4 ms·

I do think its dumb for the army to go with these striker fired sidearms. As opposed to a double action / single action like the Beretta they used to have. The

I do think its dumb for the army to go with these striker fired sidearms. As opposed to a double action / single action like the Beretta they used to have. The benefit of striker fired is you can fire the first round a fraction of a second faster.. I wonder how many times in history has that actually mattered for a sidearm in the army. And the cops are just copying what the army went with. They do not have enough firearms training to be carrying those.

kstrauser 1y ago
I could search this up but I'd rather ask here in conversation: what's the difference between them? I'm not a totally n00b with guns: I've owned various small rifles since I was a kid and I also made it through US Navy boot camp where we shot handguns at targets. I understand the basic ideas involved. What I don't know is what single/double/striker action means here.
- everyone 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9 So for single action double action, when you first pull the trigger you are also pulling back the hammer, so the 1st trigger pull is long and hard, and then when you fire that pushes the hammer back so subsequent trigger pulls just release the hammer so they are short and easy. Striker fired pistols dont have a hammer, and basically the 1st trigger pull is just as easy as subsequent ones in a da/sa gun.. So the benefit is you can fire the 1st shot a tiny bit faster. I have no experience with guns btw, ive just watched loads of "forgotten weapons" lol
  - Zak 1y ago
    I have considerable experience with guns, and I disagree that the benefit has much to do with speed. Instead, it's easier to shoot accurately with a short, light trigger pull than a long, heavy one. It's also easier to shoot subsequent shots accurately if the trigger pull is the same between every shot. Furthermore, it's easier to teach people to operate a gun if there are fewer states it can be in where it operates differently. I haven't seen data suggesting that striker-fired pistols that aren't defective have a higher rate of inadvertent discharge than hammer-fired pistols. People had that concern when the Glock became popular, but that was 1982 and it is not a common concern now.
    - anonymousiam 1y ago
      Yes, it's more difficult to maintain aim on the target while pulling the trigger of a double-action handgun. I prefer single-action, but my daily carry is double-action. It's less likely to go off by accident.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    Most striker fired trigger pulls are long and heavy for service weapons. It's more like a DA pull vs a SA pull. The newer ones and civilian market are lighter and shorter though.
giantg2 1y ago
Over 90% of people hate DA/SA, and for good reason with the 2 different trigger pulls you have to train for. Cops have been carrying striker fired glocks for decades. Doesn't matter if it's striker fired or otherwise for the ones lacking training - fire type won't fix the training issues. The original case for striker fired was that it was drop safe, hence Glock Safe Action (even though they had discharge issues).
- everyone 1y ago
  Yeah good point. Pulling the trigger in a glock does pull back the striker a decent bit, whereas in the 320 it barely does it at all. My main point is that in the army, how many instances has there been of someone using their sidearm in combat, ever?.. I think safety should be the priority for them.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    "My main point is that in the army, how many instances has there been of someone using their sidearm in combat, ever?" Often enough that they carry the extra weight. If it wasn't useful, they wouldn't carry the weight. We can also look at history, such as why the 1911 was selected.
- philwelch 1y ago
  And to your point, one would also expect law enforcement to be more concerned than the military about the quality of their pistols. A police pistol is the primary weapon but a military pistol is more of a last resort.

kstrauser 1y ago

I could search this up but I'd rather ask here in conversation: what's the difference between them? I'm not a totally n00b with guns: I've owned various small rifles since I was a kid and I also made it through US Navy boot camp where we shot handguns at targets. I understand the basic ideas involved. What I don't know is what single/double/striker action means here.

everyone 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9 So for single action double action, when you first pull the trigger you are also pulling back the hammer, so the 1st trigger pull is long and hard, and then when you fire that pushes the hammer back so subsequent trigger pulls just release the hammer so they are short and easy. Striker fired pistols dont have a hammer, and basically the 1st trigger pull is just as easy as subsequent ones in a da/sa gun.. So the benefit is you can fire the 1st shot a tiny bit faster. I have no experience with guns btw, ive just watched loads of "forgotten weapons" lol
- Zak 1y ago
  I have considerable experience with guns, and I disagree that the benefit has much to do with speed. Instead, it's easier to shoot accurately with a short, light trigger pull than a long, heavy one. It's also easier to shoot subsequent shots accurately if the trigger pull is the same between every shot. Furthermore, it's easier to teach people to operate a gun if there are fewer states it can be in where it operates differently. I haven't seen data suggesting that striker-fired pistols that aren't defective have a higher rate of inadvertent discharge than hammer-fired pistols. People had that concern when the Glock became popular, but that was 1982 and it is not a common concern now.
  - anonymousiam 1y ago
    Yes, it's more difficult to maintain aim on the target while pulling the trigger of a double-action handgun. I prefer single-action, but my daily carry is double-action. It's less likely to go off by accident.
- giantg2 1y ago
  Most striker fired trigger pulls are long and heavy for service weapons. It's more like a DA pull vs a SA pull. The newer ones and civilian market are lighter and shorter though.

giantg2 1y ago

Over 90% of people hate DA/SA, and for good reason with the 2 different trigger pulls you have to train for. Cops have been carrying striker fired glocks for decades. Doesn't matter if it's striker fired or otherwise for the ones lacking training - fire type won't fix the training issues. The original case for striker fired was that it was drop safe, hence Glock Safe Action (even though they had discharge issues).

everyone 1y ago
Yeah good point. Pulling the trigger in a glock does pull back the striker a decent bit, whereas in the 320 it barely does it at all. My main point is that in the army, how many instances has there been of someone using their sidearm in combat, ever?.. I think safety should be the priority for them.
- giantg2 1y ago
  "My main point is that in the army, how many instances has there been of someone using their sidearm in combat, ever?" Often enough that they carry the extra weight. If it wasn't useful, they wouldn't carry the weight. We can also look at history, such as why the 1911 was selected.
philwelch 1y ago
And to your point, one would also expect law enforcement to be more concerned than the military about the quality of their pistols. A police pistol is the primary weapon but a military pistol is more of a last resort.