[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 10 of 142)
 Sig has gone off the deep end |
|
Already posted on page 6 post #4 |
|
Quoted:
Still no recall tho With that community note they got, maybe they will recall the post? 
|
|
Quoted: With that community note they got, maybe they will recall the post? Quoted: Quoted:
Still no recall tho With that community note they got, maybe they will recall the post? Oof |
|
I find it ironic that the only company that sells a gun that caters to the anti-gunners very comments of guns that shoot themselves, considers questioning their gun that shoots itself, is an anti gun action. They literally are the worst thing imaginable for countering gun-control advocates, as they undermine the "well my gun never shot anyone on its own" claim, couple that with their company antics with female employees in the first 20 minutes of that video; coupled apparently with their legal counsel resume openly stating defense of those accused of participat8ng in the holocaust (and more!)" - and they are a walking "Why I should vote for Harris!" poster child. They are the equivalent of trannies poll dancing in school libraries- wet dream for gun control advocates. And can't even $ee it. |
| Oof. |
|
This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let’s try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn’t an issue, and wasn’t replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn’t. If it was out of plane, it wouldn’t. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I’ve seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn’t always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here’s where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn’t the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it’s 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it’s 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn’t the root cause. And we’re back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I’m sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I’ve been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I’ve always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I’m open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it’s poor handling that is the root cause. |
|
I know you Sig guys hate me for always jumping on the P320 and P365. This is a real problem guys. Please stop ignoring it.  What the heck is going on with the Sig P320? |
|
Quoted: Lol then why'd they settle some of the suits by LEOs for millions? They can get them to sign NDAs and to not release any video footage of the incident. I saw a clip of the video from the CT incident. It may have been the first 320 incident that was really publicized. Gun was locked in a level 3 duty holster, cop was carrying his duty belt slung over his shoulder in the precinct parking lot, and captured on multiple cameras. Dropped the duty belt from waist high and the gun fired when it hit the ground. It was shortly after that the "voluntary upgrade" was announced... Settlement was reported to be in the mid 7 figures, with an NDA for the department, the officer involved, and no public release of the video. Do I think there is an issue? Yup. But are all these NDs are attributable to a defect? No... Stupid people doing stupid things is responsible for 99% of the incidents... |
|
Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let’s try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn’t an issue, and wasn’t replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn’t. If it was out of plane, it wouldn’t. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I’ve seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let’s try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn’t an issue, and wasn’t replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn’t. If it was out of plane, it wouldn’t. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I’ve seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? That's not true at all. And so not True Sig had to do a non-recall voluntary upgrade (*cough* recall) to redo all the earlier guns. You're right, that was a different, and addressed, separate item that's fixed. But that claim in the post is still not true at all. And so now credibility is damaged before the rest starts. Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn’t always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it. Didya watch the video? I don't know shit about shit, but the video sure says that's what happened. The video that seems to be pretty accurate on the few things I did already know, and goes to the trouble of actually referencing his sources. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here’s where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn’t the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it’s 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it’s 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn’t the root cause. And we’re back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I’m sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I’ve been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I’ve always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I’m open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it’s poor handling that is the root cause. Even if that's true - and I have doubts, since prior intro has errors already. If there is something particular about one particular gun, that results in poor-handling induced errors at a great rate that baseline - that's a safety flaw. A system that is more prone to "operator error", is an error prone system. Straight up, that's a design safety flaw. Your fault, my fault, nobody's fault - if people are getting shot at a higher rate than baseline with that gun and that gun in particular - that's a problem. Unless there's some clear reason for that increased risk being worth the trade, then that's evidence to suggest an inherently unsafe setting and every safety engineer everywhere would be doing a major "woaahhh, somethings up". The part everyone gets, but not everyone gets, that everyone gets - is that sure: YOUR identity-pistol and purchase-validation choice may actually be in spec and not demonstrated to be a source of problems. That doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to a departmental or agency wide procurement and issue policy. If a notably higher portion of that unit is having a serious problem, even if your unit is fine, that's a problem. And with that, if MY next purchase decision needs to be made; unless there's a clear "Look here, Measure that" guideline I can follow to confirm MY unit is safe, no F'ing way. There are enough REPLICATES of video's of guns going off without clear and obvious abuse, that anyone anywhere should have pause. And the posted "Oh Glocks do that too!" are pretty obvious cases of indeed, abuse/unsafe activity going on when they discharged. That "proof see it's the same thing", is proof of the exact opposite, in juxtipostion to the many many 320 vids we keep seeing Why do I care? Because I'll be the guy sitting in front of you at the next event, while your P320 CHL pistol is pointed at my body. Or the next homeowner getting a welfare check, with issue pistols drawn. And more base then that - I'm an engineer who cares about safety. I think about systemic safety. Not "did he wear eye protection?" If he needed eye protection to save his eyes from spraying abrasive materials from my system *I* failed at engineering a safe system, not him. |
|
Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let’s try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn’t an issue, and wasn’t replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn’t. If it was out of plane, it wouldn’t. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I’ve seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn’t always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here’s where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn’t the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it’s 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it’s 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn’t the root cause. And we’re back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I’m sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I’ve been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I’ve always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I’m open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it’s poor handling that is the root cause. Do you understand that a recall was never done and there are tens of thousands of 320 that never did the “voluntary upgrade” and will fire from impact? Sig knows exactly how many of those guns are out there. What are they doing to fix them? Are they trying to track down the owners via reverse trace from the distributor to FFL to consumer to secondary market? No. Are they offering a buy back? No. Are they offering monetary compensation? No. Are they paying gunsmiths to upgrade them when they come in for other services? No. Are they telling consumers we will not service any Sig firearms for you until you return your 320 for the upgrade? No. I cant get an oil change in my kids Ford Focus without the service writer notifying me of every recall campaign. Why isn’t Sig doing the same? |
|
Quoted: Quick copy paste of what I said the last time that particular case was referenced, but it’s not exactly a smoking gun. I don’t personally care for sig products and the documentation presented (if it indeed is an accurate portrayal of internal design engineering technical data and quality processes implemented by sig) shows a very questionable approach to product design, poor engineering standards, and is certainly indicative of poor quality control plans (I.e we can clearly see parts are getting out that are outside of compliance of the already crappy tech data if the information presented is accurate.) On the other hand, Mr. Hicks analysis is entirely underwhelming to be frank. It is lacking in comprehensive technical validity (as mentioned multiple times over in the report, the methodology used to gather empirical geometric data was insufficient to accurately measure the physical samples, and further the technical documentation presented in lieu of such is incomplete and entirely insufficient to make any statement as to design validity/safety. I.e comprehensive tolerance stack and review cannot be conducted with the information presented here, let alone FEA, CETOL, and modal simulation of the system. It’s essentially napkin +/- solid body analysis with incomplete data sets), the analysis has multiple errors in dimensional reporting ( likely not intentional, it’s a long report and the errors are probably clerical/he didn’t proof read it past applying spell check), and in the end, no actual testing which replicated the failure was achieved. So essentially you have a lot of opinion based on insufficient information being presented as conclusive evidence which is ethically dishonest at a minimum (if not criminal). Quoted: Quoted: Go read the long breakdown PDF associated with one of the recent lawsuits. They *did* go measure the components, take ultra high rez magnified photos, and analyze whether parts were in spec. The conclusion was that it was a sear machining issue, combined with the overall design of the platform. Parts had far too little engagement to be safe, and the critical mating surfaces weren't being machined after the MIM casting. Quick copy paste of what I said the last time that particular case was referenced, but it’s not exactly a smoking gun. I don’t personally care for sig products and the documentation presented (if it indeed is an accurate portrayal of internal design engineering technical data and quality processes implemented by sig) shows a very questionable approach to product design, poor engineering standards, and is certainly indicative of poor quality control plans (I.e we can clearly see parts are getting out that are outside of compliance of the already crappy tech data if the information presented is accurate.) On the other hand, Mr. Hicks analysis is entirely underwhelming to be frank. It is lacking in comprehensive technical validity (as mentioned multiple times over in the report, the methodology used to gather empirical geometric data was insufficient to accurately measure the physical samples, and further the technical documentation presented in lieu of such is incomplete and entirely insufficient to make any statement as to design validity/safety. I.e comprehensive tolerance stack and review cannot be conducted with the information presented here, let alone FEA, CETOL, and modal simulation of the system. It’s essentially napkin +/- solid body analysis with incomplete data sets), the analysis has multiple errors in dimensional reporting ( likely not intentional, it’s a long report and the errors are probably clerical/he didn’t proof read it past applying spell check), and in the end, no actual testing which replicated the failure was achieved. So essentially you have a lot of opinion based on insufficient information being presented as conclusive evidence which is ethically dishonest at a minimum (if not criminal). Indeed! |
|
Quoted: Honest question with no ulterior motive. How hard would it be to make the trigger pull a meaningful safety out of a striker with the safety *riding in or on the safety stop surface of the striker* using only the force of the trigger pull? Not an engineer. I have no idea how hard that would be to design. 100% understand if you don't want to risk an answer. Eh, we would have to get deep into the weeds to fully answer that question. Conceptually there is nothing about the premise that is infeasible. Difficulty would be determined by the definition of meaningful (everything has a failure point, what level of statistical improbability of failure is acceptable), what kind of budget is available for the system (this will partially determine what manufacturing and material options that are available to work with, I.e. you sure as hell aren’t wire EDM cutting a sear out of a piece of hastelloy bar stock if your component budget is $1.00) and what level of performance is needed (does the trigger actuation force need to be nominally 3 lbf with .100” of travel or can it be 6 lbf with .500”; does it need to last 10,000 cycles or 100,000 cycles or 1,000,000 cycles; what level of variance is acceptable between individual units; etc.) |
|
Quoted: Eh, we would have to get deep into the weeds to fully answer that question. Conceptually there is nothing about the premise that is infeasible. Difficulty would be determined by the definition of meaningful (everything has a failure point, what level of statistical improbability of failure is acceptable), what kind of budget is available for the system (this will partially determine what manufacturing and material options that are available to work with, I.e. you sure as hell aren’t wire EDM cutting a sear out of a piece of hastelloy bar stock if your component budget is $1.00) and what level of performance is needed (does the trigger actuation force need to be nominally 3 lbf with .100” of travel or can it be 6 lbf with .500”; does it need to last 10,000 cycles or 100,000 cycles or 1,000,000 cycles; what level of variance is acceptable between individual units; etc.) Quoted: Quoted: Honest question with no ulterior motive. How hard would it be to make the trigger pull a meaningful safety out of a striker with the safety *riding in or on the safety stop surface of the striker* using only the force of the trigger pull? Not an engineer. I have no idea how hard that would be to design. 100% understand if you don't want to risk an answer. Eh, we would have to get deep into the weeds to fully answer that question. Conceptually there is nothing about the premise that is infeasible. Difficulty would be determined by the definition of meaningful (everything has a failure point, what level of statistical improbability of failure is acceptable), what kind of budget is available for the system (this will partially determine what manufacturing and material options that are available to work with, I.e. you sure as hell aren’t wire EDM cutting a sear out of a piece of hastelloy bar stock if your component budget is $1.00) and what level of performance is needed (does the trigger actuation force need to be nominally 3 lbf with .100” of travel or can it be 6 lbf with .500”; does it need to last 10,000 cycles or 100,000 cycles or 1,000,000 cycles; what level of variance is acceptable between individual units; etc.) *noodles on it* I was really just wondering if it's feasable or not, given off the shelf prices and rough ballpark SOP. |
|
Quoted: Could an aftermarket company make a slide that fit 320 frames and barrels, but used Glock internal parts, and make Glock like triggers and trigger bars that would fit the 320 FCG? Attached File |
|
Quoted: Do you understand that a recall was never done and there are tens of thousands of 320 that never did the “voluntary upgrade” and will fire from impact? Sig knows exactly how many of those guns are out there. What are they doing to fix them? Are they trying to track down the owners via reverse trace from the distributor to FFL to consumer to secondary market? No. Are they offering a buy back? No. Are they offering monetary compensation? No. Are they paying gunsmiths to upgrade them when they come in for other services? No. Are they telling consumers we will not service any Sig firearms for you until you return your 320 for the upgrade? No. I cant get an oil change in my kids Ford Focus without the service writer notifying me of every recall campaign. Why isn’t Sig doing the same? Wellllllll, with the payouts they’ve been ordered to make in court…..they ARE paying out…in a way. Just after the damage is done, and on an individual basis. Anyone see the guns n gadgets video highlighting the reported military incidents as well as the cases out there? I’ve got a feeling Sig is going to regret putting this PR bullshit out in the wild, it’s drawn WAY more attention. |
|
Quoted: Already posted on page 6 post #4 It was already posted on page 5 post #47 |
|
Quoted: Wellllllll, with the payouts they’ve been ordered to make in court…..they ARE paying out…in a way. Just after the damage is done, and on an individual basis. Anyone see the guns n gadgets video highlighting the reported military incidents as well as the cases out there? I’ve got a feeling Sig is going to regret putting this PR bullshit out in the wild, it’s drawn WAY more attention. I was coming here to post this. Them gaslighting any criticism and morphing it into anti-gun sentiment has made it even more viral. |
|
Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let’s try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn’t an issue, and wasn’t replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn’t. If it was out of plane, it wouldn’t. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I’ve seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn’t always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here’s where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn’t the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it’s 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it’s 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn’t the root cause. And we’re back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I’m sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I’ve been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I’ve always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I’m open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it’s poor handling that is the root cause. Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let’s try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn’t an issue, and wasn’t replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn’t. If it was out of plane, it wouldn’t. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I’ve seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn’t always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here’s where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn’t the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it’s 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it’s 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn’t the root cause. And we’re back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I’m sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I’ve been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I’ve always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I’m open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it’s poor handling that is the root cause. Yeah we know the original drop issue pre "voluntary upgrade" is different Did you know SIG was aware of the drop safety issue prior to it being viral on YouTube? Notice how the solution was to implement the upgrades that were made as a part of the M17/M18? The striker block/striker safety is significantly different than what's found on almost every other striker fired pistol. It's the same concept, very different implementation. USASOC found mechanical defects in their pistols -- the striker safety levers were shearing M17/M18 PQDR Background — • SOATB is having a new issue with our SIG M18's • The Safety Lock as pictured is shearing and disabling the Drop Safety. • Weapon will still fire and function normally but can be unsafe if dropped. • If not correct weapon could accidentally discharge. Ongoing Actions — • Inspected and repaired as required. • PQDR submission to TACOM • The affected part can only be replaced as an entire assy: Striker Assy (1005-01-665-3082). • Request that armorers keep Striker Assemblies on hand as Shop Stock. • 3 x of the 115 on hand were found broken during inspection. • Round count on the affected pistols was approx. 5-6000 rounds. Recommendations — • Adjacent Unit Armorers one time inspect all weapons of the affected area on the underside of the slide • Reinspect every time the weapon is issued. • Implement the SOUM or MAM once distro |
|
Quoted: I was coming here to post this. Them gaslighting any criticism and morphing it into anti-gun sentiment has made it even more viral. Yea, I had heard almost NOTHING about it, that is, until sig put this response out. Now it’s like sharks in the water, all the YouTubers know it’s on everyone’s radar and are capitalizing for views. |
|
Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let's try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn't an issue, and wasn't replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn't. If it was out of plane, it wouldn't. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I've seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn't always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here's where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn't the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it's 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it's 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn't the root cause. And we're back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I'm sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I've been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I've always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I'm open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it's poor handling that is the root cause. |
|
Quoted: I've seen at least three videos of them going off in the holster without any poor handling. The lobby video, the officer shot while casually exiting his car on a call, and the one where it went off while an officer was placing the gun in its holster into a lockbox. None of those were dropped, none were upholstered, none were the result of the trigger being pulled. It's an unforgiving design executed with parts not up to the task. Quoted: Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let's try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn't an issue, and wasn't replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn't. If it was out of plane, it wouldn't. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I've seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn't always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here's where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn't the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it's 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it's 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn't the root cause. And we're back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I'm sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I've been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I've always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I'm open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it's poor handling that is the root cause. There are people here that still try to argue the lobby video has someone mess with the gun in the holster. It reminds me why GD is always taken with a grain, or 1lb container, of salt. |
|
Quoted: That's not true at all. And so not True Sig had to do a non-recall voluntary upgrade (*cough* recall) to redo all the earlier guns. You're right, that was a different, and addressed, separate item that's fixed. But that claim in the post is still not true at all. And so now credibility is damaged before the rest starts. Didya watch the video? I don't know shit about shit, but the video sure says that's what happened. The video that seems to be pretty accurate on the few things I did already know, and goes to the trouble of actually referencing his sources. Even if that's true - and I have doubts, since prior intro has errors already. If there is something particular about one particular gun, that results in poor-handling induced errors at a great rate that baseline - that's a safety flaw. A system that is more prone to "operator error", is an error prone system. Straight up, that's a design safety flaw. Your fault, my fault, nobody's fault - if people are getting shot at a higher rate than baseline with that gun and that gun in particular - that's a problem. Unless there's some clear reason for that increased risk being worth the trade, then that's evidence to suggest an inherently unsafe setting and every safety engineer everywhere would be doing a major "woaahhh, somethings up". The part everyone gets, but not everyone gets, that everyone gets - is that sure: YOUR identity-pistol and purchase-validation choice may actually be in spec and not demonstrated to be a source of problems. That doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to a departmental or agency wide procurement and issue policy. If a notably higher portion of that unit is having a serious problem, even if your unit is fine, that's a problem. And with that, if MY next purchase decision needs to be made; unless there's a clear "Look here, Measure that" guideline I can follow to confirm MY unit is safe, no F'ing way. There are enough REPLICATES of video's of guns going off without clear and obvious abuse, that anyone anywhere should have pause. And the posted "Oh Glocks do that too!" are pretty obvious cases of indeed, abuse/unsafe activity going on when they discharged. That "proof see it's the same thing", is proof of the exact opposite, in juxtipostion to the many many 320 vids we keep seeing Why do I care? Because I'll be the guy sitting in front of you at the next event, while your P320 CHL pistol is pointed at my body. Or the next homeowner getting a welfare check, with issue pistols drawn. And more base than that - I'm an engineer who cares about safety. I think about systemic safety. Not "did he wear eye protection?" If he needed eye protection to save his eyes from spraying abrasive materials from my system *I* failed at engineering a safe system, not him. |
|
Quoted: There are people here that still try to argue the lobby video has someone mess with the gun in the holster. It reminds me why GD is always taken with a grain, or 1lb container, of salt. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let's try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn't an issue, and wasn't replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn't. If it was out of plane, it wouldn't. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I've seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn't always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here's where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn't the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it's 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it's 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn't the root cause. And we're back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I'm sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I've been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I've always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I'm open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it's poor handling that is the root cause. There are people here that still try to argue the lobby video has someone mess with the gun in the holster. It reminds me why GD is always taken with a grain, or 1lb container, of salt. If they can't make the magic guns go magic bang again that's a bit confusing. |
|
Quoted: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCGiOsP9aymOaEKg6pLSObYXM9tRBv4p/view?usp=drivesdk I’ve reviewed it ad nauseam, anyone with a technical background in the field and ounce of ethical impartiality would conclude it is a worthless assessment as far as conclusive evidence goes. It appeals to kitchen table engineers out of their depth and low information emotionally biased individuals with an axe to grind. Sig is handling this all childishly but simultaneously so are the accusers. The whole fiasco is a great “when assholes collide” situation further inflamed by the parties directly involved having substantial financial gain or loss potential. Quoted: Quoted: Post a link to the PDF, I haven’t seen it and my Google-fu is failing me. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCGiOsP9aymOaEKg6pLSObYXM9tRBv4p/view?usp=drivesdk I’ve reviewed it ad nauseam, anyone with a technical background in the field and ounce of ethical impartiality would conclude it is a worthless assessment as far as conclusive evidence goes. It appeals to kitchen table engineers out of their depth and low information emotionally biased individuals with an axe to grind. Sig is handling this all childishly but simultaneously so are the accusers. The whole fiasco is a great “when assholes collide” situation further inflamed by the parties directly involved having substantial financial gain or loss potential. I know it’s nit-picking but couldn’t plaintiff’s counsel find an expert with a current PE license - both authors licenses expired almost a year before the report was issued? I have been writing, reviewing and “experting” in another technical discipline that is highly litigious for almost 35 years and that’s the kind of crap I would point out to the counsel I was supporting. If they can’t do something simple like keep their licenses current - how can we rely on their expert analysis and opinion? Also looking at Shipley’s resume - he can’t hold down a job for more than a few years - that is always a warning sign to me. Full disclosure - I do own an M17, M18, P320 RX with a manual safety, P220, 2 P226s, P229, P228, P6, PS 290, P322, 2 Mosquitos, P226 22 conversion and an MPX. I have others but no Glocks. |
|
Quoted: Yeah we know the original drop issue pre "voluntary upgrade" is different Did you know SIG was aware of the drop safety issue prior to it being viral on YouTube? Notice how the solution was to implement the upgrades that were made as a part of the M17/M18? The striker block/striker safety is significantly different than what's found on almost every other striker fired pistol. It's the same concept, very different implementation. USASOC found mechanical defects in their pistols -- the striker safety levers were shearing Quoted: Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let’s try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn’t an issue, and wasn’t replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn’t. If it was out of plane, it wouldn’t. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I’ve seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn’t always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here’s where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn’t the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it’s 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it’s 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn’t the root cause. And we’re back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I’m sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I’ve been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I’ve always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I’m open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it’s poor handling that is the root cause. Yeah we know the original drop issue pre "voluntary upgrade" is different Did you know SIG was aware of the drop safety issue prior to it being viral on YouTube? Notice how the solution was to implement the upgrades that were made as a part of the M17/M18? The striker block/striker safety is significantly different than what's found on almost every other striker fired pistol. It's the same concept, very different implementation. USASOC found mechanical defects in their pistols -- the striker safety levers were shearing M17/M18 PQDR Background — • SOATB is having a new issue with our SIG M18's • The Safety Lock as pictured is shearing and disabling the Drop Safety. • Weapon will still fire and function normally but can be unsafe if dropped. • If not correct weapon could accidentally discharge. Ongoing Actions — • Inspected and repaired as required. • PQDR submission to TACOM • The affected part can only be replaced as an entire assy: Striker Assy (1005-01-665-3082). • Request that armorers keep Striker Assemblies on hand as Shop Stock. • 3 x of the 115 on hand were found broken during inspection. • Round count on the affected pistols was approx. 5-6000 rounds. Recommendations — • Adjacent Unit Armorers one time inspect all weapons of the affected area on the underside of the slide • Reinspect every time the weapon is issued. • Implement the SOUM or MAM once distro Yes, the striker safety is a different design than most, but most here can’t understand that the current issue is not the drop issue. Think I’m really going to take them further into the weeds? The point is, many think Glock is the only one with a striker block, and don’t understand that’s standard these days. Except 1911/2011. Not as standard unless series 80 based. As for the breakage, that’s fine, but not apparently part of this discussion. What do I mean? If pistols involved in discharges were inspected and found to have breakages, it absolutely would be. But no pistol involved has been found to have a mechanical defect (to my knowledge). So, while there may need to be something addressed, it isn’t the root cause. What did SIG know and when did they know it? Probably something Fred Thompson would’ve asked. This is a good question that I certainly don’t know the answer to. Did they know this -30 degree issue existed? There does appear to be indications but I haven’t seen any actual evidence. I suspect, but certainly could not prove, that yes they were aware and made a decision that 1) it had passed all established tests, and 2) it was very highly unlikely for a real-world drop to achieve the specific angle (which is why that drop isn’t part of the drop tests). Who made that decision? Who knows? It is possible they didn’t know, because the lightening “fix” wasn’t the only thing done to the military versions. It is possible that the alterations to the way the whole thing worked changed the weights and dynamics, which necessitated the lightened parts. There are quite significant differences in how the pistol operates pre- and post-upgrade. The originals had a (IMO stupid) design where the trigger pull reset the trigger. This was the double click issue. As part of the redesign there, it went to a more traditional disconnector, which also add for a more traditional OOB protection. I was glad to see this change. I was able to repeatedly stall the trigger pull, where it would fire but not get to the second click, resulting in a dead trigger. This was repeatable, at least with my example, so it was pretty clearly mechanical. Whether it was inherent to the design, whether it was “tolerance stacking” or whether something about mine was out of spec, who knows. It got upgraded and I was pleased. More about the design change than the drop issue, frankly. So if you think SIG is a terrible company because you KNOW they KNEW there was a problem and didn’t do anything, I can see that. I question how you know and how you evidence they knew, but whatever, at least you’re applying some logic. But all of the evidence points towards the “uncommanded” discharges to be caused by movements between the trigger and foreign objects. That is negligent handling and throwing shade at SIG won’t help the problem. Making people understand that their actions 2 hours before the discharge were the cause and that taking the time to safely holster their pistol is required of them is as what will actually eliminate the problem. Maybe that is the ultimate problem here. Some human minds can’t comprehend that the cause may have occurred minutes or hours before the discharge. Competition shirt guy was probably only a couple of seconds, but getting out of the car guy could’ve been 20 minutes, and wrestling in the lobby guy could’ve been 7 hours. |
|
Quoted: Yes, the striker safety is a different design than most, but most here can’t understand that the current issue is not the drop issue. Think I’m really going to take them further into the weeds? The point is, many think Glock is the only one with a striker block, and don’t understand that’s standard these days. Except 1911/2011. Not as standard unless series 80 based. As for the breakage, that’s fine, but not apparently part of this discussion. What do I mean? If pistols involved in discharges were inspected and found to have breakages, it absolutely would be. But no pistol involved has been found to have a mechanical defect (to my knowledge). So, while there may need to be something addressed, it isn’t the root cause. What did SIG know and when did they know it? Probably something Fred Thompson would’ve asked. This is a good question that I certainly don’t know the answer to. Did they know this -30 degree issue existed? There does appear to be indications but I haven’t seen any actual evidence. I suspect, but certainly could not prove, that yes they were aware and made a decision that 1) it had passed all established tests, and 2) it was very highly unlikely for a real-world drop to achieve the specific angle (which is why that drop isn’t part of the drop tests). Who made that decision? Who knows? It is possible they didn’t know, because the lightening “fix” wasn’t the only thing done to the military versions. It is possible that the alterations to the way the whole thing worked changed the weights and dynamics, which necessitated the lightened parts. There are quite significant differences in how the pistol operates pre- and post-upgrade. The originals had a (IMO stupid) design where the trigger pull reset the trigger. This was the double click issue. As part of the redesign there, it went to a more traditional disconnector, which also add for a more traditional OOB protection. I was glad to see this change. I was able to repeatedly stall the trigger pull, where it would fire but not get to the second click, resulting in a dead trigger. This was repeatable, at least with my example, so it was pretty clearly mechanical. Whether it was inherent to the design, whether it was “tolerance stacking” or whether something about mine was out of spec, who knows. It got upgraded and I was pleased. More about the design change than the drop issue, frankly. So if you think SIG is a terrible company because you KNOW they KNEW there was a problem and didn’t do anything, I can see that. I question how you know and how you evidence they knew, but whatever, at least you’re applying some logic. But all of the evidence points towards the “uncommanded” discharges to be caused by movements between the trigger and foreign objects. That is negligent handling and throwing shade at SIG won’t help the problem. Making people understand that their actions 2 hours before the discharge were the cause and that taking the time to safely holster their pistol is required of them is as what will actually eliminate the problem. Maybe that is the ultimate problem here. Some human minds can’t comprehend that the cause may have occurred minutes or hours before the discharge. Competition shirt guy was probably only a couple of seconds, but getting out of the car guy could’ve been 20 minutes, and wrestling in the lobby guy could’ve been 7 hours. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let’s try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn’t an issue, and wasn’t replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn’t. If it was out of plane, it wouldn’t. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I’ve seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn’t always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I’d be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here’s where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn’t the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it’s 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it’s 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn’t the root cause. And we’re back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I’m sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I’ve been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I’ve always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I’m open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it’s poor handling that is the root cause. Yeah we know the original drop issue pre "voluntary upgrade" is different Did you know SIG was aware of the drop safety issue prior to it being viral on YouTube? Notice how the solution was to implement the upgrades that were made as a part of the M17/M18? The striker block/striker safety is significantly different than what's found on almost every other striker fired pistol. It's the same concept, very different implementation. USASOC found mechanical defects in their pistols -- the striker safety levers were shearing M17/M18 PQDR Background — • SOATB is having a new issue with our SIG M18's • The Safety Lock as pictured is shearing and disabling the Drop Safety. • Weapon will still fire and function normally but can be unsafe if dropped. • If not correct weapon could accidentally discharge. Ongoing Actions — • Inspected and repaired as required. • PQDR submission to TACOM • The affected part can only be replaced as an entire assy: Striker Assy (1005-01-665-3082). • Request that armorers keep Striker Assemblies on hand as Shop Stock. • 3 x of the 115 on hand were found broken during inspection. • Round count on the affected pistols was approx. 5-6000 rounds. Recommendations — • Adjacent Unit Armorers one time inspect all weapons of the affected area on the underside of the slide • Reinspect every time the weapon is issued. • Implement the SOUM or MAM once distro Yes, the striker safety is a different design than most, but most here can’t understand that the current issue is not the drop issue. Think I’m really going to take them further into the weeds? The point is, many think Glock is the only one with a striker block, and don’t understand that’s standard these days. Except 1911/2011. Not as standard unless series 80 based. As for the breakage, that’s fine, but not apparently part of this discussion. What do I mean? If pistols involved in discharges were inspected and found to have breakages, it absolutely would be. But no pistol involved has been found to have a mechanical defect (to my knowledge). So, while there may need to be something addressed, it isn’t the root cause. What did SIG know and when did they know it? Probably something Fred Thompson would’ve asked. This is a good question that I certainly don’t know the answer to. Did they know this -30 degree issue existed? There does appear to be indications but I haven’t seen any actual evidence. I suspect, but certainly could not prove, that yes they were aware and made a decision that 1) it had passed all established tests, and 2) it was very highly unlikely for a real-world drop to achieve the specific angle (which is why that drop isn’t part of the drop tests). Who made that decision? Who knows? It is possible they didn’t know, because the lightening “fix” wasn’t the only thing done to the military versions. It is possible that the alterations to the way the whole thing worked changed the weights and dynamics, which necessitated the lightened parts. There are quite significant differences in how the pistol operates pre- and post-upgrade. The originals had a (IMO stupid) design where the trigger pull reset the trigger. This was the double click issue. As part of the redesign there, it went to a more traditional disconnector, which also add for a more traditional OOB protection. I was glad to see this change. I was able to repeatedly stall the trigger pull, where it would fire but not get to the second click, resulting in a dead trigger. This was repeatable, at least with my example, so it was pretty clearly mechanical. Whether it was inherent to the design, whether it was “tolerance stacking” or whether something about mine was out of spec, who knows. It got upgraded and I was pleased. More about the design change than the drop issue, frankly. So if you think SIG is a terrible company because you KNOW they KNEW there was a problem and didn’t do anything, I can see that. I question how you know and how you evidence they knew, but whatever, at least you’re applying some logic. But all of the evidence points towards the “uncommanded” discharges to be caused by movements between the trigger and foreign objects. That is negligent handling and throwing shade at SIG won’t help the problem. Making people understand that their actions 2 hours before the discharge were the cause and that taking the time to safely holster their pistol is required of them is as what will actually eliminate the problem. Maybe that is the ultimate problem here. Some human minds can’t comprehend that the cause may have occurred minutes or hours before the discharge. Competition shirt guy was probably only a couple of seconds, but getting out of the car guy could’ve been 20 minutes, and wrestling in the lobby guy could’ve been 7 hours. And yet, it all still comes back to this: even if every 320 ND is actually due to holster FOD, it's still on Sig for making an unsafe design because no one else's platform is doing this. There are millions of M&Ps out there. No systemic holster discharges. Same for Glocks, XDs, HKs, Rugers, etc... No one else designed a pistol that is as susceptible to holster discharging as the 320. Arguably, that is the definition of an unsafe design. |
|
It's taking on a life of its own ..even Gun Jesus is jumping in. https://youtube.com/shorts/gd7uaoSFvAY?si=q28qp0MGR66CdqXr Looks like the FB shortcut doesn't like Shorts. |
|
Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. |
|
Quoted: Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. |
|
Quoted: For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. If it was a parts problem, you'd think you would be able replicate the failure in a pistol that has exhibited the fault once. |
|
|
Quoted:If all these NDs are from mishandling, wouldn’t there be similar lawsuits against Glock, S&W, Springfield etc?? Seems too convenient to just happen with Sigs. The trigger being both a feature and a bug. |
|
Quoted: Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. Being unable to replicate the problem is irrelevant at this point. Enough reputable people have witnessed or seen videos with them discharging with the trigger being pulled. More people are talking about it, and SIG's response of tying questioning their product to being anti-2A was pretty much the worst thing they could have done |
|
Quoted: If all these NDs are from mishandling, wouldn’t there be similar lawsuits against Glock, S&W, Springfield etc?? Seems too convenient to just happen with Sigs. I am old enough to remember when Glock was the big new thing. Glock haters declared them unsafe, mostly due to the lack of a manual thumb safety. They would flood the internet with posting baseless claims, and repost ND videos over and over, many blaming the gun. If I recall correctly, there were some lawsuits against Glock too. |