This is a discussion on opinion on hammer fired or striker fired handguns for carry within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by nedrgr21 Not following you on this - what are you getting at? With a striker fired gun, if the round does not ...
Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.
NRA Life Member
Although I have carried both and continue to do so, I like hammer fireds better.
Second strike capabaility is much quicker,should a round fail to go bang.
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
"Reliability isn't determined by the action type."
That. I carry both; both are reliable as mechanical items can be.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
If a round doesn't go bang, I want it out of my gun - on to the next one, ammo's cheap (relatively).
If the gun doesn't go bang, TRB(R) - covers all contingencies, gun or ammo malf.
I like Clint.
You needed option 3;
To me it doesn't make a difference.
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig
Did not vote on this one... the premise is not correct. This has nothing to do with reliability. My 2 carry pistols are the Glock 26 and the Beretta px4 C, so I carry both types.
I wont vote because Im kinda biased but only because my only gun (as of right now) is striker fired. I bought my Glock because I couldnt afford a USP. I really like shooting the hammer fired rentals especialy DAs. I think a revolver or 1911 will be on my list for next handgun. As far as reliability of one vs the other, I am not experienced enough to comment.
"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you can not confirm their validity."
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky. dangerous animals."
i voted striker. although, in lab conditions i don't think there is a difference. the only reason i lean towards striker fire is the one in a million chance you end up with some type of debris in the hammer area of that system it could cause a malfunction or ftf.
My metal band: Born under Sirius
Glock 23, mic holster, clipdraw, abdominal carry.
Again, not true. Cocking the hammer would only be required for a Single Action Only gun. Once again, why in the world would you want to take your chances with a restrike? Don't waste your time with methods on the practice range that you wouldn't use in a gunfight, after all, we will fight like we've trained.With a hammer fired gun, you can thumb the hammer back and fire the gun again. If the round happened to have a hard primer, or you had a light strike, chances are it will fire the second time.
The design of a hammer fired pistol requires a timing and leverage element that doesn't exist in striker fired guns because of their straight line cocking.
In a hammer fire gun the slide must knock back the hammer. Depending on spring tension, slide weight, the leverage point (where the slide actually hits the hammer) and a host of other factors there is a much higher probability of mechanical failure. The hammer can be knocked back too much or too little. I've seen plenty of guns that should work but just weren't timed or sprung correctly.
The hammer gun is, quite simply, a much more complicated machine with more probability of failure.
Now quality is quality of course and there are hundreds of proven hammer fired desings, but that doesn't mean they are truly equal.
I carry both. The size, weight, and caliber of the gun are what I care about. I rarely buy based on the firing mechanism unless its special in some way (ie not DA/SA or striker)