Concealed hammer/Striker-fired vs. the traditional exposed hammer
 

Which firing mechanism for pistols do you guys think and/or know is most desired by operators, the concealed hammer/striker-fired systems or the traditional exposed hammer system?

It really depends on the operator. Exposed hammer gives you a single action as well as double action for guns. Striker fire doesn't have a hammer for you to worry about and it's typically the most easy to use

Hammers have better ignition for hard primers found on a lot of military ammo and can double strike. With good ammo like local manufatcure strikers are more than enough so LE loves them. I prefer a hammer DA/SA gun, but strikers aint bad, they just usually suck out of the box and need some work.

I kind of had a feeling that the exposed hammer system was more robust. By the way I personally prefer the exposed hammer DA/SA system in handguns myself. :D Thinks for the swift input guys. :) Anyone else is free to share their opinions/experiences.

Striker sounds like the better option if you're doing something that mandates concealment; it means one less thing to snag when you draw.

Of course, I say that as the one person on the boards who's never touched a live firearm before. I've handled de-ac's, but not live ones.

I have some more elaboration. Just because a gun has an exposed spur hammer doesn't mean it's double action, so second strike is not always going to be possible. In the case of a failed primer with a striker fired automatic pistol versus a single action automatic pistol, like a Glock and 1911 for example, your approaches to the problem are different. Both can be overcome by what is referred to as a tap-rack-bang drill, where one smacks the magazine on the bottom of the gun, racks the bad round out of the chamber, putting a new one in, and proceeds to fire. That's all you can do with a striker fired gun if the round fails, even if the primer merely needs to be struck again. On a single action with a hammer however, you can do that or try your luck with the round again by manually cocking the hammer. It's not as fast as just pulling the trigger again wtih a double action gun, but it's an extra option above what a striker fired pistol offers. Generally speaking though, tap-rack-bang is usually what one should do in the event of a dud round, because you don't know if it's a failed primer and it's better to just go to another round than to try your luck again with one that you know has already failed. This is one reason why second strike isn't a great argument for double action pistols anymore.

More specifically, on the subject of carry guns, most companies nowadays make a striker fired handgun or a double action only handgun with a shrouded hammer. No spurred hammer means, as one poster said, less propensity to snag upon draw, and it's also an easier gun for novices to learn to shoot as there are less controls. The simpler striker and DAO trigger mechanisms also facilitate ease of use. This is obviously not a point of contention for operators, as they don't generally worry about concealment, but I think this is where most of the shrouded vs. exposed argument stems from and so it should be here. Generally though, a military operator will use whatever he likes and is permitted to use. People will say "he'd use a Glock cause it has less doodads and is as reliable as the sun" but then this goes back into what the best gun in the world is moreso than what is best suited for war. Additionally, guns with shrouded hammers by design usually have "worse" triggers than those with traditional triggers. The pull is lighter than that on a double action but long and perhaps mushy, as opposed to being a crisp snap with less or no mush on an adequate single or double action trigger.

Overall though, neither is better than either in a blanket sort of way, it's an individual matter. I prefer exposed hammers as I enjoy learning controls of various firearms and I like being able to go single action on guns with double action triggers. This is not say what an operator needs for their job, or what a competitive shooter needs to shoot targets insanely fast an accurately, but it's something I like based on my preferences. If I were in the military and I could pick my sidearm, I would focus on what I like in terms of function and what shoots best more than what kind of hammer it has.

I see. I never bought into the whole "second strike" thing, if your gun don't go bang always do the tap, rack, bang. I've been drilling tap, rack, bang since I was 15. Anyway, I was mainly trying to figure out if the striker-fired system would phase out the external hammer system in the near future or not.

I like second strike, were actually taught squeeze tap rack squeeze. Under stress unless you are a heavily practiced and experienced shooter you will probably pull the trigger again. And i can double strike one handed, i cant tap rack bang one handed.

I see what you mean and I totally agree, I will reconsider the second strike option. :)

Even if you will default to pulling the trigger again (which is about training, I've personally never pulled the trigger again after my gun has failed to go bang except in the case of revolvers where the round is different), there's the chance that the bullet doesn't need a second strike and is just a dud, so the second strike is a potential waste of time. You just can't trust a bullet that fails to go off, and ultimately it makes more sense to just get the bullet out of the chamber as fast as you can, and a fresh round in, a fresh chance at a bang, than to fiddle with a round you know has failed to work. just as well the second strike pull will be a double action pull and under stress after having probably done several single action pulls you may throw your shot off. That is the logic for the argument against second strike and I think it better than the argument in favor of it. You'll theoretically spend less time getting your gun in working order and that is what is important.

As for one handed use, again, if the round is bad, it's bad, and how many hands you're using won't help that, and you will be screwed if you only have one hand to use and the round fails to go off completely, so that point is sort of moot. and to be completely technical, it is possible to cock a gun one handed if you know what you're doing, but I will say (just as naturally second striking is) that it's a stretch someone will do that.

Isn't the statistic that the round goes off over 80% of the time on a second strike? Id say that is a big help, especially for 1 handed use, how many times have you at the range practiced one handed shooting knowing that you may be injured or have the arm occupied and not be able to use both?

I'll put it on the record though, second strike is not a dealbreaker for me, id use a sao or striker gun any day and feel just as safe, the only rounds ive had FTF have been rimfire.

I think I was being a little too optimistic when I made my last post. :o I'm sorry but I have to agree with Yournamehere's side of the argument. :\

I'll ad din that even though some people may be able to train on tap rack bang to the point they are proficent and it is second nature not everyone having to use a gun is a gun person, a military member or police officer that fires twice a year for qualification could be saved by a double strike. However, as i've said, double strike isn't necessary, just nice.

BTW I know how to reload and rack the slide of a pistol with one hand. You put the pistol between your thighs with the mag-well forward, you insert a mag with your remaining hand, and then you take the pistol and catch the the slide or rear sight on your pants or belt and rack the slide. Boom, you just reloaded your auto-pistol and are back in action, and all with one hand.

double striking only takes a quarter second and then you can do all that muzzle sweeping yourself stuff.

But what if the time I spend trying to fire the pistol a second time, instead of taking cover and clearing the malfunction, I get a bullet through the eye. :/

what if you get hit during the 2 seconds it takes to tap rack bang instead of the quarter second to pull the trigger again?

I'd rather have the ability to strike a bullet a second time than not, I'll agree with that sentiment, but in the event of a real issue, granted both my arms are working, I'd sooner jack the bad round out than try it again. And I'd like a citation for your statistic as well for the sake of your argument as well as my own benefit. I've had a handful of cases where a round would still not go off after 2-3 strikes, and I believe I had one decide to go off on a second strike, but I don't recall that clearly. For the most part though I still don't think you can trust a dud and you'd do better to get a fresh round in your gun.

I can actually vouch for this being completely doable for ejecting a bad round. My buddy demonstrated something similar to this this a few times with his CZ P-01, though he moved the slide on the rear of his shoe in a kneeling stance instead of his belt, as it is a harder surface and makes things easier. No, it's not as fast as double striking, but it's doable and it rids you of your failed round.

The main point though is that double striking is only good if you trust the dud round to go off. I personally can't do that and I don't think anyone should. You might as well trust a gun that is prone to jamming if you're to trust a bullet that you know has failed.

Exactly, I will not trust a round that did not go off with the first strike.

That's a really good idea, *emulates it onto my system*. ;)

Striker fired guns have less lock time than one with a hammer, one less thing to snag on, and they are more simple.

And almost none of them have as nice of a trigger pull.