Striker fired handguns. Why not?

Targa

Targa

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
1,849
Location
Unfortunately, the once great State of Colorado
I ask this because I see numerous posts stating that they will not own or carry a striker fired handgun. Why the dislike for them? I am more curious than anything. I currently have 3 tupperware guns a Hellcat, M&P9c, M&P40 and at one time owned a Glock 26, all of which are striker fired and all are/were very shootable and accurate. Things I appreciate about them are they carry well, have consistent triggers and the lack of an external safety. I would assume that one of the things someone might not like about them is the trigger, although consistent each time fired they aren’t comparable to a hammered fired gun and will not have second strike capability if a failure to fire occurs.
 
I can’t see that a hammer has any real downside. Ok I guess theoretically it’s another place for dirt ingress which could make for issues when you need the gun most, but in the real world this seems a non-issue.

Strikers, on the other hand, usually have an inferior, mushy trigger pull which is detrimental to accuracy and less satisfying for recreational use too. They can’t be easily controlled with the thumb which makes reholstering and drawing, especially under stress, somewhat riskier than it needs to be (Glock leg is a real thing) and they have a trigger pull which is consistent but “neither fish nor fowl,” not usually heavy enough to be safe under pressure, but certainly not light enough for target work either. Strikers also usually don’t have a full DA second-strike capability, which is a small thing but a disadvantage nevertheless IMO.

I’d happily replace a striker fired gun with either an SAO design (eg 1911) or DA/SA (Beretta 92/Sig P226 etc.) Both require more training to master either the safety or the DA/SA transition but IMO reward the dedicated user well for the effort. Strikers are cheaper and with their consistent but not excellent trigger pull and simple manual of arms, are good for department use where guys will likely shoot their handgun once a year in qualification and probably not between. I think this is where they began their rise to popularity and due to police use here and military use in other countries acquired the reputation they currently enjoy as the gold standard of handgun design.
 
Guns that are easier to shoot when you want to shoot them are also usually easier to shoot when you don't want to shoot them.

A short travel, light trigger is usually easier for one to get the gun to shoot. Since I spend more time in my daily gun handling, not wanting the gun to fire than I spend wanting the gun to fire, for me, there is a disadvantage to a gun that has no safety and has a short, light trigger. Likewise, I have a certain competence working manual safeties, so I don't consider them a detriment to my overall gun handling.

In addition, a gun with a hammer gives me a visual indication of the status of the gun. A 1911 with the hammer cocked (thumb safety on or off) means something different to me than a 1911 with the hammer down. Likewise an S&W 4506 with the hammer down is different than a 4506 with the hammer cocked. Also, if holding the gun in the hand, and preparing to shoot or not, the ability to see the hammer move on a DA gun is another safety indication that you are about to make the gun fire. Folks have already mentioned the ability to block the hammer when reholstering.
 
The hammer pistol versus striker pistol argument has been going on for over a century now without getting resolved.

My favorite striker-fired pistol that I like to shoot. (Hint: It's not a new idea.)

index.php


Savage 1907 made in 1913.
 
I shoot all the different types on a regular basis and like them all. They all work well and Id be happy to have any of them in a pinch.

Personally, I honestly think the only way you can even begin to answer the question as to which is best, its to shoot and handle them all, to the point you dont have to think about shooting and handling them, and then I think youll find it really doesnt matter, which one is in your hand at the moment.

Everybody has their likes and dislikes, and no matter what thats based on. And theres nothing at all wrong with that. We all like what we like. I like to shoot everything and anything (well, for the most part, at least once anyway :)), and my choices are based on my wants and needs, and not on what the action is like, or what kind of trigger its got, etc.

My main concern is, that it functions reliably, will hold up to the rigors of hard daily use and use in practice, and it and its accessories are reasonably priced enough and readily available so I can have a bunch of the same exact gun as spares and practice guns.
 
jar said:
The hammer pistol versus striker pistol argument has been going on for over a century now without getting resolved.
Click to expand...

Agreed, my favorite stikers would be Roth-Steyer M1907 or a Kimber EVO.. Over a hundred years seperate the ideas. Nether of which would be at the top of anyones striker fired lists though.
I own Poly strikers, Metal Strikers, and ever other type of action known. "Striker fired" means nothing more than an iginition source to me.
 
I really like striker fired handguns. I am a big fan of the XD line of pistols.

What I hate are striker fired bolt action rifles. Those should really be hammer fired.... :rofl:
 
I would rather not carry a handgun, with a fully-cocked striker, unless it has a VERY positive-engaging manual safety. A Glock’s striker is not fully-cocked, so, I am relatively OK* with Glocks. (I might never have bought into the Glock system, had it not been the apparent least-evil authorized duty pistol choice, for some time, during two time periods, during my LEO-ing career, but, having invested so much time, ammo, and energy into that darned Glock trigger pull, I am not going to waste that investment.)

Striker-fired pistols that do have thumb safety levers, that I have handled, do not have the safety levers positioned in a way that works for me. In my Sixties, I am too old to try to learn new tricks with my arthritic thumbs, and being retired, the ammo needed, for the 10K+ repetitions to attain mastery, would be too costly.

I would rather be able to feel a guns’ hammer, when re-holstering. With a 1911, I can engage the thumb safety, then actually put the tip of my thumb in a position to hold the cocked hammer in place, and partially block the hammer, while I re-holster. Most other hammer guns allow me to feel the back of the hammer, to ensure that nothing is trying to cock it, as I re-holster. This is not all-or-nothing, so, as I said, above, I am relatively OK with Glocks.

Second-strike capability is actually something that I do not find necessary, because I have trained to immediately start a malfunction clearance drill, in the event of a failure to fire.

To be clear, I am not a die-hard Nineteen Elevener. I use a variety of types of auto and revolving pistols.

*”Relatively OK” means that I will use Glocks, in carefully-selected holsters. I would rather be able to feel a hammer, when re-holstering, so, feel a need to “look” a Glock into the holster, whereas I am OK carefully re-holstering a hammer gun, by feel.
 
I would guess that many don’t like a striker fired handgun because it’s not a 1911.
I have both and there are plusses and minuses for each, but mostly depends on personal preference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
striker fired??
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Zerodefect
Z
W
  • Locked
Why do people not like striker fired pistols?
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Sepia
S
H
  • Locked
Striker fired advantages?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
EOD Guy in VA
E
TomJ
  • Locked
Striker Fired versus S/A Accuracy
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Jim K
J
Sarge7402
  • Locked
Striker fired pistols?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
rpenmanparker
rpenmanparker
Back
Top