Hammer vs Striker-fired? whats the difference?

[blockfort]

Totally different for every make and model. The internals vary quite a bit. My XD9 has a trigger job with minimal travel and light pull. Other striker guns will feel different, even if mine was stock. Similarly, a 226 will feel totally different than a good 1911, even though they are both hammered guns. There is no way to generalize it.

[Fishslayer]

The beauty of the striker fired is consistency of pull. It's crappy all the time...

[Kappy]

The beauty of the striker fired is consistency of pull. It's crappy all the time...

LMAO. That's what I was trying hard not to say.

[BlueVue]

That's just a ridiculous reason that just doesn't happen enough to even be a factor.

Did I say I'm *only* worried about hands getting in the way?? No, I don't believe I did. I said "foreign object". Are you saying that dirt/mud/loose clothing never got in the way of a hammer before? I just used that particular example, because it was the first easily-cited case that came to mind where a hammer gun was disabled in a situation that a striker gun would still work.

I never said they're unsafe, or that they don't have their advantages; I just think that, for my purposes, they have a critical part too exposed to outside influence.

Now, if someone were to design a gun with all the mechanics of a hammer, but with all-internal parts, then we'd be talking!

Again, it depends on what your gun is for. Is a John Deere or a Ferrari a better machine? Depends if you're trying to bring home a babe or bring home the harvest.

[paul0660]

This is a documented case where Person A disabled Person B's gun

The same thing happened in the Dallas movie theater when Oswald tried to shoot a policeman with his revolver. It IS too statistically insignificant to count, but cannot be discounted. I like DA/SA hammer guns. I have owned and shot the others, and they give me the creeps.

[JON KARGATHALON]

Well, i have a ruger SR9 and a Beretta Px4 storm now, i am really enjoying the s/a trigger on the beretta, not to mention, the sound of my thumb cocking it back, had me reliving a boyhood fantasy. That is until my fiancee told me to stop sitting on the couch with my new gun and to put it in the safe LMAO

[Dhena81]

I prefer the striker over the hammer for this reason: The hammer is exposed, and can therefore be blocked by foreign objects. This is a problem in a fight.

Did I say I'm *only* worried about hands getting in the way?? No, I don't believe I did. I said "foreign object". Are you saying that dirt/mud/loose clothing never got in the way of a hammer before?

No I'm saying it is a non issue and if your going to nit pick about something so small I'm sure you can find bigger issues with your kit.

I'm curious who even told you that could be an issue maybe you should tell the Navy seals that you think their HK's and Sigs could present a problem in a fight because of their "exposed hammer"

[IVC]

Are you saying that dirt/mud/loose clothing never got in the way of a hammer before? I just used that particular example, because it was the first easily-cited case that came to mind where a hammer gun was disabled in a situation that a striker gun would still work.

I never said they're unsafe, or that they don't have their advantages; I just think that, for my purposes, they have a critical part too exposed to outside influence.

Now, if someone were to design a gun with all the mechanics of a hammer, but with all-internal parts, then we'd be talking!

Smith & Wesson makes revolvers with fully shrouded hammer. It not only has a hammer, but it is completely enclosed, so it cannot snag on clothing and no foreign object can block it.

Further, it doesn't have a moving slide which can be affected by limp-wristing and which can also catch on external obstacles while cycling.

Finally, you cannot have a stove pipe, FFE or other similar malfunctions in a revolver, not to mention that a cylinder jam is almost unheard of.

Now, if I understand correctly that you are worried about extremely unlikely events limiting functionality of your firearm, I would expect you immediately to go to the store and purchase a J-frame with shrouded hammer, just in case... See the problem with this line of thinking?

[BlueVue]

Now, if I understand correctly that you are worried about extremely unlikely events limiting functionality of your firearm, I would expect you immediately to go to the store and purchase a J-frame with shrouded hammer, just in case... See the problem with this line of thinking?

Actually, I don't at all see a problem with that line of thinking. There are plenty of people here who would argue that the simplicity and failure-resistance inherent to revolvers is a huge benefit. Many people use them as their LTC/HD gun for this very reason. And I would note that apparently S&W agreed with me enough to actually make a hammer gun with my shrouding. Of course, the trade-off is reduced round-count and reload speed, as well as the added weight of the shrouding, which is why it's not actually right for me. But that doesn't make it the wrong choice for someone else. Just as my opinion doesn't make your gun wrong for you.

Everything is a trade-off. My whole point is that, while a hammer-fired weapon does have certain advantages, such as a typically-better trigger, it also has disadvantages (aka trade-offs), and one of them is the vulnerability (however slight) of the exposed hammer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_law

Cheers!

[IVC]

Just as my opinion doesn't make your gun wrong for you.

The point is that your risk assessment is upside down. On one hand you claim the main/only reason you prefer one over another is a very obscure potential for malfunction, yet you accept a much higher risk of a much more common malfunction in selecting a semi-auto over revolver.

We all agree that the tradeoff is personal and no one is attacking your choice. Just the way you justified it is not consistent with your stated priorities.