Some recent threads motivated this thought process and I figured this is one of the best places to get some good info. Its abundantly clear that as times have changed, so have firearm preferences. This year saw the adoption of the Sig P320 as the next US Military sidearm, ending a 116 year period of using hammer fired sidearms as the "official" sidearm. I'm not much one for nostalgia, but I do find the trend interesting. It's clear that the market demand for striker fired guns is at an all time high, with CZ, Beretta and FN introducing new models in the past 6 months alone. We also have Sig, Walther, HK, Canik, Steyr, Ruger, Remington, (insert favorite brand here) that have all introduced their ideal version of the "Glock killer" striker fired handgun.
I'm curious how many of you on here carry and prefer to shoot hammer fired guns? I'm not limiting this to one category; it could be a 1911, a DA/SA (any brand), HK LEM, whatever. If you do carry a hammer fired gun, regardless of what it is, I'd be curious to hear your specific reasons why.
On the same token, if you carry a striker fired gun, regardless of brand, I'd also like to hear why as opposed to a DA/SA or 1911. I'd like to leave "fanboy-ism" out of this thread if possible.
If all you've ever shot is striker fired guns and have never tried a hammer fired gun please post up as well.
I personally grew up shooting Glocks, and I began seriously training about 4 years ago. I dipped my feet into DA/SA Berettas, and now they are my primary carry. I still own Glocks, but prefer a hammer gun for day-to-day carry and competitive shooting. I like the extra safety margin I have with the long DA first shot, and I like how every shot after that is a nice, crisp SA break. I like thumbing the hammer as I reholster (I carry appendix). I incorporate the press-out into my draw and like that I can be more aggressive with my DA first shot as I have a longer trigger travel, as opposed to a striker fired gun. Those are my reasons and I'd like to hear yours.
