Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,215 Posts
I used a model 92 in the USAF as an SP/LE. Loved it.
I also owned and carried for years the Springfield Xd and loved it.
Of course we know the 92 is a hammer fired and the Xd is striker fired. I can say that both firearms were exceptional to shoot. I could not choose one over the other for safety or functionality.
Andrew
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,710 Posts
Well, I've stated many times I'll only own a DA/SA auto and with revolvers I prefer a hammer as well. I agree DA/SA autos are inherently safer for sure.

I've played with SF 'd pistols and just plain don't care for them, nor do I wish to trust my life to a match-box trigger system. I know folks who like them but it's just my personal preference.

Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
980 Posts
I grew up with revolvers and 1911's but carried a Beretta for one deployment in the Marines then got switched over to a 1911. I hated the DA/SA trigger systems. Much more complicated and takes way longer to train people to shoot them well on a static range when nobody is shooting at you. Scores went up instantly with the 1911 and still what I carry at home every day and train with. I have a Glock 19 for work now but I like the manual safety of a 1911.

A manual safety works in numerous ways, especially if you were disarmed in a fight your opponent may not know to take off a safety. I know everyone is an operator but look at statistics. Cops getting shot with their own guns is not something new or uncommon; in this regard, manual safeties is another plus for the good guys.

Any weapon is good with the shooter behind it IF they've mastered it and what they are comfortable or prefer.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,710 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
+1 for hammers! Im a big 1911 fan and love em always. I am not a fan of hammerless revolvers, but I wont knock them, Just something about having that little extra "control" of the function and safety of a hammer makes me a tad more comfortable.

after using good, tuned hammer pistols, pretty much all striker fires feel sloppy and odd to me, EXCEPT my Canik TP9SFX.

Holy cow that thing has an absolutely incredible trigger! It has now has moved up quickly into my top 5 favorite pistols. and 20+1 9mm. capacity is a nice bonus.
I bought it on an impulse buy as everyone called it the Glock killer... man.. they were right. I will never purchase another glock after owning this little sleeper beauty! If it had a hammer, it would be in the top 3!

But.... it will never be as good as my well tuned 1911's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
I think that if a shooter looks at the safety issue critically, it is pretty obvious that a pistol that allows a "hammer check" is safer to re-holster. I think you can say the same thing about an engaged thumb safety. Many will tell you that it's a training issue but people have brain farts routinely. The bottom line for me is that I will never appendix or pocket carry a striker fired pistol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
The striker blocking and/or firing pin blocking features of striker fired pistols are not safeties. They merely prevent the pistol from accidentally firing if dropped or impacted. If you can pull the trigger and it doesn't fire then you know you have a safety engaged. The reason you can't do that with striker fired pistols is because they don't have any safeties to engage.

There are those who will say that a striker fired pistol is just as safe to carry as a double action revolver. Not so. Typical double action trigger pull is around 10 pounds. Typical single-action or striker pistol trigger pull is closer to 5 pounds So, a double action pistol requires double the pull weight than a striker fired pistol requires. And, both a cocked double action revolver and a striker fired pistol will fire with nothing more than a light pull of the trigger. Nobody in their right mind carries a double action revolver with the hammer cocked. But that is exactly what people with striker fired pistols are doing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,797 Posts
Electricmo, thanks for posting the article!!!! I too, am a double action/single action fan. Sure, I own a Glock and it's a nice pistol. But, I'm old school. I want external hammers and the hammer drop feature. From time to time I find myself trolling websites searching for the perfect double action/single action pistol. Fact is, I've been thinking about picking up a Beretta 92fs for a while.

FWIW, I will never carry a loaded handgun appendix carry.

Now, my true love in handguns is the older revolvers - not the S&W re-dos of their classics. The external hammer, skilled machining and visible moving parts are, to me, things of beauty. :love::love::love::love:

T.S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
I personally do not care if my carry pistol has a striker or a hammer. When I lived in California and first started concealed carry I had to dress around my 45 commander to keep it concealed. I changed to a striker fired Shield and have never looked back. Hammer or striker fire was not even a small part of my consideration as they both go bang reliably. When I used to holster my commander I can remember doing a safety check and at the same time I am sure I registered subconsciously that my hammer was cocked and with my Shield I do a conscience area check to make sure there is nothing hitting my trigger, same results(no body parts with holes).

This thread seems to be most about double action autos. I have owned in the past 2 double action auto's and have the same opinion of them as Colonel Cooper "the perfect solution to a non existent problem".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
There is no doubt that the Glock pistol is a durable and well engineered handgun. I own them and carry them in kydex when I don't want to sweat out a nice leather holster and revolver. That said, I will never pocket or appendix carry this sort of gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Many people don't realize that most of the world's military and police forces are taught to carry their handguns without a round in the chamber. In those forces accidental discharges are extremely rare, especially compared to those of US pistol forces. Their procedure is to draw the weapon, pull the slide to the rear, release the slide to chamber a cartridge, bring the pistol on target, and then fire. The process typically adds about 1/2 second to the time required to get the first round out compared to starting out with a loaded chamber.

Israeli and European forces will tell you the time difference is minimal and that their method is the safest by far. What they don't tell you, and what they don't want to hear, is that the greatest chance of having a malfunction is when manually clambering the first round. Carrying a pistol with the chamber loaded almost guarantees the first round will go downrange without a malfunction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
836 Posts
I can see me with my "non-ninjah" reflexes trying to chamber a round in my super duper striker fired pistol when all #$^^ is breaking loose. This is why I pocket carry a S&W 649 when "in town". I was at the bank today and someone sketchy came in. I just put my hand in my right front pocket and established a firing grip. Nobody went nuts because nobody was aware. The guy left and all is good. Then I headed to Whole Paycheck per the wife's orders. Remember, happy wife, happy life!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
Gosh there is a lot of mis-information out there.

There are striker fired guns and hammer fired, there are striker fired guns with 10lb triggers and hammer fired (hidden and exposed) double action guns with 5lb triggers AND CERTAINLY THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE OF BOTH. It's really not about "striker fired versus hammer fired" at all. Both have been proven VERY reliable and both can be had in about ANY pound trigger you like! DO THE RESEARCH, SHOOT THE GUNS, you will find this to be very true. I've been lucky enough to have shot a large bag of both. I own both, and carry both with extreme confidence. You have to be smart, shop well, get informed and CHOOSE WHATS BEST FOR YOUR APPLICATION.

DR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,831 Posts
No to striker fired pistols. I don't like them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,576 Posts
Well, I've stated many times I'll only own a DA/SA auto and with revolvers I prefer a hammer as well. I agree DA/SA autos are inherently safer for sure.

I've played with SF 'd pistols and just plain don't care for them, nor do I wish to trust my life to a match-box trigger system. I know folks who like them but it's just my personal preference.

Jack
I also prefer a hammer ignition system. I have more control over a hammer than a striker plus a hammer system usually has enough mass to still ignite the primer even with a weak hammer spring. Strikers depend on a strong spring due to less mass and the trigger pulls are terrible on a striker gun. I had a S&W M&P in 40 S&W and I did not like that trigger pull. There are after market trigger kits for this striker gun but they are very expensive.
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Top