Someone said Hammer-fired guns are more accurate than Striker-fired guns

[SoberPoster]

Someone said Hammer-fired guns are more accurate than Striker-fired guns

Just can't believe it; ANYONE collaborate or disprove that??
This other person said the action of the hammer going forward "counter-acts" upward barrel movement for better accuracy (really???)

I just don't believe it; BUT does anyone have any real data / experience on this issue???!!!

THANKS

Read More

 

[Joe13]

You can tell them they are officially an idiot.


The hammer has nothing to do with it and some people shoot striker fired guns better then one's with a hammer.

A DA/SA hammered gun IMO is easier to place shots because of the lesser resistance when your shooing it in SA.

The hammer has already fallen and hit the firing pin BEFORE the gun fires so there is no "counter action" helping with recoil, that's what porting barrels and muzzle brakes do.

Hope that helped

 

[308]

'Someone' is smoking crak

 

[edslhead]

Could be true. My 10" XVR is way more accurate than my CM9

 

[orygun]

[QUOTE="Joe13, post: 1440525, member:

The hammer has already fallen and hit the firing pin BEFORE the gun fires[/QUOTE]

What he said!
One other thing, not really applied to semi-automatic handguns, is the long hammer travel time of a single action revolver (lock time). Often the sights are on target when the trigger is pulled, but can be off target by the time the hammer fires the cartridge.
I don't think this is much of an issue in a semi-automatic.
I would assume that one of the reasons for the statement that "hammer guns are more accurate than striker guns" is that many striker guns have a pretty poor trigger when compared to something like a 1911, especially a "tuned" 1911.

Still, I say the statement has no basis in fact.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Are you sure that he is not confusing SA pistols with DAO pistols? Otherwise, that makes no sense at all!

 

[brentb636]

The only way it makes any sense is to make it a personal preference issue. I shoot hammer fired guns much better than my only striker fired gun . The only striker gun I own is a PM9 , chosen for it's long but manageable trigger, which I consider a safe option for carry. I shoot my Colt Defenders ( 9mm & 45 ACP) MUCH better , because of the sweet trigger and fit to my hand. It's definitely an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[Member 5605]

Ummmm.

Somebody been smoking too much marijuana.

 

[Mark W.]

Someone has said every stupid thing ever said. And a few smart things. Just the way it is.

 

[The B]

Single action autos with their lighter trigger pull... You could make an argument for that. But not really.

 

[Larrytpdx]

Naaahhhh

 

[The B]

The pistol that will shoot best is the pistol you train most with. For some dudes thats 1911, or Glock, or even revolvers (which i cant shoot for bubblegum)

 

[The B]

But speaking of revolvers... And their hammers... Is maybe this what hes talking about? From a pure precision standpoint, revolvers can be quite a bit more precise than autos, since the barrel is fixed and theres no slide action.

But the difference is only going to be noticed by the absolute most accurate shooters in the most controlled environment. Definitely not anything thats going to overcome the numerous downsides - trigger pull in double-action/ability to rapidly fire.. Plus ammo capacity and reload speed, and a bunch of others.

Revolvers, erroneously known for their simplicity in design (people confuse use with design, with guns), is a pretty complicated device mechanically.. Especially as conpared to, say, any Glock. Something like 25 parts compared to over 80

 

[Joe13]

The pistol that will shoot best is the pistol you train most with. For some dudes thats 1911, or Glock, or even revolvers (which i cant shoot for bubblegum)

Maybe...

That line may be a little blurry to us poe folks.

Out of all my handguns I am the most accurate consistently with my 6" gp100. Except for the fact that the ammo is about 50¢ a shot I would shoot it all the time.

My CC's (9mm & .22lr) both get shot much more often and I am a fair shot with either but ammo is over half the price easily and that is the deciding factor for me, not that I need more practice with my CC guns but because I can more readily afford to shoot them.

 

[BlindedByScience]

Put on a Ransom Rest, I think you'll most certainly find differences in pistol accuracy. Barrels are probably the most influential component; I can't imagine how the firing pin gets smacked (or released, as the case may be) makes any difference at all. In my hands, the most accurate pistol in my safe is my three decade old Ruger Redhawk in .44 Mag. In the hands of my youngest son, the G21 is capable of some pretty amazing groups, better than I can manage. But, to make the blanket statement that a striker fired gun is inherently less accurate than a revolver.....not buying that one.

 

[Joe13]

I always found that any firearm was more accurate when in my Father's hand/s.

Nice.

After starting to learn from my grandfather at 4 years old, I could out shoot him and my dad by the age of 8. We spent a lot of time in the summers practicing - thanks Papa.

Since then, a vast majority of people I take shooting have not been anywhere near my abilities and I found I was becoming lazy and missing on purpose sometimes to keep the other shooter/s from feeling like they sucked.

Now that I have found this forum and met some folks here, I have had a few very fun shoots where I was not the cock of the block and that to me makes for more fun trying harder.

 

[SynapticSilence]

Physics, when attempted by those of lesser intellectual capacity, can be a terribly confusing and terrifying thing. If what the person hypothesized were actually the case, the old thing you saw in movies where people sort of snap their wrist downwards when letting off a round would inevitably result in increased accuracy over those people who shoot with a steady two hand grip.

 

[bbbass]

Well, it certainly Depends. When held in the limp-wristed grip of a lily-livered ringtail cat of a hooman, the size of the hammer may have sum impact. The heavier hammer of say, the S&W .460XVR, applies it's inertia to the rotational vector of (arc)bs2. This momentum is then transfered through the transfer bar to the barrell in a downward motion, partially compensating for the rise of 12" that such shooter may typically experience, whereas and therefore, a striker travels straight back and straight forward, expelling the bullet as a direct result of the impingement to the blaster cap thingy, in a straight line, leaving the weapon more prone to the excess movement of sight wanderment and flinch responce.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

I'm confident that the theory is >98% what we call hay after the horse is done with it.

 

[Pops1911]

Sometimes it is the arrow and not the NDN?