Striker fired v. Hammer...?

[gcrtkd]

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but why would someone own/carry/buy a hammer-fired rather than a striker-fired pistol? I have both, but I can only see the hammer as a liability... it can get caught on things, it can be obstructed from cocking all the way back in DA, or something could get into the open area between the hammer and the back of the firing pin when it is cocked, all preventing the hammer-fired gun from firing. Pleas, illuminate me.

-gcrtkd

[loudninja]

the hammer can be cocked using only one hand.

[9mmepiphany]

the hammer equipped model usually has 2nd strike ability...they also have the ability to give tactile feedback of an obstruction in the trigger guard when holstering

[gcrtkd]

the hammer can be cocked using only one hand.

How is this an advantage over a striker fired weapon? Perhaps you mean that you can get true single action with a hammer fired weapon whereas a striker fired is in perpetual "DA" mode. -gcrtkd

[gcrtkd]

...ability to give tactile feedback of an obstruction in the trigger guard when holstering

Huh? What? How?

[S.F. 1357]

Huh? What? How?

If you train to place your thumb over the hammer when reholstering you can feel the hammer begin to go back if anything happens to enter the triggerguard and begin to actuate the hammer.

[Ballistic043]

basically, it is a control feature.

2 main reasons: hammer fired weapons are more common to have a decocker; and hammer fired weapons retain 2nd strike capability. if a round does not fire, pull the trigger again. if it doesnt, rack and reload.

a striker fired weapon such as the glock has no decocker. it rides loaded in the only condition you put it in. and if a round was to Not go off in a glock or walther type weapon, cant re pull the trigger. you will have to re-rack the slide and chamber a new round. some say "big whoop to this, why would that matter to me?"

well, considering the argument: lets say you were in a stressful situation that a weapon is used (And COMPROMISED) the fact is, simple actions take alot longer to do. and in that point, the SIMPLER the better.

there are of course arguments that will counter these opinions based on probably some Box O' Truth comparison between the two. i haven't seen it.. yet!

[C_1]

Carry cocked and locked. Single action. Decock. 2nd strike. It comes down to preference. I wouldnt mind a 1911 or HK, but I like my Glock..

[S.F. 1357]

Second strike capability is a remnant of the revolver days. Obviously this works for a revolver because you are not striking the same round twice with a second pull of the trigger. Skip the bad round and go to the next good round in the cylinder.

Semi-autos are different animals...

If you are firing your weapon then you are obviously in a gunfight. Time is too precious in a gunfight to see if that bad round will go off with a second hit. In the event that the initial round is completely dead you would have wasted your time with a second strike and quite possibly be close to being shot. In the fractions of a second it takes for one to say "WTF!?!" and pull the trigger a second time you could have easily have chambered a fresh GOOD round and put yourself back in the fight.

[sleepur606]

I like my Sig for, among other reasons, the external hammer. I like to be able to pull the hammer back after a decock. I like to be able to decock after chambering a round. I like being able to pull the trigger on a double action after a decock.

I don't mind striker fired, but I don't like the multiple safeties: grip safety, trigger safety. I like a single, external, mechanical safety like you might find on a Beretta 92/M9. I like simple. Plus, the XD trigger safety always chews up my finger.

[pingpong]

The trigger pull of a hammer on single-action is generally lighter than that of a striker-fire

[Saym14]

cocked and locked FTW!!!!

[dfens]

I guess I have the gun that is the best of both worlds, a Walther P-99 AS it's striker fired and has second strike capabilities with a SA/DA trigger.

Hammer or Striker fired doesn't matter to me I own both but I usually prefer hammer because I have more trigger time with those than striker. For some reason my dad hated striker fired polymer guns so I didn't get to shoot them until I was old enough to buy one.

Either one is going to go bang, it all comes down to training yourself. With a Glock if it mis-fires you have to chamber a new round no if ands or buts. Most other guns I just pull the trigger again, and it goes off the tap, rack, and bang method only works if you are accustomed to it.

The only real downside to striker fired guns is that even though the trigger pull is long since most are DAO is that the weight of the pull is usually a little bit more that a SA pull. So a lot of morons shoot themselves or have a negligent discharge when holstering or unholstering. Also even though I can shoot striker fired pistols just fine, I'm dead on if it's a DA/SA trigger which the exception of my P-99 are hammer fired.

If it's hammer fired when you de-cock that sucker it's almost impossible to coincidently fire the weapon unless you are a moron.

Besides if striker based guns were so much better than why do police, military, and civilians still use hammer fired guns today with such great results.

[HondaMasterTech]

I would prefer a striker fired weapon. I don't like the idea of a piece of debris getting in front of the hammer preventing the gun from firing.

[BigAL]

I own (or have owned) both types (Sig, 1911, Glock). Hammer fired guns tend to have more forward "oompf" when you pull the trigger due to an actual weight (the hammer) going forward and slamming the firing pin. Whereas in a striker fired gun you have a spring loaded firing pin doing the work. Striker fired guns tend to allow for a lower profile slide, allowing for the bore axis to sit lower in the hand and better control on follow-up shots.

In practice, both types work very well. Some espouse hammer fired DA guns having second strike capability, while others say if the round doesn't go off on the first pull the proper action is tap-rack-bang which will re-cock the gun anyways. I think too much is made of the issue in general. I wouldn't let the striker/hammer issue factor into any decision on a gun purchase.