[kayakjohn]

so, im in the market for a new/used 9mm pistol and have run into a comparison issue between hammer fired vs striker fired pistol. while ive bought some rimfire pistols, i havent bought a centerfire in a very long time. strikers are new to me.

I'm hoping that you can educate me on pro's/con's of each system. does the striker handgun mean itll be hard to disassemble (or worse, RE-assemble .

im seriously looking if i can find a Ruger SR9, that grip feels great along with the recoil and speed. but now theyre rare. also, i saw a CZ P10 that seemed nice (used, with tax, $442)

im good with new or used, & i would like to stay under $350, but if its a good one , ill go up $50 or more. are there any recommendations or ones i need to stay clear of?

thank you for any help you can give

 

[ajole]

I think the real difference comes down to triggers.

Hammer guns and striker guns tend to have very different feel in the triggers.

There can also be a difference in how hard they are to rack.

I tend to like hammer guns, as I like the DA/SA and decocker type actions, and I usually like their triggers better than the typical "safe action" hinged or bladed triggers.

But I would never make my decision based simply on what drives the firing pin home.

My daughter had an SR9, I really liked it. I have a CZ 75D compact, I really, REALLY like it. I've never handled the P10 or the CZ bladed trigger.

 

[charliemeyer007]

Depends on what you want the pistol for and how it fits in your hand. I like to be able to thumb the hammer back or down. I have no striker fired pistols, and only the markII ruger is internal.