Hammer and Striker Trigger Pulls

[Bergeron]

I recently got my Glocks back from a bout of custom work, and was comparing them to my new-to-me Beretta 92D with the NP3 TJIAB. The Beretta trigger pull is much cleaner, absent any of the staginess in the Glock triggers. The Glocks have SSVI triggers and Gadgets. It got me thinking.

I am in no way a firearms designer, so my question is laced with my ignorance. It appears to be common knowledge that hammer fired pistols will have superior trigger pulls than striker fired pistols. This doesn’t appear to translate into long guns. Remington 700s are striker fired, while ARs are hammer guns. I’ve even heard it suggested that the additional motion and vibration of the AR’s hammer is what keeps it ever-so-slightly less accurate than striker bolt guns.

Are there fundamental differences in fire control design between long guns and handguns that keeps striker guns on a lower rung of trigger quality?

[JBP55]

I recently got my Glocks back from a bout of custom work, and was comparing them to my new-to-me Beretta 92D with the NP3 TJIAB. The Beretta trigger pull is much cleaner, absent any of the staginess in the Glock triggers. The Glocks have SSVI triggers and Gadgets. It got me thinking.

I am in no way a firearms designer, so my question is laced with my ignorance. It appears to be common knowledge that hammer fired pistols will have superior trigger pulls than striker fired pistols. This doesn’t appear to translate into long guns. Remington 700s are striker fired, while ARs are hammer guns. I’ve even heard it suggested that the additional motion and vibration of the AR’s hammer is what keeps it ever-so-slightly less accurate than striker bolt guns.

Are there fundamental differences in fire control design between long guns and handguns that keeps striker guns on a lower rung of trigger quality?

Trigger pull weight on your Beretta and Glocks?

[Bergeron]

Trigger pull weight on your Beretta and Glocks?

Uhhhh, good question, and I apologize for not having a good answer. I don't have a trigger gauge on me, so it would be only a guess. The Glocks are stock fire control but for the Gadgets and triggers, and the Beretta has all the NP3 TJIAB components. The Glock triggers are only slightly (maybe 1.5 or 2.5 lbs) lighter than the Beretta. The Glocks have some staginess about them, while the Beretta has zero. The Beretta, being a D, has a much longer pull.

I'm mainly thinking about staginess and vagueness in the respective triggers, and wondering what can be addressed in design and what is unavoidably instrinsic.

[Pistol Pete 10]

There is a big difference between a Rem. 700 trigger pull and a Glock trigger pull. the 700 is fully cocked, closely fitted precision parts. The Glock is partially cocked, the trigger pull finishes cocking and releases the striker, the trigger assembly is plastic and stamped parts, the connector is a stamped part, all stuck in a hunk of plastic. It's amazing the Glock trigger is as good as it is, very crudely made but works fine.

[BobRockefeller]

Are there fundamental differences in fire control design between long guns and handguns that keeps striker guns on a lower rung of trigger quality?

As I look at it, it's the (often) plastic triggers, stamped trigger bars, and very basic MIM sears of the striker pistols vs. steel (usually) triggers, polished trigger bars, and machined/polished sears of the hammer guns.

[MistWolf]

The trigger pull has nothing to do with the firearm having a striker or hammer ignition system. It has everything to do with sear engagement, angles, etc. of the trigger.

Glocks would have triggers that are partially cocked with long sear engagements (creep), stacking (pull weight increases with travel) and long reset, whether they were striker or hammer fired because it's designed that way.

The trigger of the military Mauser is a two stage trigger. It has a long sear engagement to prevent it firing from rough handling. The final break is long and kinda rolls. The trigger of the M1 Garand has the same kind of trigger pull as the military Mauser. The Mauser is striker fired. The Garand is hammer fired.

Colt DA revolver triggers were known for stacking. The VP70z has a DA trigger that stacks. The Colt revolver is hammer fired. The VP70z trigger is striker fired.

The HK LEM trigger is a partially cocked hammer fired handgun. The Glock a partially fired striker fired.

As you can see, how the trigger feels has little to do with the ignition system.

Glocks are designed to be completely drop safe. Unless something is not to factory spec through wear, damage or modification, a Glock will not fire nor will it release the striker when dropped, thrown, kicked, hit by IED or flung from a hovering helicopter. All of that results in an excellent combat trigger. But it means the trigger pull is going to be less than ideal.

The trigger of the Beretta is smoother than the Glock because of its sear engagements etc., not because it has a hammer.

[Bergeron]

I appreciate the replies!

Is it simply a matter of cost keeping top-quality trigger pulls from striker guns? I get that Glock is going for a price point and that most other striker guns are too.

I remember the Hudson H9 claims of trigger quality, but I didn’t read much feedback to affirm them. Are there striker centerfire pistols with exceptionally clean triggers that I’m not aware of?

[45dotACP]

I occasionally shoot a M&P with an Apex forward set sear and flat trigger. It is an exceptionally short and light trigger. Probably about 3.5lbs or so. Much easier to shoot accurately than a Glock for me.

There's no way I'd carry this set-up in a non thumb safety M&P though.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[BobRockefeller]

The trigger pull has nothing to do with the firearm having a striker or hammer ignition system. It has everything to do with sear engagement, angles, etc. of the trigger.

Glocks would have triggers that are partially cocked with long sear engagements (creep), stacking (pull weight increases with travel) and long reset, whether they were striker or hammer fired because it's designed that way.

The trigger of the military Mauser is a two stage trigger. It has a long sear engagement to prevent it firing from rough handling. The final break is long and kinda rolls. The trigger of the M1 Garand has the same kind of trigger pull as the military Mauser. The Mauser is striker fired. The Garand is hammer fired.

Colt DA revolver triggers were known for stacking. The VP70z has a DA trigger that stacks. The Colt revolver is hammer fired. The VP70z trigger is striker fired.

The HK LEM trigger is a partially cocked hammer fired handgun. The Glock a partially fired striker fired.

As you can see, how the trigger feels has little to do with the ignition system.

Glocks are designed to be completely drop safe. Unless something is not to factory spec through wear, damage or modification, a Glock will not fire nor will it release the striker when dropped, thrown, kicked, hit by IED or flung from a hovering helicopter. All of that results in an excellent combat trigger. But it means the trigger pull is going to be less than ideal.

The trigger of the Beretta is smoother than the Glock because of its sear engagements etc., not because it has a hammer.

I can't disagree with anything here. But I would elaborate by saying that you can screw up the design or implementation of a hammer trigger system, while it it much harder to create a nice striker trigger system. As evidence, I would suggest that most hammer fired pistols, especially with a modest trigger job, can be quite "good" (limited, or no, creep; crisp release); striker system with a trigger job with often have to sacrifice safety and/or reliability to get to something "good."

Hammers don't generally have long sear engagements; strikers don't generally have short ones. Hammers generally have easily polished trigger system components; strikers generally have stamped and MIM with little, or no, factory polishing.

So there can be bad hammer trigger systems or good striker systems. But on the whole, you'll usually get a better hammer system out of the box than a striker.

[MistWolf]

...there can be bad hammer trigger systems or good striker systems. But on the whole, you'll usually get a better hammer system out of the box than a striker.

That's because striker fired pistols are self loaders. Long sear engagements are necessary to prevent sear bounce from rough handling releasing the striker and to prevent doubling. That's why the M1 Garand, M14 and the AR family of weapons have long sear engagements that translates into either creep or the first stage on a two stage trigger although all three have hammers.

You'll notice that very crisp triggers with little creep and over travel can easily be fitted to a bolt action rifle which are, of course, striker fired. As a bolt action is manually operated, there is no doubling. The only issue with such short sear engagements is firing from rough handling or, if the sear engagement is adjusted too short, firing when the bolt is worked.

Traditionally, most experienced shooters feel the trigger of a good bolt action has a better feel than the trigger of a hammer fired firearm, such as a lever action rifle.

A striker fired pistol with a good, crisp two stage trigger out of the box is a PPQ.

[spinmove_]

Is it simply a matter of cost keeping top-quality trigger pulls from striker guns? I get that Glock is going for a price point and that most other striker guns are too.


No, it’s literally down to the design of sear engagement. The Walther PPQ has arguably one of the best striker triggers on the market. It costs roughly as much as its Glock counterparts. I believe a striker trigger can be made to be as good as the best hammer triggers. I believe a hammer trigger can be made to be as bad as the worst striker triggers. It comes down to the geometry of the surfaces in question, the design of the trigger system in general, and how much tolerance stacking is in play.

There probably is a way to make a Glock trigger far better. You’d just have to completely redesign in and use better materials. At that point though it would be a far cry from what it currently is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk