# Hammer Fired vs Striker Fired



## cougartex

Which do you prefer hammer fired or striker fired guns? What are the pros and cons of each model?


----------



## Freedom1911

I see this question asked at other forums, and for me there is not much difference.

They both go boom when you pull the trigger. I guess I like both equally. Hammered for nostalgia and striker for the new coolness.:smt102


----------



## VAMarine

cougartex said:


> Which do you prefer hammer fired or striker fired guns? What are the pros and cons of each model?


Well, there's more to it than just hammered guns vs striker fired as far as pros/cons are concerned.

You can have hammered double action/single action, hammered double action only, hammered single action, you can have partially cocked striker fired and fully cocked striker fired...

I tend to prefer hammered single action only in my guns with fully cocked striker fired being second as the triggers just seem be be smoother with less creep and no "squish"


----------



## Steve M1911A1

To the shooter, there's not much functional difference.
In a single-action semi-auto, the cocked hammer provides easy to see, positive proof of "ready to fire." In a double-action-only semi-auto, there's no practical difference at all.
It just so happens that all of my pistols are hammer-fired, and all of my rifles are striker-fired. But if a striker-fired pistol—or a hammer-fired rifle for that matter—provided me with some other feature I found important or particularly useful, I would cheerfully buy and use it.


----------



## hideit

i have a friend that will not buy a striker fired pistol because there is a spring that is always in compression - never in relaxation!!


----------



## Steve M1911A1

hideit said:


> i have a friend that will not buy a striker fired pistol because there is a spring that is always in compression - never in relaxation!!


I'm not sure to which spring your friend refers: The striker spring is "relaxed" when the gun's chamber is empty and the striker is in the _fired_ position. The magazine spring is "relaxed" when the magazine is empty. Is there another?

Modern springs are not adversely affected by being left in compression.
All springs "take a set" at a length shorter than when new and unused, but that happens almost immediately upon being used. Spring manufacturers allow for the expected "set" when the spring is made.


----------



## falchunt

I know it is somewhat silly, but I just don't trust a stiker fired pistol. I like to see the hammer, just MO.


----------



## flieger67

I'm fine with striker-fired pistols and like probably any other reasonable person, I'm more concerned with reliability and quality than the firing mechanism. As others have put it, I want to be able to pull the trigger and have the gun go "bang".



falchunt said:


> I know it is somewhat silly, but I just don't trust a stiker fired pistol. I like to see the hammer, just MO.


Out of curiosity, do you feel that way about all firearms or is it just pistols? For instance, do you trust AR-style rifles, revolvers without exposed hammers, bolt-action rifles or pump-action shotguns?


----------



## Bisley

Most of the hammer models are more appealing to look at, for me...but you cannot argue with the function of a Glock, XD, etc.

I have both, and some days I like one, and some days, the other.


----------



## Todd

Had both and never an issue with performance and function with either. I do prefer the feel of my "hammered" Sig while it's in SA over the feel of the "single action" XD's I had in the past.


----------



## jathtech

*real difference for me*

Striker Fire Vs. Hammer Fire.

One of the benefits I have seen of Hammer fired pistols is the ability to do a single/double action trigger. This allows for re-strike as well for rounds that may have not been hit hard enough the first trigger pull, but I have only ever needed that once since I started shooting years ago. Another clear difference is the ability to de-cock the handgun to increase the trigger pull while keeping it off safety and still have it safe. you also have the option of cocked and locked with some guns, specifically the 1911 (which is single action only) and the fnp, fnx, etc. I'm sure there are others, but I don't know of them.

the cons of most hammer fired pistols is the fact that something has the potential to obstruct the hammer and keep the gun from firing. if you are trying to fire from your pocket, cloth will get stuck under the hammer. if you are in thick brush or drop the gun in mud, rocks leaves, grass, anything could have the potential to keep the gun from firing. there's also a tactical side to this. An experience and trained person can (if god forbid you have to go up against one of them) potentially block the hammer with their hand as they disarm you and stick a knife in your skull. Another side to this with the 1911 for example, anyone who knows anything about the 1911 will be able to see that your hammer is not cocked, and can not be fired until you cock it manually. this can give the opponent a leg up in a serious situation, maybe giving them an opportunity to draw on you before you can cock the gun.

While most of these cons probably won't ever come into play for the average shooter, they can be serious for certain niche groups, such as special ops, police officers, security guards, etc. never know when you're going to pull your gun on someone and some jackass one of his buddies tries to take your gun from you.

not all hammer fired pistols have these disadvantages though, while retaining some of the advantages. These guns have internal hammers. one example is the new Taurus slim 709, and 740. many pocket guns have internal hammers too, but they are double action only and have a slit in the back, so mud, dirt and debris can still potentially clog them.

Striker fired seem to be a great option as the mechanism tends to always fire when you pull the trigger. very little can go wrong. The disadvantages primarily are the opposite of the advantages of the hammer fired. you can't decock, you can't see it (usually, there are several that have external indicators). there's no re-strike capability (double/single action) it is mostly single action only. In some striker fired guns, the safety mechanism is not very reliable. some of them have the tendency to fire when dropped. this is why the better guns have 3 or 4 auto safeties.

some of the benefits of the gun address the disadvantages of the hammer fired. it won't get jammed up by clothes, mud, dirt, etc. its, very reliable. it always fires. no one can see that your gun is decocked. If you decide to fire you have more time to rack it before the other guy has a chance to make a move. no one can block the hammer by grabbing your hand so you'll have a better chance of getting a shot off if a trained dude tries to disarm you. 
Striker fire is generally more simple for the shooter to deal with, but a lot of people like the look of the hammer fired better. I know I personally like hammer fired better.

None of these factors (except the blocking of the hammer) should ever be an issue if the gun is of good quality and well maintained. whatever you choose to get, that should be your primary focus.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

So much theory...

One of the huge drawbacks to a striker-fired or concealed-hammer pistol is the difficulty of inconvenient dry-fire practice. You have to rack its slide for every practice "shot."
With an exposed-hammer, single-action-capable pistol, one need only thumb-cock the hammer. (This is best done with the supporting hand, while maintaining the firing hand's properly-established and secure grip.)

A side issue is that the best shooting will be done with a pistol that presents the very same trigger action for every shot. This tends to rule out the "Traditional DA" semi-auto which, on its second shot, transitions from a long DA-style pull to a short SA pull.
If you have to re-strike any of your self-protection rounds, supposedly a "feature" of the Traditional-DA semi-auto, you either need to clean your firing pin or you need to find more-reliable self-defense rounds. (The only time I have ever had a misfire, it was because I had somehow forgotten to prime the case as I reloaded it.)


----------



## jathtech

I completely agree. I didn't think about that, it is easier to dry fire a hammer fired pistol to remember trigger pull because you can just reach up and cock the hammer back like a single action revolver. 

I also agree that if you are having to use re strikes, you have a serious problem. I would rather have it than not though, even if I never need it. 

I'm going to get the new FNX 40 from FN Herstal next week. It is an exposed hammer fired pistol, and it has all the cool features that I want. But Glock is the type of gun that all you need to know is how to put a magazine, rack the slide, and pull the trigger. It's probably better for the majority of shooters out there. But I personally spend a lot more time at the range, and the extra features mean more shooting for me.


----------



## Overkill0084

I prefer hammer fired for the simple reason that the triggers are better. I've not learned to enjoy the "staple gun" feel of the typical striker fired guns.


----------



## cooper623

as overkill said, i find that hammer fired guns lend themselves to a nicer smoother trigger pull and for that reason i prefer them. However, other than ergonomics and trigger pulls i dont have anything against stiker fired guns.


----------



## dondavis3

I've always been a "Hammer" fired gun man.

I personally like DA/SA and a visible hammer.

I also like de-cockers for lowering the hammer if I decide to stop shooting in the middle of a magazine.

But that's just me.

And most of it is my opinion, not that one kind is better than another.

:smt1099


----------



## SportivoX

I long owned an old format 1911 in .45. As single action the role of the trigger is to release the hammer. Simple.

I recently owned a Taurus 24 7 Gen 2 Compact in 9mm. It's DA SA striker fired; capable of second strike: has trigger safety, chamber indicator, cock (SA) indicator; has a thumb safety which is also a decocker; thumb safety works on SA & DA mode. The trigger is moved backward in SA requiring a shorter travel when firing.

When chambered it goes to DA mode then SA after the first shot. While chambering and pulling the trigger at the same time it goes to SA mode. When chambered and in DA mode pull the slide some 1/8 of an inch while pulling the trigger to go to SA. When in SA mode, it can be decocked.
It's the thumb safety and decocker that attracted d most. The 'indicator' features are very important for its DA capability.

Now the difference is just the visibility of the hammer.

No, there's one more, in SA mode the 24 7 is not fully cocked, there's still a pull on the striker before being released. A very short fraction of an inch. It has a smooth trigger pull in both mode, though.

Now, what's my point here? There can can be safety features in striker fired pistols. 24 7 has full of safeties. With DA, you can dry fire without racking the slide.


----------



## GCBHM

I think it is all personal preference. I love both to be honest. I carry a Glock 19, and I have the 17 as well just b/c they have a low profile and work really well for concealment while giving maximum load. My wife carries the S&W Shield, which is a really nice little pistol. My favorite pistol is the single action hammer fired BHP followed closely by the Cold or Springfield 1911 and the Sig P226 MK25. I know the CZ75 is a really popular pistol. I have not shot one, but it does feel really good in the hand. Lots of great pistols in both categories.


----------



## denner

jathtech said:


> I completely agree. I didn't think about that, it is easier to dry fire a hammer fired pistol to remember trigger pull because you can just reach up and cock the hammer back like a single action revolver.
> 
> I also agree that if you are having to use re strikes, you have a serious problem. I would rather have it than not though, even if I never need it.
> 
> I'm going to get the new FNX 40 from FN Herstal next week. It is an exposed hammer fired pistol, and it has all the cool features that I want. But Glock is the type of gun that all you need to know is how to put a magazine, rack the slide, and pull the trigger. It's probably better for the majority of shooters out there. But I personally spend a lot more time at the range, and the extra features mean more shooting for me.


Another disadvantage of the striker fired weapon is it's tight and/or low tolerance striker pin channel. If it gets dirty, too much oil, any oil, sludge, residue, mud, dirt, whatever, it is much more prone to light strikes on the primer, or no strike at all. The hammer fired pistol's firing pin channel is much more forgiving in that regard and generally has substantially more energy hitting it's firing pin under all circumstances.

Thus, a much better option for hard primers under adverse conditions. I can apply copious amounts of oil in the firing pin channel of my 92FS with no ill effect, try that with a striker fired pistol. I just don't see all these obstructing of hammer scenarios as that relevant or realistic. US Special forces, and the US military by far employ more hammer fired pistols as their weapon of choice.

If what you say occurred with any regularity or at all they would not use them. It hasn't happened to me nor anyone that I know of and I'm not hearing that as a complaint, or issue, from any information that I've run across. Especially any military testing and trials and actual combat to denote as such. Shooting any semi from a pocket, unless you have ample room for the slide to work is not optimal in my opinion regardless of the pistol action.


----------



## SportivoX

yes, it's a matter of personal preference. honestly, the hammer adds beauty to a pistol. the striker doesn't because it can't be seen. I like the looks of how the 1911 GI's hammer and grip tail (or tang) fit together when cocked. 

@GCBHM
It made me smile when you said the BHP is your favorite, it's not popular here but I'm eyeing on one now, hope to have it soon.


----------



## acepilot

The main thing I'm not too hot on with striker fired weapons is that once you rack the slide and chamber a round, all you can rely on is the safety. The only way I know to "decock" a striker fired gun is to remove the magazine, empty the chamber and dry fire it. For this reason, my favorite gun is my Sig P226 with decocker. I prefer to carry "hammer down" double action on first shot and then single action thereafter.


----------



## GCBHM

SportivoX said:


> yes, it's a matter of personal preference. honestly, the hammer adds beauty to a pistol. the striker doesn't because it can't be seen. I like the looks of how the 1911 GI's hammer and grip tail (or tang) fit together when cocked.
> 
> @GCBHM
> It made me smile when you said the BHP is your favorite, it's not popular here but I'm eyeing on one now, hope to have it soon.


I agree, the hammer does give the pistol a rather nice look. The BHP just fits my hand like it was made specifically for me. I love the way the pistol looks, performs, and really just everything about it. It's really a great pistol! I'll add one to my collection as I go...just can't do without one. I also love the 1911, and Springfield's reproduced GI model is really nice. I'll have to have one of those also! LOL


----------



## GCBHM

acepilot said:


> The main thing I'm not too hot on with striker fired weapons is that once you rack the slide and chamber a round, all you can rely on is the safety. The only way I know to "decock" a striker fired gun is to remove the magazine, empty the chamber and dry fire it. For this reason, my favorite gun is my Sig P226 with decocker. I prefer to carry "hammer down" double action on first shot and then single action thereafter.


I love the P226. It is one of my favorite weapons! However, for EDC, it is just a little too big. I don't even think about putting a pistol on "safety". For me, it is on safe when my finger is off the trigger, and with the Glocks internal safety features, I never worry about it being accidentaly discharged.


----------



## GCBHM

denner said:


> Another disadvantage of the striker fired weapon is it's tight and/or low tolerance striker pin channel. If it gets dirty, too much oil, any oil, sludge, residue, mud, dirt, whatever, it is much more prone to light strikes on the primer, or no strike at all. The hammer fired pistol's firing pin channel is much more forgiving in that regard and generally has substantially more energy hitting it's firing pin under all circumstances.
> 
> Thus, a much better option for hard primers under adverse conditions. I can apply copious amounts of oil in the firing pin channel of my 92FS with no ill effect, try that with a striker fired pistol. I just don't see all these obstructing of hammer scenarios as that relevant or realistic. US Special forces, and the US military by far employ more hammer fired pistols as their weapon of choice.
> 
> If what you say occurred with any regularity or at all they would not use them. It hasn't happened to me nor anyone that I know of and I'm not hearing that as a complaint, or issue, from any information that I've run across. Especially any military testing and trials and actual combat to denote as such. Shooting any semi from a pocket, unless you have ample room for the slide to work is not optimal in my opinion regardless of the pistol action.


As I read through the comments it seems to me preference is the issue. I love both styles, seeing no real advantange one over the other. I do know Glocks can fire thousands of rounds without being cleaned, so I don't know about all the channel theory. I can shoot well with either, but have come to be more comforable with the DA trigger system on Glocks. It did take some getting used to though! It's all a matter of what the shooter feels most comfortable with.


----------



## dondavis3

I mentally like Hammer fired most.

I seem to shoot Striker fire more accurately.

I own both, and some days I like one, and some days, the other. 

:smt1099


----------



## rex

OK, I'm in.

I prefer hammered guns, the only striker gun I've owned is 2 Sig 230s because they were much nicer than the PPK for a pocket gun.

The SA only and DA/SA thing doesn't bother me a great deal but I prefer SA. I've always been a 1911 lover but since I don't have revolvers any more they are my only SA guns, everything else is DA/SA.

Oops, forgot I have a Sig/Hammerlli Trailside that's striker fired, but has a sweet SA only trigger.


----------



## acepilot

GCBHM said:


> I love the P226. It is one of my favorite weapons! However, for EDC, it is just a little too big. I don't even think about putting a pistol on "safety". For me, it is on safe when my finger is off the trigger, and with the Glocks internal safety features, I never worry about it being accidentaly discharged.


Yes, the 226 is relatively large, but so far I've been able to conceal it pretty well. Especially in the cold months where I tend to always wear my sweatshirt and it pulls down right over it pretty well. In the summer, I just wear my button up shirts with the tail out and it covers OK. When biking, I just open carry it. Of course, I do have smaller ones for the times where "deep concealment" is necessary. :smt033


----------



## Glock Doctor

hideit said:


> i have a friend that will not buy a striker fired pistol because there is a spring that is always in compression - never in relaxation!!


That's the striker spring; and, as Steve M1911A1 has already pointed out, sometimes this spring is relaxed. When a striker-fired pistol is in C-1 the trigger is forward and the striker spring is compressed. The rate of compression varies from manufacturer to manufacturer; but, typically, falls within a range between 73 percent (various Glock generations) all the way up to 100 percent (Springfield XD's). More recently manufactured Glocks are reported to have their striker springs compressed beyond 78 percent.

Can a pistol with a compressed striker spring be a potential safety problem to either the user, himself, or to those around him? Yes, under certain circumstances already investigated by various federal government agencies, it can. Is this mechanical, 'idiosyncracy' likely to occur? No, it's not very likely to occur.

Thank God, too, or I might have already shot somebody in a genuine and completely unexpected, 'dropped C-1 Glock' accident! (I've already posted the sordid details of this accident several times over, and on several different internet gun forums.) Fortunately the striker safety (button) IN CONJUNCTION WITH the trigger safety lever are usually sufficient to prevent a C-1 striker fired pistol from accidentally discharging. (Usually, but, there are exceptional circumstances that might allow this type of pistol to accidentally discharge.)

I've dry-fired a Glock pistol thousands and thousands of times. When you dry-fire a 1911 pattern pistol you are able to use only one hand: The thumb comes up, the fallen hammer is pulled back, and the muzzle will frequently dip slightly off target and towards the floor as the sear (notch) locks in. With a striker-fired pistol, it is either necessary to use an expensive (thoroughly superfluous) DA dry-fire practice kit, or else the user has to PARTIALLY rack the slide by using two hands in order to recock the striker, and return the pistol to BOTH full battery, and the target.

It should be clearly recognized that only some pistols with exposed hammers have genuine second strike capability. A true 1911 pattern pistol does not because the hammer must be manually recocked by the shooter; but many other DA semi-auto pistols, like SIG (DAK trigger) pistols, do.

Do I have a personal preference? Not really. It's often easier to tell if a semi-auto is in C-1 if it has an exposed hammer; AND a hammer-fired pistol usually has a better trigger; but talented gunsmiths, a few factory armorers, and a number of, 'garage mechanics' have, collectively, done wonders inventing ways to smooth out and get rid of the excessive mechanical slop and, 'grit' in striker-fired (usually polymer frame) pistols.***

After a half-century of using expensive, metal frame, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols one pertinent fact - that, perhaps, should have been obvious - has been driven home to me: A pistol's trigger doesn't really need to be, 'smooth as a baby's behind' or to let-off, 'light as a feather'. For more than 100 years American pistoleros preferred to set up their pistols like this; BUT, truth be told, a pistol is (usually) a relatively close-range weapon.

This said: In my opinion a factory-stock, and unaltered: Glock/Springfield/Sigma/M&P trigger is A PIECE OF CRAP. This is not to say, however, that only pistols with an extremely smooth action and crisp clean let-off are the best to use for most (but not all) pistol work. The first polymer frame pistols with their incredibly crappy triggers showed those of us who'd been target, hunting, and combat shooting our handguns for many many years that most, 'combat grade' plastic pistols are more than adequate for the task for which they have been strictly designed and intended.

The lesson I learned is that it's very rare for pistol combat to occur at, or beyond, 20 yards; consequently, the genuinely crappy striker-fired triggers on everybody's polymer frame pistols are, indeed, adequate for the usual task of combat pistol shooting. Are there any exceptions? Yes, SIG'S, 'Double-Action Kellerman' and H&K's, 'Law Enforcement Modification' are, to my mind and personal reflexes, 'THINGS OF BEAUTY' - Especially the SIG, 'short-throw' DAK actions that I've had occasion to try!

Admittedly, this is a complex topic; there are a wide variety of different pistol actions in use today. Much of how well a shooter does, or does not like the particular action type he's using really depends on whatever he's gotten used to. Me? I don't particularly trust either action type; but that's because I don't EVER trust my pistol(s) to do anything other than fire - Most of the time when I want them to; sometimes when I do not; and, over the past 50 years, I've probably used pistols more than anybody else on this board. Pistol shooting, long range riflery, and metallic cartridge manufacturing and reloading have always been among my strongest passions in life. In fact, in addition to my strong faith in God, I know myself to be, 'defined' by these interests. I am a gunman; and I don't particularly care what gun I have in my hand(s).

DON'T SEEK TO FIND OR USE A, 'COMFORTABLE' GUN. INSTEAD, 'GET COMFORTABLE' WITH THE GUN THAT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IN YOUR HAND(S).

*** NOTES: Never trust the setting on a Glock's, 'LCI extractor' to infallibly tell you whether or not there's a loaded round in the chamber - Never! Why? Because the depth of this setting varies from one Glock Model to another.

Throughout the day I always, 'track' the condition of my C-1 pistols. This comes from many years of carrying 1911 pattern, and Browning P-35 pistols. I can't count the many many times I've reached down to my side only to discover that my pistol's manual safety was disengaged!

The only way for an active individual to prevent this safety phenomenon from being potentially lethal is to use a holster with a thumb-break strap between the hammer and firing pin. Do NOT put your faith in the 1911's additional grip safety. It usually works well; but I once had a 1911 grip safety deactivated by a dog's paw; and twice during my life I've seen a 1911's grip safety accidentally wedged into the firing position! (Austin Behlert even used to pin grip safeties in place on his competition 1911's. In fact I've occasionally wondered whatever happened to those guns?)


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Glock Doctor said:


> ...DON'T SEEK TO FIND OR USE A, 'COMFORTABLE' GUN. INSTEAD, 'GET COMFORTABLE' WITH THE GUN THAT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IN YOUR HAND(S)


In the case of the new shooter, I strongly disagree with this statement. The new shooter needs all the advantage and the help that he or she can get. A comfortable-feeling gun is a huge help: "If it fits, it hits!" (Sorry, US Postal Service.)
Yes, of course, an experienced shooter should be able to pick up any pistol and use it effectively. But why make the beginner's life more difficult, and his or her learning curve steeper, than absolutely necessary?



Glock Doctor said:


> ...Austin Behlert even used to pin grip safeties in place on his competition 1911's. In fact I've occasionally wondered whatever happened to those guns?


I've got three of them, although none of mine was made by Behlert. Mine were assembled and tuned by Chuck Ries, very much Behlert's unsung equal, contemporary, and acquaintance. Chuck supervised my own work on one of those pistols, and my semi-scout rifle and my car gun.


----------



## denner

Very well said GD. I've likewise run across horrendous DA/SA triggers as well, much worse than any striker fired pistol that I've operated. I absolutely agree that you need not have a customized smooth as glass 2-3 lb. target trigger for an SD, HD or battle pistol and you'd perhaps be better off if you didn't. I guess it depends on the operator.


----------



## dondavis3

I agree with Steve1911A1


----------



## Glock Doctor

Steve M1911A1 said:


> In the case of the new shooter, I strongly disagree with this statement. The new shooter needs all the advantage and the help that he or she can get. A comfortable-feeling gun is a huge help: "If it fits, it hits!" (Sorry, US Postal Service.)
> Yes, of course, an experienced shooter should be able to pick up any pistol and use it effectively. But why make the beginner's life more difficult, and his or her learning curve steeper, than absolutely necessary?


You know, Steve, I'm actually glad you brought this up! 'Why'? Because it cuts right through to the core of the effete society and the, 'spoiled rotten', pampered and dependent people of America's last dozen, or so, enervated generations - Generations of which older men like you and I still remain a part.

When I was a boy the idea of seeking out and using a, 'comfortable gun' would have seemed ridiculous and, 'fairy-like'. The older men who guided that previous generation of which I am a part, were, 'cut from a different cloth'. I was trained to handle firearms and shoot by 5 or 6 active duty United States Marines: Young and younger men who were veterans of places like Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal; (Where one of my uncles spent 45 days living in a blood and urine soaked foxhole that he proved to be unable to forget.) and, later on, at other places like Chosin Reservoir and Reno Hill.

It was here that a young Marine, who was closer and better than a father to me, ended up being captured. He was, then, imprisoned and cruelly tortured; but, after several days and the death of numerous other prisoners, he managed to rally himself, and take advantage of the moment. He caught one of the guards by surprise, crushed his skull, and escaped by jumping out a second story window and hopping away into the night on a badly broken leg! His right-hand had, also, been pierced by an enemy's bayonet! He told me that the 5 to 8 mile walk back to the American lines was, 'the longest walk of his life'!

Everything I know about, 'being a man' I learned from United States Marine First Lieutenant Heywood Lawrence Day. When I was nine years old Mr. Day was the greatest man I'd ever known; and, up until this very moment, Mr. Day remains as the greatest man I've ever known. 'Comfortable guns', humbug! Those Marines trained me to adopt to the gun, and NOT the other way around. They trained me to understand that a miss with a rifle was (almost) as bad as being wounded, myself. The lesson? The demand that was placed upon me as a young riflery student?

YOU USED WHATEVER RIFLE YOU WERE HANDED; AND YOU DIDN'T MISS.

Today's modern generations want everything handed to them, and done for them. That's a very different attitude than existed in 1950's America! Of course some guns fit better than others: e.g., AK-47/74's don't fit me well; the stocks are always too short; and I've never been all that comfortable with the straight-line stock profile. I'd much rather be fielding an M-14, or a Garand; BUT, don't think for one moment that I can't pick up an AK or an AR and immediately use it very well because I can.

Personally, I think that encouraging a new student to use a firearm that he likes and feels comfortable with is SELF-DEFEATING and only serves to prolong the learning process. I've trained thousands of young men and women in how to shoot. I've seen the perplexed looks on their faces as they walk up to a rifle for the first time. Now, I pride myself on being a damned good riflery instructor; but do you think I care about having these young people approach the firing line with the most comfortable gun they can find in their hands?

I DO NOT! Some young people - even the ones who seem fascinated by guns - absolutely stink with a gun in their hands; and they ain't ever going to be any good with any firearm. Other young people will make a noticeable personal effort to, 'fathom the weapon' and GET COMFORTABLE WITH THE GUN. These are the students whom I really want to spend my time with and energy upon, teaching!

THIS is, 'Why' I consider it to be completely unnecessary to cater to a new student's weapon proclivities and whims. Like the United States Marines I want a beginning shooter to seek to rise to the level of performance I expect; and, happily, I'm there to show him how to approach and achieve that goal. Neither do I want a student to, 'wimp out' by trying to succeed with, 'his favorite gun'. That is NOT what marksmanship or proficiency with a weapon is (or should be) all about. Give me the former rather than the latter type of student; and, after awhile, I'll give you a proficient world-class marksman - Without expending 10,000 rounds!

Do I expect today's modern generations to appreciate what I've just said? Of course I do not. Today's America is a very different place than the America of my youth. In fact I'm very glad that I'm not going to be here for too much longer. I neither want to see nor care to endure the consequences of the many divisive and immoral social changes that have been and are presently taking place in the land of my birth. As I said: 'Comfortable guns', humbug!


----------



## GCBHM

Glock Doctor said:


> You know, Steve, I'm actually glad you brought this up! 'Why'? Because it cuts right through to the core of the effete society and the, 'spoiled rotten', pampered and dependent people of America's last dozen, or so, enervated generations - Generations of which older men like you and I still remain a part.
> 
> When I was a boy the idea of seeking out and using a, 'comfortable gun' would have seemed ridiculous and, 'fairy-like'. The older men who guided that previous generation of which I am a part, were, 'cut from a different cloth'. I was trained to handle firearms and shoot by 5 or 6 active duty United States Marines: Young and younger men who were veterans of places like Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal; (Where one of my uncles spent 45 days living in a blood and urine soaked foxhole that he proved to be unable to forget.) and, later on, at other places like Chosin Reservoir and Reno Hill.
> 
> It was here that a young Marine, who was closer and better than a father to me, ended up being captured. He was, then, imprisoned and cruelly tortured; but, after several days and the death of numerous other prisoners, he managed to rally himself, and take advantage of the moment. He caught one of the guards by surprise, crushed his skull, and escaped by jumping out a second story window and hopping away into the night on a badly broken leg! His right-hand had, also, been pierced by an enemy's bayonet! He told me that the 5 to 8 mile walk back to the American lines was, 'the longest walk of his life'!
> 
> Everything I know about, 'being a man' I learned from United States Marine First Lieutenant Heywood Lawrence Day. When I was nine years old Mr. Day was the greatest man I'd ever known; and, up until this very moment, Mr. Day remains as the greatest man I've ever known. 'Comfortable guns', humbug! Those Marines trained me to adopt to the gun, and NOT the other way around. They trained me to understand that a miss with a rifle was (almost) as bad as being wounded, myself. The lesson? The demand that was placed upon me as a young riflery student?
> 
> YOU USED WHATEVER RIFLE YOU WERE HANDED; AND YOU DIDN'T MISS.
> 
> Today's modern generations want everything handed to them, and done for them. That's a very different attitude than existed in 1950's America! Of course some guns fit better than others: e.g., AK-47/74's don't fit me well; the stocks are always too short; and I've never been all that comfortable with the straight-line stock profile. I'd much rather be fielding an M-14, or a Garand; BUT, don't think for one moment that I can't pick up an AK or an AR and immediately use it very well because I can.
> 
> Personally, I think that encouraging a new student to use a firearm that he likes and feels comfortable with is SELF-DEFEATING and only serves to prolong the learning process. I've trained thousands of young men and women in how to shoot. I've seen the perplexed looks on their faces as they walk up to a rifle for the first time. Now, I pride myself on being a damned good riflery instructor; but do you think I care about having these young people approach the firing line with the most comfortable gun they can find in their hands?
> 
> I DO NOT! Some young people - even the ones who seem fascinated by guns - absolutely stink with a gun in their hands; and they ain't ever going to be any good with any firearm. Other young people will make a noticeable personal effort to, 'fathom the weapon' and GET COMFORTABLE WITH THE GUN. These are the students whom I really want to spend my time with and energy upon, teaching!
> 
> THIS is, 'Why' I consider it to be completely unnecessary to cater to a new student's weapon proclivities and whims. Like the United States Marines I want a beginning shooter to seek to rise to the level of performance I expect; and, happily, I'm there to show him how to approach and achieve that goal. Neither do I want a student to, 'wimp out' by trying to succeed with, 'his favorite gun'. That is NOT what marksmanship or proficiency with a weapon is (or should be) all about. Give me the former rather than the latter type of student; and, after awhile, I'll give you a proficient world-class marksman - Without expending 10,000 rounds!
> 
> Do I expect today's modern generations to appreciate what I've just said? Of course I do not. Today's America is a very different place than the America of my youth. In fact I'm very glad that I'm not going to be here for too much longer. I neither want to see nor care to endure the consequences of the many divisive and immoral social changes that have been and are presently taking place in the land of my birth. As I said: 'Comfortable guns', humbug!


Very interesting concepts, Doc. One I must admit I agree with. I'm only 42, so I did not have the advantage of growing up in the same arena as you, but I was raised by a man who did, and he taught me some of the same principles. I agree with being able to fire any weapon, and hitting your target. It may take a moment to get acquainted with THAT weapon, but it shouldn't take long. To me, marksmanship is about being able to hit a target with a weapon. Sure, at the range, we have the luxury of picking our perfect weapon. I went through several to find the one that I like best, and I train with it routinely; however, I am confident that push come to shove, I can take any weapon and use it proficiently when needed. Why? B/c I know how to shoot. It really should not matter what you have in your hands. They are all the same with regard to pointing and shooting. You have to point the weapon at a target, pull the trigger and hit that target, end of discussion. It's pretty straight forward. It's somewhat like driving. My dad taught me to drive a stick. He said if you can drive a stick you can drive anything, and by God he was right! There isn't anything I cannot drive. The same should be said of shooting. If you fancy yourself a marksman of any kind, you can pick up any weapon and hit your target. Sure, you may PREFER one over the other, but like you said, Doc, don't think for a second I can't pick up a cheap Saturday night special and shoot you right in the face with it. Of course, I hope I never have to shoot anyone, ever, but if it comes to that...

I always recommend shooting as many different types of weapons as you can. The more the merrier! Sure, find the one you like best, but you'd better be able to shoot, shoot quickly, shoot accurately, and walk away. That's my $.02.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Well, *GD*, let's use my wife as an example...
(Note that I didn't write, "Take my wife...")

I taught Jean to shoot using a full-size, full-weight M1911A1 Government Model in .45 ACP.
The 1911 fits quite nicely into even her small hand, and her proper grip forces this pistol to recoil straight back into the web of her hand and her forearm bones. Further, its single-action trigger was easy for her to control, and its separate-but-necessary safety lever helped me by reinforcing the rules of gun safety.

Note, please, that Jean is a dancer and a (retired) PE teacher. She is expert in physical anatomy, and in the exercise and use of muscles.
But she is small and slight, and although she is strong for her size and weight, that still is not very strong.

Now, Jean is much too small and thin to be able to conceal a full-size 1911, or even a Commander. Further, we conclusively proved that a small-size .45 pistol would be much too difficult for her to successfully and effectively control. She just isn't strong enough.
We also tried a well-tuned J-frame S&W snubbie in .38 Special. She liked carrying it, and could access it quickly, but it exhibits an unpleasant twisting recoil motion that she finds extremely uncomfortable. She can shoot it well, but she'd rather not.
So her everyday carry pistol is a Kel-Tec P3AT. Now that she is competent with pistols in general, the little Kel-Tec, even with its relatively stiff DA trigger, is within her abilities.

So here's my point: Had I started her out with either the J-frame Smith or the tiny Kel-Tec P3AT, she would've become discouraged and would never had developed the pistol-shooting skill and the adaptability that she now exhibits.
However, since I started her with a light-recoiling, easily-triggered, easily-gripped 1911, she had a chance to build confidence and competence before being confronted with a more-appropriate but more-difficult, less-comfortable carry pistol.
Further, since she had a chance to build confidence and competence with an easy-to-use gun first, she was better equipped to make her very own, most-rational choice of which pistol to adopt and to carry.

So, what it comes down to is this: No matter how the US Marines do it, or the Rangers, or the SEALS, or the local SWAT team, I have had extremely good results from starting beginners with the most comfortable, easiest-to-use pistol I can find.
I don't think that I'm coddling them. Neither do they. But I have always made sure that they achieve confidence through success.
As is said, "Your mileage may vary."


----------



## pic

From now on I'm buying shoes that are my size.
My feet stopped growing years ago. 
I can afford the comfort.


----------



## pic

Isn't my hammer fired 1911 a striker fired handgun??
It's a floating firing pin. 
What defines a striker fired pistol?


----------



## denner

pic said:


> Isn't my hammer fired 1911 a striker fired handgun??
> It's a floating firing pin.
> What defines a striker fired pistol?


No, your hammer fired 1911 is a hammer fired pistol. A striker fired pistol is fired by the "spring" releasing the striker under spring tension, whereas, a hammer fired pistol is fired by the "hammer" striking the firing pin, or in some hammer fired pistols hitting the firing pin plunger which hits the firing pin. I don't believe you can have a free floating striker in a striker fired weapon because it needs the spring tension to release the striker to hit the primer. No hammer on a striker fired weapon, just a spring and the striker. So in essence a striker fired pistol is fired by it's "spring" and a hammer fired pistol is fired by it's "hammer", but of course the hammer gets it's energy by it's main spring or hammer spring if you prefer.


----------



## Glock Doctor

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...... So, what it comes down to is this: No matter how the US Marines do it, or the Rangers, or the SEALS, or the local SWAT team, I have had extremely good results from starting beginners with the most comfortable, easiest-to-use pistol I can find.
> 
> I don't think that I'm coddling them. Neither do they. But I have always made sure that they achieve confidence through success.
> 
> As is said, "Your mileage may vary."


That's an interesting reply; if anything at all it's, also, very modern. I'm only going to address the very last comment:

Jean sounds like a lovely person; very much, in fact, like my own gentle wife! I've read enough of your posts, now, to realize that you are someone who strives for excellence. That's good! In my own way I strive for excellence, too. Remember what I said: '_Some young people - even the ones who seem fascinated by guns - absolutely stink with a gun in their hands; and they ain't ever going to be any good with any firearm_'. That's true of grownups, as well.

Why don't we start by taking Albert Einstein's sage advice and accurately define our terms! Shooting is often called, 'a sport'; it's even included in some Olympic events. However, real shooting out in the real world is, anything but, 'a sport'. In reality, riflery and pistolcraft are necessary and genuine self-defense activities - Usually, but not always, personal one-on-one confrontations.

It's wonderful that your wife, and mine are able to do well with a pistol in their hands while they're shooting at paper targets on a firing line. You consider (self-defense) proficiency to be achievable with a 380 ACP semiautomatic. I, on the other hand, require (even covertly demanded) that my wife demonstrate proficiency with a 357 Magnum pistol. Truth be told, I don't think I have ever fired a single shot in my entire life when I wasn't either hunting, defending myself, or practicing to defend myself. The proper use of firearms and shooting are NOT, nor have they ever been, sporting activities to me.

Allow me to ask a, more or less, rhetorical question, '_In a genuinely life-threatening confrontation, who would you rather have backing you up: Someone who's proficient at punching holes in paper and is carrying a 380, 'mouse gun'; or a former military-trained individual who's carrying a full-capacity 45 ACP pistol?_' Again, 'When, 'push suddenly comes to shove' who would you rather have on your side: Someone with several years of hunting experience, or an active IDPA pistolero who's repeatedly acted out various self-defense scenarios with a gun in his hands?' (I doubt that either you, or I have been able to get our respective wives to attempt anything like this!)

The conundrum we're actually considering is, 'When is someone truly properly armed AND proficient with a handgun?' Personally, I refuse to believe that today's, 'mouse gun crowd' with their comfortable-to-carry and ease-to-conceal cute little, 'pacifier-pistols' authentically qualify as being, 'properly armed and proficient' with a handgun.

Most people, ( even some who might surprise you) are NEVER going to be any good with a gun. You like to tell yourself that your wife is, 'good' with a gun; and, socially speaking, she probably is. I, however, have no such illusions about my own wife. On a target range she's decent with a major caliber handgun; but she ain't ever going to be a real world gunfighter. On a rifle range she's one of the best female, 'paper punchers' I've ever seen; but her, 'sphere of influence' with a rifle doesn't extend much past 100 yards. (So, she's not REALLY a combat rifleman! She's a marksman, instead.) ***

An accurate definition of terms requires this conversation to be about firearms as weapons, not about firearms as being either, 'comfortable' or sports equipment. Whenever I think of using a gun I think of how those United States Marines taught me to handle WEAPONS. They instilled me with not only a sense of how to use a gun well, but also about the proper attitude they expected me to have whenever I took a gun in hand. I rather doubt that either your wife, or mine is ever going to understand what I've just said in this thread. (Perhaps you won't understand it, either. I really don't know?)

GUNS ARE WEAPONS.

A GUN HAS TO BE OF SUFFICIENT CALIBER FOR THE MOST LIKELY TASK A USER MIGHT EVER NEED TO PUT IT TO.

EVEN THOUGH A GREAT MANY PEOPLE LIKE TO TELL THEMSELVES OTHERWISE: PUNCHING PAPER ON A (FREQUENTLY WELL SUPERVISED) FIRING LINE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS REAL WORLD PISTOL COMBAT.

THE USE OF A SMALL PISTOL LIKE A 380 ACP MIGHT, IN FACT, GET THE USER KILLED RATHER THAN SAVE HIS LIFE.

GENUINE PROFICIENCY WITH A HANDGUN DOES NOT INCLUDE BEING ABLE TO HIT A PAPER TARGET WITH A SMALL CALIBER WEAPON.

AS SHOCKING AS THIS SUPPOSITION MIGHT BE, THERE REALLY ARE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD - PLENTY OF THEM - WHO SHOULD NOT OWN A GUN; AND CRIMINALITY, ALONE, IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. PERSONAL INEPTITUDE AND A LACK OF EMOTIONAL DISCIPLINE ARE, ALSO, INCLUDED IN THEIR GENERAL DISQUALIFICATION!

The only exception I've ever made to any of the above criteria is that, on occasion, I've helped someone fit a rifle or shotgun stock to his body; and I have, also, fitted some individual's hands to a certain pistol's length of trigger pull; BUT, that's it! This is as far as I'm willing to go before I lose interest in seriously attempting to train someone in how to skillfully use weapons and shoot straight. (Which is, I suppose, 'Why' I've never worked for, or owned a successful public shooting school!) :mrgreen:

*** NOTE: It's not politically correct, I know; but, in accord with the way that English language used to be taught when I was in school, I've used masculine common nouns, here, to include BOTH the male and female genders. So if I'm not being politically correct, at least I'm being biblically correct; and, quite honestly, that's all I care about, anyway.


----------



## pic

denner said:


> No, your hammer fired 1911 is a hammer fired pistol. A striker fired pistol is fired by the "spring" releasing the striker under spring tension, whereas, a hammer fired pistol is fired by the "hammer" striking the firing pin, or in some hammer fired pistols hitting the firing pin plunger which hits the firing pin. I don't believe you can have a free floating striker in a striker fired weapon because it needs the spring tension to release the striker to hit the primer. No hammer on a striker fired weapon, just a spring and the striker. So in essence a striker fired pistol is fired by it's "spring" and a hammer fired pistol is fired by it's "hammer", but of course the hammer gets it's energy by it's main spring or hammer spring if you prefer.


Thanks Denner ,
Found a link that also explains it well
Firing pin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Well, *GD*...
I, too usually use the masculine pronoun for the general case, but sometimes using "he and she," and the like, works better to establish the target of the specific thought.
However, never, ever, would I refer to Jean as "he." She's just too pretty and feminine for that. (Not all PE teachers wear Bermuda shorts, and carry whistles and clipboards.)

Let's discuss who backs-up whom, and why we both use the .380 ACP cartridge.

I really don't care whether my back-up is male or female, is ex-military or ex-Hippie-or ex-PE teacher, for that matter, and which cartridge he or she is using.
What I care about is coolness under stress, and effective accuracy of fire.
Jean satisfies both requirements.

Jean has never been shot at, while I have (in a civilian setting, I rush to explain). Jean has never had to access her pistol in a defensive posture, while I have.
However, I know from long-time personal experience that performance on paper targets-if one is following a meaningful, practical lesson plan-is an excellent predictor of performance against real-life threats.
If one trains for many different scenarios, one can inculcate very effective reflexive reactions, as well as thoughtful, rapid, shoot-or-no-shoot decisions.

Further, as I continue to age, Jean's position in our defense plan has been changing.
It is now very difficult to discern just who is backing-up whom.
I'm faster, and still more accurate, but she has greater stamina and, like many women, handles bloody messes better than I do: If either of us is hit, she will handle it better.

I use the Colt's .380 because my arthritic hands can no longer reliably use anything stronger, or with a thicker grip. Those are inescapable facts.
Jean uses the .380 because her small hands cannot tolerate more than about three shots from a .38 Special snubbie, and because she can easily hide the P3AT on her thin body. Those, too, are inescapable facts.
As long as we can hit our targets, the .380 is quite good enough.
Believe me, we can hit our targets, accurately and consistently-and reflexively.


----------



## Glock Doctor

I believe you!


----------



## denner

pic said:


> Thanks Denner ,
> Found a link that also explains it well
> Firing pin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Good one, as well, here is a youtube video giving a simple quick demonstration.

Hammer vs Striker Fired Handguns by SkilledAmateur - YouTube


----------

