Striker vs Hammer?
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:13 pm
I received a lot of comments about my choice of concealed carry pistol, the Hellcat, so I thought I would expound on why I'm wanting a striker fired pistol instead of a 1911 style with hammer. I'm posting pictures of the weapons so I can make my point. I too am a fan of Kimber firearms, well at least their pistols. The picture below is of my Ultra Carry 45. The problem is that while cocked the area just in front of the hammer becomes a repository for dirt, lint and moisture to get directly into the action. NOT GOOD. That's beside the fact that people usually relate a hammer cocked back as an unsafe act. I can't tell you why, they just do.
The second picture is of the Springfield Hellcat. There is no such void because the striker is enclosed and the action is protected from such contaminates. I have to clean my Kimber and Sig religiously to keep them free of the lint and dirt that naturally accumulates in the area just in front of the trigger. I'm afraid that one day I'm going to need my pistol just to find it incapable of firing. Worse is the thought of the hammer catching on my clothing as I'm trying to draw it from the holster buried beneath my shirt. Just my two cents worth, as if anyone really cared.
The second picture is of the Springfield Hellcat. There is no such void because the striker is enclosed and the action is protected from such contaminates. I have to clean my Kimber and Sig religiously to keep them free of the lint and dirt that naturally accumulates in the area just in front of the trigger. I'm afraid that one day I'm going to need my pistol just to find it incapable of firing. Worse is the thought of the hammer catching on my clothing as I'm trying to draw it from the holster buried beneath my shirt. Just my two cents worth, as if anyone really cared.