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.
|