If only 1 pistol ? Hammer VS Striker

I've never had a modern striker fired pistol fail. I've own Glocks, M&P, and FNs, as well as some other brands.

I've never had a hammer fire gun not fail at some point but I've primarily owned CZs(or clones) and 1911s so maybe I'd have better luck with a Sig or Beretta.

For reliability alone I'd chose a striker fired pistol.
 
Having both striker and hammer, if I had to own just one handgun it would have a hammer. I simply prefer this system from an operational and visual standpoint. Reliability has never been an issue for me with either.
 
I have to retract my one statement, I had a S&W 4006 when I first moved to America and it was flawless.

I miss that pistol...
 
Meroh said:
See above; my opinion, and I'm not here to argue.
Click to expand...

So the first of four fundamental rules of firearms handling states "All firearms are always loaded, treat them as such." So no need for a "cocked indicator".
You should know the condition of your firearm(s) at all times. So no need for a "cocked indicator".
Half #### is a useless feature short of single action guns and lever guns.
Manual safeties are unnecessary and only add to complexity.
A hammer fired gun can only be decocked if it's a DA/SA gun, which negates your first statement about a hammer being a "visible cocking indicator" as a cocked DA/SA gun has either just been loaded or just fired.

Your opinion is still yours to have/hold but it is not backed by anything remotely close to fact or logic.
 
Kidd X said:
So the first of four fundamental rules of firearms handling states "All firearms are always loaded, treat them as such." So no need for a "cocked indicator".
You should know the condition of your firearm(s) at all times. So no need for a "cocked indicator".
Half #### is a useless feature short of single action guns and lever guns.
Manual safeties are unnecessary and only add to complexity.
A hammer fired gun can only be decocked if it's a DA/SA gun, which negates your first statement about a hammer being a "visible cocking indicator" as a cocked DA/SA gun has either just been loaded or just fired.

Your opinion is still yours to have/hold but it is not backed by anything remotely close to fact or logic.
Click to expand...

I'm an engineer who deals with safety, production accuracy, efficiency and quality, and the statistics say you are wrong in your assertions.

I'm glad you are perfect; I'm not, and neither are any one else that I know; if everyone was perfect like you we would not need to:
  1. We would not need to build redundant systems into aircraft engine system, power supplies; navigation Air Traffic Control etc.
  2. We would not have to put safety equipment on to production machinery as everyone always uses common sense.
  3. We would not have to build fail safe Pokeyokes into production equipment for quality control.

Truth is (talk to any quality engineer) people who are highly trained are only 80% effective when it comes to catching quality issues; talk to any health and safety person or production engineer; attentive people are only 80% effective regarding personal safety.

Please check your sanctimonious attitude at the door, because we all are apt to eff up 20 % of the time.
 
Meroh said:
I'm an engineer who deals with safety, production accuracy, efficiency and quality, and the statistics say you are wrong in your assertions.

I'm glad you are perfect; I'm not, and neither are any one else that I know; if everyone was perfect like you we would not need to:
  1. We would not need to build redundant systems into aircraft engine system, power supplies; navigation Air Traffic Control etc.
  2. We would not have to put safety equipment on to production machinery as everyone always uses common sense.
  3. We would not have to build fail safe Pokeyokes into production equipment for quality control.

Truth is (talk to any quality engineer) people who are highly trained are only 80% effective when it comes to catching quality issues; talk to any health and safety person or production engineer; attentive people are only 80% effective regarding personal safety.

Please check your sanctimonious attitude at the door, because we all are apt to eff up 20 % of the time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that virtue signaling self affirmation speech. Could you address what I posted with some form of fact?? I've posted in other threads and I will post it here again, those in the know aren't using hammer fired guns and they aren't using guns with manual safeties. Some would call that a clue..
 
I am not a polymer gun fan....(purely personal bias and taste) so I'm naturally predisposed to hammer guns. That being the case I would have said a good quality 1911 up until a couple on months ago (I have a STI Trojan). After buying a Sig X5 Scandic I would be really hard pressed to choose. If I absolutely had to pick I guess it would be the Sig.
 
Kidd X said:
Thanks for that virtue signaling self affirmation speech. Could you address what I posted with some form of fact?? I've posted in other threads and I will post it here again, those in the know aren't using hammer fired guns and they aren't using guns with manual safeties. Some would call that a clue..
Click to expand...

Please share more of immense knowledge on "those in the know". Being in Calgary you must rub shoulders with those types daily.......
 
Kidd X said:
Thanks for that virtue signaling self affirmation speech. Could you address what I posted with some form of fact?? I've posted in other threads and I will post it here again, those in the know aren't using hammer fired guns and they aren't using guns with manual safeties. Some would call that a clue..
Click to expand...

How did you become such an expert in such a short time? You joined the forum in april 2016. You introduced yourself as a newbie from BC who just got his RPAL. And now your a guy thats " in the know"?
 
Kidd X = TDC.

His points are logical. However, he just can't seem to understand some people may do better with a different gun than one that he prefers. Or that some people have different goals/ "philosophy of use" than his. Black and white / All or nothing thinking.

Realistically with proper training one will shoot most hand guns roughly about the same in terms of accuracy and speed. Of course some platforms will be more efficient, but this may vary depending on the individual. This may be affected by hand size, muscle memory from previous experience, or history of injuries.

Find a reliable gun that fulfills your requirements and practice. Who cares what others think if it works for you.
 
TT1900 said:
Please share more of immense knowledge on "those in the know". Being in Calgary you must rub shoulders with those types daily.......
Click to expand...

Perhaps "those in the know" was too vague. Have a search around other forums and training schools and you will see that no one uses a hammer fired gun as their desired carry/service/duty gun. Striker fired guns and Glocks in particular are the order of the day. Even those who do use hammer fired guns are not selecting guns with manual safeties. I know some folks who serve or are on the local streets and have talked to a fair number more. Not one is a fan of a manual safety or hammer fired guns... If they have a choice.

buddythedog said:
How did you become such an expert in such a short time? You joined the forum in april 2016. You introduced yourself as a newbie from BC who just got his RPAL. And now your a guy thats " in the know"?
Click to expand...

If you're getting all your informaton from this forum then you're already set up to fail. Try other avenues like taking a training class or simply doing research both in print and online. Being new to a forum doesn't mean being ignorant.. And newbie doesn't mean new to guns, new to shooting or new to life. Again, don't believe everything you read online.

Gundoggy said:
Kidd X = TDC.

His points are logical. However, he just can't seem to understand some people may do better with a different gun than one that he prefers. Or that some people have different goals/ "philosophy of use" than his. Black and white / All or nothing thinking.

Realistically with proper training one will shoot most hand guns roughly about the same in terms of accuracy and speed. Of course some platforms will be more efficient, but this may vary depending on the individual. This may be affected by hand size, muscle memory from previous experience, or history of injuries.

Find a reliable gun that fulfills your requirements and practice. Who cares what others think if it works for you.
Click to expand...

you're right, shooter performance across any make/model/style should remain consistent, I wasn't questioning that. I was questioning the logic or lack thereof regarding the perceived belief that hammer fired guns(with or without mechanical safeties) are safer and/or more efficient than a striker fired gun. The answer is no they are not.
 
This thread was not about a carry/service/duty gun. Those carrying weapons for that purpose rarely have a choice in what they're using. I get issued a Hi-Power and that's what I shall carry, no option. For most civilian shooters, judging by responses in this thread, a hammer fired gun is the preference. It's also mine. You can spew your garbage about needing soft triggers and lots of weight to cover poor skills now.

Just out of curiosity, what model Glock are you shooting? Upgrades or Stock?
 
Last edited:
Wow... we've got some 'experts' in here. lol

I say hammer gun. I've noticed most striker guns have a spongy feel to the trigger. Nothing like the crisp break of a hammer slipping off a sear.

But what do I know. With my low post count I'm probably not 'in the know' anyways. Lol
 
wood973 said:
Wow... we've got some 'experts' in here. lol

I say hammer gun. I've noticed most striker guns have a spongy feel to the trigger. Nothing like the crisp break of a hammer slipping off a sear.

But what do I know. With my low post count I'm probably not 'in the know' anyways. Lol
Click to expand...

They're both wrong.


BOW BEFORE MY MIGHTY POST COUNT.
 
TT1900 said:
This thread was not about a carry/service/duty gun. Those carrying weapons for that purpose rarely have a choice in what they're using. I get issued a Hi-Power and that's what I shall carry, no option. For most civilian shooters, judging by responses in this thread, a hammer fired gun is the preference. It's also mine. You can spew your garbage about needing soft triggers and lots of weight to cover poor skills now.

Just out of curiosity, what model Glock are you shooting? Upgrades or Stock?
Click to expand...

If we are simply asking the question of what does each individual prefer then there is no correct answer and this entire thread is nothing but mental masturbation. There is no one answer for all shooting disciplines. Without a known destination or goal there can be no journey. If your shooting involves static paper targets and slow fire from a bench then your opinion is all but worthless as doing so with a service pistol is not a discipline and is not the least bit practical. If you enjoy it then drive on, just don't pretend like hundreds of rounds at 7 yards slow fire is improving your skills by any appreciable level.

From an ease of use and efficiency standpoint a striker fired pistol is superior. Particularly striker fired guns without manual safeties. The desire for hammer fired guns comes from the short and light trigger pulls associated. NO ONE likes a DA hammer fired gun for the long heavy trigger pull. NO ONE likes having to learn two distinctly different trigger pulls(for the DA/SA guns). If you like a 1911 it is most likely due to the short and light trigger which gives the perception that the gun and/or the shooter are more accurate than they really are. Heavy guns with light triggers cover up poor form. Yep, I said it, and I have yet to see a 1911 shooter or even a DA/SA hammer gun shooter print similar groups with a striker fired pistol or out shoot me with my own pistol. The most common comment I hear from 1911 lovers(or any hammer fired gun for that matter) is this " Oh Glocks/M&P/SFP9 etc are junk, they have horrible triggers and are inaccurate.. I shoot my 1911 better." The problem is their lack of fundamentals and not the tool used. They don't like striker guns because they simply don't understand the fundamentals and can't figure out the trigger. This is immediately validated by the end statement "I shoot my 1911(or whatever) better.." If the only variable changed was the gun and yet your performance suffered, how do you know it isn't you that sucks? It is you that sucks, which is why you shoot an SA hammer fired gun that weighs a ton with a short and light trigger. You likely have modified or had the "smith" work it over some more.

As for what I shoot? I shoot Glock 17's(not so much now) and 19's. Stock with the exception of sights, trijicon HD's.

wood973 said:
Wow... we've got some 'experts' in here. lol

I say hammer gun. I've noticed most striker guns have a spongy feel to the trigger. Nothing like the crisp break of a hammer slipping off a sear.

But what do I know. With my low post count I'm probably not 'in the know' anyways. Lol
Click to expand...

Not picking on you wood973 but your post sums up my response to TT1900 perfectly. Complain about the trigger then validate your shortcomings by trumping up an SA hammer gun. Oh and post count doesn't mean a thing.
 
When I was buying my first gun, I thought to myself, "What is the best choice if I just stop at this one?" The answer to my question was the M2.0 in .40 S&W. The next one I got was a revolver. So really, I have no preference as far as what I would rather. As long as the craftsmanship and durability are there, and as long as the firearm is generally proven, I'll consider it. I'd buy a CZ Shadow 2 next if they didn't cost so much.

If I was buying another striker gun it'd likely be the PPQ long slide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom