Compounding the issues is both have been used for 100+ years. So generic hammer vs. striker question is kind of odd to begin with.
striker fired or hammer fired guns
- Thread starter 357smallbore
- Start date
- Status
Compounding the issues is both have been used for 100+ years. So generic hammer vs. striker question is kind of odd to begin with.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I can also make the distinction clearer by speaking of external hammer vs. striker fired.
Is it an actual preference for striker fired guns or that in some circumstances the external hammer can get in the way? Guns with internal hammers like the Colt M1903 Pocket Hammerless and the S&W Centennial and Bodyguard have internal hammers or hammers that are minimally exposed. There are also guns with bobbed hammers.
So is it so much a preference for striker fired guns, or a preference, in some applications, for guns without exposed hammers?
If it's the latter does striker or internal hammer make a difference?
For my response, an internal hammer would provide the same benefits as a striker-fired gun. It's just that internal hammer semi-autos are not at all common. Offhand I can't think of any such semi-auto pistols currently on the market.
Bobbed hammers, at least for me, would not provide the same benefits.
Bobbed hammers, at least for me, would not provide the same benefits.
I own both. I honestly think 1911's & revolvers are the nicest coolest handguns. I usually carry a polymer framed, striker fired semi-auto. Not as nice as the all steel hammer fired guns but they are lighter, tend to snag less & are usually less expensive. Also dirt simple to operate.
Interesting. I didn't realize that had an internal hammer.
I suppose one could also include the Boberg/Bond Arms Bullpup. Although the hammer in that design isn't internal, it is flush fitting and pretty much fully covers the back of the slide providing some similar benefits to a slide cover on a striker-fired gun. It wouldn't allow for holding the slide closed since the hammer has to move. But it would sort of seal the back of the gun and also allow one to slam the gun into battery.
So there are a few, but I think it's still safe to say that it's not at all common in semi-auto pistols.
I suppose one could also include the Boberg/Bond Arms Bullpup. Although the hammer in that design isn't internal, it is flush fitting and pretty much fully covers the back of the slide providing some similar benefits to a slide cover on a striker-fired gun. It wouldn't allow for holding the slide closed since the hammer has to move. But it would sort of seal the back of the gun and also allow one to slam the gun into battery.
So there are a few, but I think it's still safe to say that it's not at all common in semi-auto pistols.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
I have carried hammer and striker fired guns. The operation matters little to me in the long run. I look at much more important (to me) features first. How accurate am I with it? Can I carry it safely? Can I fire it fast enough for self defense? If any one of those factors is lacking, it doesn't matter if I have a preference for striker vs hammer. By coincidence, the only firearms I have in my carry rotation are striker fired. But my short list (the next 4 handguns I want to get) are all hammer fired.
jar
Contributing Member
Pictures are worthy a thousand somethings.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
A few popular 22s with internal hammers. Ruger, M41 from S&W, etc. It's not like a Unicorn.
I'm missing the significance of holding the slide closed. Is it to hold the slide closed while firing a single shot? Is this so I can make a You Tube vid? I'm missing the importance of that tactical innovation.
I also have to add that I miss the need to hit the rear of the slide to force it into battery. I'm not up on the latest from James Yeager so I don't often decide that if a round fails to chamber forcing it in there might not be my first move. Tap, rack, bang is still my go to, or rack the slide to clear the malfunction. Meaning that slapping the rear of the slide to get the gun into battery has not been a deal breaker for me. Neither has shooting a pistol while holding the slide closed. I assume the use of it would be while firing from inside a purse, pocket or bag or maybe from inside a bowl of spaghetti so as not to get pasta in the slide.
In truth it's just not something I'm familiar with.
But isn't the question guns with an external hammer and guns without. Whether striker or not.
I'm missing the significance of holding the slide closed. Is it to hold the slide closed while firing a single shot? Is this so I can make a You Tube vid? I'm missing the importance of that tactical innovation.
I also have to add that I miss the need to hit the rear of the slide to force it into battery. I'm not up on the latest from James Yeager so I don't often decide that if a round fails to chamber forcing it in there might not be my first move. Tap, rack, bang is still my go to, or rack the slide to clear the malfunction. Meaning that slapping the rear of the slide to get the gun into battery has not been a deal breaker for me. Neither has shooting a pistol while holding the slide closed. I assume the use of it would be while firing from inside a purse, pocket or bag or maybe from inside a bowl of spaghetti so as not to get pasta in the slide.
In truth it's just not something I'm familiar with.
But isn't the question guns with an external hammer and guns without. Whether striker or not.
Pretty sure the question was "how people prefer their Firing Pin to gain momentum??"
Trunk Monkey
member
Until you have a brain fart and forget to disengage the safety.
Been doing it for over 30yrs... Muscle memory. Brain farts do occur when I pick up a 92 style safety that I don't shoot much. Then again I dont carry them.
Dont matter much if I swipe off my Glocks.
It would depend on the specific model, but in general a striker fired gun simply feels like a safer design to me.
I know many guns have hammer blocks, or transfer bars, but all the energy needed to fire the gun ready to go at all times on a cocked hammer merely waiting for the mechanism to let it fly seems less safe than a system that actually requires you build up some of the additional force in the trigger pull.
To me this is one of the big safety differences in many sidearms vs long guns. A long gun you pay attention to when using, so it is not as critical, but a sidearm should be capable of whatever abuse your life activities may throw at it without you having to baby it. Fall on it, maybe drop it, smack it into something on accident in its holster because it catches or bumps into something. All without ever firing. Yet still ready to be pulled and shot effectively if needed.
Striker just feels safer mechanically to me.
That said a hammer gun can be made to have a smoother mechanism every time. Precisely for the same reason. Less energy is needed for a cocked hammer with spring tension to be dropped and you can design the trigger to be as smooth or crisp or have exactly the amount of travel you like. You do not need to create any energy to fire the gun, just let energy already stored loose.
The biggest limitations being that you want the mechanism to still be safe enough to not fire too easily either negligently or with an actual failure of the internals from impact or anything else.
If performance while shooting is the only criteria a hammer gun can be tuned to be exactly what you want. Perhaps ideal for recreational use, or in situations where it is kept in a location like a quick access place for defensive use.
However I think as a sidearm to be carried a design that is inherently more drop or impact resistant, or where even if a part internally failed it shouldn't fire without some additional manipulation favors a striker fired gun. And some striker setups can feel almost as good.
The gun not firing if you don't want it to is more important most of the time than being slightly better while firing.
Yet most of the best works of art and craftsmanship are hammer guns.
I know many guns have hammer blocks, or transfer bars, but all the energy needed to fire the gun ready to go at all times on a cocked hammer merely waiting for the mechanism to let it fly seems less safe than a system that actually requires you build up some of the additional force in the trigger pull.
To me this is one of the big safety differences in many sidearms vs long guns. A long gun you pay attention to when using, so it is not as critical, but a sidearm should be capable of whatever abuse your life activities may throw at it without you having to baby it. Fall on it, maybe drop it, smack it into something on accident in its holster because it catches or bumps into something. All without ever firing. Yet still ready to be pulled and shot effectively if needed.
Striker just feels safer mechanically to me.
That said a hammer gun can be made to have a smoother mechanism every time. Precisely for the same reason. Less energy is needed for a cocked hammer with spring tension to be dropped and you can design the trigger to be as smooth or crisp or have exactly the amount of travel you like. You do not need to create any energy to fire the gun, just let energy already stored loose.
The biggest limitations being that you want the mechanism to still be safe enough to not fire too easily either negligently or with an actual failure of the internals from impact or anything else.
If performance while shooting is the only criteria a hammer gun can be tuned to be exactly what you want. Perhaps ideal for recreational use, or in situations where it is kept in a location like a quick access place for defensive use.
However I think as a sidearm to be carried a design that is inherently more drop or impact resistant, or where even if a part internally failed it shouldn't fire without some additional manipulation favors a striker fired gun. And some striker setups can feel almost as good.
The gun not firing if you don't want it to is more important most of the time than being slightly better while firing.
Yet most of the best works of art and craftsmanship are hammer guns.
Last edited:
JR24: said:
Well I have the APEX enhanced action trigger on my Glock 17 which I don’t really carry much but which I do have holsters for. In the past I would have agreed with the internet tribal knowledge that keeps triggers on a carry gun completely stock. However, I’m pretty much convinced that this APEX trigger setup would work great on any carry gun, that’s how much I like it. I guess it’s all about believing a little of what you hear about from others, and believing a lot more of what you find out & figure out for yourself.
Trunk Monkey
member
If I have to defend myself with a gun I want the dumbest gun I can find
JTQ
Member
The reason the striker feels safer to you is because you can't see how much the striker is cocked.
Most striker fired guns have enough energy to fire once the slide is racked. Some have fully cocked strikers, but even those with partially cocked strikers can fire a round with the energy stored when the slide is racked.
Conversely, a DA pistol, in DA mode, generally has no energy stored in the hammer.
You did not say why...........
An excellent point JTQ.
Yet still an exposed hammer sitting just slightly separated by a block from the primer of the chambered round. That still feels mechanically scarier, more or less so depending on the gun, to have impacts against that hammer. And that is the part of the gun most exposed in a holster.
Yet still an exposed hammer sitting just slightly separated by a block from the primer of the chambered round. That still feels mechanically scarier, more or less so depending on the gun, to have impacts against that hammer. And that is the part of the gun most exposed in a holster.
nettlle
Contributing Member
My preference for a hammer on a carry pistol is unexplainable other than the fact I may be a bit old fashioned about this.
I certainly would not own a rabbit eared shotgun for small game hunting.
I certainly would not own a rabbit eared shotgun for small game hunting.
JTQ
Member
On Beretta's, when the hammer is decocked, the firing pin rotates up, it cannot be contacted by the hammer. When SIG's are decocked, the hammer does not rest on the firing pin.
Just as an information point, I'm not trying to convince anybody to stop carrying their striker fired guns if they like them, but there are reports of striker guns firing while holstered with a bump to the gun, FN (whatever their striker gun is), SIG P320, the Walther PPQ, while I don't think they've fired, but they have dropped their striker causing dead triggers, as have the HK VP's.
Zendude
Member
The R51 has an internal hammer and SAO.
I really don't care and have many pistols with both firing mechanisms. I do like the extra energy that is stored in most hammer fired guns as compared to the little poke that striker firedguns impart to the firing pin. With enough practice you can get used to anything. A lot depends on how you are going to carry the gun.
- Status
