striker vs hammer
- Thread starter vito
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
groberts
Single-Sixer
Same is true of a DAO hammer fired pistol like the LC9/380.pjvrefugee said:
groberts
Single-Sixer
That seems like a dumb idea to me. In a tense situation you draw your gun and pull the trigger, nada?gc70 said:
groberts
Single-Sixer
That heavy first shot is a big advantage in most SD situations - you are making a commitment to harm someone so you need to be sure. Once you have made that commitment, however, follow up shots are easier.pjvrefugee said:
Joe Survival
Bearcat
Ruger P95 fired under water57K said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdsHq_v8EY8
Most of the pros and cons posted here about striker fired vs hammer fired can actually be applied to either type.
Neither has an inherent advantage in primer striking power. I've seen striker fired guns that could punch a primer like a pile driver, and hammer fired that barely get the job done. It's all a matter of the physics in the mass of the hammer, the mass of the firing pin/striker, power of the springs, etc. And there's nothing to prevent a hammer fired gun from firing under water, with the right combination of those things. But I suspect firing under water isn't exactly a priority for most gun manufacturers.
Although most do, not all striker fired guns use the semi cocked trigger system made popular by the Glock, actually a cross breed between single action and double action. There are pure double action striker guns, and there are DA/SA versions. Just as there are different functioning versions of hammer guns. And yes, there are even single action striker guns that must be cocked before firing (HK P7 is one example). And not all hammer guns have the advantage of being able to cock it without racking the slide/bolt. Some hammer guns have the hammer carried internally.
The ONLY difference between a hammer and a striker gun is one puts the spring power behind a hammer which strikes the firing pin, the other puts the spring power directly behind the striker. The rest depends on the design of the individual gun.
So in the end, the only real advantage between one or the other is mostly just a matter of personal preference.
Neither has an inherent advantage in primer striking power. I've seen striker fired guns that could punch a primer like a pile driver, and hammer fired that barely get the job done. It's all a matter of the physics in the mass of the hammer, the mass of the firing pin/striker, power of the springs, etc. And there's nothing to prevent a hammer fired gun from firing under water, with the right combination of those things. But I suspect firing under water isn't exactly a priority for most gun manufacturers.
Although most do, not all striker fired guns use the semi cocked trigger system made popular by the Glock, actually a cross breed between single action and double action. There are pure double action striker guns, and there are DA/SA versions. Just as there are different functioning versions of hammer guns. And yes, there are even single action striker guns that must be cocked before firing (HK P7 is one example). And not all hammer guns have the advantage of being able to cock it without racking the slide/bolt. Some hammer guns have the hammer carried internally.
The ONLY difference between a hammer and a striker gun is one puts the spring power behind a hammer which strikes the firing pin, the other puts the spring power directly behind the striker. The rest depends on the design of the individual gun.
So in the end, the only real advantage between one or the other is mostly just a matter of personal preference.
groberts
Single-Sixer
Vito, if you haven't figured out by now there are a million opinions about which is better - and a million misconceptions. Here is one more that looks at it with respect to your revolver background. As you know there are revolvers with hidden hammers. There are also semi-autos with hidden hammers. Strikers are also hidden. There are also revolvers with the "firing pin" built into the hammer so there is no separate firing pin. Strikers have no separate firing pin. So strikers are kind of like hidden hammers with a built in firing pin. They have a different shape and a different mass but functionally they are very similar.
I have fired striker fired weapons. I have, however, never owned a striker fired weapons and based one everything I have read, here and else, I never will. As stated by someone above each weapon is different and the generalizations of the difference given above are pure bunk. For each advantage, or disadvantage, a person can give about one type an example can be found of the other type that has the same thing. I could write a book addressing the misconceptions stated above but that wouldn't convince anyone. It all boils down to your preference. And IN MY OIONION as a revolver person you would be happier with a hammer fired semi-auto.
I have fired striker fired weapons. I have, however, never owned a striker fired weapons and based one everything I have read, here and else, I never will. As stated by someone above each weapon is different and the generalizations of the difference given above are pure bunk. For each advantage, or disadvantage, a person can give about one type an example can be found of the other type that has the same thing. I could write a book addressing the misconceptions stated above but that wouldn't convince anyone. It all boils down to your preference. And IN MY OIONION as a revolver person you would be happier with a hammer fired semi-auto.
Amistad
Single-Sixer
To each his own on this issue. For me:
1) I want to be able to see the hammer's position at all times.
2) I want to be able to feel the hammer's position when in a pitch black room.
Just my two cents... :mrgreen:
Amistad
1) I want to be able to see the hammer's position at all times.
2) I want to be able to feel the hammer's position when in a pitch black room.
Just my two cents... :mrgreen:
Amistad
Amistad said:
I agree "To each his own", however if I am carrying a pistol I know what state of readiness it is in. I own a hammer fired DA/SA pistol, a DAO hammer fired pistol with a shrouded hammer, a striker fired pistol & a single action hammer fired pistol as well as an old DA/SA revolver. My opinion is that either system works. My striker fired pistol as well as most of the popular ones of recent manufacture has a striker indicator that sticks out the back of the slide when the striker is cocked. It doesn't really matter to me though as I know whether it is cocked or not & whether a round is in the chamber or not. I still check the chamber if I have the pistol unholstered & am fooling with it though just as a safety precaution. My opinion is either system can work & work well. You just need to decide what you want & need (Of course with guns you might have to buy one of each system just so you can check it out :wink: )
wolfee said:
Interesting footage. To an earlier comment, you can fire a single round from most firearms under water but the only firearm certified by the manufacturer to fully function underwater is the glock 17 with waterproof fmj ammo and the marine spring cups installed.
I watched several of his videos and I am amazed that nothing shocking happens even with the AK under water.
Rabon
Single-Sixer
Just curious but why?Amistad said:
Rabon
Single-Sixer
One of the major advantages of the striker fired pistols is the design eliminates the hammer, hammer strut and main spring (which allows a much smaller grip with increased magazine capacity). The striker fired guns parts are enclosed in the slide or contained in a frame with no hammer slot and is basically sealed against debri.
Cheesewhiz
Hunter
I own several striker fired guns and like them well enough, my Kahr is a very nice carry gun and reliable as heck so far.
I completely disagree with Rabon on a striker guns being more capable of keeping debris out, as a matter of fact although most striker fired guns have a fine reputation for reliability, none have faired all that well in military tests for NATO and other certifications. There are some countries that have adopted them but most have been done, in the end, by waiver. The pistol is considered a secondary weapon and can be waivered due to it's lack of being a primary weapon on the battlefield.
Now none or close to none of us will ever subject our pistols to the trials that are involved in these tests but some consider things like this sometimes.
My preference for hammer fired guns has to do with range use, I find that they tend to react the same in everyway during every firing sequence. The trigger tends to keep the same feel and reset point, the recoil impulse is the same, time after time. The balance on a good hammer fired gun is always superior to that of a striker fired gun and yeah I know a real good one costs twice as much or more, there is a reason for that, they're much better guns overall.
.....but the biggest issue I have personally seen is those plastic framed guns sure tend to drop magazines at an alarming rate compared to a well made metal framed or metal bathtub/plastic frame hammer fired gun.
Our military will soon be trying out a S&W/General Dynamics striker fired super pistol based on the M&P, I wonder what features they will take out of a standard striker fired gun to get it to run through the tests a little better. My guess is they are going to have some huge teething problems with it and if that is the case it won't be the first military program dropped for poor performance.
I completely disagree with Rabon on a striker guns being more capable of keeping debris out, as a matter of fact although most striker fired guns have a fine reputation for reliability, none have faired all that well in military tests for NATO and other certifications. There are some countries that have adopted them but most have been done, in the end, by waiver. The pistol is considered a secondary weapon and can be waivered due to it's lack of being a primary weapon on the battlefield.
Now none or close to none of us will ever subject our pistols to the trials that are involved in these tests but some consider things like this sometimes.
My preference for hammer fired guns has to do with range use, I find that they tend to react the same in everyway during every firing sequence. The trigger tends to keep the same feel and reset point, the recoil impulse is the same, time after time. The balance on a good hammer fired gun is always superior to that of a striker fired gun and yeah I know a real good one costs twice as much or more, there is a reason for that, they're much better guns overall.
.....but the biggest issue I have personally seen is those plastic framed guns sure tend to drop magazines at an alarming rate compared to a well made metal framed or metal bathtub/plastic frame hammer fired gun.
Our military will soon be trying out a S&W/General Dynamics striker fired super pistol based on the M&P, I wonder what features they will take out of a standard striker fired gun to get it to run through the tests a little better. My guess is they are going to have some huge teething problems with it and if that is the case it won't be the first military program dropped for poor performance.
CurlyQ said:
It would appear that most would disagree with you and here is why. The Glock firing sequence (original Striker design I believe) allows for a firearm to safely lay dormant in a half-cocked position. The half-cocked positioning allows for DAO accessibility (lack of need for external safeties, other then the trigger safety, but still allowing for draw and pull only accessibility) with a lighter and shorter trigger pull than a normal DAO. Every gun person I have ever heard or read would suggest that carrying an external hammer gun in this condition would not be a wise idea. No one recommends carrying a half cocked 1911, let alone doing so with the thumb safety disengaged (if even possible). They call it cocked and locked for a reason. But with a Glock Style Striker fired gun, safely half-cocked doesn't need to be locked. This is why LE loves it. Safe draw and pull only without a DAO trigger. Simple saves lives in their profession. Sure, other companies have come along and adapted the Striker design... but my understanding was that this was the original intent of it. That is what makes it different. If that is the problem that someone wants to solve, then that is the firearm system that they should buy. But, it is just a matter of preference... it is a matter of the problem that needs to be solved. Now... please visit my new thread to help me understanding exactly how some of the other safety mechanisms work!
OldePhart
Blackhawk
True DAO - long but consistent trigger travel (all shots feel the same, very much like a revolver but without the sometimes uneven pull caused by rotating the cylinder of a revolver) - restrike capability
LDA (Para) and similar "light double action" - half-cock but with hammer. Consistent, moderate, trigger pull but no restrike.
DA/SA - I've only owned one and hated it (S&W 5913, I think it was, many years ago). First pull was okay, second pull had tons of mushy slack to take up. On second and subsequent shots I couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside with it, YMMV. Most DA/SA can restrike.
Striker-fired - moderately long but not heavy trigger pull. Consistent from round to round, but no restrike, at least not on any I'm aware of. No guarantee that the trigger pull will be smooth, but if it's not it often can be corrected. (My LC9s was satisfactory out of the box in this respect, all of my Glocks have needed a little work with Flitz to smooth the trigger but afterward they are pretty hard to beat.)
As for someone mentioning hammers having a harder strike on the primer - not necessarily true at all. Even with a hammer it still comes down to springs. I've seen revolvers and semi-autos with light aftermarket hammer springs that would occasionally light-strike. I've never had a light strike from any of my striker-fired guns. I put about 10k of handloads through my first G22 and never had a light strike. I do know of others that have had problems with light strikes in striker-fired guns...but every case I personally know of has always been after somebody changed striker springs to try to lighten the trigger pull.
LDA (Para) and similar "light double action" - half-cock but with hammer. Consistent, moderate, trigger pull but no restrike.
DA/SA - I've only owned one and hated it (S&W 5913, I think it was, many years ago). First pull was okay, second pull had tons of mushy slack to take up. On second and subsequent shots I couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside with it, YMMV. Most DA/SA can restrike.
Striker-fired - moderately long but not heavy trigger pull. Consistent from round to round, but no restrike, at least not on any I'm aware of. No guarantee that the trigger pull will be smooth, but if it's not it often can be corrected. (My LC9s was satisfactory out of the box in this respect, all of my Glocks have needed a little work with Flitz to smooth the trigger but afterward they are pretty hard to beat.)
As for someone mentioning hammers having a harder strike on the primer - not necessarily true at all. Even with a hammer it still comes down to springs. I've seen revolvers and semi-autos with light aftermarket hammer springs that would occasionally light-strike. I've never had a light strike from any of my striker-fired guns. I put about 10k of handloads through my first G22 and never had a light strike. I do know of others that have had problems with light strikes in striker-fired guns...but every case I personally know of has always been after somebody changed striker springs to try to lighten the trigger pull.
DA_TriggR4Ruger
Hunter
Striker VS Hammer.
Well... I could go into a lot of detail, but I like to keep things simple and just cover the facts.
For me, the deep personal meaning of each can be contrasted as thus:
The main strength of the striker system is that is is a consistant trigger pull each time. Some guns have a crisper pull while others are more gritty, but the pull is the same each time.
Strengths of the hammer fired gun (if DA/SA) as MOST guns are, you have the peace of mind of second strike capability, if it fails to go off the first time, it almost always will the second time.
If it's a single action semi then you get a consistant pull each time. But must cock the hammer to strike again on a failure to fire.
I have owned several striker fired guns in the past but mainly own hammer fired guns now. I just feel a greater sense of reliability with them and peace of mind is priceless...
Well... I could go into a lot of detail, but I like to keep things simple and just cover the facts.
For me, the deep personal meaning of each can be contrasted as thus:
The main strength of the striker system is that is is a consistant trigger pull each time. Some guns have a crisper pull while others are more gritty, but the pull is the same each time.
Strengths of the hammer fired gun (if DA/SA) as MOST guns are, you have the peace of mind of second strike capability, if it fails to go off the first time, it almost always will the second time.
If it's a single action semi then you get a consistant pull each time. But must cock the hammer to strike again on a failure to fire.
I have owned several striker fired guns in the past but mainly own hammer fired guns now. I just feel a greater sense of reliability with them and peace of mind is priceless...
gc70
Bearcat
Striker and hammer designs generally share trigger characteristics depending on the degree of tension on the firing pin spring (for striker designs) or mainspring (for hammer designs).
The spring is not under tension in fully DAO designs or the DA mode of DA/SA designs. The trigger action is long and heavy because it must create the entire firing tension of the spring, as well as release that tension. Fully DAO and most DA/SA designs are based on hammers, although the Walther P99AS is a DA/SA design based on a striker; a fully DAO striker design does not immediately come to mind.
The spring is under partial tension in many DA designs. The trigger action falls between the fully DAO and SA extremes depending on the length and weight of trigger pull needed to fully tension the spring and then release the spring's tension. Partially pre-tensioned DA designs can be based on hammers (S&W 3rd Generation DAO models) or strikers (Glock, S&W M&P).
The spring is fully tensioned in SA designs or the SA mode of DA/SA designs. The trigger action can be short and light because it only releases the spring's tension. SA designs can be based on hammers (1911s, Browning Hi Power) or strikers (Springfield XD, Luger, Savage 1907).
To confuse matters, the spring is also fully tensioned in a few DA hammer designs in which the trigger retracts the hammer before releasing the spring (Para LDA, HK LEM).
The HK P7 is essentially in a category by itself with an SA trigger and a striker which is manually cocked or decocked by a lever that forms the front of the grip.
Restrike capability is only available through the trigger on fully DAO designs or the DA mode of DA/SA designs.
The spring is not under tension in fully DAO designs or the DA mode of DA/SA designs. The trigger action is long and heavy because it must create the entire firing tension of the spring, as well as release that tension. Fully DAO and most DA/SA designs are based on hammers, although the Walther P99AS is a DA/SA design based on a striker; a fully DAO striker design does not immediately come to mind.
The spring is under partial tension in many DA designs. The trigger action falls between the fully DAO and SA extremes depending on the length and weight of trigger pull needed to fully tension the spring and then release the spring's tension. Partially pre-tensioned DA designs can be based on hammers (S&W 3rd Generation DAO models) or strikers (Glock, S&W M&P).
The spring is fully tensioned in SA designs or the SA mode of DA/SA designs. The trigger action can be short and light because it only releases the spring's tension. SA designs can be based on hammers (1911s, Browning Hi Power) or strikers (Springfield XD, Luger, Savage 1907).
To confuse matters, the spring is also fully tensioned in a few DA hammer designs in which the trigger retracts the hammer before releasing the spring (Para LDA, HK LEM).
The HK P7 is essentially in a category by itself with an SA trigger and a striker which is manually cocked or decocked by a lever that forms the front of the grip.
Restrike capability is only available through the trigger on fully DAO designs or the DA mode of DA/SA designs.
gc70 said:
I hadn't thought about that... probably because I don't use hammer fired guns. So, if second strike is important to you... then really DAO would be the only way to go ( or make sure your only crappy round is the first one of a DA/SA). DAO is too much of a draw back for me in other areas to warrant that solution for second strike capabilities over the other problems.
Similar threads
