striker vs hammer

[modrifle3]

57k, you might want to take a look at this video. Bizarre underwater slo mo shooting with what is clearly a da/sa ruger. Didn't have the sound on but think it's a P89.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OubvTOHWTms

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.

 

[aWoods]

Didn't Walther put out some guns that turned all of this on it's head?

 

[Rabon]

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

Just curious but why?

 

[Rabon]

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]

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.

 

[Yawn]

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.

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]

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.

 

[DA_TriggR4Ruger]

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...

 

[gc70]

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.

 

[Yawn]

Restrike capability is only available through the trigger on fully DAO designs or the DA mode of DA/SA designs.

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.

 

[modrifle3]

Restrike capability is only available through the trigger on fully DAO designs or the DA mode of DA/SA designs.

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.

From a tactical standpoint, clearing the round that failed to fire is the proper method, not continuing the pull the trigger and hope the primer ignites.

This should not be a reason for buying a DA or DAO over striker or SA. It should be based on what you are comfortable operating.

 

[Mike J]

Restrike capability is only available through the trigger on fully DAO designs or the DA mode of DA/SA designs.

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.

From a tactical standpoint, clearing the round that failed to fire is the proper method, not continuing the pull the trigger and hope the primer ignites.

This should not be a reason for buying a DA or DAO over striker or SA. It should be based on what you are comfortable operating.

Correct if a round doesn't go off one shouldn't just keep pulling the trigger. Tap, rack, bang is the proper response.

 

[gc70]

A preset striker that requires nothing more than a pull of the trigger to complete the striker going to its rear and releasing is not DAO and why Glock coined their own term, "Safe-Action." :wink:

Maybe more terms -such as "uncocked DA" and "partially-cocked DA"- are needed to more accurately describe trigger modes. However, a Glock trigger does fit in the definitions that are currently generally used to describe trigger modes.

A Glock trigger satisfies the double-action definition by performing two actions: (1) preparing the firing mechanism for firing, and; (2) releasing the firing mechanism to fire. A Glock has no way to fire in single-action mode as Gaston Glock explained in his patent application (page 4, line 48): "The pistol is therefore always uncocked or partially uncocked." Since a Glock trigger only operates in double-action mode, DAO is an accurate description.

"Safe Action" refers to elements that allow a Glock's firing mechanism to fire by automatically disengaging three different mechanical safety mechanisms - trigger, firing pin, and drop safeties. The three automatic independently operating mechanical safeties are built into the fire control system of the pistol. All three safeties disengage sequentially as the trigger is pulled and automatically reengage when the trigger is released. The trigger and firing pin safeties could be removed and a Glock would still function. The drop safety is ingenious and cannot be removed because it is part of the design of the trigger bar.

 

[gc70]

I think you're buying into the BATF view. When you rack the slide on a Glock or Ruger SR, you might consider that as partially uncocked which in itself is ambiguous. Partially Cocked is the more accurate term.

Gaston Glock used the term "partially uncocked" in the Glock patent application; I have no reason to argue the accuracy of the language he used.

From revolver terminology we know that pulling the trigger with the hammer cocked fires the revolver. In DA mode the trigger completes 2 separate functions, moving the hammer back far enough that it will ignite the cartridge that occurs with the continuance of the trigger pull.

The Glock trigger moves the striker back "far enough that it will ignite the cartridge that occurs with the continuance of the trigger pull." The patent application makes it clear (page 2, line 54) "the force of the partially loaded firing-bolt spring or hammer spring is insufficient to fire a shot" and (page 2, line 64) "The cocking for each shot is effected by the trigger."

The only reason the Safe-Action pistols can't be classified as single action is because of the very short rearward movement of the striker before it releases. Since it does that from a pre-cocked position where the cruciform on the trigger bar intercepts the striker lug to put it into a Pre-Cocked, not partially Un-cocked it is not dissimilar to what happens with DA/SA pistols when fired in the SA mode, i.e. CZ where the trigger forces the hammer slightly rearward to allow the sear to disengage and fire t.he pistol.

A Glock's "very short rearward movement of the striker" is substantially different from the rearward hammer camming in a DA/SA or SA pistol.

A Glock striker moves from a position in which it has insufficient force to fire a shot to a position in which it does have the force needed to fire a shot.

Hammer camming in a hammer-fired pistol reflects overcoming positive sear engagement in a fully cocked hammer. The CZ75 is well-known for camming, but the hammer's hooks can be shortened and positive sear engagement reduced to eliminate camming of the fully cocked hammer.

 

[gc70]

"The cocking for each shot is effected by the trigger." That statement from the patent application is as simple as it gets.

The engineers who designed the Glock -and a room full of lawyers- undoubtedly wrote the patent application and Gaston Glock just signed the document.

Why invent a term like Safe-Action? Because Gaston Glock was and is a marketing genius. He made up a name, along with a narrative about multiple internal automatic safeties, to reassure bureaucrats worried about the absence of a manual safety. A reassuring, trademarked term to toss around also largely sidestepped using familiar terms to describe the trigger action ... because SA had a bad connotation to some people and DA had a bad connotation to others.

The Glock website is clear about what "Safe Action" is:

GLOCK pistols are equipped with the “Safe Action”® System, a fully automatic safety system consisting of three passive, independently operating, mechanical safeties, which sequentially disengage when the trigger is pulled and automatically reengage when the trigger is released.

The Glock website also has this:

What is the action of a gun?
The action of the gun consists of all the moving parts that facilitate the loading, firing, discharging of the empty case, and unloading of the gun. There are two types of action:
1. Double-Action: A long trigger pull both cocks and releases the hammer/firing pin to fire the gun.
2. Single-Action: The trigger is used only to release the hammer/firing pin and does not cock the firing mechanism.