Why have striker fired pistols mostly supplanted hammer fired pistols in the market?

[-]

AM-64@reddit

Because most people don't like DA/SA stuff because two different trigger pulls = needs more time training, striker guns are also probably much cheaper to manufacturer seeing as most brands that offer both hammer-fired and striker-fired guns the striker stuff is always cheaper.

I've only really regularly carried DA/SA stuff (first a Walther P99AS and now an HK P30 because Walther discontinued the P99AS).

[-]

Gr4bYoGatzFOO@reddit

Striker fired guns are significantly lighter, and for ccw weight is a significant factor for me.

[-]

AM-64@reddit

An example like the HK VP9SK vs the HK P30SK it's less than one ounce between the Striker-Fired and Hammer-Fired Gun

https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/heckler-koch-vp9sk-vs-heckler-koch-p30sk

[-]

Gr4bYoGatzFOO@reddit

Those are both compact, striker fired guns win by default in the sub compact market. My G43 at 17.99 oz is super convenient to carry, thats not even mentioning all the other options that are better than my 43.

[-]

Cheemingwan1234@reddit (OP)

Right, decockers and safety/decockers making a PITA especially with competitive pistol shooters.

[-]

Its_Raul@reddit

I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with two trigger pulls. It's solely just cheaper and easier to make striker fired guns so people buy them. Many beginners have no clue about the difference.

[-]

QuinceDaPence@reddit

It's also apparently really difficult to make a skinny DA/SA u fortunately.

[-]

EvergreenEnfields@reddit

But I like my SIGs thiccer than a Snickers (and with a leading digit of 2, like God intended)

[-]

Its_Raul@reddit

Isn't the 1911 known to be the skinniest of skinny?

I suppose for a double stack, striker fired guns are skinny

[-]

One_Planche_Man@reddit

The 1911 is a single action only, that's why.

[-]

Its_Raul@reddit

Doh. My bad my brain went straight to hammer fired.

[-]

QuinceDaPence@reddit

That being said. My Beretta PX4 (DA/SA) is thicker than a 1911

[-]

Dracon1201@reddit

It's a double stack handgun, so I hope it would be.

[-]

TheFrenchAreAssholes@reddit

CZ PCR and P-01 are both fairly thin. Slightly thicker than Glock 19.

[-]

Diligent-Parfait-236@reddit

99% of every skill level has no clue what the difference is.

[-]

wingsnut25@reddit

One of the more popular guns in competitive shooting is a CZ Shadow 2 which is DA/SA.

[-]

Gun_Dork@reddit

First competition pistol was a P30L. After that was a P09, now it’s a Tanfoglio Limited Pro.

Striker fired guns are easily produced, easily maintained, and just run better compared to hammer guns.

But I love my da/sa guns.

[-]

jdubb26@reddit

Not trying to that "well actually" guy but all competition divisions are dominated by hammer fired pistols. In the carry optics division you have a lot of Glocks,PDP,P320's etc...but I believe the top 5 people this year at nationals all used a CZ Shadow 2...that is the gun to get for that division.

Only thing that sucks about it is the first pull is DA but people cajunize them down to like 6lbs so way better than factory, then theres no decocker so you have to manually lower the hammer which is kinda sketchy. All these negatives are outweighed by the fact that you get a 2-3lb single action trigger after that first DA pull. Single action triggers will always be better than striker fired, and they dominate every division...Carry Optics/Production is Shadow 2, and every other division is dominated by some kind of 2011/1911.

All this being said I still use a Glock in carry optics because I like being able to replace every part myself, and it's a gun I would actually carry...unlike the shadow 2 or 2011/1911's.

[-]

AM-64@reddit

I mean I don't necessarily think that's true, maybe for new shooters.

Training makes a big difference even with things like safeties and learning to disengage it while drawing and decockers really only come into play when you reholster your gun. (With either the P99(on the top) or P30(on the back next to the hammer), you can hit it with your thumb on the way into the holster)

I volunteer on a church security team and we run a lot of IDPA type courses (and a couple guys on the team shoot IDPA competitively) and I frequently am #2 or #3 for times on the courses we run using my DA/SA gun vs them with their race guns or even typical striker guns. (Obviously that's anecdotal but, it shows it's possible and I don't have that much training compared to some folks)

[-]

gunsies@reddit

P30 is 💦💦💦💦💦

[-]

mreid74@reddit

Ruger P95 Decocker only for the win.

[-]

WaningWick@reddit

It's simpler, that's it.

[-]

Ok-Most-7339@reddit

and better and easier to use. More high tech

[-]

WaningWick@reddit

Thats not true. DA/SA is more modern.

First striker fired pistol was produced in 1893. First DA/SA pistol was 1908.

[-]

xqk13@reddit

Because they are simpler, cheaper, and is a smaller package so you can make the pistol more compact. Lower bore axis is also a plus

[-]

Toshinit@reddit

And lighter, which matters a lot for concealed carry.

I love my G19 and 43x, I'd never carry a 2011 even though I believe it to be a better firearm.

[-]

thehuntinggearguy@reddit

Just my opinion but:

Simplicity in carry which leads to reduce risk. There are millions of police officers: someone somewhere is going to have an ND today. Why use a decocker/safety and hammer when a Glock has none of those?

[-]

Johnny_English_MI6@reddit

Hammer back and safety on or hammer down without safety or both of those are way less likely to result in an ND than a chambered striker gun

[-]

Toshinit@reddit

They also require another step before going "bang" when they need to defend their life.

It's a middle ground for sure, but with a good holster it's not really a problem.

[-]

thehuntinggearguy@reddit

With an experienced person at the gun, I'd agree with you. But I'd argue that a lot of mil/LEO who carry a sidearm aren't very experienced with their firearms. Inexperienced people do more dumb shit when they have more levers and controls on a gun. Multiply that by a few million people and you're going to get incrementally more ND's. It'd be cool if there were a study on this and not just our opinions.

[-]

Select-Cat-5721@reddit

Simplicity. The design is one of the least complicated systems available. Easy to manufacture and easy to maintain. No gunsmiths needed.

[-]

Toshinit@reddit

There's definitely value in the ease of maintenance. First time someone showed me how to take down a 1911, I thought they might be fucking with me. It takes 15 seconds to wipe down 90% of any Striker fired handgun after going to the range.

[-]

cyber_analyst2@reddit

Tupperware 🤓

[-]

The_hammer_69420@reddit

Yes

Probably

Absolutely

[-]

cobigguy@reddit

Ease of manufacture makes them less expensive. That's really as complicated as it is.

Look at it this way, striker fire guns are regularly $500-600 from reputable manufacturers who have developed them within the past couple of decades, right?

Now look at a 1911. That's the price of a cheap copy of one that's mass manufactured, isn't all that smooth, may require some reworking to get it running properly. An "out of the box" well-running 1911 will be in the 1000-1500 range pretty easily, and the maker didn't have to account for R&D of the firearm itself because the design has been around for over 110 years and popular for 100 of them.

[-]

Johnny_English_MI6@reddit

Tisas 1911's MSRP'ing at $400 have entered the chat

[-]

YoloSwaggins991@reddit

This is more so because the Turkish Lira is basically in free fall rn. So the exchange rate between the Lira and the dollar drastically favors the dollar. They would be roughly equivalent to an ~$800 1911 if made here in the US of A.

[-]

Straight_Variation_3@reddit

Here come the downvotes:

-Cheaper to make, and cheaper to buy. (Compare a 92FS to a G17.) -Fewer controls, simpler manual of arms. (92FS/G17.) -Fewer parts. (92FS/G17.) -Easier and cheaper parts replacement. (92FS/G17.) -Huge aftermarket support. (92FS/G17.) -Lighter. (92FS/G17.) -Same trigger feel for all shots fired. (92FS/G17.) -Equivalent than hammer guns, restrike capability aside. (92FS/G17.) -Carry comfort, due to no exposed hammer. (92FS/G17.) -Huge recent military and police contracts, movies, and TV shows providing free marketing.

[-]

e7ang@reddit

Cheaper, less maintenance, easier to work with, and more reliable.

[-]

Straight_Variation_3@reddit

Wow, people dont like hearing the truth.

[-]

iBoofWholeZipsNoLube@reddit

They are cheap and the average consumer doesn't know any better

[-]

ours@reddit

Glock did wonders with their marketing convincing police, military and the public to buy their sticker fired pistols.

[-]

Toshinit@reddit

At the time it was the better firearm. There wasn’t any drop safe, double stacked, reliable firearms besides Glocks. Once they were in the door it became ubiquitous.

[-]

Strong_Dentist_7561@reddit

Browning Hi Power ?

[-]

Toshinit@reddit

The OG Hi-Power was "double stack" but still only carried 13 rounds and was a lot more expensive.

[-]

Strong_Dentist_7561@reddit

True

[-]

ours@reddit

And it's so cheap to build, with the LEO discount, it was a no-brainer.

[-]

Ok-Most-7339@reddit

everybody knows striker fired is more advanced and easier to use lmao

[-]

Terminal_Lancelot@reddit

People like easy buttons, that's it.

But, if I may say, everyone would be able to shoot basically anything well if they learned to shoot a DA revolver well.

[-]

kramsy@reddit

I always warm up at the range with my S&W 586. Makes all other handguns so much easier to shoot accurately

[-]

Flat_chested_male@reddit

I warm up with a 617 cause the ammo is cheap. Then off to the CZ 75’s and Jerichos. Screw Glock.

[-]

Terminal_Lancelot@reddit

Ah, a man of class.

[-]

DrBadGuy1073@reddit

hits 'that was easy' button

[-]

5PointsVs56@reddit

Glock marketing to people that they can't learn 2 different trigger pulls so they could sell a $200 pistol for $499 with a mediocre but consistent trigger back in the 90s and early 2000s. Don't get me wrong glocks are great and reliable but their stock triggers are mushy and leave allot to be desired.

[-]

yourboibigsmoi808@reddit

Just cheaper manufacturing

better profit margins

ease of use

It's easier to maintain and train people on a gun with fewer buttons.

DA/SA hammer fired guns have advantages over striker fired and striker fired has advantages over DA/SA hammer fired. In really depends on the end user and what they're using it for.

[-]

poisonconsultant@reddit

They are more gooder for the real world

[-]

PatriotZulu@reddit

Because there's no good reason to choose hammer fired over striker fired.

[-]

sureyeahno@reddit

1911 Syndicate pretty much did a video essay about this.

[-]

Price-x-Field@reddit

Coz I like their triggers more, not sure why just never liked hammer guns

[-]

Bovaloe@reddit

Seems like a lot of the new pistols are laying towards the carry crowd, so the extra built in safeties with striker fired is now desirable.

[-]

FRIKI-DIKI-TIKI@reddit

As well when we are talking about carry, the hammer is the most likely part of the gun to become entangled in clothing in a fast draw and depending on the design they can spur you. I carried a 1911 when I was young because it was all I had and many times I would have to adjust it due to the hammer digging in.

[-]

Strong_Dentist_7561@reddit

Need a better sweat shield 🤷

[-]

Johnny_English_MI6@reddit

Who makes striker fired safety guns aside from Sig and S&W ?

[-]

FRIKI-DIKI-TIKI@reddit

The XDM does not have an active safety lever but it does incorporate the grip safety. Personally I love the design of two passive safeties.

[-]

WestSide75@reddit

And that’s a good thing because a lot of the new striker carry guns have 4 lb triggers.

[-]

Proof_Bathroom_3902@reddit

Less moving parts, less complexity, easier disassembly.

I challenge you to disassemble a 3rd generation Smith and Wesson semi auto, then disassemble a Glock. Which goes together faster?

[-]

jchaudhry@reddit

I like both, I CC a P-01. Just love the ergos of a CZ and the mechanics of a SA/DA, but can't go wrong with a SF.

[-]

-PringlesMan-@reddit

The CZ has by far the best grips I've ever held. I really like the rubber grips because they seem to form to my hand and are just in general comfy. I have a Ka-Bar knife that has a rubber grip, and it is my most used knife for that reason alone.

Stippling can gargle my hemorrhoids. If I wanted my palm to look like it's been through a cheese grater, I'd do just that to it.

[-]

usa2a@reddit

Glock spent a lot of money and effort convincing the world that their pistols were safe with a 6 lb trigger pull and no manual safety. We now take this for granted. At the time people thought it was CRAZY to carry a gun that you just pull the trigger and shoot, if that trigger is not a mile long and 9+ lbs!

"Striker-fired" is now frequently considered a type of action distinct from single-action or double-action.

This is an unfortunate mixing of terms because the "striker-fired" part of a Glock was not the thing that made it safe. It's an implementation detail. Nor does being striker-fired exempt a gun from being DA or SA. The HK VP70 was a DA striker-fired pistol. The Luger was an SA striker-fired pistol, as was the Browning Vest Pocket and its zillion Spanish, French, German, and Italian descendants.

The Glock is in-between SA and DA, not having all attributes of either, which is probably what led to people breaking "striker fired" out into its own action type in the first place. But now many striker pistols like the P320, PDP, or VP9 have fully pre-cocked strikers and could be accurately described as single-action-only handguns. Of course unlike the old Luger, these pistols have passive safety devices. But modern hammer guns also have passive safety devices.

Anyway, people want to carry a handgun without a manual safety or decocker and without a 9lb+ DA pull on the first shot. The market likes that 5-6lb pull for each shot and simple manual of arms. You can sell that in a striker gun, and because Glock paved the way for that to be accepted as safe, the market accepts it, but only in a striker fired pistol.

If manufacturers added a pivoting trigger safety ("trigger dingus") to a Beretta 92, CZ75B, or SIG P226, and removed the decocker/safety lever, the resulting SAO design would have the same safety characteristics as any of these striker guns. But people would still be freaked out about carrying a cocked-and-unlocked hammer gun.

[-]

SeemedGood@reddit

Nice summary, but you left out H&K LEM (the optimal solution IMO).

[-]

Konstant_kurage@reddit

I don’t want to deal with a hammer. I couple HK P30’s and there’s just no reason they are in anyway better than a VP9. Not in any realistic functional way. The only reason to have a hammer fired hangin is you want the feature of SA/DA action with a decock or manual safety.

[-]

ParabolicFatality@reddit

Because an exposed hammer can be a liability, lint and things can get stuck in there. And there's no real benefit to DA/SA, nothing difficult about the trigger pull on modern striker fired pistols.

[-]

Electronic-Split-492@reddit

One minor benefit - Hammer fired can restrike the primer at full force with a DA pull. Strikers need to rack the slide to get enough energy for a second strike.

Other than that, strikers are lighter and more consistent in operation, which sells it for most folks.

[-]

Cdwollan@reddit

This is not actually a benefit for hammer fired guns.

[-]

Johnny_English_MI6@reddit

Why not?

[-]

Cdwollan@reddit

Because tap, rack, bang. If you get a click, it's far more reliable and faster to cycle the action than pull the trigger gain.

[-]

Johnny_English_MI6@reddit

How's racking the slide faster than pulling the trigger again?

[-]

Cdwollan@reddit

It's guaranteed to work. Absolutely no firearms training is telling you to double strike. Clear the malfunction and keep going.

Multi strikes are reliant on luck. There is no reason to rely on it.

[-]

AncientPublic6329@reddit

Because Glock disrupted the market and now every pistol manufacturer wants to be like Glock.

[-]

Toshinit@reddit

They yearn for the horse cum.

[-]

DrKenNoisewater3@reddit

The Spice Melange.

[-]

LaDolceVita8888@reddit

This👆

[-]

echo202L@reddit

Because DA/SA pistols require learning 2 trigger pulls, and SAO's require a manual safety. Neither is acceptable for most modern shooters when a striker fired pistol is objectively better and more affordable. The Glock singlehandedly killed DAO handguns, but I personally believe DA/SA & SAO still have a place in modern defensive shooting for those willing to learn their quirks.

[-]

WestSide75@reddit

I’d love to say that it’s because it’s easier to make striker guns with lower bore axes, but that’s not the correct answer. The correct answer is that striker guns are cheaper to make, are simpler to operate, and everybody knows Glock.

[-]

ArgieBee@reddit

They're dramatically cheaper to make and inherently more robust.

[-]

SeaFaringPig@reddit

Cost and reliability. Businesses don’t give a shit about anything else. It’s less expensive to manufacture and they are more reliable. This means increased sales, better reputation, increased profits, better for everyone. Anytime you need an answer to questions like these, follow the money. It’s only ever about money. And if people don’t like it, they just spend more on marketing to force you to like it. Welcome to the new world.

[-]

Johnny_English_MI6@reddit

And if people don’t like it, they just spend more on marketing to force you to like it.

Apple has entered the chat

[-]

Femveratu@reddit

cost

[-]

DarthMonkey212313@reddit

Lowered manufacturing cost due to less parts. Also harder for external issues to interfere with reliability. Both of which are strong marketing points.

[-]

Libido_Max@reddit

Strikerfired is reliable under frozen or mud

[-]

RevolutionaryRip2533@reddit

Isn't alot to do with the safety? No decocking..etc

[-]

gibsonstudioguitar@reddit

Striker fired pistols are always cocked.. I think that's less safe than not cocking a pistol before you stick it in your pocket

[-]

Stock_Block2130@reddit

I learned on a Glock and bought a striker fired Ruger. I never understood DA/SA with decocker or the half cocked setting until I inherited a PPK and a pre-safety Marlin carbine. They are not hard to master or make safe but you have to learn them. The PPK is an antique so I would never carry it, but the SA trigger on it (and same for the Marlin) are so light that they would be unsafe to carry cocked and ready to go. But it’s not difficult to pull the hammer back - not much more thought than moving the safety on a striker fired gun or modern rifle.

[-]

GFEIsaac@reddit

Because for self defense efficiency is important, and striker fired guns are more efficient.

[-]

Z_0_Sick@reddit

Probably for every gun but 2011s and cz75s

[-]

Joe_Gunna@reddit

I honestly don’t know. Imo da/sa is far better since a cocked trigger pull is too light to carry without a safety, but the last thing I want to do when saving my life is fucking around with a button or switch.

[-]

OzzieBoy2023@reddit

I own two CZ DA/SA guns - S2 OR & a P-01. The S2 was my first hammer gun and a great starting point from striker guns. OOB, the S2 was simply amazing and nearly a pound heavier than my H&K VP9 Match which was my striker/competition gun. Flat shooting and a silky smooth action for sure. Then, to go condition 1 for AIWB, I bought a P-01. OOB, the DA pull was above 10-lbs. Training for 5 months, I simply couldn’t get the first round off accurately. Off to CGW it went for the full Pro Package treatment. Now, I’m at 6-lbs for DA decocked and locked and 3-lbs. SA. My decision to move from my G43x (striker) to the P-01 (DA/SA) was more confidence and training. I have several amazing striker guns with smooth & light pulls. However, if I’m carrying AIWB with a 9MM aimed at my junk, under stress, I felt a lot more secure with my draw from concealment and getting a first round off accurately. Simply put, I carry both and have high confidence with both. Training and experience but - I now prefer the hammer vs striker for these reasons.

[-]

Wood_Duke75@reddit

From a police / military perspective, they are lighter, cheaper and far easier to train recruits on. Striker fired guns only have 2 conditions, chambered and ready to fire or not chambered.

Hammer guns have Chambered , hammer back Chambered , hammer down Chambered , half cock Add on complexity with DA triggers, manual safeties etc and hammer fired pistols are just not as good for active duty firearms.

Striker fired for duty, Hammer fired for comp

[-]

Carterlegacy259@reddit

Everyone in here's talking about manufacturing, but nobody's mentioned reliability yet. Hammer fired semi-autos are more prone to FTFire when they get overly dirty. Strikers, being enclosed, are more protected from dirt and grime.

[-]

TubabalikeBIGNOISE@reddit

Everyone wants to copy glock

[-]

Suckamanhwewhuuut@reddit

It’s just an upgrade in firearms technology, strikers are faster too. With some hammer fire guns you can almost feel the gap between pulling the trigger and the hammer dropping. I also think the hammer smacking the back of the firearm can cause some people to aim lower at the last second where strikers are internal and spring straight forward and back rather than up and down. Just my observations.

[-]

Gold_Distribution898@reddit

Mechanically simpler to have lower bore axis, higher beavertail, and consolidated striker components.

[-]

grizzlyit@reddit

From a gunsmiths perspective they’re easier to manufacture they take less time when half the gun is injection moulded meaning it will be cheaper and there’s less parts they also tent to weigh less ,hammers are old tech when it comes down to it ,hammers create a snag point which has always been undesirable for carry guns that’s why so many old carry revolvers had hidden hammers or people would bob the hammer , like lots of old out dated tech it gets phased out hence why SF is becoming so much more prevalent ,out dated and increased manufacturing time and cost is the death of hammer fired pistols

[-]

EntrySure1350@reddit

Easier/cheaper to manufacture. Consistent (although often crappier) trigger pulls.

Everybody wants that tuned 1911-ish trigger but with no external safeties or having to master a DA pull and deal with decocking.

[-]

Western_Ladder_3593@reddit

Less mechanically complex, more reliable, also adopted by law enforcement and mil

[-]

Galactic_Obama_@reddit

I think there's a number of reasons, mostly already covered by other commenters. But one other reason also is consumer preference. As firearm technology has evolved over time so has the likes/dislikes of gun owners. For one reason or another, many private gun owners as well as military/police entities have gravitated towards striker fired platforms over the last few decades. Gun manufacturers generally make what consumers want.

[-]

Grandemestizo@reddit

Cops don’t like manual safeties and double action/single action is overcomplicated. That pretty much leaves striker fired as the only thing most cops want and the pistol market is very cop focused.

[-]

robertva1@reddit

Cheeper to manufacturers and people like short hair trigers