Educate me please on striker fire pistols.

[Kyhunt]

As I often state I'm fairly new to semi autos. Striker fires have definately been something I have been shy of. A couple of weeks ago my wife and I were at Farm store and noticed a striker fire pistol. She feel in love with it except the fact there was no external safety. After doing alot of reading I'm starting to think our concerns may be unfounded. This is what I have gathered and please educated me if I'm wrong. Most striker fire pistols when the slide is racked and a round chamber the striker is actually in a half cocked position and not fully cocked as I once believed. The pulling of the trigger completes the action in that it finishes cocking the gun and then releases the striker to fire the round. Secondly the trigger pull on these would be much heavier than that on a DA/SA being fired in SA. Am I correct and my fear of these pistols unfounded? Please be kind as once again I have been a DA revolver guy for most of my life. Just and older dog trying to learn something new.

 

[buckshotshorty]

My understanding of the striker fired guns coincides with what you said. I do think that I have read that some striker fired guns do not bring the striker to half cock at all, but rather sets the striker once you pull the trigger.

Your fears though are unfounded with most good striker fired guns because they have built in a trigger block which would stop the striker from going forward unless the trigger is pulled.

I'm an old school guy; competed using double action wheel guns, but modern striker fired guns are really nice. Usually trigger reset is shorter, crisper and consistent.

 

[edgalang]

This animation tutorial would probably explain it all...

http://www.genitron.com/Basics/Interactive-Glock-Pistol

Part of the reason why I chose the Ruger SR series of pistols is because they purposely took the proven modern design of a Glock, but blended it with classic 1911 style ergonomics, and added a few more features on top of it.

 

[Kyhunt]

That animation really helped me understand a little more about it. Thanks to both of you for your help.

 

[Rabon]

The striker fired auto pistols are good to go when properly holstered but if you are prone to carry unholstered (carry in a purse, carry in a pocket, etc), a model with an additional safety may be a better choice. I am probably the only person that ever fumbles/drops a pistol think about where that reflex reaction could lead.

 

[werewolf]

The key device is the fp block. The trigger bar is the only thing that can raise the block out of the way of the fp. Even if the striker was in full cock and some how slipped off the sear it would be stopped by the block. Pulling the trigger is the only thing that can lift it out of the way.

 

[edgalang]

The key device is the fp block. The trigger bar is the only thing that can raise the block out of the way of the fp. Even if the striker was in full cock and some how slipped off the sear it would be stopped by the block. Pulling the trigger is the only thing that can lift it out of the way.

Not that it matters...but to debate the issue...IMO the primary safety device is actually the drop safety.

Remember the glock has 3 safeties...trigger, striker blocker, and the drop safety (located right at the crucifix).

If I had to rank them in terms of importance
#1 drop safety
#2 trigger safety
#3 Striker blocker.

Why?
-Because the striker blocker would never even come into play UNLESS the drop safety fails.
-many 1911 and CZ's don't even have a FB block.

Also...since we're in a Ruger forum...and in case people didn't know where the drop safety is on an SR pistol...it is grooves built into the ejector.

 

[ECUfan]

I think the level of "cocked" in a striker is varied. I think most are about 3/4 "cocked". Even if you look at some hammer fired pistols, like the LCP, the hammer will enter a 1/2 cocked state when you rack the slide.

I had a mental block about striker fired pistols especially having it in my pocket or inside the waistband. Given their incredible safety record and the external safeties on the LC9 and SR9c really put me at ease. Those are now the only pistols I carry.

 

[JohnKSa]

Most striker fire pistols when the slide is racked and a round chamber the striker is actually in a half cocked position and not fully cocked as I once believed.

It depends on the design, but you are correct. Most partially tension the striker spring using the action of the slide, leaving the user to complete the spring compression process via the trigger. Glocks fall into this category. Most of this type of gun that I have had the opportunity to examine in detail do about half the spring compression (by length) via slide action and leave about half of the compression via trigger action. Because of the way springs work, that means that 1/4 of the striker energy is imparted by the compression done by the slide and the remaining 3/4 of the striker energy is imparted by the compression of the striker spring accomplished by the trigger.

A few have done all of the spring tensioning via the trigger, but these usually aren't very popular as the triggers can be pretty bad. I believe the ill-fated Colt 2000 employed this design.

A few popular striker pistols do nearly all of the spring tensioning with slide action and the trigger does very little other than release the striker to fire the pistol. The Springfield XD pistols follow this approach.

Secondly the trigger pull on these would be much heavier than that on a DA/SA being fired in SA.

Perhaps not. Trigger pulls for the better quality guns in the first and third categories are probably in the 6lb range. That may be a little heavier than the average DA/SA in SA mode, but not "much heavier".

I believe they are quite safe with a couple of caveats.

1. The user needs to understand the general design philosophy of the pistol. The guns are designed for maximum simplicity which means that pulling the trigger will always fire the gun if a round is chambered. There is nothing that prevents it other than the user's training and adherence to the rule of keeping the finger off the trigger until it is time to fire.

2. These guns, when carried, depend on a hard holster that completely covers the trigger guard and completely protects the trigger as part of their safety system.

Remember the glock has 3 safeties...trigger, striker blocker, and the drop safety (located right at the crucifix).

If I had to rank them in terms of importance
#1 drop safety
#2 trigger safety
#3 Striker blocker.

The safeties are hard to rank because, to some extent, they all work together.

The trigger safety is what makes the drop safety so foolproof. Because the trigger safety prevents the trigger bar from moving, it ensures that the drop safety can not be "disengaged". Without the trigger safety, there is potential for the trigger bar to move without the trigger being pulled and that would disengage the drop safety.

Furthermore, if the trigger bar is able to move, and since the trigger bar is what disengages the firing pin safety, the trigger safety ultimately also is what ensures that the firing pin safety remains properly engaged.

A lot of folks like to denigrate the "trigger dingus" on the Glocks and other similar designs, but without the trigger safety, the entire system comes apart. The trigger safety is what holds the trigger bar immobile and that is ultimately what keeps the other two safeties engaged until the user pulls the trigger.

 

[edgalang]

...
the trigger safety ultimately also is what ensures that the firing pin safety remains properly engaged.
...
The trigger safety is what holds the trigger bar immobile and that is ultimately what keeps the other two safeties engaged until the user pulls the trigger.

This is partially true...but this is why I rank the trigger safety 2nd behind the drop safety.

For example (purely for exercise):
Assuming you had a Glock...and was FORCED to remove 1 safety device...which would it be?
What if you had to remove 2?

Assuming "finger off the trigger" rule still applies.
If you only had the trigger safety as the 1 single safety device on a Glock, you can still have a ND, since there is nothing to prevent the crucifix from releasing the sear. In normal operation, the trigger bar is guided down on the sear by the trigger reset, but never before the drop safety. Hypothetically, with the drop safety removed, you can still manually release the sear by lowering the crucifix by a small screw driver or by simply dropping the pistol without ever getting near the trigger.

 

[22/45 Fan]

I think there is a semantic problem with these 3 safety classifications. The firing pin block IS the "drop safety". That is it keeps the firing pin/striker from going forward if the gun falls muzzle down. Firing pin blocks are pretty much universal these days and even most hammer fired pistols (e.g the Colt Series 80 1911) have them and for the same drop safely purposes.

Another thing is that "striker fired" guns are nothing new. All bolt action rifles all the way back to and before the Mausers of the late 1800's are striker fired.

 

[edgalang]

I think there is a semantic problem with these 3 safety classifications. The firing pin block IS the "drop safety". That is it keeps the firing pin/striker from going forward if the gun falls muzzle down. Firing pin blocks are pretty much universal these days and even most hammer fired pistols (e.g the Colt Series 80 1911) have them and for the same drop safely purposes.
...

While some may consider the striker plunger as a "drop safety", the primary drop safety is actually in the rear of the striker.
Maybe this animation would help explain since most people often get the terminology confused.
http://www.genitron.com/Basics/Interactive-Glock-Pistol

For the SR owner...the drop safety is essentially built into the ejector. Notice when the slide is removed how the trigger bar goes up and down as you lower and raise the ejector and how you cannot push down on the trigger bar when the ejector is in the upright position WITHOUT pulling the trigger back.

 

[Clovishound]

I would advise you to look at the track record of the Glocks. They have a reputation for unintentional discharges. I will only carry a striker fired weapon that has a manual safety. IMO the striker trigger has a long enough pull to make them safe enough for the range, but not for carry.

 

[JohnKSa]

This is partially true...but this is why I rank the trigger safety 2nd behind the drop safety.

No, it's completely true. However, I understand, at least partially, why you rate the trigger safety like you do.

That said, you missed the point of my response. I wasn't arguing that one of the other safeties was more important than the trigger safety, I was pointing out that the safeties all work together and therefore, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to try to rank them in order of importance.

Assuming you had a Glock...and were FORCED to remove 1 safety device...which would it be?

If I were forced to compromise the safety system of a Glock by removing one of the three components of the system, it wouldn't matter to me which one I removed because I would stop using it at that point and would switch to a different firearm until I could get the Glock back in proper working order.

The problem is that if the trigger bar can move, the integrity of the drop safety and the firing pin safety both are compromised. All of the safeties need to work together for the system to do what it is intended to do. Take any one of them away and the value of the remaining 2 are compromised to some extent or another.

The firing pin block IS the "drop safety".

edgalang is correct.

The drop safety is a combination of a ramp in the trigger mechanism housing and two pieces of the trigger bar which interact to insure that the "sear" can not move down out of the way of the striker until the trigger is pulled to the rear sufficiently that the trigger bar clears the drop safety ramp.

The picture below shows the left side of the trigger housing and the left "wing" of the trigger bar engaging the drop safety ramp. There is a similar ramp on the right side of the trigger housing and a similar portion on the right side of the trigger bar to engage it.

The firing pin safety is a completely different part.

IMO the striker trigger has a long enough pull to make them safe enough for the range, but not for carry.

The trigger pull length has nothing to do with how safe any reasonably functional firearm is for carry. To safely carry any pistol without a manual safety, it needs to be in a holster that completely covers the trigger and triggerguard with some sort of unyielding shield/material.

It is inadvisable in the EXTREME to rely on the length of the trigger pull for safety.

 

[edgalang]

This is partially true...but this is why I rank the trigger safety 2nd behind the drop safety.

No, it's completely true. However, I understand, at least partially, why you rate the trigger safety like you do.

We will have to agree to disagree. Like I mentioned in my example, without the drop safety (sear safety), It is possible to force the trigger bar down without having to engage the trigger safety. I was simply replying to your comment earlier about how you implied that the trigger safety was the heart of the safety mechanism (to which I disagree). I only emphasize this point, because in the SR pistols, the sear safety is integrated with the ejector and I've already seen 2 examples of where the edge/corner of the ramp has been chipped off. So to those not familiar with the SR series...this is a part to not overlook if you ever buy a used pistol.

That said, you missed the point of my response. I wasn't arguing that one of the other safeties was more important than the trigger safety, I was pointing out that the safeties all work together and therefore, in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to try to rank them in order of importance.

Understood, but that's preaching to the choir. Regardless, there is a pecking order and to rank them all equal is a mistake. For example, you cannot rank a magazine safety equal importance to that of the drop safety. Similarly how you cannot rank turn signals in a car equal importance to the braking system. As mentioned earlier, I was merely pointing it out as a form of "excercise" and to further debate that the striker safety will only come into play if the drop safety fails. It's essentially the safety to the safety.

Assuming you had a Glock...and were FORCED to remove 1 safety device...which would it be?

If I were forced to compromise the safety system of a Glock by removing one of the three components of the system, it wouldn't matter to me which one I removed because I would stop using it at that point and would switch to a different firearm until I could get the Glock back in proper working order.

I get your point, I however don't think you get mine.

 

[JohnKSa]

No, I understand what you're saying.

Regardless, there is a pecking order and to rank them all equal is a mistake.

They may not all be "equal", but they are all part of a single integrated system designed to perform a function. Take any one of the three "pieces" out of the system and it will no longer work as intended.

Remove the trigger safety, and you have compromised the function of both the drop safety and the firing pin safety since the trigger bar can now move if the pistol is dropped or subjected to a significant impact. If the trigger bar can move, it can disable both the drop safety and the firing pin safety.

Remove the firing pin safety, and if the sear fails, the gun will fire.

Remove the drop safety, and the rear of the trigger bar might be moved downward if the gun is dropped or subjected to a significant impact, allowing the firing pin to move forward even though the trigger hasn't been pulled. In this case, the firing pin safety would prevent the gun from firing, but the slide will have to be racked (wasting a live round) before it can be fired again, and if it happens too many times, the firing pin and firing pin safety can be damaged.

Basically, take any of them away and the system doesn't work as intended.

For example, you cannot rank a magazine safety equal importance to that of the drop safety.

That is true, but it is not an example of anything pertinent to the discussion. Magazine safeties and drop safeties are not intended to be parts of a single integrated safety system in the same manner as the 3 passive safeties in the Glock system, nor do they depend on each other for proper operation.

Similarly how you cannot rank turn signals in a car equal importance to the braking system.

This is a very poor analogy. Turn signals have nothing to do with stopping the car. A better analogy would be arguing about which ranks highest in importance in a braking system, the tires, the brake pedal, the brake lines or the brake shoes. They are all components of the braking system designed to stop the car like the 3 safeties in the Glock are all components of a safety system designed to keep the gun from firing unless the trigger is pulled.

So is it the tires that are most important? If you don't have tires, there's no traction to stop even if everything else in the system works. Is it the brake pedal? Well, at least you could steer around an obstacle or downshift or put the car in park. Is it the brake lines? Without the brake shoes or brake pedal, the lines are pointless. What about the brake shoes? They can't do anything without the brake lines, or without the pedal.

The point is that if you examine interdependent components of a single, integrated system and try to rank them in importance it can lead to absurdities.

...the striker safety will only come into play if the drop safety fails. It's essentially the safety to the safety.

The striker safety will also come into play if the lug on the firing pin breaks (or if the body of the firing pin breaks) or if the trigger bar is damaged and/or if there is improper sear engagement for any reason. That's two (or 3 depending on how you look at it) I can think of right off the bat—there are probably other possibilities.

It is incorrect to assert or imply that the firing pin safety is nothing but a backup to the drop safety. There are clearly failures which can cause the firing pin safety to come into play even on a pistol with a drop safety that is functioning perfectly.

I was simply replying to your comment earlier about how you implied that the trigger safety was the heart of the safety mechanism (to which I disagree).

I didn't imply anything, I pointed out that the system is interdependent, and explained how the two other safeties depend on the trigger safety as described.

While I did not claim that the trigger is "the heart of the safety mechanism", it is clearly a critical component of the system. Since the other two safeties are disabled by the motion of the trigger bar, it is critical that the trigger bar be locked in place unless the trigger is pulled and the trigger safety is what accomplishes that critical function.

A drop safety that can be disengaged by dropping the pistol is completely pointless, as is a firing pin safety that allows the pistol to be fired if the gun is subjected to impact. The trigger safety must be present for the other two systems to operate as intended.

In a similar manner, it's foolish to lock the trigger bar in place if the firing pin safety or drop safety are removed. If there's nothing restraining the rear of the trigger bar from moving downward under impact as the drop safety would normally do, or if there's nothing keeping the firing pin from moving foward if the sear disengages from the striker lug for some reason, it is useless for the trigger safety to be holding the trigger bar motionless. Having the trigger safety without the other two safeties is pointless.

You need all the parts if you want it to work right, and trying to figure out which one you need most doesn't make sense once you realize that the entire system stops working right if you start removing parts.

Ironically, once the system is understood properly, the safety least critical to preventing the gun from firing due to being dropped is the drop safety. With the trigger safety remaining operational and the firing pin safety still operating, the gun will not fire if dropped, even if the rear of the trigger bar comes down out of engagement with the striker.

If you remove the trigger safety, the other two safeties will be disengaged by any impact that imparts enough energy to the trigger bar to move it sufficiently to fire the gun. Clearly unacceptable.

If you remove the firing pin safety, improper sear engagement, damage or wear to the trigger bar or striker lug, or firing pin breakage could result in the gun discharging unintentionally. Again, clearly unacceptable, especially given that firing pins/strikers are generally considered to be a common wear item and candidates for breakage.

That's not to say that the drop safety is superfluous or unimportant. It is quite important for two reasons.

First of all, while the firing pin safety works quite well, it is not intended to come into play often. Without the drop safety, the firing pin safety would likely be exercised more than it is designed to tolerate which could cause damage and ultimately result in malfunctions.

Second, even if the firing pin prevents the gun from firing, if the sear disengages from the striker, the gun must be racked to get it up and running again. That takes time and wastes ammunition--both of which are highly undesirable in a self-defense encounter.

We will have to agree to disagree.

This is meaningless in the context in which it is offered. The statements you quoted from my post and claimed are only partially true are not stated as opinion, they are stated as fact and therefore they are either true or false. It is meaningless to agree to disagree on an assertion of fact. The fact is either correct or incorrect and given the simplicity of the statements in question, it should be quite simple to determine their accuracy.

Let's not agree to disagree, you point out the errors in these two statements, and if you can support your assertion with fact or logical reasoning then I will agree with you. That is a worthwhile goal. Agreeing to disagree where facts (as opposed to opinions or speculations) are concerned is antithetical to the goals of learning and rational thought.

Here are the two statements that you claim are only "partially true".

...the trigger safety ultimately also is what ensures that the firing pin safety remains properly engaged.

The trigger safety is what holds the trigger bar immobile and that is ultimately what keeps the other two safeties engaged until the user pulls the trigger.

In what respect are they in error and therefore only "partially true"?

 

[edgalang]

@JohnKSa
While I enjoy debates (generally in person), cutting and pasting quotes can be rather tiresome and time consuming, so I'll reply to the last question and move upwards when possible.

"In what respect are they in error and therefore only "partially true"?"

I've already answered this question. REMOVING MALFUNCTIONS OUT OF THE EQUATION. It is possible to manually push the crucifix down to release the sear without having to engage the trigger safety if the drop safety didn't exist.

This is why I keep emphasizing the importance of a properly maintained drop safety and how on the Ruger SR series, if one is going to do a detail strip, they might as well inspect the ejector to see that the groove is not chewed up or damaged due to operator error.

I am not debating the importance of the entire safe action system. I believe we've already hammered that subject down and I too would not be comfortable carrying without those safeties in place; HOWEVER that was not the point. I am debating your comment that safeties are equal and cannot be ranked. Even narrowing the subject down to the original 3 Glock safeties, i believe they STILL can be ranked.

Take example of the first generation SR9. Obviously Ruger didn't feel the trigger safety was a priority.

Again, REMOVING MALFUNCTIONS OUT OF THE EQUATION, you've already stated that the striker plunger would only come into play if XYZ part breaks (WHICH IS A MALFUNCTION). This is why I regard it as a safety to a safety.

It is clear you are a take it all or nothing type of guy, so with that I'll end it.

EDIT:
My apologies, I just re-read my replies and perhaps I cut and pasted my reply to the wrong context. Regardless, I still stand by statement that not all safeties are equal.

 

[JohnKSa]

My apologies, I just re-read my replies and perhaps I cut and pasted my reply to the wrong context.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense. I couldn't figure out what part of the two statements was not correct.

Regardless, I still stand by statement that not all safeties are equal.

I understand your arguments, but if you look back at them, in to support this assertion it was necessary to artificially constrain the conditions to exclude malfunctions. Of course, that is not realistic since preventing a discharge in the event of a malfunction is a very important purpose of passive safeties.

Following in that vein, if you exclude certain purposes of a safety system from consideration, it is possible to argue in that context that one safety is more important than another. For example, if you consider only malfunctions and disregard the possibility of a discharge due to impact or being dropped, or from trigger snags, then the firing pin safety would be the most important safety. Similarly, if you consider only discharges due to trigger snags, eliminating the possibility of discharges due to malfunctions, droppage or impact, then the trigger safety becomes the most important safety.

If you consider all of the various functions and purposes that the system is designed to perform then it becomes much harder to pick the system apart and point to just one as the most important.

This is why I keep emphasizing the importance of a properly maintained drop safety and how on the Ruger SR series, if one is going to do a detail strip, they might as well inspect the ejector to see that the groove is not chewed up or damaged due to operator error.

It is very important, and I consider your self-imposed task a worthy one.

 

[edgalang]

I understand your arguments, but if you look back at them, in to support this assertion it was necessary to artificially constrain the conditions to exclude malfunctions. Of course, that is not realistic since preventing a discharge in the event of a malfunction is a very important purpose of passive safeties.

Following in that vein, if you exclude certain purposes of a safety system from consideration, it is possible to argue in that context that one safety is more important than another. For example, if you consider only malfunctions and disregard the possibility of a discharge due to impact or being dropped, or from trigger snags, then the firing pin safety would be the most important safety. Similarly, if you consider only discharges due to trigger snags, eliminating the possibility of discharges due to malfunctions, droppage or impact, then the trigger safety becomes the most important safety.

If you consider all of the various functions and purposes that the system is designed to perform then it becomes much harder to pick the system apart and point to just one as the most important.

We seem to keep talking in circles. Apparently it is difficult for YOU to rank; however there is a pecking order to the overall design regardless of how difficult it is to comprehend. When designing anything, you had to have started from somewhere and improve it as you go. I'm certain Glock didn't design the 3 safety mechanisms at the same time. Certainly Ruger didn't think to do so.

Why have you disregarded the prior examples in the thread (for example the 1st gen SR9 for the lack of a trigger safety or the 70 series 1911 for the lack of a firing pin safety)? If we are simply going to muddy up the water, and continue to talk in circles, why limit the mindset to the 3 Glock safeties and include the manual thumb safety and magazine safety to the mix? If we took your logic and spun it around including the 2 other safeties, we'll be yanking each others chain all day. We can even go back to your claim regarding the trigger safety being ONLY partially true at best, because if we add malfunctions to the equation then none of your examples would matter.

At one point you dismiss the magazine safety because it was not "interdependent" to the "integrated safety system" because they DO NOT "depend on each other for proper operation" (to which one can also argue in the future), yet I've already shown examples of the trigger safety and striker safety not being so as well, and that similar to the magazine safety was added after the fact.

The point of the matter is, lawyers will always find a way to require more safeties down the road...but this does NOT mean they are all equal and/or created at the same time as one would think.

 

[JohnKSa]

Why have you disregarded the prior examples in the thread...

Well, for one thing, because I was discussing the Glock system in specific and responding to your comments made specifically about the Glock system.

(for example the 1st gen SR9 for the lack of a trigger safety...

Why do you think they added the trigger safety in subsequent generations?

or the 70 series 1911 for the lack of a firing pin safety)?

That's a completely different system. An inertial firing pin system, if properly designed, does not require a firing pin safety because the amount of impact energy required to move the firing pin sufficiently to discharge the chambered cartridge is high enough that it's not going to happen as a result of anything even remotely reasonable that could happen to the gun.

...already shown examples of the trigger safety and striker safety not being so as well...

I don't know what you're talking about. The trigger safety and the striker safety in the Glock are certainly interdependent.

Are you trying to say that because you can find an example anywhere in the wide-wide-world of firearms where a trigger safety isn't interdependent with the striker safety that it somehow implies that the Glock system must follow suit in some measure or another?

I don't see how that conclusion can possibly be reached. The Glock system is what it is regardless of what some other gun manufacturer/designer chooses to do.

...why limit the mindset to the 3 Glock safeties...

Again, because you made specific comments about the Glock system and I was responding specifically to those comments.

...we'll be yanking each others chain all day...

I'm not yanking anybody's chain. I'm trying to point out how the Glock safety system works and correct misconceptions about it. If you're yanking my chain, I guess I can't do much about that.

We can even go back to your claim regarding the trigger safety being ONLY partially true at best...

Ok, if we're back to this, please explain how the comments I made about the Glock trigger safety are partially in error, making them only partially true.