Tweet
I like reading the history of things, studying designs. What many do not realize is that striker fire is an old design. The FN1900 was striker fired, so was the first semiauto handgun the Borchardt C-93 (in 1893). Looking at the designs, I find no innovations or improvements in modern striker fired guns over older designs (like the Baby Browning), and hence no reason why we went to hammer fired but then back to striker fired as popular.
Going to hammer fired was seen as an improvement. And for good reason. Using a slide action worked better with a hammer, was easier to design and required less of the recoil spring making the gun easier to rack and more reliable (as springs lasted longer).
Striker fired also has a higher risk of light strikes. And using a heavier striker spring requires also a heavier recoil spring (since on cocking, it is the counter tension that cocks the striker). Or you have a true DA striker, and the trigger pull is heavier. Now with modern striker fired guns, they hit hard enough. But whether a Glock, or Smith or Ruger you can kill that reliability by lubricating the striker channel
Now consider that, while we had primers without mercury at the very beginning of the 20th century, they had potassium chlorate which, when used produced potassium chloride. In any conditions of 50% humidity or more (such as even Arizona has when there is dew) the gun gets destroyed. You had to clean the gun and then clean it again.
Striker fired may be simpler, but it does have small crevices, gaps. Further, you had to wash out the whole gun and oil it. If you were smart you washed it out with water. Potassium chloride was only soluble in water (many expensive cleaners in the day were emulsification that had water to dissolve the salt). But water itself causes corrosion, so you oil. But lubrication on the striker makes for a risk of light strikes.
So it struck me that what probably allowed for a return to striker fire not so much an improvement in design/materials (though the ease of machining smaller parts helps), but in the use of non-corrosive ammunition, which allows for an easy maintenance that does not impact reliability.
Going to hammer fired was seen as an improvement. And for good reason. Using a slide action worked better with a hammer, was easier to design and required less of the recoil spring making the gun easier to rack and more reliable (as springs lasted longer).
Striker fired also has a higher risk of light strikes. And using a heavier striker spring requires also a heavier recoil spring (since on cocking, it is the counter tension that cocks the striker). Or you have a true DA striker, and the trigger pull is heavier. Now with modern striker fired guns, they hit hard enough. But whether a Glock, or Smith or Ruger you can kill that reliability by lubricating the striker channel
Now consider that, while we had primers without mercury at the very beginning of the 20th century, they had potassium chlorate which, when used produced potassium chloride. In any conditions of 50% humidity or more (such as even Arizona has when there is dew) the gun gets destroyed. You had to clean the gun and then clean it again.
Striker fired may be simpler, but it does have small crevices, gaps. Further, you had to wash out the whole gun and oil it. If you were smart you washed it out with water. Potassium chloride was only soluble in water (many expensive cleaners in the day were emulsification that had water to dissolve the salt). But water itself causes corrosion, so you oil. But lubrication on the striker makes for a risk of light strikes.
So it struck me that what probably allowed for a return to striker fire not so much an improvement in design/materials (though the ease of machining smaller parts helps), but in the use of non-corrosive ammunition, which allows for an easy maintenance that does not impact reliability.
Comment