Restrike or Not Restrike?

[Abraham]

I read an article in the most recent issue of "Guns and Ammo" magazine discussing restriker semi-auto pistols (heck, I didn't know they existed with striker fired pistols) and those that require tap, rack like a Glock.

My question: Would you want a pistol with a restrike function or not?

If you would, why?

If you wouldn't, why not?

Thanks!

[Captain Matt]

If a round fails to fire the first time the primer is hit, what's the chance it will fire if you hit the primer again?

If you think the chance is low, second strike capability isn't necessary. Your immediate action is to get rid of the bad round and go from there.

If you think banging on the primer again will probably make the round go bang, then second strike capability is useful in that case. If your immediate action is to press the trigger again, maybe a DAO or DA/SA handgun is best for you.

[Abraham]

Captain Matt,

Not asking because I need to make a decision on which way to go as I have all the pistols I need - just curious what the various opinions are one way or the other on these two striker fired options...

Thanks!

[Salty1]

I like the second strike capability, my Sig 250 has it and a few times the ammo had a hard primer and the second strike lit it off. That avoids the slap, rack bang drill. It is one of those nice "features" although that is not part of the criteria when I look for a new handgun.

[joe817]

I barely have a functioning knowledge of a 'striker fired' gun. I've always relied on a pistol where I could see the hammer. When I tripped the trigger, and it didn't fire, rack the slide immediately, and continue on.

It seems like on a striker fired pistol, if it doesn't fire the first time, and you have the ability to pull it again, what happens when it doesn't fire the 2nd time you pull it? Rack the slide and try another round? Seems like there's a pretty good time delay there. When you're on the range, that's ok. But when things are tense, ANY delay in time may result in a very bad day for you.

Just my opinion.

[Jumping Frog]

I'd either want 100% of my carry guns to have second strike, or 100% of my carry guns to not have second strike.

What I do not want is some of this and some of that, because I want to train to handle a failure to fire the exact same way every time regardless of the gun for the day.

With that premise in mind, I already carry 1911's and M&P's. Neither have second strike. Therefore, even if I picked up a second strike gun, I am still going to do the standard malfunction drill (tap, rack, bang) and ignore the second strike.

[remington79]

I'd have to say that a restrike requirement isn't necessary. It is more important to go straight to your immediate action drill. In this day and age in most cases if a round doesn't fire its probably because of a malfunction that needs clearing or you are out of ammo. I feel that trying to restrike may be detrimental. In a high stress situation you might end up trying to pull the trigger over and over by default.

[bmwrdr]

Neither striker fired nor SA only guns I am aware of have a 2nd strike capability. I agree with the statement to go either way. It is just a question of personal preference and proper training.
From personal experience I prefer 2nd strike capability, especially with low cost ammo. I experienced several cases where a round does not go of on the first strike but it was always with inexpensive ammo. I have not had an issue with high quality ammo stored correctly in a dry environment. Besides that I discharge amd replace my carry ammo on a regular schedule or when it gets wet.
I remember also several posts from other fellows about this topic. Some say it is a must and there are even some saying a revolver is the best in terms of reliability including the 2nd strike capability with another round.