FNS Pistol Firing When Hit While out of Battery
Posted Apr 23, 2019, 2:48 AM UTC
3114
Would something like this be possible with a hammer-fired handgun? I've noticed that a lot of problems are occurring with striker-fired pistols (like the whole Sig P320 drop-test failure).
3
Stick with Glock and you won't have any issues.
5
I have one! Love the gun, hate the trigger.
2
Same
2
I've gone Glock G4 19C --> Glock G5 17 --> Glock G4 19 (Canadian edition)
Hate the trigger every time but prefer the smaller frame of the 19. I got an Apex trigger kit (without any springs) this time around and it makes a very big difference. I dare say it almost completely changes the gun.
I just might try a Zev spring kit to make it even better, but I'm concerned about light primer strikes.
1
I've heard good things about the Apex trigger. I have a Lone Wolf Ultimate Adjustable Trigger in mine (came with the frame) and while I love the reset, the trigger pull still annoys the hell out of me. I might have to try out the Apex!
I thought all striker-fired designs were just as shitty but I was very pleasantly surprised by the Walther PPQ and the HK VP9. I'm honestly unsure whether to invest in the Apex kit or to simply sell my G3 34 and to get one of those two instead as I am a lefty and they're better for ambi use, even though I can use it fully with my left hand. I am also very happy with the ergos (granted, I am using the aftermarket Timberwolf frame) so it makes my choice pretty difficult.
1
How does the 19x trigger compare to the standard glock trigger? It's my first glock and I find I like the trigger.
1
To answer the original question, I tried it on my SA 1911 and Grand Power x-cal. (dry fire only).
The 1911 cannot be made to fire out of battery in either of the two conditions shown. The hammer will still fall if you're a tiny bit out of battery but will be caught by the half cock safety and never touch the firing pin. Anything further and it puts the trigger in the fired position requiring a reset and a press to fire again.
The x-cal is a competition gun design and does not have a firing pin block safety that the K100 counsins have. I can drop the hammer with the ejection port still 25% open but the hammer cannot actually contact the firing pin until the slide is closed and the locking lugs have started to engage. The firing pin does not start protruding to any significant degree until the slide has gone far enough forward enough for the lugs to be about 2/3 engaged.
At that position I actually think the gun will fire partially out of battery if there is enough firing pin protrusion to set off a soft primer. However if at any point the hammer falls and the round does not go off initially it will will simply ride the slide forward when slide pressure is released and you will need to go into DA mode/rack slide/cock hammer manually if you want to fire again.
I don't have a K100 on hand to check at the moment, but with the way their firing pin block is designed the firing pin will not protrude even if you drop the hammer with it out of battery. Scenario 2 in the video therefore cannot happen either since your hammer is now down. You will need to do a DA trigger pull/manual hammer cock/rack the slide to fire again.
Edited for corrections after some more experimenting.
2
Really interesting! Thanks for trying it out. I only have a Glock and no modern hammer-fire handguns (well, I do have a Tokarev but that damn thing is already unreliable as it is, with the slide release being so sensitive that putting it down on a table will potentially trip it, and a too long and light pull on the trigger can cause it to not fire, requiring a reset) so I was curious if it was an issue inherent to the striker-fire design itself.
1
I'm by no means an expert. Based on what I'm seeing my intuition is that with the more reliable and fewer moving parts mean that the default failure mode is more likely to be one that sets off the chambered round. Design features are meant to overcome that (such as glock's 1.5 action trigger pull).
With a hammer and firing pin setup there is more to go wrong and higher chance of the failure resulting in no bang at all. The increase in number of moving parts in the operating sequence also increases the number of possible failure points and make it less predictable exactly which type of failure your specific combination of events will result in. The 1911 for example, requires a remediation drill in the scenario described above. Design features can remedy this as well (GP's double action trigger pull).
I dont think either is better or worse. Just different challenges to be overcome by good design in the end.
2
Hmm seems like they've upped their game and are trying to one up Sig
1
Yes this is well known. I was able to replicate the issue with the one I bought. Fortunately I was able to return it to the store I got it from before it became a problem for me.