TexasCHLforum.com

Glock-type striker-fired pistols are often lumped in with DAO pistols because that's the only place they fit in the lexicon unless you give them their own "striker-fired" catagory. But as many have alluded to, not all striker-fired guns are even the same. Striker-fired is merely a differentiation from hammer-fired, not necessarily a different "action". All guns have a striker or "firing pin" to use the older term. A hammer-fired gun simply puts a spring on the hammer, which is pulled back under tension either by manually cocking it or by the double-action trigger pull of guns so enabled. Striker-fired actions, by the very nature of lacking a hammer, cannot be fired in single action because there is no accessible manual cocking mechanism. These systems simply put the spring directly around the striker/firing pin, which has a small protrusion that connects to the trigger bar/sear inside the gun. So when hammer is pulled back, the trigger bar/sear pushes back on the striker increasing tension on the spring until the two parts release, slingshotting the striker toward the primer and BANG! The basic function is the same as a DAO hammer-fired gun (just pull the trigger - no other action required), thus these guns get lumped in with DAO category.

But the Glock design uses a semi-"cocked" striker that is fully cocked by the initial pull of the trigger then released when the trigger bar/sear finally disengages from the striker. A Glock system is basically "in between" true DAO and true SAO systems in feel and function. Much lighter trigger than a true DAO (like a revolver), but much longer trigger travel than a true SAO (like a 1911 or HiPower). Other striker-fired systems operate slightly differently from the Glock, as mentioned the Taurus system which adds back the second strike capability of a true DAO. But the big three striker-fired systems - Glock, Springfield XD, and Smith & Wesson M&P, all operate on a similar "semi-cocked" striker-fired action (actually big four if you include the newer Ruger SR9). XD simply adds the rear grip safety mechanism and the SR9 and M&P add at least the option of traditional thumb safety mechanism.

All of the above is a very long-winded way of saying that guns like the Ruger SR9 are a different animal entirely from traditional DAO, SAO, or DA/SA actions. IMHO, it's also a much BETTER animal, but that is obviously to be debated. Every handgun I own is either hammer-fired DAO or striker-fired DAO. I like the simplicity of draw, aim, squeeze trigger.

When firing a Glock-type pistol, I've found most traditional 1911 shooters have less trouble with the trigger than with the grip circumfrance of a double-stack gun and the grip angle, especially of a Glock - the XD and M&P are closer to 1911 angle (I haven't yet fired the SR9, but if also feels closer to 1911 grip angle).

Greybeard wrote:IIRC, the BATF may be who puts the stiriker-fired guns in the DAO category, for lack of a better category. However, the trigger reset distance can vary greatly. I believe on the SR9 it is pretty short (much like a Glock). But on the Kahrs, the trigger reset distance is similar to that of DAO revolvers.

Good point, I've heard that about BATFE too. And didn't even think of Kahrs - their triggers are so long and stiff (as you said, like a DAO revolver) that I always forget that they actually use a striker-fired system too - feels like a traditional hammer-fired DAO system, much like a Glock with the "New York style" trigger modifications.

@austinrealtor
Thanks for taking the time to type all that; I got an education.

And thanks to everybody else who participated in this thread.

Maybe they(BATF) needs a new category because to me when I see DAO, I think revolver trigger-long and relatively hard to pull.

And with all the positive comments about the SR9c that makes me want one even more.

-Cain

Greybeard wrote:I believe on the SR9 it is pretty short (much like a Glock).

Confirmed - the trigger reset is very short.

here's a youtube if you haven't seen it
Ruger SR9c vs. Smith & Wesson M&P Compact vs. Glock 26 vs. Springfield XD Compact
on the desk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MnPYkOvLFU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
at the range
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSMClxu0t6Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like the SR9c's grip and trigger, although I carry a customized Glock 26.
If I could get my laser, sights, and custom barrel into the sr9c ... I'd switch.

If anyone isn't sufficiently confused by all this yet, let me see if I can add a bit of complexity to fix that:

Most striker fired guns are not true DAO. In a true DAO design, the hammer or striker is fully moved to the rear until released by the sear allowing the hammer or striker to move forward under spring tension to strike either the primer or, in the case of some guns (e.g., Ruger double action revolvers) a firing pin located in the frame under the hammer. Here's a quick test:

Pull the trigger.

If the hammer or striker moves in a way that would fire a cartridge, pull the trigger again.

If the hammer or striker again moves in a way that would fire a cartridge again, you've got a true DAO gun in your hand (at least for the first shot - e.g., Smith & Wesson 5906). If the second trigger pull does nothing, you've got a gun that requires partial or complete cocking of the hammer or striker by movement of the slide under manual operation or recoil (e.g. the Glock).

If you're still not confused, some striker fired guns are true single actions in that the movement of the trigger does not retract the striker at all, but simply releases the sear to allow the striker (which is fully cocked by movement of the slide either manually or under recoil) to move forward and fire a cartridge. The Springfield XD is an example of this less common system.

Excaliber wrote:If anyone isn't sufficiently confused by all this yet, let me see if I can add a bit of complexity to fix that:

Most striker fired guns are not true DAO. In a true DAO design, the hammer or striker is fully moved to the rear until released by the sear allowing the hammer or striker to move forward under spring tension to strike either the primer or, in the case of some guns (e.g., Ruger double action revolvers) a firing pin located in the frame under the hammer. Here's a quick test:

Pull the trigger.

If the hammer or striker moves in a way that would fire a cartridge, pull the trigger again.

If the hammer or striker again moves in a way that would fire a cartridge again, you've got a true DAO gun in your hand (at least for the first shot - e.g., Smith & Wesson 5906). If the second trigger pull does nothing, you've got a gun that requires partial or complete cocking of the hammer or striker by movement of the slide under manual operation or recoil (e.g. the Glock).

If you're still not confused, some striker fired guns are true single actions in that the movement of the trigger does not retract the striker at all, but simply releases the sear to allow the striker (which is fully cocked by movement of the slide either manually or under recoil) to move forward and fire a cartridge. The Springfield XD is an example of this less common system.

Thanks Excaliber. That is one thing that bugs me about lumping partially cocked strikers into the DAO category - the second trigger pull. In my mind, a partially cocked striker (like Glock or SR9c) is more similar to SA than DAO - both in trigger pull and in what happens with a 'dud' round.

I wasn't aware that the XD utilized a fully cocked striker. That is interesting to me, because IMO (or as I remember it anyway), the XD has a longer trigger reset than the SR9c. You would think the reverse would be true.

CainA wrote:... or at the very least DA/SA(DA first shot all subsiquent shots SA) I want to know any opinions on how difficult the adjustment is? ...

Thanks,
-Cain

I had the same concerns when re-acquainting myself with semi-automatics after a many-year absence from them, with my only prior experience being with a Colt .45 in the military. I did buy a DA/SA pistol and have never worried about the difference in "feel" since. On a range, I have not (yet) had any problem in quick-firing subsequent shots after the initial DA heavier pull.

sawdust wrote:

CainA wrote:... or at the very least DA/SA(DA first shot all subsiquent shots SA) I want to know any opinions on how difficult the adjustment is? ...

Thanks,
-Cain

I had the same concerns when re-acquainting myself with semi-automatics after a many-year absence from them, with my only prior experience being with a Colt .45 in the military. I did buy a DA/SA pistol and have never worried about the difference in "feel" since. On a range, I have not (yet) had any problem in quick-firing subsequent shots after the initial DA heavier pull.

My agency used DA/SA Smith & Wesson pistols (5906 and 6906).

I and many of the officers disliked the system, which had a long creepy approximately 12 lb. pull for the first shot, and a relatively short but still creepy 6 or so lb. pull for subsequent ones.

The transition from DA to SA can be mastered with sufficient training, but it's one more obstacle to overcome with new shooters, and an unnecessary one at that. Some agencies using these types of guns found that the first round fired under combat conditions very often did not hit the intended target, while subsequent ones did. Some officers even advocated considering the first shot as a "throwaway" - not ideal, for sure.

When spending my own money, I avoid this headache that has no upside I can think of when better systems with good shot to shot trigger pull consistency are readily available.

I'm want to clarify that the DA/SA trigger pull isn't necessarily "cool" with me, just something I am more familiar with. At one point in time you only had the choice of 1911 style single aciton only or the DA/SA actions(in autos). Now there's an array(for lack of a better term for me at least) of 'hybrid' firing systems. I am very cool with any innovation that makes or does not make any transition from the first shot the the last, in fact, I welcome that.

-Cain