I’ve been evaluating the long-term reliability of striker-fired versus hammer-fired pistols in extreme conditions - think sustained moisture, dust, or sub-freezing temperatures. While striker systems offer simplicity, I’m curious if the mechanical redundancy of a hammer-fired design (e.g., second-strike capability, external hammer manipulation) provides a tangible advantage in adverse environments where debris ingress or primer issues might occur.
For those who’ve used both types in harsh settings: Did you notice meaningful differences in fail-to-fire scenarios or maintenance needs? How does the absence of external safeties on many striker guns factor into this? I’m especially interested in theoretical perspectives backed by real-world use.
Thanks for sharing your insights!
For those who’ve used both types in harsh settings: Did you notice meaningful differences in fail-to-fire scenarios or maintenance needs? How does the absence of external safeties on many striker guns factor into this? I’m especially interested in theoretical perspectives backed by real-world use.
Thanks for sharing your insights!