All of the striker fired pistols are “similar” to Glock in function, but because of patents they need to find their own way. Sig tried doing the P320 without the trigger safety and had some struggles with being drop-safe until they re-worked the trigger.
1 Like
Glock was not the first striker fire nor the first plastic, but the first to take a loss to flood the police market… I mean the first popular plastic striker fired pistol… 
2 Likes
So I’m totally at peace now with the M&P striker situation. I researched the heck out of it for awhile and looked over my guns.
It was well worth the trouble. I have a much better understanding of how my gun works. This means.
#1 I’m more confident with it.
#2 I know what to look for safety wise when cleaning, and things that I don’t need to worry about as much.
#3. I know what I’m comfortable modifying in the gun and what I’m not comfortable modifying. I just don’t plan to change any internal parts on an M&P self defense gun.
I’m disappointed in in M&Ps because they’re cheaper than glocks, and they have nothing I care to upgrade on them 
. 
3 Likes
That’s because you don’t have to waste extra money for “perfection” 
4 Likes
@Scoutbob . you have just created a great “must have skills” list for every shooter
3 Likes
I think when any of us take a passion seriously we worry about possible problems down the line. Often those worries and concerns are addressed by the manufacturers or industry and sometimes the consumer.
If we have been shooting long enough it is possible we have seen percussion cap revolvers, Hammer and spur revolvers. floating firing pin revolvers, Hammer fired single action pistols and double action pistols and finally striker fired single action and double action pistols.
In the old days safety was often achieved by leaving a chamber empty under the hammer. Even after they started making safety blocking bars for revolvers my brain questioned loading 6 in a wheel gun. It took a gun smith a good hour to show me my fears were far more in my head than in every day reality.
Believe it or not the 1911 did not improve my peace of mind when it came to automatics. All the safety features made me wonder what so many were necessary. And early striker fired pocket autos with their perchance of going off in a back pocket didn’t help ease my mind any. The early solution was not to carry one in the pipe. Sooner or later we came to trust our equipment to the point where we believed they were safe as long as the trigger isn’t pulled.
Things have reached a point where I would be willing to carry a striker fired 45 with one in the pipe and no manual safety for EDC . But then with today’s weapons be it revolver or auto I feel pretty safe.
1 Like
I’m sure the shield plus is very safe, but I just don’t understand why they (and sig p365) had to change things from the better Glock design.
Glock:
Firing pin safety block engages with a deep notch in the firing pin assembly body, close to the front/business end of the firing pin assembly. If the firing pin assembly fails/breaks at this notch… it means the firing pin has no mass behind it anymore since the entire firing pin assembly must have broken in half.
The striker is also on half-cock when the gun is cocked, meaning if everything fails you still have a chance that the weaker primer strike will fail to make the round go off.
Sig p365:
The firing pin safety engagement point is a tiny piece of metal on the same structure of the firing pin where the sear engagement is located.
That structure is also hanging off of the firing pin assembly at a 90 degree angle that looks like the top-heavy superstructure sticking out from an aircraft carrier deck.
It’s highly unlikely of course, but if you were to lose that structure for any reason, you lose your sear engagement point and your firing pin safety engagement point at the same time.
Your firing pin is also on full cock, and the assembly hasn’t lost much mass if that piece were to break off, so it’s got the full force of the firing pin assembly behind it and will likely set off the primer in your round if this were to happen.
The point of redundant safeties is that multiple things, each of which is independently highly-unlikely, need to happen for the gun to unintentionally go bang. The p365 has got “highly-unlikely” covered I’m sure, but not the “independent” or “redundant” part. Sorry, but they don’t.
Shield plus:
I’m sad to learn that the shield plus has a design more similar to the p365 than to the Glock.
It looks like it’s mostly on full cock. So if the firing pin moves forward, the round is more likely going off than not.
It also looks like the firing pin safety engagement, though it is an independent piece of metal from the sear engagement piece, is still located toward the rear of the firing pin assembly, essentially located on the same section of metal as the sear engagement.
Now, the piece of metal that would have to break off for the sear engagement and firing pin safety engagement to both break off together is thicker/stronger than on the p365.
That is to say the firing pin assembly’s main cylindrical body would need to be broken clean through.
This is even more unlikely than on the p365 (which is already highly unlikely, don’t get me wrong)… but why these two engagement points need to be anywhere near each other (removing “independent redundancy”, even if “highly unlikely” is still in place) is beyond me.
Why they are both towards the rear of the assembly is also beyond me.
I’m sure both are “safe” but I simply prefer Glock’s design and their better implementation of redundancy.
1 Like
@Jo13 - Welcome to the Community. 
As we know - Glock is considered as a Father of polymer handguns (I’m not quite agree with that, because the real Father is H&K), so all other manufacturers have been trying to follow Glock’s design… with small exceptions and changes.
Are these changes better or worse? Neither one… the functionality is the same - you pull the trigger and round goes off.
The difference is how you do feel the trigger. And that’s the key and reason most use their own design.
Using trigger pull to fully cock striker requires extra force and movement. Not everyone (including me) likes this. I personally prefer 1911 style of action, where the trigger is doing nothing else than releasing the sear - in polymer World it means fully cocked striker.
Do the M&P or P365 safety differ from Glock’s? Not at all. Striker block plunger does its only single job - block striker’s forward movement until the trigger is pressed.
Funny thing is that I heard about 2 negligent discharges while holstering Glocks and never heard about such situation with M&P or P365 But it wan’t about the handgun… it was about the operator. 
2 Likes
Thanks for the welcome! 
Yep, I can see the benefit of a fully cocked striker on the feel of the trigger pull. Excellent point. 
I also agree the essential function of the striker block safety is the same in all these designs.
From an engineering standpoint, however, I just think having the striker block farther forward on the firing pin assembly, completely independent from the sear contact lug, adds more redundancy.
Now… how likely is it that any of these strong metal parts will break and require that redundancy?
Incredibly unlikely.
But I’d personally prefer two (completely independent) incredibly unlikely things to be standing between the striker and the primer.
(And a fully-separate-striker-block design could be used even with a fully cocked striker).
Just my two cents.
I’m sure they’re all safe, but I just don’t understand why not build in even more independent redundancy when it’s clearly possible and when it doesn’t complicate things more (if at all).
1 Like
Reason might be pretty simple - it’s not needed.
For last few years I’ve been carrying 2011 pistol, whose safety design is based on “1911 series 70” … meaning, there is no firing pin block safety.
Does it bother me? Not at all.
In first year of my carrying I was very skeptical about carrying handgun at all (one in the chamber or not and multiple safety mechanisms), but once I found my self educated I do not have problem with this anymore.
There is one rule with mechanics - more moving parts, more force needed to make everything working. In firearm World it translates to: more safety mechanisms,better/stronger trigger finger needed
Sometimes we have to decide what is better for us and what can we compromise to achieve the goal.
1 Like
I totally see what you mean.
I’m with you in this regard on the full cock vs half cock and its effect on the trigger feel.
Where I’m still stuck is the placement of the firing pin block.
It’s not an extra mechanism that adds complication or additional force on the Glock. That plunger still needs to get actuated by the trigger bar, on all three of the guns I mentioned in my post.
The only difference is where on the firing pin assembly the plunger makes contact.
All I’m saying is that by putting that mechanism in a different location, it becomes truly independent and redundant even if the most ludicrous failure were to happen at the rear of the firing pin assembly. You get extra redundancy even without an extra mechanism relative to what the other two pistols have.
I’m not a Glock fanboy, this isn’t about Glock’s genius or whatever nonsense. It’s simply that I think their engineering decision was (relatively) more sound.
Now, on the half cock question, they may have added some additional complexity that affects the feel of the trigger by designing it that way, as you said… and that might indeed be overkill that has a functional impact.
However simply moving the same firing pin block concept to a different location doesn’t add any additional complexity compared to the other two firearms… it just removes redundancy (however unlikely it is to be needed).
Again, I would still trust the other two, I just can’t unsee the engineering choices made and scratch my head a bit. 
Maybe having the trigger bar interact farther forward there’s a longer lever that needs to be moved by a shorter motion on the input side, and so the force required is greater? But I doubt it, since the trigger itself is closer to the front of the striker assembly than to the rear. 
2 Likes
You can always call Glock Ges. m. b. H. in Austria and discuss it…
Perhaps you have just discovered a change they can use in Gen6. 
2 Likes
- Same issue with both guns – trigger only safety. Striker prep is really irrelevant.
- Don’t carry with a gun pointed towards your junk (i.e., a very large cluster of important blood vessels).
- There are other options.
1 Like
One exception… which actually makes M&P safer…
You can have it on M&P…
… but you cannot on Glock…
1 Like
While true. Why would you want a secondary safety? In the hand ready to run is my Rule 1 of EDC.
Best Regards,
G. Brent Wilson
I always want a secondary safety… and this is one of the reasons:
I can carry a gun pointed in my junk, because my gun has this safety lever.
Jerzees. Thank you . What you just said . Made me feel better. Because I . Have my m&p. S&W. 2.0 . Steel. Series. . Chambered. And no safety . But the trigger. So that’s 18, rounds … really. It’s one of my favorite . EDC’s. 
2 Likes
100 percent with you, that’s why I switched from M&P to Glock when I went AIWB, BUT this was really a psychological thing for me about moving the gun to that location.
Now I know about how the safeties function I’m fine with M&P. I still prefer Glock, but if carry an M&P without any worries.
The guns I personally won’t carry are P365 (I don’t like how the striker block and sear are all on the same part of the striker. There is one point of failure. Will it fail? Absolutely not! I’m just a freak when it comes to putting a gun by my junk.) I don’t like the idea of carrying a gun without a striker block. That includes the LCR, and many1911s & 2011s. (Most 1911s 2011s at the least gave multiple safety features they’re just not drop safe.) The only small 380s I know of having a striker a striker blocks are the 42 or the bodygaurd 2.0.
I say all of that, but if my wife decided she wanted a P365, I’d buy her one. I’d discuss this with her and show her other options. BUT I don’t think they are dangerous, I just have my own comfort level knowing what I know.
Most of these guns from major brands are proven platforms and totally safe. But like you, I don’t prescribe to the simple “it’s not going off”…
Boring Glock guy here. They’re overpriced, require new sights, they’re blocky and boring, but they just work.
M&P is good to go. The striker block is on a separate part of the striker, and M&Ps have been used reliable for years now. The Shield 1.0 has an astounding reputation for reliability. Honestly could make a Glock guy blush. My only concern is I guess Smith is dealing with some quality control issues as of late. I wouldn’t let that get in your head though. Just make sure the striker block is functional every time you clean it. (Pull striker back until it clicks behind the block, then try to push the firing pin forward. If it doesn’t go forward you’re good).
Woah… Deja Vu…
You get more comfortable with things over time. Didn’t realize I was on this thread already .
Edit… didn’t realize I made this thread. Full circle…
1 Like
Although my bed stand gun is the M2.0 M&P, I have heard rumors suggesting a rather large “grey area” on how far out of battery M&P’s will still fire.
I unloaded my M2.0 and was surprised how far out of battery the striker would still fire at. However, since it’s been out for quite awhile and out of battery Kabooms aren’t prevalent, I keep it as my primary full size pistol.
I think I mentioned in another thread… I prefer the Glock style striker block setup in general, too. Lastly, my M2.0 has no safety because I found it to interfere with my overhand slide rack. I don’t have an aversion to manual safeties… I think I’m one of the few people that actually like the safety on the Beretta M9 and HK USP.