Hammer-fired vs. Striker-fired

[Ronin.45]

The numbers would have to be way higher for striker fired pistols just because they outsell hammer guns by a wide margin. They are also the gun issued to the majority of law enforcement, military, security guards, and chosen by most concealed carriers who get minimal training and are likely to do something stupid.

[Mac66]

Don't forget that there are some hammer fired pistols out there that don't have external hammers but still have hammers. The S&W EZ 380 & 9mm have internal hammers as does the Keltec P17 and probably a bunch more.

[David]

Don't forget that there are some hammer fired pistols out there that don't have external hammers but still have hammers. The S&W EZ 380 & 9mm have internal hammers as does the Keltec P17 and probably a bunch more.

+1

[Bob]

I honestly don't care as long as it works.

[David]

Personal preference. I simply believe that hammer-fired is inherently safer all the way around. I also believe that striker-fired pistols should, at the least, have the option of a manual thumb safety. One thing Glock doesn't do well because of their lame marketing mantra. And as much as I like Glock, it's one reason I no longer carry one. I have them all on HD duty where re-holstering them while on the person is no longer a consideration.

Everything I now carry either is striker-fired with a thumb safety or hammer-fired (and most of those have a thumb safety). Again, always a point of debate and folks have their own opinions and do what they feel is right for them. This is how I feel for me.

[David]

Thread on another forum today asking how to lighten the trigger on a stock Glock 21 for HD. The stock trigger on a G21 is around 6.2 lbs. So my first question to the OP is 'why would you need to lessen a 6.2 lbs trigger pull for HD'. And that's what I see from folks that in all likelihood are either very new shooters or shooters who's only experience is on striker-fired pistols. I'd hate to see them have to depend on a revolver or DA/SA with a 12 lbs trigger pull.

Unless you have a disability, a 6 lbs trigger pull is ridiculously light for a defensive pistol. And if you can't handle that trigger you're in need of training.

[Ronin.45]

There's a difference between "can't handle" a 6lb trigger and wanting better. An argument can be made that if you can't be trusted with a 3lb trigger you're in need of training.
As a known trigger snob, every gun I own has a lightened trigger. From MCarbo springs in my 365 to the 10oz TriggerTech Diamond I'm looking at for my Bergara, a better trigger is just better. There's no safety issue if you utilize basic safe gun handling. Whether someone is willing to put in the 10,000 hours to master those handling skills is a different story.

[David]

There's no safety issue if you utilize basic safe gun handling.

On this I will respectfully disagree. I've stated before that a lot of AD/ND occur when re-holstering. Particularly with a striker-fired pistol. And there is simply zero reason to have a 3lb trigger on a defensive pistol in my opinion. Range toy or comp gun sure, but not on a defensive pistol. A stock Glock trigger is as light as I would ever go personally.

[David]

I compare this to my USPc40 which has a rated 11.4lb DA trigger pull and 4.5lb SA trigger pull. As long as the pull is smooth, it really shouldn't matter how long/heavy the pull is, within reason of course.

My P2000 is a V2 which is a consistent 7lb trigger smooth pull.

Either works well as long as you're not dependent on a super light trigger to make up for lack of trigger discipline. That isn't for anyone here, a general statement.

[David]

Bit of a thread drift from the OP, but wanted to include this post that I made on another forum. It isn't on HF vs. SF pistols but on aftermarket parts. The OP of that thread had aftermarket parts in his Glock and started having reliability issues and wondered if it was due to the aftermarket parts. Well..duh. He also wanted to lighten his stock Glock trigger because it was too heavy by adding yet another aftermarket part to his already unreliable pistol.

So yes, both are correct. Just a quick stroll through this board will reveal a laundry list of complaints about unreliability due to someone monkeying around with their pistol. The OP is a prime example.

Now to be fair, it is possible for OEM parts to cause a pistol to be unreliable. Glock 36, Glock 19, Glock 43, Glock 42, Sig P365 and P320 are just a few examples. But eventually, hopefully the manufacturer gets the problem corrected. From there out, hopefully all is unicorns and rainbows. But it also needs to be realized that there is a very large sample size to examine for reliability. Although the G19, just to pick one of the above, had major issues at one time, does anyone here have serious doubts now about the reliability of the Glock 19? Probably not. Now let's take a non-OEM/aftermarket part like a Shield magazine or some whiz bang trigger. How big is the sample size? Depends of course on the popularity but it's safe to say that it's a LOT smaller than the sample size of the stock OEM part. And yet, again, a quick look through GT will yield all sort of problems, like the OP.

And perhaps the part is 100%. Great. But most of the time it is a part that probably isn't needed. Again, changing out the cheap dove tail protectors for good night sights is a 'mod' that has some value. But triggers, springs, barrels, RSA, and this and that internal, imo, isn't needed. OEM works just fine as-is. As I stated in my previous posts, I just shake my head at anyone (that doesn't have a specific disability) that thinks a stock Glock has a trigger pull that is too heavy. In my experience it is usually a cover for inadequate training on the part of the shooter and they're trying to tweak the gun to cover for their own shooting weaknesses. And again, not trying to ruffle feathers, simply giving my observations. If a person can't shoot like a pro with a stock Glock then they need training not aftermarket parts. Most of the aftermarket is unnecessary crap. There are exceptions.