Strikers vs. hammers

[JImbothefiveth]

So, what Advantages would DA/SA exposed hammer mechanism have over a striker, and what advantages would the striker have over the hammer?
Here's what I can tink of: The striker would have a consistent pull, which can still be made tolerable(5 pounds). The hammer could provide a lighter trigger pull once the gun's been fired, but a heavier one before that, which could be seen as either a good or a bad thing.
I'm also thinking the striker would be slightly more reliable, as with a hammer, if enough dirt accumulated it would slow the hammer's fall, taking away it's energy and thus it's ability to fire the cartridge. An exposed hammer would probably make dry-fire practice easier, and would allow for a second strike. I don't see the second strike working most of the time, though.

 

[Boats]

Striker:

Completely enclosed, but not a total cure for debris fouling by a long shot and a harder field fix if fouled.

Easier to set a consistent trigger pull for against a DA/SA, but not against an SAO.

More prone to light strikes due to less momentum imparted to the striker due to spring strength limitations consistent with a decent trigger pull and no trigger leverage or hammer mass available to help out.

Can result in a less complicated fire control group of parts.

Hammer:

Easier to contaminate. However, if a hammer gets fouled, it's an easier to deal with without stripping. Mainsprings are more forceful than striker springs and hammer mass does a better job moving a firing pin than does a striker spring.

Enables two modes of firing in some DA/SA designs, or an additional mode of carry in others, though hammer down over a round for SAO pistols is usually not recommended.

I think that at least in common sense terms, a hammer will will be less prone to light strikes on hard primers because a mainspring can be beefier than a striker spring due to the trigger being mechanical advantage (DA/SA or DAO) rather than a simple sear release.

DA and DA/SA pistols tend to have Rube Goldberg FCG's with transfer bars, hammer springs, mainsprings, mainspring struts and who knows what depending on design. The more parts it takes, the more that can go wrong. Theoretical upside? Repeat strike capability, though this is overrated.

Drawing back a hammer during a BG interrogation in the movies/on TV adds something over just being able to wave the striker fired pistol around.

 

[Odd Job]

Drawing back a hammer during a BG interrogation in the movies/on TV adds something over just being able to wave the striker fired pistol around.

When I threaten people with my Vektor CP1 I have to show them an X-ray to prove that the hammer is actually back

The CP1 is an odd little gun: SAO with concealed hammer. No snags = no fluff, but you don't get to pull the trigger twice on that gun.
I don't think it matters in the grand scheme of things whether you have a hammer or striker fired pistol. What I would look for is overall reliability and decent ergos. My CP1 has the latter but not the former, BTW.

 

[Ash]

The CP1 isn't even safe, is it? Didn't they completely recall that model?

As to hammer and contamination, I haven't seen any issue with contamination on any of my hammer-fired pistols (or revolvers).

Ash

 

[Odd Job]

Yep they recalled them, and mine had the required work. But that's for another thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=335802