Striker Fired, how does it work.
- Thread starter PolarFBear
- Start date
lee n. field
New member
If you're serious (can't tell), why?
lee n. field said:I have seen people insist that the XD has a partially preloaded striker like the Glock's, based on the tiny bit the striker cocked indicator is cammed back by the sear pivoting on it's pin.
And of course, this being the Internetz, there's no convincing them otherwise.
The problem with "partially preloaded" is the lack of a generally accepted definition. Where is the dividing line between SA and DA; is it 99.9%, 98%, 95%, 90%, 80%, or something else? The differentiation is now made arbitrarily and each person has an opinion, which leads to endless disagreement.
I do joke around a good bit, but I was serious here. DA/SA is like having the safety of a DAO, but with the option of faster follow-up shots. Many people miss the 2nd and 3rd Gen S&W DA/SA's. Also, how many DAO pocket-sized .380's and 9mm's can all these company make and have people continue to be interested in buying them. Sig and Colt offer good SAO pocket-sized pistols. So, about the only thing that is not offered in a Ruger LC9s sized pistol in DA/SA
The last DA/SA "pocket" sized 9mm ever made was the Detonics Pocket 9. Certainly technology has improved to offer something similar in a lighter, slimmer, more reliable da/sa 9mm.
lee n. field
New member
<scratches head>
The only Daewoo I know of is hammer fired.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BW5ecW7jAs8
It is hammer fired. But it gets confusing enough, then you have them coming with something and calling it triple action.
It is hammer fired. But it gets confusing enough, then you have them coming with something and calling it triple action.
marine6680
New member
Trigger action... That is separate from the ignition of the primer, though directly tied to it as well.
I think there is more disagreement on trigger function than there is for what is or isn't a striker design.
I usually define a partially tensioned striker as being that... The at rest striker position is too far forward for the amount of energy it contains, to set off the average primer, should it fall from rest and strike the primer.
The percentage of pretensioning is removed from the equation... Only one factor matters, can the primer be ignited if struck by the striker falling from rest position.
I would also say, that any design that has a sear that rotates about an axis, in order to drop out of the way and allow the striker to be released, can not be a partially tensioned type.
There is only so much positive sear engagement and caming back of the striker that can be accomplished using such a sear. Not enough to move a striker from a rest position incapable of primer ignition, to a position of positive and reliable primer ignition. I would bet they are sitting at 99% full travel when at rest on these designs.
This type seems to be the most common, true Glock like partial tension triggers are not very common... And true DOA strikers are rare too. When taken as a whole of striker designs anyway.
I think there is more disagreement on trigger function than there is for what is or isn't a striker design.
I usually define a partially tensioned striker as being that... The at rest striker position is too far forward for the amount of energy it contains, to set off the average primer, should it fall from rest and strike the primer.
The percentage of pretensioning is removed from the equation... Only one factor matters, can the primer be ignited if struck by the striker falling from rest position.
I would also say, that any design that has a sear that rotates about an axis, in order to drop out of the way and allow the striker to be released, can not be a partially tensioned type.
There is only so much positive sear engagement and caming back of the striker that can be accomplished using such a sear. Not enough to move a striker from a rest position incapable of primer ignition, to a position of positive and reliable primer ignition. I would bet they are sitting at 99% full travel when at rest on these designs.
This type seems to be the most common, true Glock like partial tension triggers are not very common... And true DOA strikers are rare too. When taken as a whole of striker designs anyway.
marine6680 said:
This is an appealing theory of how to classify a pre-tensioned design. However, it is not a standard that can be readily and reliably observed. Assessing a particular design would require testing and I have never found an actual account of such testing.
Additionally, the striker does not exist in isolation. All recent striker-fired designs have multiple safeties that, for all practical purposes, prevent a striker from simply falling from its pre-tensioned position. Whether a pre-tensioned striker has the energy to ignite a primer in an impossible scenario becomes effectively meaningless.
The simplest solution based on traditional definitions would be to classify any design with trigger-based restrike capability as double-action and any design without such capability as single-action. However, that method of classification would cause severe heartburn for manufacturers dependent on selling their supposedly safer pre-tensioned "double-action" designs.
marine6680
New member
This is very much true... For a Glock, it is pretty much physically impossible, barring damage or alteration of the parts, by virtue of the design.
And it isn't readily apparent what strikers at rest will or will not ignite a primer should they fall... It's really just a best guess barring any test data from the manufacturer or independent test house.
But as I said, any striker that uses a sear that rotates on an axis, can't really impart enough rearward motion to the striker, for me to classify them as DA, or even partial tension.
Walt Sherrill
New member
pelo801 said:
As noted, it's just a hammer-fired semi-auto. I've had several, and they're great guns. The new Lionheart is the same gun re-branded with a new importer.
The only thing really different about the DaeWoo design is that they use a hinged hammer (with an extra pivot point in the middle.)
When starting from fully cocked, the hammer can be flipped forward and carried that way. When you go to pull the trigger, the hammer flips back (in an easily felt "stage") and then it continued as would any normal SA gun -- as the trigger stroke is slightly heavier in that first stage, and then lighter when you get to the second stage. Treating it like a standard SA gun (with the hammer back) it feels just like a SA gun -- with a single, light (no two-stage) trigger pull.
The gun can be 1) carried hammer down, 2) hammer down safety on, 3) cocked & locked, 4) cocked & locked with hammer forward and safety on or 5) cocked, hammer forwrd, and safety off. In the hammer cocked, flipped forward mode is far safer and easier to manage than it sounds. Kind of neat. I'll get another, one of these days.
The fit, finish and feel of the DaeWoos always reminded me of a S&W 3rd Gen gun, maybe tweaked by some SIG engineers. Nice guns.
Debates about the trigger action classification of partially tensioned firing mechanisms are generally more theoretical than practical.
Traditionally, trigger action classifications were informative about how a person would operate a gun. DA suggested being instantly ready for use with a margin of safety derived from a longer and heavier trigger pull, while SA suggested manual manipulations before use but allowed a shorter and lighter trigger pull.
Partially tensioned designs blur the traditional distinctions between operating characteristics. Glocks and M&Ps have essentially the same operating characteristics from a user's perspective. Labeling one DA and the other SA does not provide meaningful information to a user. Beyond esoteric technical distinctions, about the only things that different labels achieve is a basis for manufacturers' marketing claims and an excuse for owners to believe their guns are 'more betterer' than others.
Traditionally, trigger action classifications were informative about how a person would operate a gun. DA suggested being instantly ready for use with a margin of safety derived from a longer and heavier trigger pull, while SA suggested manual manipulations before use but allowed a shorter and lighter trigger pull.
Partially tensioned designs blur the traditional distinctions between operating characteristics. Glocks and M&Ps have essentially the same operating characteristics from a user's perspective. Labeling one DA and the other SA does not provide meaningful information to a user. Beyond esoteric technical distinctions, about the only things that different labels achieve is a basis for manufacturers' marketing claims and an excuse for owners to believe their guns are 'more betterer' than others.
To some people, a car is just a car. As long as it gets them to point B from point A they could have less how many cylinders, the displacement, or torque/horsepower that the engine generates. That doesn't mean there aren't those that are interested in deeper discussions than that, even if it is esoteric in nature.