Random thought that is likely generating a stooopid question.

In a striker fired handgun we have, well....a striker.

In a hammer fired handgun we have a firing pin.

Functionally are these not the same? Pointy things to smash primers so the little boom makes the big boom?

So why the terminology difference?

Completely obvious, here is cslinger’s sign, answer in 5.....4....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cslinger,

Easier to say. Plus in old rifles and designs they had firing pin AND striker named as parts. 1903 Springfield for example. My guess for pistols is it’s called a striker if nothing hits it and/or it’s released by a sear.
If something hits it or it’s not released by a sear it’s a firing pin.

I’ve always been curious too. Glocks are referred to as Striker design, yet they call the firing pin a “firing pin”, and also their Armorer’s Manual and during their training courses they call it a firing pin.

In fact, many gun manufacturers call both things “firing pins,” which is what they all are.
As I recall that’s what HK called the part in the P7 PSP I have, and my Glock armorer’s manual also refers to it as a firing pin.

I just consider that sort of thing to be one of many examples of gun-related terminology gone bad (excuse me, having evolved, that’s it: “evolved,” not wrong).

Originally “feeding” was used in references as diverse as Army field manuals and early SIG owner’s manuals to mean what the magazine does, not what should properly be called chambering. I see, however, that SIG is now following the crowd and uses “feeding” in the autoloading cycle to refer to the mechanical action of pushing the cartridge into the chamber (chambering).
Then there is “mag well.” All guns with detachable magazines have magazine wells, or there wouldn’t be any place to put the magazine. But now even SIG calls the funnel-like attachment at the bottom of the grip a mag well.
And how about the new thing, “flat” triggers. Traditional triggers weren’t humped or bumpy, they were curved, and the opposite of curved is straight, not flat. But flat is what they’re being called now because some vocabulary-challenged soul called one that, other vocabulary-challenged people picked it up, and the term has stuck.

None of that bothers me, of course ( ), but it’s sometimes difficult to keep up with.

Simplest explanation:

Strikers involve a part that is retracted and released horizontally in-line with the primer. This is usually the entire firing pin assembly that is retracted and released together, but less commonly can involve a separate linear striker piece that is retracted inline and released to impact a separate firing pin and impart force.

Hammers involve a part that is retracted and released specifically along an arc by rotating around a fulcrum, like swinging an axe or hammer.

tl;dr: Linear energy = striker, rotational energy = hammer

Traditionally, the striker was the part that actually contacted the cartridge, the firing pin would (generally) impinge upon, or drive, the striker.

The firing pin was considered more a permanent piece of the weapon, the striker was semi-disposable, because of the wear and tear it received.

Unless it’s a linear hammer hitting the firing pin.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Unless it’s a linear hammer hitting the firing pin.

A few designs have a striker that is separate from the firing pin. (The Vz. 58 is the first one that jumps to mind, but there are others.) This "striker" is technically acting as a linear hammer on the firing pin. Yet they're referred to as striker-fired because of the linear force being imparted to the firing pin, not hammer-fired, even though they do have a form of "hammer" if you want to get pedantic.

On the flip side, some (primarily older) revolvers have firing pins integral to the tip of the hammer, so there's no hammer striking a separate firing pin. Yet these are referred to as hammer-fired, not striker-fired, because the joint hammer/firing pin assembly travels in an arc.

Because of these oddball type cases, it's simpler and clearer to differentiate between linear (striker) versus rotational (hammer), rather than trying to differentiate by whether something else "hammers into" a separate firing pin or it has an integrated firing pin.

A firing pin in traditional firearms with hammers, is nothing more than the nail hit by the hammer.

In a striker fired weapon, the striker is both the nail, AND the hammer.

The hammer falls under spring tension to strike the firing pin, in turn moving the firing pin under hammer spring force, and inertia.

In a striker fired weapon, the spring itself drives the striker; the forward end of the striker has the integral firing pin.

Hammer driven uses a separate firing pin, except for some revolvers, in which the firing pin is attached to the hammer.

In the case of hammers with the firing pin attached, or integral to the hammer, a closer analogy to the striker could be made; the mass driving the actual firing pin is a hammer/striker. The spring is acting on that mass. The firing pin is the tip of the mass, be it striker or hammer (in the case of hammers with integral firing pins).

The striker, however, is held partially cocked (glock) or fully cocked (Walther, Sig P320, etc) under spring tension, and the pistol merely releases it, or draws it slightly, and then releases it, with spring tension in the striker channel.

In traditional firing pin equippped pistols, the firing pin spring is there to withdraw the firing pin from the breech face when no longer acted upon by the hammer. In striker fired pistols, the primary spring is to drive the firing pin forward; the striker spring takes the lace of the hammer mainspring, and the striker takes the place of the hammer. The striker's tip is the firing pin. A long hammer with an integral firing pin.

Makes sense regarding spring to fire vs spring as firing pin safety.

Long and short it’s really the same thing with just differing mechanical actuation.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob1972:
Traditionally, the striker was the part that actually contacted the cartridge, the firing pin would (generally) impinge upon, or drive, the striker.

The firing pin was considered more a permanent piece of the weapon, the striker was semi-disposable, because of the wear and tear it received.

Yep

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
In fact, many gun manufacturers call both things “firing pins,” which is what they all are.
As I recall that’s what HK called the part in the P7 PSP I have, and my Glock armorer’s manual also refers to it as a firing pin.

I just consider that sort of thing to be one of many examples of gun-related terminology gone bad (excuse me, having evolved, that’s it: “evolved,” not wrong).

Lugers have firing pins, but not hammers.

Regarding terminology, I have been perplexed by the evolution of the term trigger shoe. When I was young, a trigger shoe was a device attached to the front of a trigger to change the contour or texture of the surfaced that engaged the trigger finger. Today, people use the term trigger shoe for the entire device which is pulled to fired a gun.