing, if you were pocket carrying and had to pull it out fast and that scenario would likely never happen up here, with any of us in the CGN community.
 
fire@will said:
Not to disagree with you, but I'm curious where you got this information from. I can't see where any of these things would be provided by a striker fired FA and not a hammer fired one. I have both, but I prefer hammer over striker - you can release a hammer without dry firing (and fiddling with snap caps, or empty shell casings). Not a big deal for many, particularly on centre fire, but having my "formative years" being steeped in my dads .22 - I still cringe if I dry fire.
Click to expand...

You don't have to agree and I don't necessarily agree either. Those are just the minor advantages that most will claim.
A glock for example has many less parts than a 1911 or cz so it's easier to clean and has less to go wrong
 
In terms of shooting on a line and slow fire, it comes down to personal taste. As Ganderite said ( and very well, I might add!), the striker fired guns are most useful in a self defense or competition setting where speed is more important. People trained and used to 1911s learn to rest their thumb on the safety during the draw and click it off as the gun comes up on target. They usually rest their thumb on the safety as well while shooting. Quite instinctive, actually. But for a new shooter, they may not realize this. Not a big deal as you get used to using the gun.
I'm personally not keen on DA/SA guns as you have to learn to slightly shift your trigger finger after the first pull. I can do it but I've also shot them quite a bit over the years.
I'm a huge fan of simplicity. So polymer striker fired guns are my go to for competition. The trigger is admittedly not great but if you can shoot a Glock, the 1911s will feel like a breeze. The other thing too ( which may not apply to the OP) is when you dump your gun in 2 or 3 gun matches, you wont have to worry about forgetting or fumbling your safety and risk a DQ.

In the end, both systems have merit. Comes down to what style of shooting you do and whether trigger feel is important to you. The best is to get both so you can experience the various actuating systems. As the saying goes..."The more you know...!"
 
I like the simplicity of striker guns but dislike the lack of weight due to the polymer frame. I love the 1911 and use one in 9mm for my black badge and a couple competitions though I mostly go to the local IPSC practice night. The safety lever on the 1911 is never an issue. It's automatic for me. As previously stated, my thumb disengages the safety on the draw stroke and rests on it while shooting. I did recently buy a polymer guns to try and I don't like not having the safety to put my thumb on. But that's what I'm used to.
 
I believe most new shooters completely unfamiliar with a handgun would be better served of they bought a DA/SA pistol before they venture into striker fired guns. In a perfect world a decocker version would even be better. The US Army's 320 will come with a manual safety is an indication that someone in the chain of command recognized the risk to hundreds of thousands of young inexperienced troops receiving a striker fired pistol where the major safety feature lies between your ears. Just saying.

The above said, striker fired pistols are is where the market is. The polymer guns are less expensive, just as accurate in most hands and work well in the civilian environment both in the US where CCW exists and in Canada where the shooting sports attract a lot of the sales.

If you only have one type of gun then most will find ways to justify their purchase and argue their case. Truth be known there is room for all. I really have become a fan of the Beretta 92 series of pistols. Love them both, that said I also love the CZ design which I own but will move to the Walther PPQ M2 Match next year to enjoy IDPA Optic Division even though I think I still can shoot the M&P Pro as good - my ego and $1,200 from my savings account prevents me from saying better. The Walther is quite a piece of engineering I have to admit. The M&P and Glock are not even close when it comes to the trigger both in pull and reset. The ergos are no better than the M&P and not quite in the Tanfoglio/CZ league but still.........

To the OP love your gun. If you like shooting it won't be your only purchase there are a lot of very good designs out there waiting to remove the Queen from your wallet.

Take Care

Bob
 
Great input by all!!!!! I am shooting 22LR pistol at moment although may or may not have purchased a CZ 75 and a Jericho 941 in 9mm. One of the 22's I have is the Sig 1911 22LR. Cant say it is the best trigger system but then again I came from rifle and shotgun shooting and loved the triggers on Sako Rifles and Beretta shotguns. I have a Browning Buckmark that the trigger is more familiar to me and seems more similar to the CZ and Jericho. I see Jericho has come out with a striker pistol and was interested. I looked at Glocks but just getting into pistol I thought they seemed lacking of Quality, although I understand they are very reliable, when compared to the CZ and Jericho......maybe I am reading too much into things....or trying to talk myself into another purchase...

As a person who has just started though I like the DA/SA....
 
Striker fired.

"this is my safety"

ALB4O.jpg
 
So if striker fire pistols are usually polymer construction....it seems to me, although could be wrong, that metal made hammer designs might have the upper hand in quality and longevity. Opinions would be great.
 
You need to try to own both types. There are lots of great guns in each category and there is no reason to limit yourself to just one design.
 
Ontariooutdoorsman said:
So if striker fire pistols are usually polymer construction....it seems to me, although could be wrong, that metal made hammer designs might have the upper hand in quality and longevity. Opinions would be great.
Click to expand...

Polymer is a light and durable material which makes it perfect for carry/duty handguns like the Glock and M&P. I think you're overthinking the whole thing. Don't be fooled by the all that "plastic", most here would agree that Glocks are a quality product.
 
The only striker fired metal framed pistol that I know of is the very recently release Hudson H9. Hammer vs striker longevity is a myth.
 
Both have their strengh and draw backs. All really comes down to what you like, and what tool works best for the job.

Nice metal frame guns tend to feel nicer and in the hands due to the extra weight, but not as nice having it on the hip all day compared to a "plastic".

The poylmer materials a typically very sturdy and will last a very long time. Theres failures in both the plastic and metal frame pistols.

Main advantage for striker pistols I would say is they are usually simple and easy to use, and typically light weight.
Biggest disadvantage id say would be the triggers. They are ok but crappy compared to a nice SA trigger.

The light weight is a double edge sword as well, and also a con pending use and situation.
 
When I started out I had a good rental range near me and I went into test shooting a wide variety of 9mm handguns. I didn't care what each was. Just wanted to find which I favored. Over a few different sessions with well over a dozen guns I found that I felt most happy with all metal guns for their sense of weight and balance in the hand. I also found that I preferred the feel of the trigger on hammer fired guns. In the end my top two were the Beretta 92fs and the Jericho. Then someone let me try their CZ Shadow. The Shadow was like the best of the other two rolled into one.... FOR ME ! ! ! !

But I've also shot a tuned up for IPSC Glock that I have to admit was hella sweet. Not sweet enough to lure me away but..... DANG!

Bottom line? Either style can be accurate, reliable and long lived. And each has it's own "feel". There is no one right answer. You need to figure out how to try a few and decide for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom