[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 121 of 142)
|
Quoted: So, will the fear of lawsuits by admitting the P320 has a safety issue prevent SIG from actually offering a fix for all of the pistols out there? Would it be a better move for them to keep saying the P320 is one of the safest on the planet and deal with the continued heat or would it be better for them to say that for those that still have safety concerns, here is a widget we designed that improves the sear mechanism That's the billion dollar question, isn't it? |
|
Quoted: It's a true fix for the sear problem. No. Why even have a striker-fired gun if it's unsafe without a manually applied external safety? That's not what the market wanted and not what many/most LEO and civilian operators were sold. Hell, even USAF carries the guns with the safety off. Big Dumb Army just has to have the safety because they can't get with the times. (I will note that 75th carries Glocks because apparently having a 110 GT score as a bar for entry nets you candidates that are able to keep their booger hook off the bang switch. So when I say "Big Dumb Army", I mean excluding those guys.) |
|
Quoted: Hell, even USAF carries the guns with the safety off. Big Dumb Army just has to have the safety because they can't get with the times. (I will note that 75th carries Glocks because apparently having a 110 GT score as a bar for entry nets you candidates that are able to keep their booger hook off the bang switch. So when I say "Big Dumb Army", I mean excluding those guys.) Quoted: Quoted: It's a true fix for the sear problem. Hell, even USAF carries the guns with the safety off. Big Dumb Army just has to have the safety because they can't get with the times. (I will note that 75th carries Glocks because apparently having a 110 GT score as a bar for entry nets you candidates that are able to keep their booger hook off the bang switch. So when I say "Big Dumb Army", I mean excluding those guys.) |
|
Quoted: Nobody was talking about it as a compounding factor with the other sear issues until he dropped that video. First in, worst dressed. Give the man his credit and move on. Slide movement was a popular theory on this board a few months ago. In this post, for example: "I’m concerned that manufacturing tolerances required to have all slides fit all FCUs are loose enough to allow a gun with some wear to move the slide enough to disengage the sear from striker." Some people theorized that repeated vertical movement of the slide could cause the sear to walk off the striker. People stopped talking about it because no one replicated sear walking and ultimately what's important is finding what causes the sear to lower. |
|
Quoted: Slide movement was a popular theory on this board a few months ago. In this post, for example: "I’m concerned that manufacturing tolerances required to have all slides fit all FCUs are loose enough to allow a gun with some wear to move the slide enough to disengage the sear from striker." Some people theorized that repeated vertical movement of the slide could cause the sear to walk off the striker. People stopped talking about it because no one replicated sear walking and ultimately what's important is finding what causes the sear to lower. Talking about it is one thing, actually demonstrating it quite another. |
|
Quoted: Talking about it is one thing, actually demonstrating it quite another. Yeah, but all he demonstrated is that the pistol does the thing it's supposed to do. Everyone already knew the striker will fall if you lower the sear enough. I don't know why you've got such a boner for this guy's dumb video. |
|
Quoted: No. Why even have a striker-fired gun if it's unsafe without a manually applied external safety? That's not what the market wanted and not what many/most LEO and civilian operators were sold. Hell, even USAF carries the guns with the safety off. Big Dumb Army just has to have the safety because they can't get with the times. (I will note that 75th carries Glocks because apparently having a 110 GT score as a bar for entry nets you candidates that are able to keep their booger hook off the bang switch. So when I say "Big Dumb Army", I mean excluding those guys.) Quoted: Quoted: It's a true fix for the sear problem. No. Why even have a striker-fired gun if it's unsafe without a manually applied external safety? That's not what the market wanted and not what many/most LEO and civilian operators were sold. Hell, even USAF carries the guns with the safety off. Big Dumb Army just has to have the safety because they can't get with the times. (I will note that 75th carries Glocks because apparently having a 110 GT score as a bar for entry nets you candidates that are able to keep their booger hook off the bang switch. So when I say "Big Dumb Army", I mean excluding those guys.) There's this common narrative that "striker guns don't need safeties," but zero thought seems to be applied to why that may or may not be true. The spring loaded thing that sets off the primer either is or is not kept under spring pressure, and if it is under pressure, it either is or is not properly blocked. Whether the thing in question is a hammer or a striker isn't actually an important detail. The USAF carries the M18 safety off because they carried the M9 safety off. With the M9, that policy makes complete sense. With the M18, that policy was always retarded. Striker guns have other advantages beyond maybe carrying a pistol without a manual safety. They're still way cheaper than hammer guns, they still have a lower parts count, and they're still easier to maintain. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, but all he demonstrated is that the pistol does the thing it's supposed to do. Everyone already knew the striker will fall if you lower the sear enough. I don't know why you've got such a boner for this guy's dumb video. No. There's no recognized amount of "supposed to" for sloppy slides releasing strikers. Glocks have a very conservative and safe amount of this phenomenon that doesn't compromise safety. Obviously P320 safety is compromised, and it seems absurdly likely that one component of it is the gross slide to frame bit being able to reduce the sear engagement or walk the sear a whole bunch. |
|
Quoted: ...are you are now arguing that the eleventy billion Glocks in circulation are unsafe?  Quoted: Quoted: There's this common narrative that "striker guns don't need safeties," but zero thought seems to be applied to why that may or may not be true. ...are you are now arguing that the eleventy billion Glocks in circulation are unsafe? You could read the very next line in the post you quoted to find the answer to your question. |
|
Quoted: You could read the very next line in the post you quoted to find the answer to your question. Okay, are you arguing the eleventy billion S&W M&Ps in circulation are unsafe? Glock is actually in the minority with having a striker that's only 50% cocked or whatever. In most designs, it's 90%+. I have no doubt that if you removed or overrode the striker safety from an M&P and manually released the sear, it would detonate many types of primers without a trigger pull. But M&Ps aren't having problems like this despite having as many or more guns in circulation as the P320. The M&P came out two decades ago now. |
|
Quoted: No. There's no recognized amount of "supposed to" for sloppy slides releasing strikers. Glocks have a very conservative and safe amount of this phenomenon that doesn't compromise safety. Obviously P320 safety is compromised, and it seems absurdly likely that one component of it is the gross slide to frame bit being able to reduce the sear engagement or walk the sear a whole bunch. Quoted: No. There's no recognized amount of "supposed to" for sloppy slides releasing strikers. Glocks have a very conservative and safe amount of this phenomenon that doesn't compromise safety. Obviously P320 safety is compromised, and it seems absurdly likely that one component of it is the gross slide to frame bit being able to reduce the sear engagement or walk the sear a whole bunch. There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you recognize. Quoted: ...are you are now arguing that the eleventy billion Glocks in circulation are unsafe? Binary thinking about safety, dividing guns into safe and unsafe, is a rhetorical mistake. The truth is that safety is a scale, and "unsafe" is something that falls below your personal cutoff on that scale. |
Apparently the guy who filed the patent worked on the 320 design and had left Sig. I still can't remember how to embed a tweet correctly. X link |
Don't know if it was posted: Mixing it up in the Sig comments |
|
Quoted:
Apparently the guy who filed the patent worked on the 320 design and had left Sig. I still can't remember how to embed a tweet correctly. Fixed for you. Ties into Ben's video. |
|
Quoted: Striker guns have other advantages beyond maybe carrying a pistol without a manual safety. They're still way cheaper than hammer guns, they still have a lower parts count, and they're still easier to maintain. Quoted: ...are you are now arguing that the eleventy billion Glocks in circulation are unsafe? |
Did you inform sig?|
Quoted: Okay, are you arguing the eleventy billion S&W M&Ps in circulation are unsafe? Glock is actually in the minority with having a striker that's only 50% cocked or whatever. In most designs, it's 90%+. I have no doubt that if you removed or overrode the striker safety from an M&P and manually released the sear, it would detonate many types of primers without a trigger pull. But M&Ps aren't having problems like this despite having as many or more guns in circulation as the P320. The M&P came out two decades ago now. Quoted: Quoted: You could read the very next line in the post you quoted to find the answer to your question. Okay, are you arguing the eleventy billion S&W M&Ps in circulation are unsafe? Glock is actually in the minority with having a striker that's only 50% cocked or whatever. In most designs, it's 90%+. I have no doubt that if you removed or overrode the striker safety from an M&P and manually released the sear, it would detonate many types of primers without a trigger pull. But M&Ps aren't having problems like this despite having as many or more guns in circulation as the P320. The M&P came out two decades ago now. First, we need to differentiate between internal mechanical failures and safety margins for external factors like handling or holster problems. For this part of the discussion, we're talking about those external factors. There are all kinds of things in the design of a firearm, other than just the presence of a manual safety, that can influence those margins. The weight of the trigger pull, the length of a trigger pull, the size of the trigger guard, the width of the trigger shoe, the shape of the trigger shoe, whether or not the trigger has a trigger safety, the size/shape of that trigger safety, etc. The sum of these factors isn't a binary, black and white "it's safe" or "it's not safe." There's a spectrum where some designs end up being safer than others. If we exclude DA guns and guns with external safeties, and only look at striker fired pistols that don't have manual safeties, we can still look at different design features and see some guns have better safety margins than others. The P320 is at the extreme, least safe end of this spectrum. The trigger pull is short, crisp, and light, there's no trigger safety, the trigger guard is narrow, the trigger shoe is wide, and the trigger shoe is flat. Functionally, there's NO reason to think this design is ANY more safe than carrying a P229 with the hammer cocked. There's no meaningful difference between a hammer and a striker here. The P320 was ALWAYS going to have a higher rate of ADs/NDs than the field of striker guns for this reason, even without the UD problems. It never should have been issued as a duty gun in that configuration. The Glock design is pretty far towards the other end of the spectrum. The trigger pull is heavier and has a crappy rolling break, there's a very skinny trigger safety, the trigger guard is fat, and the trigger shoe is a narrow v-shaped thing that deflects anything but direct pulls. It's a big difference. The M&P is in between the two, but closer to the Glock. And there might be a meaningful difference between the M&P 1.0 and 2.0. We're splitting hairs here, but the rounded and hooked trigger of a M&P 1.0 might be more forgiving than the M&P 2.0's flat trigger that has a trigger safety almost as wide as the trigger shoe. |
|
Hmmm...a new patent to "fix" it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVw7lPmDIo0&t=474s |
|
Quoted: Binary thinking about safety, dividing guns into safe and unsafe, is a rhetorical mistake. The truth is that safety is a scale, and "unsafe" is something that falls below your personal cutoff on that scale. What a devastating way to lose this argument. Glocks don't go off without a trigger pull. P320's do. There's your binary. |
|
Quoted: The P320 is at the extreme, least safe end of this spectrum. The trigger pull is short, crisp, and light, there's no trigger safety, the trigger guard is narrow, the trigger shoe is wide, and the trigger shoe is flat. Functionally, there's NO reason to think this design is ANY more safe than carrying a P229 with the hammer cocked. There's no meaningful difference between a hammer and a striker here. The P320 was ALWAYS going to have a higher rate of ADs/NDs than the field of striker guns for this reason, even without the UD problems. It never should have been issued as a duty gun in that configuration. We can agree on this. I was shocked that Big Army didn't have Sig do something to at least make the trigger pull heavier. Regardless of the external design features and resistance to foreign objects pulling the trigger, I think a majority of the holster pops are from the internal problems that have been fleshed out. |
|
Quoted: Fixed for you. Ties into Ben's video. Quoted: Quoted:
Apparently the guy who filed the patent worked on the 320 design and had left Sig. I still can't remember how to embed a tweet correctly. Fixed for you. Ties into Ben's video. |
|
Quoted: What a devastating way to lose this argument. Quoted: What a devastating way to lose this argument. What argument do you imagine we're having? Quoted: Glocks don't go off without a trigger pull. P320's do. There's your binary. A P320 will never hurt anyone if you only load it while it's pointed down range, unload it before pointing it anywhere else, and never carry it loaded. A Glock would be more safe if it had a manual safety. This doesn’t mean that Glocks are unsafe. It means that there are incidents with Glocks that would be prevented by having and using a manual safety. |
|
Quoted: What a devastating way to lose this argument. Glocks don't go off without a trigger pull. P320's do. There's your binary. Quoted: Quoted: Binary thinking about safety, dividing guns into safe and unsafe, is a rhetorical mistake. The truth is that safety is a scale, and "unsafe" is something that falls below your personal cutoff on that scale. What a devastating way to lose this argument. Glocks don't go off without a trigger pull. P320's do. There's your binary. And that has nothing to do with them being striker guns. The Glock cruciform is blocked and locked in place when the gun is at rest. It cannot move until someone or something unlocks it by pulling the trigger dingus. With the P320, we have the internal problems discussed in this thread AND a razor thin external margin. It just so happens than an external safety revised to block the sear would damn near eliminate both problems. |
|
Quoted: With the P320, we have the internal problems discussed in this thread AND a razor thin external margin. It just so happens than an external safety revised to block the sear would damn near eliminate both problems. And not all P320s came factory equipped with manual safeties, so how do you propose upgrading those? |
|
Sounds like its just a fix for the thumb safety version. |
|
Quoted: And not all P320s came factory equipped with manual safeties, so how do you propose upgrading those? Quoted: Quoted: With the P320, we have the internal problems discussed in this thread AND a razor thin external margin. It just so happens than an external safety revised to block the sear would damn near eliminate both problems. And not all P320s came factory equipped with manual safeties, so how do you propose upgrading those? That's a tangent from the core of this discussion. I think that detail is addressed in the Protraband video on the patent, and I think there's also a Sig Mechanic video for converting non-safety P320s using existing parts. Either way, the point is, doing so makes the P320 a much more safe and viable gun in terms of both UDs and ADs/NDs. |
|
Quoted: I think there's also a Sig Mechanic video for converting non-safety P320s using existing parts. Yup. Take a gander. 47 minutes of instructions. Think average joe wants ANY part of that? You have to modify the FCU and the grip module using a template, it's not a lego-parts-swapping situation like it is on M&P 2.0's.  Alternative: have someone sell pre-modified FCU's and grip modules. Do you think average joe wants to now be responsible for having a serialized part transferred to him, and needing to dispose of a known-unsafe serialized part? This is only a solution for the 1% hardcore types like us. Nobody normal is touching that with a ten foot pole. |
|
Quoted: Yup. Take a gander. 47 minutes of instructions. Think average joe wants ANY part of that? You have to modify the FCU and the grip module using a template, it's not a lego-parts-swapping situation like it is on M&P 2.0's. https://i.imgur.com/5JwNdjVl.jpg Alternative: have someone sell pre-modified FCU's and grip modules. Do you think average joe wants to now be responsible for having a serialized part transferred to him, and needing to dispose of a known-unsafe serialized part? This is only a solution for the 1% hardcore types like us. Nobody normal is touching that with a ten foot pole. Quoted: Quoted: I think there's also a Sig Mechanic video for converting non-safety P320s using existing parts. Yup. Take a gander. 47 minutes of instructions. Think average joe wants ANY part of that? You have to modify the FCU and the grip module using a template, it's not a lego-parts-swapping situation like it is on M&P 2.0's. https://i.imgur.com/5JwNdjVl.jpg Alternative: have someone sell pre-modified FCU's and grip modules. Do you think average joe wants to now be responsible for having a serialized part transferred to him, and needing to dispose of a known-unsafe serialized part? This is only a solution for the 1% hardcore types like us. Nobody normal is touching that with a ten foot pole. The solution was probably never going to be Sig shipping parts to end users for them to swap. Depending upon the design and the work involved, the most likely answers are either Sig converting existing FCUs or Sig scrapping those FCUs and cranking out new ones. |
|
Quoted: Yup. Take a gander. 47 minutes of instructions. Think average joe wants ANY part of that? You have to modify the FCU and the grip module using a template, it's not a lego-parts-swapping situation like it is on M&P 2.0's. https://i.imgur.com/5JwNdjVl.jpg Alternative: have someone sell pre-modified FCU's and grip modules. Do you think average joe wants to now be responsible for having a serialized part transferred to him, and needing to dispose of a known-unsafe serialized part? This is only a solution for the 1% hardcore types like us. Nobody normal is touching that with a ten foot pole. Quoted: Quoted: I think there's also a Sig Mechanic video for converting non-safety P320s using existing parts. Yup. Take a gander. 47 minutes of instructions. Think average joe wants ANY part of that? You have to modify the FCU and the grip module using a template, it's not a lego-parts-swapping situation like it is on M&P 2.0's. https://i.imgur.com/5JwNdjVl.jpg Alternative: have someone sell pre-modified FCU's and grip modules. Do you think average joe wants to now be responsible for having a serialized part transferred to him, and needing to dispose of a known-unsafe serialized part? This is only a solution for the 1% hardcore types like us. Nobody normal is touching that with a ten foot pole. I did that a couple of months ago on my 320 X5 / Raider build. It was a cast iron bitch. 0/10 do not recommend. I’ll end up doing it again. |
|
Quoted: What argument do you imagine we're having? A P320 will never hurt anyone if you only load it while it's pointed down range, unload it before pointing it anywhere else, and never carry it loaded. A Glock would be more safe if it had a manual safety. This doesn't mean that Glocks are unsafe. It means that there are incidents with Glocks that would be prevented by having and using a manual safety. Quoted: Quoted: What a devastating way to lose this argument. What argument do you imagine we're having? Quoted: Glocks don't go off without a trigger pull. P320's do. There's your binary. A P320 will never hurt anyone if you only load it while it's pointed down range, unload it before pointing it anywhere else, and never carry it loaded. A Glock would be more safe if it had a manual safety. This doesn't mean that Glocks are unsafe. It means that there are incidents with Glocks that would be prevented by having and using a manual safety. I guess you need to define safe there. Part of the reason I went to Glocks was shooting IDPA. I saw way too many people draw and start pulling the trigger w/o a bang. They missed wiping the safety on a 1911 in most cases. It's unsafe it doesn't go bang when you want a bang. It's unsafe if it goes bang when you didn't want a bang. Put a Glock in a good holster and don't fuck with it and it doesn't go bang when you don't want it. Draw it and pull the trigger and it does go bang assuming you remembered to load it w/ good ammo. For me a double action revolver or Glock is the perfect carry gun. |
|
It would be hilariously ironic if the resolution/bandaid ends up being a slide-mounted safety after the infantile tantrum the army threw about the M9’s manual of arms. It be EVEN BETTER if it ends up keeping the frame-mounted safety to go with it. That’s like L85-levels of ergonomic awesomeness! Maybe they could add one of those dumb smart gun biometric locks to it as well! |
|
Quoted: The solution was probably never going to be Sig shipping parts to end users for them to swap. Depending upon the design and the work involved, the most likely answers are either Sig converting existing FCUs or Sig scrapping those FCUs and cranking out new ones. Let's pretend it's perfectly okay for Sig to recall a product sold and marketed as having been safe to use without a manual safety, in order to install a manual safety as part of the recall process. I accept that nothing changes for M17/M18's and other P320's that already have the manual safety. Is Sig capable of doing this without going bankrupt? Somewhere north of two and a half million guns. Shipping two ways, labor, parts. They likely need to hire a ton of people and build facilities to even approach getting this done on a reasonable timeline. All that comes with admin overhead BS. If that number gets to $400 per gun, that's a billion dollar liability. Sig got a billion laying around to blow? I bet they already know what it would take to fix the P320, they've already done the math, and that's the only logical explanation for their behavior around this whole thing. They can't afford to fix it. |
|
Quoted: I guess you need to define safe there. Part of the reason I went to Glocks was shooting IDPA. I saw way too many people draw and start pulling the trigger w/o a bang. They missed wiping the safety on a 1911 in most cases. It's unsafe it doesn't go bang when you want a bang. It's unsafe if it goes bang when you didn't want a bang. Put a Glock in a good holster and don't fuck with it and it doesn't go bang when you don't want it. Draw it and pull the trigger and it does go bang assuming you remembered to load it w/ good ammo. For me a double action revolver or Glock is the perfect carry gun. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What a devastating way to lose this argument. What argument do you imagine we're having? Quoted: Glocks don't go off without a trigger pull. P320's do. There's your binary. A P320 will never hurt anyone if you only load it while it's pointed down range, unload it before pointing it anywhere else, and never carry it loaded. A Glock would be more safe if it had a manual safety. This doesn't mean that Glocks are unsafe. It means that there are incidents with Glocks that would be prevented by having and using a manual safety. I guess you need to define safe there. Part of the reason I went to Glocks was shooting IDPA. I saw way too many people draw and start pulling the trigger w/o a bang. They missed wiping the safety on a 1911 in most cases. It's unsafe it doesn't go bang when you want a bang. It's unsafe if it goes bang when you didn't want a bang. Put a Glock in a good holster and don't fuck with it and it doesn't go bang when you don't want it. Draw it and pull the trigger and it does go bang assuming you remembered to load it w/ good ammo. For me a double action revolver or Glock is the perfect carry gun. Meh. Every GI, cop, and armed citizen in the US should be training with ARs at this point. That training would include reflex/presentation drills that involve manipulating the safety on the AR. Most pistols with frame mounted safeties have huge amount of overlap with ARs in terms of safety manipulation in these same drills. The safety shouldn't be a barrier for anyone that takes this stuff even a little bit seriously outside of really fringe scenarios like you injured your hand during a rollover accident trying to outrun the commie paratroopers or something. |
|
Quoted: Interesting development regarding SIG supposedly filing a patent for an updated sear for the P320. Wonder how that will shake out. I imagine it'll go along the lines of "there's nothing at all wrong with your 320, there is no recall, we already said that they are fine and that is all the evidence you need. There is definitely not a problem. However, if you would like another "free voluntary UPGRADE" we will do this for your out of the shear kindness of our hearts because we care about our customers so much. But not because it needs it or anything." Or something like that. |
|
Quoted: Let's pretend it's perfectly okay for Sig to recall a product sold and marketed as having been safe to use without a manual safety, in order to install a manual safety as part of the recall process. I accept that nothing changes for M17/M18's and other P320's that already have the manual safety. Is Sig capable of doing this without going bankrupt? Somewhere north of two and a half million guns. Shipping two ways, labor, parts. They likely need to hire a ton of people and build facilities to even approach getting this done on a reasonable timeline. All that comes with admin overhead BS. If that number gets to $400 per gun, that's a billion dollar liability. Sig got a billion laying around to blow? I bet they already know what it would take to fix the P320, they've already done the math, and that's the only logical explanation for their behavior around this whole thing. They can't afford to fix it. Quoted: Quoted: The solution was probably never going to be Sig shipping parts to end users for them to swap. Depending upon the design and the work involved, the most likely answers are either Sig converting existing FCUs or Sig scrapping those FCUs and cranking out new ones. Let's pretend it's perfectly okay for Sig to recall a product sold and marketed as having been safe to use without a manual safety, in order to install a manual safety as part of the recall process. I accept that nothing changes for M17/M18's and other P320's that already have the manual safety. Is Sig capable of doing this without going bankrupt? Somewhere north of two and a half million guns. Shipping two ways, labor, parts. They likely need to hire a ton of people and build facilities to even approach getting this done on a reasonable timeline. All that comes with admin overhead BS. If that number gets to $400 per gun, that's a billion dollar liability. Sig got a billion laying around to blow? I bet they already know what it would take to fix the P320, they've already done the math, and that's the only logical explanation for their behavior around this whole thing. They can't afford to fix it. The .mil unit price on the M17 is something like $210 per gun. That number includes the optics ready slide, night sights, and the barrel. That's easily the majority of real cost for these guns. Even if the manufacturing math says it's cheaper or more efficient to crank out entirely new FCUs than to convert existing ones, I wouldn't expect the cost to be anywhere near that high. It'll still hurt due to the number of units in circulation, but not a billion dollars worth. |
|
Quoted: I guess you need to define safe there. Part of the reason I went to Glocks was shooting IDPA. I saw way too many people draw and start pulling the trigger w/o a bang. They missed wiping the safety on a 1911 in most cases. It's unsafe it doesn't go bang when you want a bang. It's unsafe if it goes bang when you didn't want a bang. Put a Glock in a good holster and don't fuck with it and it doesn't go bang when you don't want it. Draw it and pull the trigger and it does go bang assuming you remembered to load it w/ good ammo. For me a double action revolver or Glock is the perfect carry gun. My point is that there is no universally applicable definition of safe vs unsafe, because safety is a spectrum and everyone has to decide for themselves what point on the spectrum is safe enough for them. As you note, the advantage of a handgun without a manual safety is that it's easier to shoot; thr disadvantage is that you have a reduced margin of safety in handling. A shorter, lighter trigger pull makes a pistol easier to shoot, but also reduces the margin of safety in handling. The perfect tradeoff between safety and ease of use is a judgement call, not an objective hard line. |
|
Quoted: My point is that there is no universally applicable definition of safe vs unsafe, because safety is a spectrum and everyone has to decide for themselves what point on the spectrum is safe enough for them. As you note, the advantage of a handgun without a manual safety is that it's easier to shoot; thr disadvantage is that you have a reduced margin of safety in handling. A shorter, lighter trigger pull makes a pistol easier to shoot, but also reduces the margin of safety in handling. The perfect tradeoff between safety and ease of use is a judgement call, not an objective hard line. |
|
Quoted: And pretty much everyone thinks that they were selling at a loss in order to be able to promote the gun as being used by the US military. Quoted: Quoted: The .mil unit price on the M17 is something like $210 per gun. And pretty much everyone thinks that they were selling at a loss in order to be able to promote the gun as being used by the US military. Might not be a loss per gun, particularly in that quantity, just they weren't making any profit on it, planning to make money in the LE & .civ markets - which are now dead to them for the 320 and impacting sales of the 365, 2xx line & their optics. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for articulating that. Quoted: Quoted: My point is that there is no universally applicable definition of safe vs unsafe, because safety is a spectrum and everyone has to decide for themselves what point on the spectrum is safe enough for them. As you note, the advantage of a handgun without a manual safety is that it's easier to shoot; thr disadvantage is that you have a reduced margin of safety in handling. A shorter, lighter trigger pull makes a pistol easier to shoot, but also reduces the margin of safety in handling. The perfect tradeoff between safety and ease of use is a judgement call, not an objective hard line. Thanks for articulating that. Some folks here would be horrified by a rimfire free pistol match. |
|
Quoted: so a former sig engineer filed a patent app to fix the sig? fucking wow. This has Walker Trigger lawsuit written all over it. Remington went BK over this same issue...and arguably, the Walker trigger was safe so long as it was relatively clean and not adjusted down below safe levels. It was rust/dirt that contributed to the primary death from the Rem 700 lawsuit. The trigger just wasn't able to tolerate it. |
|
Quoted: And pretty much everyone thinks that they were selling at a loss in order to be able to promote the gun as being used by the US military. Quoted: Quoted: The .mil unit price on the M17 is something like $210 per gun. And pretty much everyone thinks that they were selling at a loss in order to be able to promote the gun as being used by the US military. The standard model P320 full size currently retails for $430 + shipping. That's retail. That number includes: The gun. The box, mags, manual, and everything that comes with the gun. Sig's markup. The federal excise tax. The distributor's markup. The retailer's markup. And an unknown amount of shipping between Sig, the distributor, and the retailer. I think it's reasonable to guess that the FCU is well under 20% of this total. |
|
Quoted: This has Walker Trigger lawsuit written all over it. Remington went BK over this same issue...and arguably, the Walker trigger was safe so long as it was relatively clean and not adjusted down below safe levels. It was rust/dirt that contributed to the primary death from the Rem 700 lawsuit. The trigger just wasn't able to tolerate it. Quoted: Quoted: so a former sig engineer filed a patent app to fix the sig? fucking wow. This has Walker Trigger lawsuit written all over it. Remington went BK over this same issue...and arguably, the Walker trigger was safe so long as it was relatively clean and not adjusted down below safe levels. It was rust/dirt that contributed to the primary death from the Rem 700 lawsuit. The trigger just wasn't able to tolerate it. by numbers the p320 is safe, but there seems to be an design flaw that's causing these discharges. |