Hammer, striker or don’t care?

[Wondering Beard]

I began with a Glock 19 in the late 80s, If I ever end up in a "from my cold dead hands" place, it will probably be with a Glock 19.

Nothing against anything else, what works, works.

[TheNewbie]

Prefer a hammer. A hammer/manual safety combo like on the Hi-Power would be neat.

Would like a great manual safety on a Glock but that’s not going to happen. The SCD and NY1 combo work decently for a shootable and safe gun.

[CSW]

Hammer please.
1911 commander. 9mm
92 Centurion. 9mm
3" revolver. 38sp.

Had many Glocks, and the M&P 2.0. Walther p99. XD9.

Out of all the strikers, I liked the G26 and a 4" XD9 the best.

[the Schwartz]

Have both.
Like both.
Not sure if that means that I do care or don't since I don't care if I do. Or don't.

[JHC]

Voted don't care but there's a caveat. I am not inclined to own a fully tensioned striker fired design. I could imagine doing so with a very well executed thumb safety.

[JonInWA]

I have all of the above. I like examples of all of the above. For a duty gun with threat management likely to be in the equation, I'm inclined to go with a DAO or LEM (Beretta 92D ir HK P30L V1.5 LEM).

Generally, if I'm T & E'ing a gun or component(s), I'll use that gun in all of my use venues (EDC, competition, duty, home defense).

If I'm inaccurate with, or don't trust a gun, it goes away.

Best, Jon

[UpDok]

I greatly prefer hammer, specially HK's LEM, but I carry a striker. I guess I'm just a slave to fate

[Doc_Glock]

Don’t care. But lean Striker I like the lower bore axis they allow. And they seem just less likely to catch on things in the environment. Not to mention simplicity of build and function.

The results of this poll tell me that Hammer guys -really- like hammers. And striker folks are kind of agnostic.

Strikers and DAO for me.

[JohnO]

If it has a trigger and goes Bang I'm not concerned about how it happens.

[LockedBreech]

I learned on hammer, I have the most rounds on hammer, I think hammer is generally more reliable setting off hard primers, and that hammer generally has a safety advantage.

However, all of my serious guns are strikers now. Whatever my subjective feelings are, the range doesn't lie and I shoot strikers better.

To clarify, once my Beretta 92s or my CZ-75BD are in single-action mode I shoot them as well or better than my striker guns, but those first two shots, the dreaded DA/SA transition, are reliably less accurate for me than the first two shots with a striker. I try not to live my life based on statistics, but it feels intuitively that those first two shots could be the most critical ones in a self-defense encounter.

Though that wasn't actually what drew me to go full strikers. The fact of the matter is that there just is not an all-sizes, same platform solution for hammer guns like there is for Glocks or M&Ps. Plenty of full sizes and compacts but the subcompact hammer world just isn't really there. I wanted a consistent variety of trigger across range/home defense, heavy conceal, and light conceal. It pays dividends, too. I went to the range with my Glock 17 after a shamefully long training lapse and I was nailing 4-5 consecutive dueling tree shots at 25 yards by the end of the first magazine. Striker triggers will never have the finesse in my hands that a 92 trigger or 75 trigger can have, but it seems much easier to remember how to ride the bike, so to speak.

I must credit at least some of that Glock 17 range success to the notably improved barrel of the Gen 5 17. I can be good with my Gen 4 17, but I can be great with my Gen 5.