close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Why Does The U.S. Military Choose Hammer Fired Sidearms?

Discussion in 'General Firearms Forum' started by Restless28, May 25, 2012.

  1. Why does the military choose hammer fired sidearms over striker fired ones? From the 1911 to the M9, and before that, revolvers, it seems that the hammer guns are preferred.

    On the flip side, it seems that most LE agencies choose striker fire sidearms.
     
  2. Fred Hansen

    Fred Hansen Liberal Bane

    12,194
    3,189
    May 19, 2005
    Because of the nonsense idea of "re-strike" capability.
     


  3. After 100 years, they still believe in "nonsense"? I don't get it.
     
  4. The Glock did not meet the specification of the M9 trails back in the early 80's if I remember correctly.

    Why do most Law Enforcement agencies use Glock? The Price. $357.00 each before trading in the departments old guns. After trade in of about $200.00 to $225.00 the department price is about $150.00 per gun.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  5. Kyle M.

    Kyle M.

    216
    0
    May 14, 2012
    Bucyrus OH
    My local pd issues the S&W 4006 even though it is discontinued. They also have a list if approved sidearms you can carry. I personally have no idea what is on the list.
     
  6. FLIPPER 348

    FLIPPER 348 Happy Member

    22,935
    3,120
    Oct 7, 2000
    Bend Oregon


    In a combat situation it is far from nonsense
     
  7. faawrenchbndr

    faawrenchbndr DirtyThirty fan CLM

    36,125
    483
    Nov 24, 2005
    Troy
    Military weapon speculation from a civilian,.........sounds like a Politician. :faint:
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  8. Bob Hafler

    Bob Hafler

    1,205
    1
    Sep 13, 2011
    I would say because it is a proven fact that there safe and it works, and has been doing so for a long time. We are not the only military that uses hammer fired pistols. Many Leo's and military in Europe use CZ's,Beretta's and other hammer fired pistols. I had no objection to the 1911 when I served. I'm not in the military anymore and I don't claim to think I know more than they do about what works best for them. So whatever they choose is fine with me. Just so long as it's not a piece of crap like the original M16.
     
  9. faawrenchbndr

    faawrenchbndr DirtyThirty fan CLM

    36,125
    483
    Nov 24, 2005
    Troy
    The original M16 design was solid. The Politicians & bean counters
    are what screwed it up. Not to mention the Army not properly
    training & equipping Soldiers with cleaning kits.
     
  10. Bruce M

    Bruce M

    40,378
    11,345
    Jan 3, 2010
    S FL
    I do not know wy they pick what they choose now, but I am guessing when they picked revolvers with hammers it was because there was a relative scarcity of striker-fired revolvers.
     
  11. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    This is a joke, right?

    Do your research. There were no striker fired revolvers to compete against t he SAA and still none when they used the DAs

    There were IIR 2 striker fired Autos in the trials that led to the adoption of the 1911. Both eeither failed, or were too expensive or both.

    Look at the Small arms program that led to the M-9, How many striker-fired pistols were in the program and how any completed the trials? There was a lean "preference expressed" for a hammer fired but not just for second strike but also as a safety factor and the ability to see from across an arms room that someone had a cocked weapon for instance. But none the less the Bretta design finished best in the tests.

    Striker fired guns weren't that common even when the M-9 was chosen and unlike LEA and civillians the military doesn't jump on every new and shiny bandwagon that comes along. That would the really gain of use to a large program by changing platforms to shoot the same round they are shooting now?
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  12. CAcop

    CAcop

    19,991
    2,593
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    I had always thought hammer fired guns can pop hard primers more frequently.
     
  13. hsprincipal

    hsprincipal

    1,047
    34
    Nov 19, 2011
    Kentucky
    Why does it matter? They test them and choose what they think is best. We are still undefeated, so our weapons must be working. Right? God Bless the USA.....
     
  14. IME, and I participated in an RFI/RFP/Purchasing decision for a major PD as an outside consultant, competitors will come in within $25-$50 per pistol of each other and, at least in our case, training (both officers and armorers) and other after-buy support capabilities and commitment (spares, factory repair, parts, etc.) are the primary separators among the finalists who meet all the other criteria (reliability testing; man-weapon interface, i.e., ease-of-use; range tests, officer input, corrosion resistance, etc.).

    Most departments are going to try to get at least 3-4 manufacturers into the competition initially to satisfy oversite committees (and paid consultants :thumbsup:).
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  15. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012

    You are aware that our guns have to be able to use all NATO spec ammo from other countries and that other Countries tend to use harder primers because of their use of submachine gunes? AFAIK even the vaunted Glock has not received NATO approval yet while hammer fired CZs have.

    Your standard of "nonesense" doesn't seem to apply to the rest of the world.
     
  16. TSAX

    TSAX USAF Vet

    10,162
    7
    Jun 5, 2010
    When I was in I never got into the whole debate/discussion, I watched many people argue this. I will say the M9 is a solid gun and the M11 (Sig P228) was great. They made a good choice, whatever the reason was and this is coming from a guy who is not a fan of the Beretta, that I carried for several years on duty and as an armorer. Would I have liked to see a Glock as the primary, sure but if I saw an M&P, HK, XD/XDM I would be happy as well.

    And at least it wasn't a Taurus :whistling:







    :50cal:
     
  17. Glock G17s (1005/17/144/3969) and G19s (1005/66/132/7731) both have carried NATO stock numbers for quite some time and are standard issue for several NATO militaries.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  18. SPIN2010

    SPIN2010 Searching ...

    1,781
    1
    Mar 14, 2010
    On the move ... again!

    Fact, right there. :cool:
     
  19. fnfalman

    fnfalman Chicks Dig It

    50,946
    3,482
    Oct 23, 2000
    California & New Mexico, US
    The HK P7M13 was made to compete in the XM9 trial (second trial). It was and is a striker fired handgun.