[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 50 of 142)
|
Quoted: Awesome. My M17 passes. It doesn't 100% solve the mystery or concerns, but makes me feel a little better. Quoted: Awesome. My M17 passes. It doesn't 100% solve the mystery or concerns, but makes me feel a little better. That’s good. Might be worthwhile to keep testing it regularly as the round count increases. |
|
I recall someone mentioning a 320 put into a paint shaker as a test to no avail. Given the way we’re talking about parts slipping and shifting, I have to wonder if there’s some sort of different motion, a human motion, that influences the parts. A paint shaker is essentially going to be highly vigorous, random forces exerted on the mechanisms. Probably stands as good a chance of resetting things as anything else. Looking at it from a police officer’s context, they don’t move like that. Up and down from sitting, twisting to get in and out of the car, bouncing a bit from walking, little more vigorous bouncing if they’re chasing someone: a wide range of fluid human-centric purposeful motions. I wonder if it’s something in there that over time forces things into a specific alignment. So we’ll need a bouncing centrifuge on one of those carnival ship things that rock back and forth 
|
|
Quoted: I recall someone mentioning a 320 put into a paint shaker as a test to no avail. Given the way we’re talking about parts slipping and shifting, I have to wonder if there’s some sort of different motion, a human motion, that influences the parts. A paint shaker is essentially going to be highly vigorous, random forces exerted on the mechanisms. Probably stands as good a chance of resetting things as anything else. Looking at it from a police officer’s context, they don’t move like that. Up and down from sitting, twisting to get in and out of the car, bouncing a bit from walking, little more vigorous bouncing if they’re chasing someone: a wide range of fluid human-centric purposeful motions. I wonder if it’s something in there that over time forces things into a specific alignment. So we’ll need a bouncing centrifuge on one of those carnival ship things that rock back and forth It's possible the one he put in the paint shaker was in spec enough to never have an issue. Maybe it's one in 10,000 that has a striker block failure and a sear/striker slip at the same time. You might have to put 10,000 guns in paint shakers to get one to go off. |
|
Quoted: It's possible the one he put in the paint shaker was in spec enough to never have an issue. Maybe it's one in 10,000 that has a striker block failure and a sear/striker slip at the same time. You might have to put 10,000 guns in paint shakers to get one to go off. It reminds me of the M16 trick where if you squeeze the trigger with it on safe, then flip it to semi, you have less creep in the actual shot. Useless trick, IMO, but that’s what it made me think of. Only possible with a single-action, which seems to be one of the pillars of the alleged P320 problems. As in, if it weren’t a single action, none of the problems would be possible. |
|
Quoted: If they issued a recall and stopped producing new 320's it would, in reality, actually end. Just sayin'. SIG in infamous for updating parts on new guns and not telling anyone. It's entirely possible that they've identified the problems in the P320, fixed them on new production pistols and we'd never know. |
|
Quoted: Resin printers could do it. Problem is achieving the necessary strength in clear resins. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Surely somebody by now has modeled the 320 FCU in a CAD/CAM format. Hmmmmmm...... who here has a 3D printer with clear filament? Most 3D printers aren't precise enough to make something that would help diagnose tolerance stacking issues. Resin printers could do it. Problem is achieving the necessary strength in clear resins. To be fair, SIG apparently can't maintain tight enough tolerances either, so it might not be as inaccurate as you'd expect In all seriousness, unless you have the exact blueprints and then calculate how much leeway you have on either side before there are issues, THEN calculate how much MIM parts shrinkage variance and slop is inevitable in the system (aka tolerance stacking), you'll never truly know. |
|
Quoted: To be fair, SIG apparently can't maintain tight enough tolerances either, so it might not be as inaccurate as you'd expect In all seriousness, unless you have the exact blueprints and then calculate how much leeway you have on either side before there are issues, THEN calculate how much MIM parts shrinkage variance and slop is inevitable in the system (aka tolerance stacking), you'll never truly know. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Surely somebody by now has modeled the 320 FCU in a CAD/CAM format. Hmmmmmm...... who here has a 3D printer with clear filament? Most 3D printers aren't precise enough to make something that would help diagnose tolerance stacking issues. Resin printers could do it. Problem is achieving the necessary strength in clear resins. To be fair, SIG apparently can't maintain tight enough tolerances either, so it might not be as inaccurate as you'd expect In all seriousness, unless you have the exact blueprints and then calculate how much leeway you have on either side before there are issues, THEN calculate how much MIM parts shrinkage variance and slop is inevitable in the system (aka tolerance stacking), you'll never truly know. SIG can call Ruger, they are masters of MIM |
|
Quoted: SIG in infamous for updating parts on new guns and not telling anyone. It's entirely possible that they've identified the problems in the P320, fixed them on new production pistols and we'd never know. Quoted: Quoted: If they issued a recall and stopped producing new 320's it would, in reality, actually end. Just sayin'. SIG in infamous for updating parts on new guns and not telling anyone. It's entirely possible that they've identified the problems in the P320, fixed them on new production pistols and we'd never know. Sig is aware of the issue according to someone in this thread |
|
Quoted: SIG can call Ruger, they are masters of MIM Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Surely somebody by now has modeled the 320 FCU in a CAD/CAM format. Hmmmmmm...... who here has a 3D printer with clear filament? Most 3D printers aren't precise enough to make something that would help diagnose tolerance stacking issues. Resin printers could do it. Problem is achieving the necessary strength in clear resins. To be fair, SIG apparently can't maintain tight enough tolerances either, so it might not be as inaccurate as you'd expect In all seriousness, unless you have the exact blueprints and then calculate how much leeway you have on either side before there are issues, THEN calculate how much MIM parts shrinkage variance and slop is inevitable in the system (aka tolerance stacking), you'll never truly know. SIG can call Ruger, they are masters of MIM Or Glock. |
Ben doesn't seem to fully understand "The Test" or doesn't articulate it out of time pressure: What I think is happening with the Sig stuff |
|
Quoted: Someone posted in one of these threads, and I can’t find it now, that they took an unloaded and cocked P320 and wiggled the shit out of the slide side to side until their hands got tired, then pulled the trigger. They noted either a lighter or shorter trigger pull…I think they said shorter. But they said the difference was very noticeable. It reminds me of the M16 trick where if you squeeze the trigger with it on safe, then flip it to semi, you have less creep in the actual shot. Useless trick, IMO, but that’s what it made me think of. Only possible with a single-action, which seems to be one of the pillars of the alleged P320 problems. As in, if it weren’t a single action, none of the problems would be possible. The whole thing sucks because I really, really like my Raider, even more than a MP5K for close in PDW and vehicle usage. I don't quite feel it's responsible to carry it around the public with a loaded chamber now until this thing shakes out. 
|
|
Quoted: The whole thing sucks because I really, really like my Raider, even more than a MP5K for close in PDW and vehicle usage. I don't quite feel it's responsible to carry it around the public with a loaded chamber now until this thing shakes out. Quoted: Quoted: Someone posted in one of these threads, and I can’t find it now, that they took an unloaded and cocked P320 and wiggled the shit out of the slide side to side until their hands got tired, then pulled the trigger. They noted either a lighter or shorter trigger pull…I think they said shorter. But they said the difference was very noticeable. It reminds me of the M16 trick where if you squeeze the trigger with it on safe, then flip it to semi, you have less creep in the actual shot. Useless trick, IMO, but that’s what it made me think of. Only possible with a single-action, which seems to be one of the pillars of the alleged P320 problems. As in, if it weren’t a single action, none of the problems would be possible. The whole thing sucks because I really, really like my Raider, even more than a MP5K for close in PDW and vehicle usage. I don't quite feel it's responsible to carry it around the public with a loaded chamber now until this thing shakes out. Ummmm.... phrasing?
|
 We all owe the Beretta M9 an apology |
|
I've been fiddling with a 9mm blowback AR build today that I started a long time ago. Doing a lot of reading on it as well. Does anyone not know why 9mm builds have longer buffers? If you don't know, it's because the standard length buffer allows the bolt to travel back too far into the buffer tube, so they have around 3/4" of extra room to slam into the bolt catch on an empty mag. This beats the hell out of the bolt catch, and it eventually breaks. The longer buffer eliminates this extra rearward bolt travel and prevents breaking the bolt catch. This is why I've been saying the striker block design that catches the striker after allowing it to accelerate to primer-popping velocity is a poor design. I know it's beating a dead horse, but it was a real world example of parts breakage from letting them slam together that can be eliminated by arresting the movement of the parts before they have the momentum to break something. |
|
Quoted: The whole thing sucks because I really, really like my Raider, even more than a MP5K for close in PDW and vehicle usage. I don't quite feel it's responsible to carry it around the public with a loaded chamber now until this thing shakes out. I came so close to buying one 3 times this year. Held one at the LGS. Saw it in the display case two other times. I just couldn't quite do it until I learned more. The ironic thing is if Sig had never made their "It Ends Today" post, I'd probably have bought one by now. I still want one. I just want them to work out this problem first, or make a totally different FCG/slide combination that fits the same frames. I'd love a DA/SA hammer fired Flux Raider. It also sucks for Flux, having partnered with Sig, and having this sales harmed by this as well. |
|
Quoted: SIG in infamous for updating parts on new guns and not telling anyone. It's entirely possible that they've identified the problems in the P320, fixed them on new production pistols and we'd never know. Can anyone elaborate on this? |
|
Quoted: I've been fiddling with a 9mm blowback AR build today that I started a long time ago. Doing a lot of reading on it as well. Does anyone not know why 9mm builds have longer buffers? If you don't know, it's because the standard length buffer allows the bolt to travel back too far into the buffer tube, so they have around 3/4" of extra room to slam into the bolt catch on an empty mag. This beats the hell out of the bolt catch, and it eventually breaks. The longer buffer eliminates this extra rearward bolt travel and prevents breaking the bolt catch. This is why I've been saying the striker block design that catches the striker after allowing it to accelerate to primer-popping velocity is a poor design. I know it's beating a dead horse, but it was a real world example of parts breakage from letting them slam together that can be eliminated by arresting the movement of the parts before they have the momentum to break something. Quoted: I've been fiddling with a 9mm blowback AR build today that I started a long time ago. Doing a lot of reading on it as well. Does anyone not know why 9mm builds have longer buffers? If you don't know, it's because the standard length buffer allows the bolt to travel back too far into the buffer tube, so they have around 3/4" of extra room to slam into the bolt catch on an empty mag. This beats the hell out of the bolt catch, and it eventually breaks. The longer buffer eliminates this extra rearward bolt travel and prevents breaking the bolt catch. This is why I've been saying the striker block design that catches the striker after allowing it to accelerate to primer-popping velocity is a poor design. I know it's beating a dead horse, but it was a real world example of parts breakage from letting them slam together that can be eliminated by arresting the movement of the parts before they have the momentum to break something. An AR's bolt hits the bolt stop once every magazine, so it needs to be a durable design. If a P320's sear works properly then it's striker should never hit the striker block; it shouldn't need to be terribly durable. In any case, no one has yet demonstrated a durability problem with the striker blocks. If their durability is actually a problem, and if sear failures are as common as some people in this thread have speculated, then someone probably should have found a damaged one, or should find one soon now that a couple people have identified pistols with faulty striker blocks. Catching the striker while it's still cocked would create a couple of problems. First, it turns the striker block into a secondary sear. This means you would never get a dead trigger and have no chance of learning that your sear is failing unless your striker block also fails, at which point you get a bang. Second, it creates the possibility of timing issues. I suspect that's why the industry standard is to catch the striker at the last minute: it gives the striker block the maximum amount of time to get into position if some force caused it to move out of position. Unless someone shows that P320 striker blocks are being damaged I think that making their already non-standard design even more non-standard by catching the striker at full cock is probably not a good idea. Quoted: I read that there were FCU differences in the .mil guns that sounded an awful lot like they were there to make the gun drop safe. If so, Sig also knew about the drop safe problem with the 320, and knew how to fix it, but chose not to, until the not-recall. Can anyone elaborate on this? The Army discovered the drop safety issue during testing, at some point after that Sig modified the Army's pistols. As far as I know, no one has released exactly when the Army's drop test occurred. I think it's likely that the Army, and Sig, knew about the issue for some months before the public; maybe as much as a year. |
|
Quoted: Sig gets sued for enough money and it’s financially “worth it” to do a recall. Which unfortunately is going to happen, given a long enough timeline.  Fight club - Recall formula |
LOL, that is a GREAT scene. 
|
|
Quoted: An AR's bolt hits the bolt stop once every magazine, so it needs to be a durable design. If a P320's sear works properly then it's striker should never hit the striker block; it shouldn't need to be terribly durable. In any case, no one has yet demonstrated a durability problem with the striker blocks. If their durability is actually a problem, and if sear failures are as common as some people in this thread have speculated, then someone probably should have found a damaged one, or should find one soon now that a couple people have identified pistols with faulty striker blocks. Catching the striker while it's still cocked would create a couple of problems. First, it turns the striker block into a secondary sear. This means you would never get a dead trigger and have no chance of learning that your sear is failing unless your striker block also fails, at which point you get a bang. Second, it creates the possibility of timing issues. I suspect that's why the industry standard is to catch the striker at the last minute: it gives the striker block the maximum amount of time to get into position if some force caused it to move out of position. Unless someone shows that P320 striker blocks are being damaged I think that making their already non-standard design even more non-standard by catching the striker at full cock is probably not a good idea. The Army discovered the drop safety issue during testing, at some point after that Sig modified the Army's pistols. As far as I know, no one has released exactly when the Army's drop test occurred. I think it's likely that the Army, and Sig, knew about the issue for some months before the public; maybe as much as a year. People have discovered faulty striker blocks that aren't catching the striker when it falls. We don't know what the failure mode is. It could be they are deforming instead of breaking. It could be that the housing is deforming enough to allow the blocks to move out of proper alignment. I still maintain that the striker impact has something to do with it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the cause is for the failure if they ever publish it. |
|
Quoted: An AR's bolt hits the bolt stop once every magazine, so it needs to be a durable design. If a P320's sear works properly then it's striker should never hit the striker block; it shouldn't need to be terribly durable. In any case, no one has yet demonstrated a durability problem with the striker blocks. If their durability is actually a problem, and if sear failures are as common as some people in this thread have speculated, then someone probably should have found a damaged one, or should find one soon now that a couple people have identified pistols with faulty striker blocks. Catching the striker while it's still cocked would create a couple of problems. First, it turns the striker block into a secondary sear. This means you would never get a dead trigger and have no chance of learning that your sear is failing unless your striker block also fails, at which point you get a bang. Second, it creates the possibility of timing issues. I suspect that's why the industry standard is to catch the striker at the last minute: it gives the striker block the maximum amount of time to get into position if some force caused it to move out of position. Unless someone shows that P320 striker blocks are being damaged I think that making their already non-standard design even more non-standard by catching the striker at full cock is probably not a good idea. The Army discovered the drop safety issue during testing, at some point after that Sig modified the Army's pistols. As far as I know, no one has released exactly when the Army's drop test occurred. I think it's likely that the Army, and Sig, knew about the issue for some months before the public; maybe as much as a year. Quoted: Quoted: I've been fiddling with a 9mm blowback AR build today that I started a long time ago. Doing a lot of reading on it as well. Does anyone not know why 9mm builds have longer buffers? If you don't know, it's because the standard length buffer allows the bolt to travel back too far into the buffer tube, so they have around 3/4" of extra room to slam into the bolt catch on an empty mag. This beats the hell out of the bolt catch, and it eventually breaks. The longer buffer eliminates this extra rearward bolt travel and prevents breaking the bolt catch. This is why I've been saying the striker block design that catches the striker after allowing it to accelerate to primer-popping velocity is a poor design. I know it's beating a dead horse, but it was a real world example of parts breakage from letting them slam together that can be eliminated by arresting the movement of the parts before they have the momentum to break something. An AR's bolt hits the bolt stop once every magazine, so it needs to be a durable design. If a P320's sear works properly then it's striker should never hit the striker block; it shouldn't need to be terribly durable. In any case, no one has yet demonstrated a durability problem with the striker blocks. If their durability is actually a problem, and if sear failures are as common as some people in this thread have speculated, then someone probably should have found a damaged one, or should find one soon now that a couple people have identified pistols with faulty striker blocks. Catching the striker while it's still cocked would create a couple of problems. First, it turns the striker block into a secondary sear. This means you would never get a dead trigger and have no chance of learning that your sear is failing unless your striker block also fails, at which point you get a bang. Second, it creates the possibility of timing issues. I suspect that's why the industry standard is to catch the striker at the last minute: it gives the striker block the maximum amount of time to get into position if some force caused it to move out of position. Unless someone shows that P320 striker blocks are being damaged I think that making their already non-standard design even more non-standard by catching the striker at full cock is probably not a good idea. Quoted: I read that there were FCU differences in the .mil guns that sounded an awful lot like they were there to make the gun drop safe. If so, Sig also knew about the drop safe problem with the 320, and knew how to fix it, but chose not to, until the not-recall. Can anyone elaborate on this? The Army discovered the drop safety issue during testing, at some point after that Sig modified the Army's pistols. As far as I know, no one has released exactly when the Army's drop test occurred. I think it's likely that the Army, and Sig, knew about the issue for some months before the public; maybe as much as a year. As I recall, it was regarding the initial drop test failures back in 2017. SIG made a point of saying the mil guns had different guts and weren't subject to the |
|
Quoted: LOL, that is a GREAT scene. Especially when it rings true for sig. |
|
Man. Vids like that are going to hurt feelings at a certain company a lot. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Sig gets sued for enough money and it’s financially “worth it” to do a recall. Which unfortunately is going to happen, given a long enough timeline.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA2EBWFCULgIt doesn't matter how much you pay a month, you can be paying 10k/mo and they will fight you on every single thing, it doesn't matter if you've been with them and paying for 30 years with no major outlays from them on your account. If past that number, all you get is a fight and every single scumbag trick in the book. They even sent nurses to our house to see if dad was as bad as all the major surguries indicated, under the lying guise of it being a home healt checkup. In the end in almost every instance, nothing is worth more than the final number in some spreadsheet column. eta: reality disagrees and will bite back on judgement day, though. |
|
Quoted: People have discovered faulty striker blocks that aren't catching the striker when it falls. We don't know what the failure mode is. It could be they are deforming instead of breaking. It could be that the housing is deforming enough to allow the blocks to move out of proper alignment. I still maintain that the striker impact has something to do with it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the cause is for the failure if they ever publish it. Quoted: Quoted: An AR's bolt hits the bolt stop once every magazine, so it needs to be a durable design. If a P320's sear works properly then it's striker should never hit the striker block; it shouldn't need to be terribly durable. In any case, no one has yet demonstrated a durability problem with the striker blocks. If their durability is actually a problem, and if sear failures are as common as some people in this thread have speculated, then someone probably should have found a damaged one, or should find one soon now that a couple people have identified pistols with faulty striker blocks. Catching the striker while it's still cocked would create a couple of problems. First, it turns the striker block into a secondary sear. This means you would never get a dead trigger and have no chance of learning that your sear is failing unless your striker block also fails, at which point you get a bang. Second, it creates the possibility of timing issues. I suspect that's why the industry standard is to catch the striker at the last minute: it gives the striker block the maximum amount of time to get into position if some force caused it to move out of position. Unless someone shows that P320 striker blocks are being damaged I think that making their already non-standard design even more non-standard by catching the striker at full cock is probably not a good idea. The Army discovered the drop safety issue during testing, at some point after that Sig modified the Army's pistols. As far as I know, no one has released exactly when the Army's drop test occurred. I think it's likely that the Army, and Sig, knew about the issue for some months before the public; maybe as much as a year. I still maintain that the striker impact has something to do with it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the cause is for the failure if they ever publish it. I bet that'd trigger a class action against them and set the military on them. |
|
Quoted: They'd better pray the public doesn't find out before they release the info. I bet that'd trigger a class action against them and set the military on them. Maybe they don't even know what's going on with it What we do know for sure is that sometimes, the striker safety block fails to stop the striker. We don't yet know how that happens. If I were an enterprising lad with some money to throw around, I'd put out a "WTB" ad for P320s that fail the striker test. Then I would have the slides milled into cutaway slides so the striker safety operation can be visually observed. Then, I'd rent a high speed camera and film the failures as they occur, from multiple angles, and try to see exactly what is happening that allows the striker ledge to pass the block. It will be interesting to see if some of this is caused by the bent tab slide rails on the FCG being too high for complete sear engagement. This would cause a very close, possibly even slight interference of the striker block safety in normal operation, which could cause it to get rounded over a little over time, making it less and less effective at catching the striker when it needs to. This would happen because the slide rails being too high would mean the striker block lifter wasn't reaching full height. |
|
Quoted: It will be interesting to see if some of this is caused by the bent tab slide rails on the FCG being too high for complete sear engagement. This would cause a very close, possibly even slight interference of the striker block safety in normal operation, which could cause it to get rounded over a little over time, making it less and less effective at catching the striker when it needs to. This would happen because the slide rails being too high would mean the striker block lifter wasn't reaching full height. |
|
Quoted: If I were an enterprising lad with some money to throw around, I'd put out a "WTB" ad for P320s that fail the striker test. Then I would have the slides milled into cutaway slides so the striker safety operation can be visually observed. Then, I'd rent a high speed camera and film the failures as they occur, from multiple angles, and try to see exactly what is happening that allows the striker ledge to pass the block. No need to cut anything up. Just use industrial X-Ray and high speed camera. |
|
Quoted: The slide rails being too low could also cause the problem. Which would be likely on the gun where the striker block had .032" of travel outside the gun, but it only took .003" to get it to release the striker. Quoted: Quoted: It will be interesting to see if some of this is caused by the bent tab slide rails on the FCG being too high for complete sear engagement. This would cause a very close, possibly even slight interference of the striker block safety in normal operation, which could cause it to get rounded over a little over time, making it less and less effective at catching the striker when it needs to. This would happen because the slide rails being too high would mean the striker block lifter wasn't reaching full height. Yes, absolutely. Rails too low could cause the lifter to partially disengage the striker block even with no trigger pull. |
|
Quoted: No, that was the Cory and what's her name, the one with the badonck. That fraking thread went on for years. Quoted: Quoted: The GD never-ending story. No, that was the Cory and what's her name, the one with the badonck. That fraking thread went on for years. What's that sound you make when your 320 discharges into your leg? |