[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 132 of 142)
|
Quoted: Seriously, just stop posting. You are out of your depth here and not nearly as smart as you seem to think.  P.S.: you've posted that you own a P320 and plan to continue carrying it. You also keep posting in here willingly ignoring objective facts so that you can keep shitting up the thread with nonsense. You definitely do have an emotional investment in whatever false intellectual exercise you think you're taking part in. There are plenty of die hards like him. I know a guy who's taken the opportunity to buy more 320s- he bought an AXG and an X-Ten at basically half price. He believes every discharge has been fingers on triggers. Every one. The good news is the rest of the shooting community is smarter. |
|
Quoted: If that's true, then why did the striker block function more often than not during the FBI's original test, and why did it function 100% during follow up testing? Quoted: Quoted: It's not a matter of when it gets deactivated - it's a matter of it being non-functional. If that's true, then why did the striker block function more often than not during the FBI's original test, and why did it function 100% during follow up testing? No one has argued 100% of striker blocks are failing 100% of the time. You're arguing that a block functioning "more often than not" is somehow a good thing. |
|
Quoted: I'm curious as to exactly HOW unseen debris gets between the sear ledge and striker. When holstered there is not a gap that dirt can simply force its way in there and separate the ledge from striker. The striker is resting on the ledge. No gap. Nothing is PUSHING the dirt into that microscopic crack except people with cut up feeler gauges giving their P320s an anal probe. If you rack the slide the tail of the striker comes back further than the sear interface and actively scrapes crud off the ledge and pushes it forward into the interface area. It doesn't somehow skip over the crud. Look at the rub marks on the ledge of a well worn 320 or look at the area after a good day at the range. There will be a shiny metallic area scraped clean of debris. Another test would be to put some Dykem (or a BLUE sharpie) on the ledge and hand cycle it a few times. How does someone wonder how crap gets on the striker!? That area of firearms get filthy, especially on my SIGs. I completely disassemble the striker assembly every year and it's full of gunk. My P365 was having misfires every magazine (why I started cleaning yearly) and I couldn't figure it out until I took the striker out. It was so filthy the grooves in the striker itself were almost full of carbon and lint. The striker face itself was admittedly a bit cleaner but still needed to be heavily cleaned. I used to shoot with a group of guys and we'd do 1000 rounds of 9mm a month each between a training course we were doing and an Action Pistol series we all got into. We decided to not clean our guns for 6 months then cleaned them all together. The guys had been adding oil to the rear of their slide/frame gaps at matches to keep them running and a lot of that oil collects in the striker assembly holding lint and debris. |
|
Quoted: No one has argued 100% of striker blocks are failing 100% of the time. Quoted: No one has argued 100% of striker blocks are failing 100% of the time. Buddy, you said "It's not a matter of when it gets deactivated - it's a matter of it being non-functional." The FBI test appears to indicate that it is in fact a matter of it being deactivated under some circumstances, not a matter of it being non-functional. Quoted: You're arguing that a block functioning "more often than not" is somehow a good thing. No. Nothing in any of my posts said or implied that a striker block that fails to function under some circumstances is a good thing. I'm trying to actually understand the P320's real problems, not just engage in an irrational witch hunt. |
|
Quoted: I think we will find that the "shit getting packed into the sear" hypothesis will amount to nothing. . I concur. It seems far-fetched. On the only P320 I’ve ever looked at, the sear maintained complete striker lug engagement no matter how mych you wiggled the slide. Basically, the sear has some float which allows it to rise with the slide. For something to get between the sear and striker lug it would have to be pretty rigid and inserted with force. I think I am in the “bad sear springs or malformed sear/striker lug” crowd. |
|
Quoted: I concur. It seems far-fetched. On the only P320 I’ve ever looked at, the sear maintained complete striker lug engagement no matter how mych you wiggled the slide. Basically, the sear has some float which allows it to rise with the slide. For something to get between the sear and striker lug it would have to be pretty rigid and inserted with force. I think I am in the “bad sear springs or malformed sear/striker lug” crowd. Quoted: Quoted: I think we will find that the "shit getting packed into the sear" hypothesis will amount to nothing. . I concur. It seems far-fetched. On the only P320 I’ve ever looked at, the sear maintained complete striker lug engagement no matter how mych you wiggled the slide. Basically, the sear has some float which allows it to rise with the slide. For something to get between the sear and striker lug it would have to be pretty rigid and inserted with force. I think I am in the “bad sear springs or malformed sear/striker lug” crowd. I think my problem with accepting a defect of manufacturing hypothesis is that it should be clearly observable and repeatable yet in these instances I am aware of that hasn’t been shown. I know the foreign contaminant hypothesis seems far fetched, but that’s understandable because it is. Most P320s do not fire in the holster. Get enough of them carried around in enough holster by enough cops eating lunch in the squad car enough times, and all is fine and dandy until eventually there’s just a few too many French fry crumbs in the back end of the pistol, combine that with a floating sear that is unsupported and is not “bottomless” and some movement and occasionally the stars align. Then when you go to inspect the pistol to identify the problem or repeat the failure, you can’t. The contaminant is gone. |
|
Quoted: Buddy, you said "It's not a matter of when it gets deactivated - it's a matter of it being non-functional." The FBI test appears to indicate that it is in fact a matter of it being deactivated under some circumstances, not a matter of it being non-functional. Quoted: Buddy, you said "It's not a matter of when it gets deactivated - it's a matter of it being non-functional." The FBI test appears to indicate that it is in fact a matter of it being deactivated under some circumstances, not a matter of it being non-functional. My post was a direct response to this: I'd love to see someone test exactly how far the sear has to be depressed before the striker block gets deactivated, for example. Let me clarify it for you. It's not a matter of when a particular striker safety on a particular gun gets deactivated - it's a matter of a particular striker safety on a particular gun being non-functional. |
|
Quoted: I have no emotional connection with the issue. Obviously others do, as evidenced by multiple replies throughout this long thread. There is a known issue with striker fired guns that is not present in hammer fired. It has now been clearly shown in a video for all to see, including anyone who knew it before. It is clear evidence showing with 100 percent certainty that without fully pulling the trigger, a striker fired gun can fire simply by moving/adjusting the slide/frame fitment/position. It clearly shows how debris/shirts/holster design/other objects in a holster can pull the trigger enough to not initially fire when inserted, but fire with no further trigger movement later. Something that never came up with hammer fired guns. Something that was so rare to occur, it was potentially dismissed earlier. This does not mean it is the only issue striker fired firearms can have, but it is for certain a repeatable/verifiable proven issue that exists. There is no denying it, downplaying it, or mental gymnastics to dismiss it. Again, it in no way exonerates sig. The 320 has a light, easy to pull trigger that has no trigger safety/dingus and a thin trigger guard. It is easier to have an ad/nd with that model than some other manufacturers models. There is no other definitive repeatable evidence/proof, yet. But the good news is, we do have one proven verifiable repeatable explanation. It is a start. It is a shame how it initially came to light for the rest of the gun community to see that was not aware of it, though….. Guy... when you're on a firearms board talking about firearms mechanics, and everyone universally agrees that your argument has no merit, that's a pretty good indicator that your argument really has no merit. If a trigger is pulled on a loaded firearm, the expectation should be that the firearm discharges. This is true, even if the trigger is pulled "only" 80-90% the way home. The four rules and our entire system of firearms safety is based on that rather simple premise. If "something gets into the holster," then that something is the problem, not the firearm. Movement of the slide might not matter to hammer fired guns, but you know what does? Movement or force applied to the hammer. You know... that large external component protruding out the back of the frame. This isn't a hypothetical, either. S&W revolver collectors know that if a gun is out of spec or improperly modified, a hammer cocked in SA can be pushed/poked and the gun will fire without ever touching the trigger. I own a 17-2 in this condition. It happens. You also seem to be forgetting that bolt action rifles work on more or less the same principle as striker fired pistols. The trigger group and sear is in a housing in the stock or receiver of the rifle, and the spring loaded firing pin is in the bolt. Any play in between the bolt and the receiver could compromise that relationship between the sear and the firing pin. And yet, in 130+ years of bolt action rifle history, this has almost entirely been a non issue. Just like it's a non-issue on every other striker fired pistol on the market. |
|
Quoted: My post was a direct response to this: Let me clarify it for you. It's not a matter of when a particular striker safety on a particular gun gets deactivated - it's a matter of a particular striker safety on a particular gun being non-functional. What evidence is there to support your hypothesis? |
|
Quoted: You also seem to be forgetting that bolt action rifles work on more or less the same principle as striker fired pistols. The trigger group and sear is in a housing in the stock or receiver of the rifle, and the spring loaded firing pin is in the bolt. Any play in between the bolt and the receiver could compromise that relationship between the sear and the firing pin. And yet, in 130+ years of bolt action rifle history, this has almost entirely been a non issue. Just like it's a non-issue on every other striker fired pistol on the market. Funny you mention bolt actions when people are yelling "prove it!" I don't think there was any definitive cause established of the 700 triggers discharging yet that issue contributed greatly to Remington's demise...along with overall poor quality control (hint hint wink wink). |
|
Quoted: My post was a direct response to this: Let me clarify it for you. It's not a matter of when a particular striker safety on a particular gun gets deactivated - it's a matter of a particular striker safety on a particular gun being non-functional. Quoted: Quoted: Buddy, you said "It's not a matter of when it gets deactivated - it's a matter of it being non-functional." The FBI test appears to indicate that it is in fact a matter of it being deactivated under some circumstances, not a matter of it being non-functional. My post was a direct response to this: I'd love to see someone test exactly how far the sear has to be depressed before the striker block gets deactivated, for example. Let me clarify it for you. It's not a matter of when a particular striker safety on a particular gun gets deactivated - it's a matter of a particular striker safety on a particular gun being non-functional. I’m not sure if I agree with you or not, because I’m not sure how you’re defining this distinction. I think there are intermittent ways a striker block safety can either become stuck due to debris (I can cause mine to jam up intermittently with a 0.007” feeler gauge in its large contact area) and also ways a striker block safety can be deactivated by back feeding from the sear. I’m just having trouble understanding the distinction you’re making. |
|
Quoted: I’m not sure if I agree with you or not, because I’m not sure how you’re defining this distinction. I think there are intermittent ways a striker block safety can either become stuck due to debris (I can cause mine to jam up intermittently with a 0.007” feeler gauge in its large contact area) and also ways a striker block safety can be deactivated by back feeding from the sear. I’m just having trouble understanding the distinction you’re making. I was talking about the vibration testing, not debris build up. |
|
The big question was how a p320 can fire when bumped while in a holster. Most folks sttd it should not and could not happen unless the trigger is fully pulled to the point where it fires the gun. Sig even sttd the gun cannot be fired without the trigger pulled - and most people assumed that meant pulled all the way to the point the gun fires. We now have evidence showing definitively how it can happen. Exactly like the sig drop test. Repeatable and verifiable with a p320 AND all other striker fired handguns. There is no longer a mystery if it can happen. It most definitely has been proven how it can/does occur. Can it occur in a completely factory stock unmodified p320 sitting on a table outside a holster with zero trigger input. As of now, there is zero repeatable/verifiable proof that it is possible. Does not mean it cannot happen, and does not exonerate sig. The information is useful and helpful. It is sad to see so many struggle with it. It in no way makes all striker firearms unsafe. But it does show definitive, verifiable, repeatable evidence of how a holstered striker fired pistol can go off with a bump. It is no longer just a bigfoot/ufo type mystery. |
|
Quoted: So your evidence is your guess about what some pictures might mean? When you have no access to Sig's report and have to rely on the description of a plaintiff's hired expert? Ok. Unless you're going to argue that the plaintiff's attorney knowingly submitted false evidence, something that is easily disproven, would get them disbarred, and which was not objected to by SIG's lawyers, the picture of primer indentations during vibration testing by SIG is not in question. Here's a clue: there should be ZERO primer indentations on a casing with a properly functioning striker block. |
|
Quoted: The big question was how a p320 can fire when bumped while in a holster. Most folks sttd it should not and could not happen unless the trigger is fully pulled to the point where it fires the gun. Sig even sttd the gun cannot be fired without the trigger pulled - and most people assumed that meant pulled all the way to the point the gun fires. We now have evidence showing definitively how it can happen. Exactly like the sig drop test. Repeatable and verifiable with a p320 AND all other striker fired handguns. There is no longer a mystery if it can happen. It most definitely has been proven how it can/does occur. Can it occur in a completely factory stock unmodified p320 sitting on a table outside a holster with zero trigger input. As of now, there is zero repeatable/verifiable proof that it is possible. Does not mean it cannot happen, and does not exonerate sig. The information is useful and helpful. It is sad to see so many struggle with it. It in no way makes all striker firearms unsafe. But it does show definitive, verifiable, repeatable evidence of how a holstered striker fired pistol can go off with a bump. It is no longer just a bigfoot/ufo type mystery. … you are blatantly ignoring everyone who has tried to hold your hand and explain this to you. Personally I think you should be removed from the thread for blatant trolling. There’s no way anyone is actually as dense and incapable of understanding to the extent you’re pretending. |
|
Quoted: I think we will find that the "shit getting packed into the sear" hypothesis will amount to nothing. . There's definitely smoke there considering Sig went out of their way to fix that issue on the P365 FCU even though they had less space in which to do so. Same goes for the striker safety lock - that design is compact and could have dropped right into a P365. If it was a good and effective design with no drawbacks, I can't imagine why they wouldn't use it on the P365. But they didn't. The P365 design is much more expensive to produce. Speaks volumes. |
|
Quoted: There's definitely smoke there considering Sig went out of their way to fix that issue on the P365 FCU even though they had less space in which to do so. Same goes for the striker safety lock - that design is compact and could have dropped right into a P365. If it was a good and effective design with no drawbacks, I can't imagine why they wouldn't use it on the P365. But they didn't. The P365 design is much more expensive to produce. Speaks volumes. Quoted: Quoted: I think we will find that the "shit getting packed into the sear" hypothesis will amount to nothing. . There's definitely smoke there considering Sig went out of their way to fix that issue on the P365 FCU even though they had less space in which to do so. Same goes for the striker safety lock - that design is compact and could have dropped right into a P365. If it was a good and effective design with no drawbacks, I can't imagine why they wouldn't use it on the P365. But they didn't. The P365 design is much more expensive to produce. Speaks volumes. Exactly. Compare a Glock 17 to a Glock 42. It’s the same pistol, just miniaturized. There was no motivation to reinvent the wheel. If your design is good and you understand it and know how to built it, then you keep with that design. Compare that to SIG with the P320 vs P365. They are drastically different. It’s a huge design overhaul. There seemingly has to be some motivation for that. |
|
Quoted: Unless you're going to argue that the plaintiff's attorney knowingly submitted false evidence, something that is easily disproven, would get them disbarred, and which was not objected to by SIG's lawyers, the picture of primer indentations during vibration testing by SIG is not in question. Here's a clue: there should be ZERO primer indentations on a casing with a properly functioning striker block. I don't think there's any doubt that Sig's internal report contained pictures. I think that exactly what those pictures show is open to interpretation. I'd love to have access to Sig's report, but we don't. All we have is the interpretation of a plaintiff's hired expert. But let's stipulate for the moment that the plaintiff's expert was right and those pictures show primers with indentations left by the firing pin. Why does that prove that the striker blocks on that gun or guns was non-functional? Isn't it possible that the striker block in that gun or guns was deactivated by movement of the trigger bar, perhaps trigger bar movement induced by sear movement? |
|
Quoted: I concur. It seems far-fetched. On the only P320 I’ve ever looked at, the sear maintained complete striker lug engagement no matter how mych you wiggled the slide. Basically, the sear has some float which allows it to rise with the slide. For something to get between the sear and striker lug it would have to be pretty rigid and inserted with force. I think I am in the “bad sear springs or malformed sear/striker lug” crowd. Quoted: Quoted: I think we will find that the "shit getting packed into the sear" hypothesis will amount to nothing. . I concur. It seems far-fetched. On the only P320 I’ve ever looked at, the sear maintained complete striker lug engagement no matter how mych you wiggled the slide. Basically, the sear has some float which allows it to rise with the slide. For something to get between the sear and striker lug it would have to be pretty rigid and inserted with force. I think I am in the “bad sear springs or malformed sear/striker lug” crowd. I agree that there is some sear float somehow. I have posted before that mine does the same thing. In fact, My sear pushes so hard upwards on the striker leg that my slide gets pushed upwards too. You cant pull my slide up to get sear slip because mine is already maxed up. When I pull the trigger slowly, the sear pulls the slide downward since there is some slide play as expected. This also confirms that it is the sear pushing up on the leg. But thats just MINE. If your striker leg is shorter than spec and the sear float limited then you may not get such engagement as you or I report. |
|
Quoted: Funny you mention bolt actions when people are yelling "prove it!" I don't think there was any definitive cause established of the 700 triggers discharging yet that issue contributed greatly to Remington's demise...along with overall poor quality control (hint hint wink wink). Horseshit that keeps getting repeated. Remingtons bankruptcy had fuck all to do with product liability lawsuits or Sandy Hook for that matter. It was intentional mismanagement by Cerebrus. How America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt |
|
Quoted: Exactly. Compare a Glock 17 to a Glock 42. It’s the same pistol, just miniaturized. There was no motivation to reinvent the wheel. If your design is good and you understand it and know how to built it, then you keep with that design. Compare that to SIG with the P320 vs P365. They are drastically different. It’s a huge design overhaul. There seemingly has to be some motivation for that. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think we will find that the "shit getting packed into the sear" hypothesis will amount to nothing. . There's definitely smoke there considering Sig went out of their way to fix that issue on the P365 FCU even though they had less space in which to do so. Same goes for the striker safety lock - that design is compact and could have dropped right into a P365. If it was a good and effective design with no drawbacks, I can't imagine why they wouldn't use it on the P365. But they didn't. The P365 design is much more expensive to produce. Speaks volumes. Exactly. Compare a Glock 17 to a Glock 42. It’s the same pistol, just miniaturized. There was no motivation to reinvent the wheel. If your design is good and you understand it and know how to built it, then you keep with that design. Compare that to SIG with the P320 vs P365. They are drastically different. It’s a huge design overhaul. There seemingly has to be some motivation for that. Mens rea |
|
Quoted: But let's stipulate for the moment that the plaintiff's expert was right and those pictures show primers with indentations left by the firing pin. Why does that prove that the striker blocks on that gun or guns was non-functional? Isn't it possible that the striker block in that gun or guns was deactivated by movement of the trigger bar, perhaps trigger bar movement induced by sear movement? Oh there's a much more prosaic explanation: During the process (as seen with many YouTubers) the people involved with testing pulled the triggers on some of the guns just to prove that the sear was fully engaged still, and it got noted on the report incorrectly as a "light strike" by someone else reviewing the photographs. Do I believe it though? Not for a minute, because Sig has a documented history of lying about P320 safety, and I don't trust anything they say on the topic any longer. |
|
Quoted: I don't think there's any doubt that Sig's internal report contained pictures. I think that exactly what those pictures show is open to interpretation. I'd love to have access to Sig's report, but we don't. All we have is the interpretation of a plaintiff's hired expert. But let's stipulate for the moment that the plaintiff's expert was right and those pictures show primers with indentations left by the firing pin. Why does that prove that the striker blocks on that gun or guns was non-functional? Isn't it possible that the striker block in that gun or guns was deactivated by movement of the trigger bar, perhaps trigger bar movement induced by sear movement? Quoted: Quoted: Unless you're going to argue that the plaintiff's attorney knowingly submitted false evidence, something that is easily disproven, would get them disbarred, and which was not objected to by SIG's lawyers, the picture of primer indentations during vibration testing by SIG is not in question. Here's a clue: there should be ZERO primer indentations on a casing with a properly functioning striker block. I don't think there's any doubt that Sig's internal report contained pictures. I think that exactly what those pictures show is open to interpretation. I'd love to have access to Sig's report, but we don't. All we have is the interpretation of a plaintiff's hired expert. But let's stipulate for the moment that the plaintiff's expert was right and those pictures show primers with indentations left by the firing pin. Why does that prove that the striker blocks on that gun or guns was non-functional? Isn't it possible that the striker block in that gun or guns was deactivated by movement of the trigger bar, perhaps trigger bar movement induced by sear movement? The simple version, up front, is that there is no situation where a striker fired pistol with a striker block should show any contact between the striker and the primer. Even a legitimate light strike represents a failure of that test. From a safety perspective, it doesn't matter if striker block was defeated by movement of the trigger bar or if it failed in some other way. From a mechanical perspective, yes. It's interesting and worth looking into. If they cut the trigger bar so it can't activate the striker block and repeated the test, do the results change? I'd like to see that test. If there's no change, a partial elimination of primer contact, or a complete elimination of primer contract, that would tell us different things about what is and is not happening to these guns and how to fix it. But this is also only one of a few known failure modes of the striker safety system. We have a lot of reports of striker block springs being broken, slipped off the leg, or improperly installed from the factory. We also have at least one engineering assessment from a lawsuit indicating that the striker safety simply failed to engage the shelf on the striker due to poor cut and low tolerances. I'd also like to see a test that involves sediment getting in between the "flat" of the striker safety and the slide. I don't know if anyone has tested that, but looking at the mechanics of the system, that seems like another vulnerability. |
|
Quoted: Horseshit that keeps getting repeated. Remingtons bankruptcy had fuck all to do with product liability lawsuits or Sandy Hook for that matter. It was intentional mismanagement by Cerebrus. How America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt Quoted: Quoted: Funny you mention bolt actions when people are yelling "prove it!" I don't think there was any definitive cause established of the 700 triggers discharging yet that issue contributed greatly to Remington's demise...along with overall poor quality control (hint hint wink wink). Horseshit that keeps getting repeated. Remingtons bankruptcy had fuck all to do with product liability lawsuits or Sandy Hook for that matter. It was intentional mismanagement by Cerebrus. How America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt It didn't greatly contribute - but it certainly contributed, as did the 597 .17 HMR debacle. |
|
Quoted: There's definitely smoke there considering Sig went out of their way to fix that issue on the P365 FCU even though they had less space in which to do so. Same goes for the striker safety lock - that design is compact and could have dropped right into a P365. If it was a good and effective design with no drawbacks, I can't imagine why they wouldn't use it on the P365. But they didn't. The P365 design is much more expensive to produce. Speaks volumes. Quoted: Quoted: I think we will find that the "shit getting packed into the sear" hypothesis will amount to nothing. . There's definitely smoke there considering Sig went out of their way to fix that issue on the P365 FCU even though they had less space in which to do so. Same goes for the striker safety lock - that design is compact and could have dropped right into a P365. If it was a good and effective design with no drawbacks, I can't imagine why they wouldn't use it on the P365. But they didn't. The P365 design is much more expensive to produce. Speaks volumes. Why do we think the P365 design is more expensive to produce? The P320 as a cost saving exercise only made sense in the context of converting the P250 and recycling as much engineering as possible. I don't know that I see a major difference in parts cost for all the little MIM stuff, and if anything the P320 seems more complex. |
|
Quoted: … you are blatantly ignoring everyone who has tried to hold your hand and explain this to you. Personally I think you should be removed from the thread for blatant trolling. There’s no way anyone is actually as dense and incapable of understanding to the extent you’re pretending. The evidence/proof how a striker fired gun can go off inside a holster without the trigger FULLY pulled, but can be when bumped, is verifiable and repeatable speaks for itself. Especially as it is not limited to just one striker fired gun/make/model. Whether one listens or ignores it, is up to them. |
|
Quoted: The evidence/proof how a striker fired gun can go off inside a holster without the trigger FULLY pulled, but can be when bumped, is verifiable and repeatable speaks for itself. Especially as it is not limited to just one striker fired gun/make/model. Whether one listens or ignores it, is up to them. Quoted: Quoted: … you are blatantly ignoring everyone who has tried to hold your hand and explain this to you. Personally I think you should be removed from the thread for blatant trolling. There’s no way anyone is actually as dense and incapable of understanding to the extent you’re pretending. The evidence/proof how a striker fired gun can go off inside a holster without the trigger FULLY pulled, but can be when bumped, is verifiable and repeatable speaks for itself. Especially as it is not limited to just one striker fired gun/make/model. Whether one listens or ignores it, is up to them. This has to be trolling. 
|
|
Quoted: The evidence/proof how a striker fired gun can go off inside a holster without the trigger FULLY pulled, but can be when bumped, is verifiable and repeatable speaks for itself. Especially as it is not limited to just one striker fired gun/make/model. Whether one listens or ignores it, is up to them. Quoted: Quoted: … you are blatantly ignoring everyone who has tried to hold your hand and explain this to you. Personally I think you should be removed from the thread for blatant trolling. There’s no way anyone is actually as dense and incapable of understanding to the extent you’re pretending. The evidence/proof how a striker fired gun can go off inside a holster without the trigger FULLY pulled, but can be when bumped, is verifiable and repeatable speaks for itself. Especially as it is not limited to just one striker fired gun/make/model. Whether one listens or ignores it, is up to them. Any firearm with diminished sear engagement can fire when bumped. This is obvious. Pulling the trigger diminishes sear engagement. Other guns aren’t going off in holsters. Are all other guns just immune from this magical partial trigger pull, but the P320 uniquely is having its trigger pulled? |
|
Quoted: This has to be trolling. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: … you are blatantly ignoring everyone who has tried to hold your hand and explain this to you. Personally I think you should be removed from the thread for blatant trolling. There’s no way anyone is actually as dense and incapable of understanding to the extent you’re pretending. The evidence/proof how a striker fired gun can go off inside a holster without the trigger FULLY pulled, but can be when bumped, is verifiable and repeatable speaks for itself. Especially as it is not limited to just one striker fired gun/make/model. Whether one listens or ignores it, is up to them. This has to be trolling. He’s just carrying water for SIG by arguing this absurdity. |
|
Quoted: Oh there's a much more prosaic explanation: During the process (as seen with many YouTubers) the people involved with testing pulled the triggers on some of the guns just to prove that the sear was fully engaged still, and it got noted on the report incorrectly as a "light strike" by someone else reviewing the photographs. Do I believe it though? Not for a minute, because Sig has a documented history of lying about P320 safety, and I don't trust anything they say on the topic any longer. Quoted: Oh there's a much more prosaic explanation: During the process (as seen with many YouTubers) the people involved with testing pulled the triggers on some of the guns just to prove that the sear was fully engaged still, and it got noted on the report incorrectly as a "light strike" by someone else reviewing the photographs. Do I believe it though? Not for a minute, because Sig has a documented history of lying about P320 safety, and I don't trust anything they say on the topic any longer. I think there are a lot of possible explanations for the photos. I think that trying to use them to prove anything without access to the report or testimony from the independent* lab that did the testing is one step above reading tea leaves. * "independent" but hired by SIG, so pseudo independent at best. Quoted: The simple version, up front, is that there is no situation where a striker fired pistol with a striker block should show any contact between the striker and the primer. Even a legitimate light strike represents a failure of that test. From a safety perspective, it doesn't matter if striker block was defeated by movement of the trigger bar or if it failed in some other way. From a mechanical perspective, yes. It's interesting and worth looking into. If they cut the trigger bar so it can't activate the striker block and repeated the test, do the results change? I'd like to see that test. If there's no change, a partial elimination of primer contact, or a complete elimination of primer contract, that would tell us different things about what is and is not happening to these guns and how to fix it. But this is also only one of a few known failure modes of the striker safety system. We have a lot of reports of striker block springs being broken, slipped off the leg, or improperly installed from the factory. We also have at least one engineering assessment from a lawsuit indicating that the striker safety simply failed to engage the shelf on the striker due to poor cut and low tolerances. I'd also like to see a test that involves sediment getting in between the "flat" of the striker safety and the slide. I don't know if anyone has tested that, but looking at the mechanics of the system, that seems like another vulnerability. Since the military probably isn’t going to drop the M17 and M18 until someone comes up with a repeatable test showing that the P320 can fire without a trigger pull in a realistic scenario, I think exactly what causes the striker block to fail matters. If the striker block fails when the sear is depressed 'too far', is it possible that debris in the sear area could depress the sear that distance? If so, how big does that debris need to be? If debris of a realistic size can do it, that might get us the repeatable, smoking gun test needed to kill the P320 in military service, or to force Sig to acknowledge the problem and engineer a fix. |
|
Quoted: Why do we think the P365 design is more expensive to produce? The P320 as a cost saving exercise only made sense in the context of converting the P250 and recycling as much engineering as possible. I don't know that I see a major difference in parts cost for all the little MIM stuff, and if anything the P320 seems more complex. One of the most expensive parts is the slide, and the novel design of the P320's striker safety cuts down on the steps and machine time needed to produce that expensive part. The P365's slide requires more machine time owing to the re-introduction of a standard plunger safety, and the plunger safety itself is also likely more expensive to produce than a dead-simple stamped part. |
|
Quoted: The evidence/proof how a striker fired gun can go off inside a holster without the trigger FULLY pulled, but can be when bumped, is verifiable and repeatable speaks for itself. Especially as it is not limited to just one striker fired gun/make/model. Whether one listens or ignores it, is up to them. We covered this several pages back, so get up to speed. The entire point of the test initially made popular by Wyoming Gun Project's video that received around a million views (the 40 minute long one) was to simulate (I say again: s-i-m-u-l-a-t-e) a striker hook with surface deformities, as seen in the FBI BRF report - getting hung up and not fully engaging the sear. He says so right in the video. It had nothing to do with the trigger actively being partially depressed at the time of a UD. Blathering on about how pulling the trigger partially in other guns can result in the same thing is a strawman argument: other guns don't suffer from the defect being simulated by such a test. |
|
Quoted: This has to be trolling. No, it is merely pointing out the fact that debris/other objects/etc inside a holster can pull the trigger back enough to not fire the gun, but then any change in the slide frame fitment from being bumped/moved CAN fire the pistol. AND it can be done across the striker fired platform. It does not exonerate sig. It also does not mean all the discharges are because of this, but gives a verifiable/repeatable explanation of how it can happen with a bone stock striker fired gun. The actual specifics for each model are not known, very similar to how the drop test could not point specifically to the specifics or solution. But we know for certain that it can happen, and is repeatable across the board. The majority of folks did not understand or believe this was possible, prior to the click bait screw test video - which was a ridiculous test but oddly stumbled upon a real verifiable issue. How can a stock p320 go off in a holster from just a bump or movement. Now we have an answer, not necessarily the only answer, but definitely a proven/repeatable/real/actual answer. Even someone below average like myself can userstand this…. Edit for: Understand, see, below average |
|
Quoted: Any firearm with diminished sear engagement can fire when bumped. This is obvious. Pulling the trigger diminishes sear engagement. Other guns aren’t going off in holsters. Are all other guns just immune from this magical partial trigger pull, but the P320 uniquely is having its trigger pulled? This really is the issue: even if every argument and benefit is given, why is it happening to 320s? |
|
Quoted: One of the most expensive parts is the slide, and the novel design of the P320's striker safety cuts down on the steps and machine time needed to produce that expensive part. The P365's slide requires more machine time owing to the re-introduction of a standard plunger safety, and the plunger safety itself is also likely more expensive to produce than a dead-simple stamped part. Couole counter points: the stamped striker block on the P320 might (or might not) be more expensive than the MIM striker block on the P365, but I guarantee the MIM striker housing required by the P320's striker block is more expensive than the molded plastic striker housing in the P365. The P365's striker block hole is co-located with the disconnector cut; if the hole and the disconnector notch are cut at the same time, maybe with the same tool, then the additional hole for the more traditional striker block might be fairly cost neutral. I suspect the P320's slide design is optimized for military contracts, while the P365's slide is optimized for civilian sales. Putting all the slide parts into a single assembly means that military organizations can train their armorers to fix any internal slide problems by replacing the assembly, and can stock one assembly instead of an assortment of parts. When Sig lost the M9 contract to Beretta, the number of parts and assemblies stocked as spares was a contributing factor in Sig's loss. If the striker assembly is slightly more expensive to produce, but reduces the number of spare parts and work packages, then that might be a cost benefit in military competitions. |
|
Quoted: "I'm interested in facts!" Here's a picture entered into evidence in a court of law. "That could mean anything! Its from the plaintiff's lawyer! Tea leaves!" Was the plaintiff's report entered into evidence, or was it merely offered as a potential exhibit? Did the engineer who prepared that report testify? If so, what did he say? Did someone from the lab that took the photos testify, and if so, what did he say? If you don't know the answers to these questions, or even why someone would ask these questions, are you really in a position to be mocking anyone? |
|
Quoted: But it does show definitive, verifiable, repeatable evidence of how a holstered striker fired pistol can go off with a bump. I, too, have questions about the context of the photo with the struck primers, btw. Thanks, those who chimed in about the sear walking thought. |
|
Quoted: It didn't greatly contribute - but it certainly contributed, as did the 597 .17 HMR debacle. It absolutely didn't have anything to do with the bankruptcy. Zero, Zilch, Nada. The Walker class action settlements weren't cash. 1. a new X-Mark Pro or another connectorless trigger mechanism. 2. a voucher code redeemable at Remington’s online store.  3. a refund if they already paid to have the trigger mechanism replaced with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism. That would only be an expense if Rem 700 owners took advantage of the offers. I would bet less than five percent did. Product liability claims are almost always paid out by the insurer. The Sandy Hook lawsuits were paid off AFTER the bankruptcy, not by Remington because it didn't exist. The insurance company paid out. |
|
Quoted: There is a video in the "video thread" that came out 2 days ago that I would like to point out some parts of. This is the active thread. Can you post videos in this thread or will people get butthurt? . It won’t hurt my feelings, but I don’t make the rules. |
|
Quoted: The reason that people think you’ve lost your marbles is this statement. Other modern service pistols do not go off with a bump. Loaded Glocks and M&Ps get dropped, *launched*, pressed against shit in a holster, car crashed, and banged into shit daily. Daily, I say. I, too, have questions about the context of the photo with the struck primers, btw. Thanks, those who chimed in about the sear walking thought. Simply put: The video posted earlier shows how striker fired pistols can have the trigger pulled a certain distance without firing the gun, but then simply moving the slide around fires the gun. While most folks believed that was not possible, it is, and proven so. So, yes, a striker fired pistol can fire if holstered and the trigger is pulled back by debris/clothing/holster fit/whatever a far enough distance that simple movement in the slide/frame slop can cause it to fire. Some can obviously do so easier than others - shorter trigger pulls, thin trigger guards, no trigger safety. Why folks try to dismiss it, impugn anyone that points it out, is the sad part. The real question is, why do they? The evidence does not point to a specific part failure or a fix, but clearly shows an issue. The logical thought process would be to expand on it, not impugn it for other non verified/unrepeatable theories…. It is gd, though.. Glock leg was named for a reason, not because of Glock being the problem, though everyone tried to say it was, but because of all the nd/ad/and us claims that no one could figure out why. There were still cops/security personnel having ad/nd with double action revolvers and double action semiautos in their holsters, etc, just not as frequently as glocks. And folks knew not to report them as often, because there was no mysterious issue with a long double action trigger pull vs the new striker fired shorter/lighter trigger pull. History repeats itself. But again, this does not exonerate sig. It also does not mean all discharges are caused by this. It is simply a proven repeatable issue that is known. |
|
Quoted: It absolutely didn't have anything to do with the bankruptcy. Zero, Zilch, Nada. The Walker class action settlements weren't cash. 1. a new X-Mark Pro or another connectorless trigger mechanism. 2. a voucher code redeemable at Remington’s online store. 3. a refund if they already paid to have the trigger mechanism replaced with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism. That would only be an expense if Rem 700 owners took advantage of the offers. I would bet less than five percent did. Product liability claims are almost always paid out by the insurer. The Sandy Hook lawsuits were paid off AFTER the bankruptcy, not by Remington because it didn't exist. The insurance company paid out. Quoted: Quoted: It didn't greatly contribute - but it certainly contributed, as did the 597 .17 HMR debacle. It absolutely didn't have anything to do with the bankruptcy. Zero, Zilch, Nada. The Walker class action settlements weren't cash. 1. a new X-Mark Pro or another connectorless trigger mechanism. 2. a voucher code redeemable at Remington’s online store. 3. a refund if they already paid to have the trigger mechanism replaced with an X-Mark Pro trigger mechanism. That would only be an expense if Rem 700 owners took advantage of the offers. I would bet less than five percent did. Product liability claims are almost always paid out by the insurer. The Sandy Hook lawsuits were paid off AFTER the bankruptcy, not by Remington because it didn't exist. The insurance company paid out. I don't see how you refuse to equate reputational damage with lower sales. |
|
SIG's suing Oregon's police academy now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKQGQVEEsw0 |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 132 of 142)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter