Striker fired versus hammer fired guns?

[donw@fyi.net]

Beretta is making a big deal about the fact than its new APX is a full sized striker fired pistol rather than hammer fired.

I have a Beretta Nano ( a striker fired gun) and I hate the long , very long, trigger pull.


Will someone please school me? Just what are the advantages of a striker fired gun over a hammer fired gun?

 

[Boom Boom]

Long trigger pull is not specific to striker-fired or hammer-fired.

This describes the differences pretty well, with pros and cons for both:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/remington-r51-hammer-advantages.html

Equally as important are how well the handgun fits your shooting hand and how well you can shoot it. Experiences and opinions can vary wildly from person to person based on preferences and physical differences.

 

[Gryphon]

Beretta is listing the APX with a 6lb, 6mm initial trigger pull, and a 3mm reset. It also says it is not a pre-cocked striker action, which I understand to mean the trigger pull itself sets and releases the striker. As opposed to the slide cycle "arming" the striker to the ready position waiting for the trigger to cause the sear to release the striker to fire? Maybe someone else has a better explanation? Anyway, 6mm and 3mm isn't a lot of travel for a factory trigger. Sig P320, HK VP9 and now Beretta APX, lots of choices are good for the consumer.

 

[Turbohugh]

Sig P320, HK VP9 and now Beretta APX, lots of choices are good for the consumer.

I was just reading a review on the new Sig P320 and there seems to be a trend on with the striker fired DAO pistols.

Personally I believe it boils down to your personal preferences and philosophy of use. As a new shooter with limited experience, I went with a firearm familiar to me, a hammer fired metal pistol. Since my dad owns a Sig 220 [but my budget was not $$ enough for one] I got something with similar controls.

Some people prefer the new guns with integral safety features. Less things to 'futz' with if you end up having to use a firearm to defend yourself.

I would suggest the best bet would be just to handle the firearm, test fire it if you can. Some people prefer the simplicity of the newer firearms. I prefer a decocker as well as a manual safety myself.

Good luck and safe shooting.

 

[BenL]

Beretta is making a big deal about the fact than its new APX is a full sized striker fired pistol rather than hammer fired.

I have a Beretta Nano ( a striker fired gun) and I hate the long , very long, trigger pull.


Will someone please school me? Just what are the advantages of a striker fired gun over a hammer fired gun?

They are cheaper to manufacture.

 

[jr88]

Another issue that seems to be addressed with striker fired is the lower bore axis.
Polymer pistols shooting rounds like a 40 tend to have a lot of muzzle flip. This is easier to control with a low bore axis. Look at the APX, notice the low center on the slide to frame.

 

[TxAggie]

I was just reading a review on the new Sig P320 and there seems to be a trend on with the striker fired DAO pistols.



Personally I believe it boils down to your personal preferences and philosophy of use. As a new shooter with limited experience, I went with a firearm familiar to me, a hammer fired metal pistol. Since my dad owns a Sig 220 [but my budget was not $$ enough for one] I got something with similar controls.



Some people prefer the new guns with integral safety features. Less things to 'futz' with if you end up having to use a firearm to defend yourself.



I would suggest the best bet would be just to handle the firearm, test fire it if you can. Some people prefer the simplicity of the newer firearms. I prefer a decocker as well as a manual safety myself.



Good luck and safe shooting.

I have a P320, and it easily has one of the best striker triggers out of the box out there.

The reason for the fuss about striker guns, IMHO, is that they offer the consistent pull of a DA only gun, but at a much lighter trigger pull weight. I don't thing there will ever be a striker fired trigger as smooth as a hammer fired in SA, but they are coming pretty close.

Also, striker guns typically have fewer parts and can use a polymer frame, which contribute to the cost savings.

 

[TonyB.]

I don't buy the bore axis BS. I have a P229 and a P320. I can lay them on top of one another and aside from the dovetail and hammer on the P229 the dimensions are identical.

 

[Yoshi]

Another issue that seems to be addressed with striker fired is the lower bore axis.
Polymer pistols shooting rounds like a 40 tend to have a lot of muzzle flip. This is easier to control with a low bore axis. Look at the APX, notice the low center on the slide to frame.

I respectfully disagree. Look at the CZs... They are hammer fired with low bore axis. Same would apply for the FNs, but not to the extent of the CZs

 

[montoya32]

Beretta is making a big deal about the fact than its new APX is a full sized striker fired pistol rather than hammer fired.

I have a Beretta Nano ( a striker fired gun) and I hate the long , very long, trigger pull.


Will someone please school me? Just what are the advantages of a striker fired gun over a hammer fired gun?

Is the nano double action? Nano is also a "pocket pistol", so the long pull may be by design as a "safety" feature.

 

[Mr.Blue]

I respectfully disagree. Look at the CZs... They are hammer fired with low bore axis. Same would apply for the FNs, but not to the extent of the CZs

This. I feel that CZs have the perfect bore access and they are all hammer fired. I may be wrong, but I just think that hammer firing mechanisms are more reliable and more durable than striker fired. This is based on intuition and not actual data, so I could be wrong.

 

[Pale Ryder]

Personal preference. I prefer hammer fired, one other benefit but kinda a small one is second strike capability with a hammer on a misfire. Striker= one and done, clearing drill and fire. If a 40 is to snappy for you, then you need to shoot more and something over a 9mm. Maybe .357.