Striker Tension and Carry (M&P vs. Glock)

So I did more research lately on my M&Ps and discovered that the striker in an M&P is close to 98% pulled. When the trigger is pulled the seat travels down and the gun fires.

A Glock is pulled at %60-70 and the pulling of the trigger pulls the striker back to %100.

I have been moving to AIWB, and I have the absurd fear of my M&P slipping from the firing pin and then passing the firing pin block…

Any thoughts?

1 Like

I like my Springfield XD Mod2 because of the backstrap and trigger safety.

1 Like

Most safeties on striker fired guns only regulate the trigger, they do nothing to support the sear or hold the slide.

The trigger safety on the shield works the same as the back strap safety on an XD.

1 Like

Perhaps OP is looking for a DAO striker system.

1 Like

I really like my M&Ps, I just have a level of uncertainty with a striker being cocked at %100 all of the time (I’m pretty sure Hks, XDs, Walthers all do this. It’s part of the reason they have good triggers).Guess that’s typical for a 1911 though.

I did look into research on CZ-P07s and Glocks, but I would rather not retire my M&Ps.

These pieces would have to slip, which I assume might be impossible, but yet I still have my conserns.

Edit: I reevaluated this on another M&P and I’m really not worried anymore. It just requires thorough investigation before holstering a firearm that could potentially point to my junk.

There’s not enough room in the striker channel for the striker to move without the seat moving, and the seat is under a fair enough amount of spring tention. That is very unlikely to fail, but even if it did, the firing pin block would stop it.

The gun is not going off unless the trigger is pulled.

That’s why these handguns use striker block. Do not overthink this, you are safe with M&P with AIWB as long as you don’t press the trigger… or your garment doesn’t pull it… :wink:

:point_up_2: :clap:


Where are you getting the 60-70% figure? I thought Glocks were more like 95% and M&P’s and SA’s were like 99%?

It’s my understanding that the M&P lifts the FPB and disengages the sear when the trigger is pulled. IIRC, it’s the same with the Glock, except it pulls the striker back a mm or so more than the M&P during the trigger pull.

On both, if the trigger is pulled, the gun will fire. I don’t know which other striker fired firearms have that extra mm or so of “cocking” other than Glock and Kahr. I think Walther and SA, similarly are basically 99% cocked, too.

1 Like

That’s what I keep finding on the reliable source of forums :joy::rofl:.

The trigger does complete the cocking motion a substantial amount from what I’ve seen.

All that being said, I’ve also read the opinion floating around that Glocks marketing is phenomenal, and this “safe action” trigger is really a marketing tactic. Glock clearly does a good job making videos and tools proving their product is safe.

1 Like

As I said in another thread, I too sometimes worry about these things. That’s one of the reasons I like my Kahr. However, I don’t think there has been any instances of both the sear or the leg of the firing pin AND the FPB breaking allowing for the firing pin to move without the trigger being pressed.

This is how I see it, but it’s just my opinion…

  1. Both have inertial trigger safeties (I think it is basically to prevent the trigger from moving far enough to fire the gun when dropped… basically what Sig said the problem was with their P320’s).

  2. Both have a sear that holds the striker back (Glock’s is integral to the trigger bar, while the S&W is a separate piece pinned in the frame)

  3. Both have a firing pin block (FPB)

The main difference, is if it makes a difference to you whether the striker is mostly cocked, or almost mostly cocked. :rooster: :chicken: However, for the FP to move on both firearms without the trigger being pulled, both the sear (or alternatively the striker leg) and FPB have to break… not just one or the other. If one or the other failed, the firearm would still not fire without the trigger being pulled. That being said, if you feel more comfortable with the almost mostly cocked striker I wouldn’t hold it against you… as I said, it’s one of the reasons I carry my Kahr.

I would be interested in seeing info on whether the Glock would still fire at it’s partial cocked state, or if there still is a good chance of firing. Although I don’t like messing with firing pin springs, action tuning kits for the Glock include firing pin springs that can be a couple pounds lighter than stock.

1 Like

Absurd—yes. :slight_smile:

To do what you just suggested, the gun would have to suffer from a series of sequential catastrophic malfunctions in separate systems. In theory anything is possible, but I think the chances of this happening are very, very remote.

When a hammer is cocked, the hammer is generally only being held back by a very thin sliver of metal on the hammer and the sear. I’d actually be more worried about that failing than the more substantive bits between the trigger bar and the striker. Thankfully, that particular failure would be mitigated on most modern guns by the firing pin safety bar, so there’s still that extra layer of protection that would also need to fail to result in an actual discharge.

In truth, I’d be more worried about a malfunction in the person holding the gun, than a spontaneous failure in any of the systems that were mentioned here.


1 Like

I will say it’s really cool to learn about the inner workings of these firearms. They all have the same functions, but they are all designed differently.

1 Like

First, I need to teach you about proper symbol placement. The percent symbol goes at the end of the number and not in front.
Ex: 50%

The opposite is true with the dollar symbol.
Ex: $9.00

Now that we have that out of the way let’s talk about guns. I really like the photos you provided along with the explanation. I need to go through that again. It does make me feel safer knowing that bit of info.

1 Like

I would like to see this too. I also wouldn’t gamble on it not firing from half cocked. I guess when it comes to a gun.

I could probably have the same fears of a malfunction with a Glock as I do M&P. They’re both designed well, and have reliable safeties in place, plus they’ve both been in service for a substantial amount of time.

Glock has pretty cool safety design and one of 3 parts, “drop safety” doesn’t allow half-cocked striker to move forward without pulling the trigger.

To understand Glock Internal Safety mechanism please check this website:

Safe Action System


Uh oh, Jerzy is repping for glock now :flushed:


You know me… :slightly_smiling_face:
But even I do not like Glocks… these are like 1911 in polymer family… with one exception → hard to shoot them correctly :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

But seriously, Glocks are well documented and easy to understand how they operate. Also most of examples of pistol’s functionality are based on Glock. So to teach others, I have to know everything about Glocks :face_with_hand_over_mouth:


To add onto @Jerzy 's link… here is a video showing Glock’s internal workings. If any of the 3 safeties are engaged the system will not fire. In other words… 3 safeties would have to fail in order for it to “just go off by itself”. I haven’t seen it, but I bet there is a similar video on M&P

1 Like

What I don’t understand is how the striker block is the 3rd safety in an M&P I understand the sear is spring loaded upward, the striker tension pulls it in, and the shape of the sear is angled outward for safe surface tension (though many people modify this part), but I’m not sure if that really counts as a “3rd safety feature” since the striker is under almost 100% tension.

Though I’d also argue it’s probably just as safe.

Edit, I answered my own question. This all results in a safe firing pin block that is extremely unlikely to be effected by a drop or heavy force, and if that were to occur, the firing pin safety and trigger safety both fill the gap.

I read all the time where people claim all striker fired guns are basically glock clones, but if you start looking at the internals, they really aren’t.