Striker-Fired vs. Hammer-Fired

[ChasHam]

Reading various threads in this forum, folks have definite opinions and preferences on the desirability of striker-fired vs. hammer-fired pistols, especially with respect to how they’re carried. I haven’t done an actual count but my impression is there’s a lean toward hammer-fired.

You have more options and control with a hammer—but beside that, they both go bang when you squeeze the trigger. Wonder why folks bring up the two different mechanisms so often.

 

[Winny]

Personal preference.

Much like any opinion, whichever one you hold is the correct one.

Most folks who praise hammer- fired pistol own a striker or two as well and vise versa.

Each has their place and as long as they operate properly are welcome in my home.

 

[pblanc]

Well, after the Glock was introduced there was a huge shift away from hammer-fired pistols and revolvers to striker-fired pistols and the striker-fired market has since become very crowded.

There might be some movement back toward hammer-fired pistols recently but I do not get the sense the migration is very huge. There are many fans of hammer-fired pistols who never jumped on the striker-fired bandwagon, however.

There have been double action only hammer-fired pistols that offer a consistent trigger pull weight and length but these seem to be disappearing from the market. DAO hammer-fired pistols require a longer and usually heavier trigger pull than the average striker-fired pistol, and have a correspondingly longer trigger reset.

I personally like hammer-fired DA/SA pistols. Hammer-fired pistols of either the DAO or DA/SA design allow the gun to be carried with a round chambered hammer down, and the longer, more deliberate DA trigger pull adds an element of safety against an accidental or premature discharge in a tense situation. The hammer can also be ridden with the thumb when holstering which provides immediate feedback if any foreign body enters the trigger guard and tries to "pull" the trigger.

But DA/SA pistols do require the user to master the longer and heavier DA trigger pull and become familiar with the DA to SA transition so they do have a longer, steeper learning curve for many. Striker-fire pistol fans like the simplicity of the design. No safety or decocker to remember to engage, disengage, or use, and a consistent trigger pull weight.

 

[sigarms228]

I haven’t done an actual count but my impression is there’s a lean toward hammer-fired.

Hardly. Sales numbers and what agencies use show a very strong preference to striker fired pistols. I own both and each has their advantages and disadvantages which are often a topic of discussion but as Winny said it boils down to personal preference.

 

[magnut]

my experience is striker fired gun tend to be more prone to failures to fire. Couple of reason for this IMO. Its been pretty rare through the years for a hammer fired pistol to not set off even a hard primer. Striker fired guns also typically requires two hands to perform a second strike where as hammered fired guns dont. In the end what you basically have is a really crappy single action trigger with no hammer.

Strikers are cheaper to make though and all that extra money can go to advertising How superior the new gun is before the first recall.

Personally I think the striker design has some merit for small guns where your trying to reduce size as much as possible. There have been striker fired guns in the past that have fully capable double strike capability. I also think its an effective design for modest guns aiming at economy sales such as Hipoints as you are trying to cut every corner in manufacturing possible to put effective weapons in the hands of folks who are struggling to make end meet.

Now... on a full size or even mid size gun I think its rather pointless. Especially when you charging a premium. You loose the inherent ignition reliability of Hammer fired in exchange for the sensitive striker which does not handle dirt or spring tension loss well. You also loose a decent trigger feel and double strike for..... again ... a crappy single action which must be reset by charging the slide.

Stiker durability vs Fireing pin durability is another issue I have. I have seen a lot of strikers fail.. tips break, breakage at the block intersection, and failure at the sear intersection. They tend to be MIM parts and dont handle abuse as well as the more tradition fireing pins. A stiker typically serves more functions than a typical fireing pin.

There is more but these are the three biggest issues I have.

 

[RC20]

I think for those who grew up with revolvers, the DA Semi auto was/is a natural fit. Some may make the shift, but .......

Revolvers in the DA were pretty safe. DA Semi auto comes inherently with a hammer, though you might be able to make something else like a striker assembly work its why bother as its more complex and does nothign.

What Glock touted the Striker as was safe, it is not. There have been a significant number of discharges with that type of gun such that it has a name (Glock Butt or Glock Leg)

The mechanism in a striker is more prone to goo jam up (Glock PR spin aside) so unless maintained correctly, it can fail. Much like an AR in the sand, yes you can ensure its fine, but you really need to know how much lube (very little) and to keep it clean (Glock and Gunny aside)

A hammer fired does not care.

Frankly most of my shooting with DA of revolver or semi auto is in SA mode.

If you train a lot you can avoid that trigger jerk, but its something that does take training.

As for no finger on the trigger, that is contradicted by train that teach you to squeeze the trigger for aimed shooting (as oppose to pray and spray)

So contrary to that statement, you do have to put your finger on the trigger, if you jerk you will miss and ..........

I can't begin to fathom the attraction to striker, the claim is its simpler but I don't see it simpler than a hammer fired (if you can learn to handle 78 lbs squeeze 12 lbs should not be an issue but for many it appear to be if not in reality in the head.

That said, both require practice to be any good and if you are good with one you can shoot the other even if you don't care for it.

Lack of practice is a two edge sword. People who don't have a lots of ND (and mostly strikers as they are more popular now) - maybe the good news is the people you don't want to have guns can't hit what they aim at (sadly they sometimes hit someone else)

 

[Dufus]

Wonder why folks bring up the two different mechanisms so often.

I have often wondered that myself.

 

[gc70]

Revolvers in the DA were pretty safe. DA Semi auto comes inherently with a hammer, though you might be able to make something else like a striker assembly work its why bother as its more complex and does nothign.

Walther produced the superb P99AS DA/SA striker-fired pistol over 20 years ago.

 

[TailGator]

I was going to say that I had a majority of hammer-fired pistols in my safe until I counted them up and realized that it pretty darn close to a tie. They have all been reliable for me (except for an inherited off-brand striker-fired .25), and all have been safe.

There seems to be a trend away from hammers, for whatever reasons.

 

[Fishbed77]

Some people get passionate about the whole striker vs. hammer debate, but the truth is that both are reliable, time-tested (striker ignition has been used for well over a century in pistols), and safe designs. And we are blessed with more good options than ever.

The real limit to either is going to be the level of quality and safety put into the product by the manufacturer. There can be bad hammer-fired and bad striker-fired pistols.

DA Semi auto comes inherently with a hammer

This is untrue.

There are a number of DA/SA striker-fired pistols (Walther P99AS and clones/copies like the SW99, MR9, and TP9). Kahr's whole lineup consists of striker-fired Double Action-only pistols.

the striker guys like the same trigger pull every time as opposed to the first heavier trigger pull of the DA/SA guns.

Conversely, there are plenty of hammer-fired pistols that have the same trigger pull every time. Every single-action pistol out there, all the DAO hammer-fired guns, and hammer-fired constant action guns like the Walther PPX/Creed have consistent trigger pulls.


.

 

[jimjc]

Everyone has their reasons for what they like, the striker guys like the same trigger pull every time as opposed to the first heavier trigger pull of the DA/SA guns. I own both and like both for different reasons. I think for defense I like a DA/SA a bit better because I believe it's a safer gun with the first heavier trigger pull.

If you shoot striker guns in competition or target you'll have to get the trigger pull to light for my likes for defense a 8 lb. trigger pull of a DA/SA for the first shot makes a safer defense gun to me. Second strike capabilities of the DA/SA is a upside as far as I'm concerned, it's easier to train for. Although my new Sig p365 is firmly my carry and is going nowhere. All my CZ's, Sigs, HK etc. etc. are doing well and whatever they are is meaningless

i do think whatever system you choose "practice a lot" with your defense gun so you can trust it when you have to.

 

[magnut]

well its a heck of a lot cheaper to make striker fired guns is the biggest reason. There is a lot more work to a good hammer fired gun.

I have lots of stikers as well and enjoy them. Some guns are way better off useing striker type systems. All those great little zamak SNS guns would be a nightmare if they were hammer fired. Precise fitting is not nearly as much of a concern with striker fired guns and you can have a lot less parts.

 

[TunnelRat]

While I would agree cost is a factor, like everything, there are also a number of low cost DAO hammer fired semiautomatic pistols (many with internal hammers like certain pocket sized pistols). I think saying that there is a lot of difference in production costs between the two is overselling it a bit. One example would be the SIG P250 and the P320, which differ only by the firing mechanism and yet were very similar in price. HK's P2000 and P30 can now also be had for very reasonable prices as can the Beretta PX4 and the FN FNP/FNX (though FN was always a bit more). Ruger had affordable options as well. Now if in your mind you're imagining a hand fit 1911 or similar versus a Glock, well then yes cost is a big difference. But the reality is mass production did come to hammer fired semiautomatic pistols. You also can't compare a polymer framed pistol to a metal framed pistol in terms of cost and not acknowledge what a factor that plays. And in many cases hammer fired pistols tend to be thought of with metal frames.

I have had both and continue to have both mechanisms. I have tens of thousands of rounds through both. I have never had a broken striker, and in fact I've had more issues with light strikes with hammer fired pistols than striker fired pistols (usually a weak main spring on a firing pin channel that was clogged with carbon, which seems to happen to me less on striker fired pistols). In my experience modern examples of both can be extremely reliable. Striker fired pistols seem more susceptible to water being a problem in slowing down the striker in the channel, whereas hammer fired pistols can get dirt or debris that block a hammer fall.

I don't have anything against second strike capability, but for my use it's always been a sign that the main spring needed replacing. That said I have the luxury of living in the US where generally very good quality ammo is abundant and I have far less issues with hard primers and the like that some other countries with military surplus ammo or lower quality commercial ammo might encounter. But I can honestly say that I can count the failures to fire on one hand when it comes to high quality defensive ammunition, and that's out of hundreds if not thousands of those rounds. And again those were with a HK P2000, hammer fired, that had a retarded firing pin due to oil buildup in the firing pin channel. That's a failure of user maintenance on my part, and frankly that matches my experience overall when it comes to failures to fire.

I'd add that it has become general practice these days for instructors to teach tap and rack drills rather than try for second strike capability on the chance that the round doesn't actually go off on that next primer strike. Now that is likely motivated in part due to the prevalence of striker fired pistols, but I can say that even the SIG Sauer Academy taught that response before the P320 came out and when their instructors were still using hammer fired pistols.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[ChasHam]

Hardly. Sales numbers and what agencies use show a very strong preference to striker fired pistols. I own both and each has their advantages and disadvantages which are often a topic of discussion but as Winny said it boils down to personal preference.

You're right, but I wasn't referring to the sales numbers or agency adoptions you first mentioned--but to the tone of the discussion topics which you mentioned later.

I haven't counted them up but my impression is the forum posts lean toward more favorable comments about hammer-fired.

 

[rickmelear]

I prefer shooting striker fired with a crisp trigger and short reset, especially my PPQ. However, I carry a Kahr P9 or a CZ P07 because in a high stress situation the longer trigger pull is a plus, IMHO.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I haven't counted them up but my impression is the forum posts lean toward more favorable comments about hammer-fired.

Perhaps, but the trend seems to be moving more toward the striker-fired end of the balance beam.

I think only CZ, Tanfoglio, SIG and some Turkish firms are still making metal-framed hammer-fired guns. CZ and Tanfoglio are making some hammer-fired polymer guns. But except for those exceptions -- and they are also making polymer-framed striker-fired guns, polymer frames with strikers seem to be the new standard for the industry.

Another factor is that what the U.S. military uses and many LEO agencies use seems to have a lot of influence on what civilian shooters in the U.S. want and buy. (Doubt that? Ask yourself why so many folks have Glocks, Berettas or ARs...)

The fact that the U.S. military has begun the transition to polymer-framed striker-fired SIGs (M17s aka SIG 320s), and they're already using a bunch of Glocks suggests that the trend will be gathering speed. And if the DoD replaces the AR-type weapons -- a change supposedly in the works -- don't be surprised to see the replacement weapon to become popular with civilian shooters very quickly.

I suspect that it'll take a bit longer for this forum (and The High Road) to catch up with the changes, because, if for no other reason than it seems the average age of many of the more-experienced and more-frequently commenting members here on the forum are a bit older than many of the others members and probably started with hammer-fired guns.

 

[magnut]

striker is the trend now because we have a lot of new shooters that dont want to drop 6-8 hundred on a higher end gun. Most of the big sellers seem to be entry level polymer striker fired guns in the 300-400 range after rebates and sales. The exception are glocks that have a market strategy which seems to disrupt logic paterns in the brain. No offense to glock or the cult of glock.

The folks that are more enthusiests tend to appreciate the higher end stuff. We are just outnumbered right now. Myself I tend to stick with classics from the 70s to 90s era. I will try new guns from new startup american compainies though... keltec, diamondback etc. etc. Most of the stuff coming from the big manufacturers has been a step backwords IMO. Lots of cost cutting to break into the 300-400 price range making firearms clunky and crude compared to the classics. They go Boom Boom though and thats enough for most people if they like the brand name.

Once in a while I do see neat stuff come out from the bigger companies though. Beretta pico is a neat little gun for what it is. Beretta in general still does a good job with new concepts. Ruger SR9 is a pretty nice streamlined concept...the rest of the lineup is kind of junky IMO. S&W.... meh.......HK.....meh......Sig.....meh....... Most of the stuff out there is pretty boring compared to what was going on in the 70s through the 90s. 50 years from now I anticipate all handguns will be hipoints with different brand names on them.

 

[TX Nimrod]

I think only CZ, Tanfoglio, SIG and some Turkish firms are still making metal-framed hammer-fired guns...

Wow, so Colt, Ruger, Remington, Springfield, Kimber, Beretta etc. don’t count? Someone needs to pay attention to the facts....


.

 

[jmr40]

my experience is striker fired gun tend to be more prone to failures to fire.

My experience is the opposite.

We moved away from exposed hammer fired shotguns and rifles well over 100 years ago for good reasons. Striker fired bolt action rifles have proven to be by far the most rugged and reliable design. And even those rifles and shotguns that still have hammers keep them covered inside the receiver. Yet for some reason we cling to the notion that exposed hammers are necessary on handguns. They are the weakest link.

Exposed hammers are more susceptible to damage if the firearm is dropped, it is easy for clothing to get between the hammer and firing pin and prevent the gun from firing in close range contact distance shootings. And there is one more way for dirt and debris to enter the guns action causing problems.

It isn't any cheaper to make a striker fired gun than hammer fired. The reason most striker fired guns are less expensive is because the frames are made of modern high strength plastic instead of being machined from steel or aluminum. And those are the guns that have proven to be the most rugged and reliable.

 

[mete]

Ruger has been making investment cast steel guns for many years with great success ! Plastic parts have to be protected in wear and impact areas.
It really comes down to good engineering in choice of materials , how to form them . etc.
Striker or hammer fired = both are over 100 years old . Lots of options , pick what ever you like .