[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 72 of 142)
|
Lol, no, you ran into our page numbering bug, and you bumped it to page 72. |
|
Quoted: Can you give us the department name, or no? Going to or from the 320/M17? Quoted: Quoted: Well, we officially have new guns ordered. Can you give us the department name, or no? Going to or from the 320/M17? Absolutely not. Going from 320 to shadow systems xr920 |
|
Quoted: Absolutely not. Going from 320 to shadow systems xr920 Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, we officially have new guns ordered. Absolutely not. Going from 320 to shadow systems xr920 No worries. Keep your femoral artery and yer feet safe. 
|
|
Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/20662/IMG_1708_png-3536885.JPG Pack your bags, fellas. This one will be solved in no time Would watch but guessing you have to pay? |
|
Probably not But your battery's about to..... |
There is a great YouTube short but it won’t allow me to post it in our YouTube attachment icon.  For Sig “It Ends Today” https://youtube.com/shorts/O1v9WaXg0eQ?si=tdOTB8va2xdDJBia |
|
Just delete the "short/" from the text For Sig “It Ends Today” Is this recent? |
|
Quoted: Just delete the "short/" from the text  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1v9WaXg0eQIs this recent? No. It was discussed a dozen or so pages ago. |
|
Quoted: Would watch but guessing you have to pay? Quoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/20662/IMG_1708_png-3536885.JPG Pack your bags, fellas. This one will be solved in no time Would watch but guessing you have to pay? lol fuck MAC and especially fuck paying him money to watch his bullshit. |
Very interesting video from the guy that showed the sear drop with a punch test. How to fix a P320 that fails the Sear Movement Test |
|
Quoted: Very interesting video from the guy that showed the sear drop with a punch test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_30DVjmaJs This is incredible stuff. The history of the design, what he's figured out so far... all of it. |
|
Quoted: Very interesting video from the guy that showed the sear drop with a punch test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_30DVjmaJsFurthermore, that ONLY make the last final line of defense striker safety finger work, if this works as expected from what is said, meaning the problem that made the striker let go without a trigger pull would STILL need to be found and rectified. We live in very interesting times. |
|
Quoted: Well now we need to figure out why that rear leg was there and what it does (and does not) do. Furthermore, that ONLY make the last final line of defense striker safety finger work, if this works as expected from what is said, meaning the problem that made the striker let go without a trigger pull would STILL need to be found and rectified. We live in very interesting times. Quoted: Quoted: Very interesting video from the guy that showed the sear drop with a punch test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_30DVjmaJsFurthermore, that ONLY make the last final line of defense striker safety finger work, if this works as expected from what is said, meaning the problem that made the striker let go without a trigger pull would STILL need to be found and rectified. We live in very interesting times. He identified a specific design flaw within one system. What he found is relevant to the problem, but like both he and you said, this still doesn’t answer why the sear is dropping. This also doesn’t address the highly questionable striker block engagement parameters. |
|
Interestingly that "tail" doesn't appear in an early diagram. Maybe it's a drawing mistake that made it into production. https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/sig-sauer-p320-public-service-announcement/248045 Attached File |
|
Quoted: Very interesting video from the guy that showed the sear drop with a punch test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_30DVjmaJsWill be interesting to see if this guy and Robert Burke independently came to the same conclusion. Robert has also referenced that this is a post-upgrade parts problem with the sear. Also, I believe this finding means a trigger dingus or the p320 manual safety would actually solve the problem too, as both prevent trigger bar movement. |
|
I still think y'all are barking up the wrong tree worrying about the sear. We've established the safety mechanism doesn't always work, and a test to verify. Based on ARFCOM's reported punch tests, that's a staggering number of 320s walking around w/o a working striker block. If you don't have a working striker block, are you worried about the particular action that might trip the sear? Are you gonna go, well, as long as I don't hit the back of the slide just so, this thing won't blow my left nut off and shove it in yer pants w/o a working striker block? I think the path forward is to get more punch tests, and to identify the common features of 320s that fail the striker block punch test. |
|
Quoted: I'm more interested in seeing a thorough explanation and exhibition of what's going on mechanically that's causing this and how they came to the conclusion as to what's causing it. Same. I have never owned a Sig, but I am fascinated by this. My original interest was the Flux Raider, but I held off buying because of the holster pops. But now I've gone down the rabbit hole and want to see where this ends up. But I don't think I'd want anything to do with the P320 design after all I've learned. I might end up with a P226 nostalgia buy one day though. |
|
The new video from Commander Data is freaking fascinating and I’m wishing he had a Give Send Go so I could pay for a coffee or a bottle of scotch for him or something. It’s incredible to imagine that they band-aided over one problem and unknowingly added another that may not ever have been necessary. I guess we’re still in the dark about why the sear is failing, but the additional problem of the sear deactivating the firing pin safety as it fails appears to have been solved. |
|
Quoted: I still think y'all are barking up the wrong tree worrying about the sear. We've established the safety mechanism doesn't always work, and a test to verify. Based on ARFCOM's reported punch tests, that's a staggering number of 320s walking around w/o a working striker block. If you don't have a working striker block, are you worried about the particular action that might trip the sear? Are you gonna go, well, as long as I don't hit the back of the slide just so, this thing won't blow my left nut off and shove it in yer pants w/o a working striker block? I think the path forward is to get more punch tests, and to identify the common features of 320s that fail the striker block punch test. If the striker drops for some reason, and pushes the trigger bar, that then pushed up on the lever in the FCU that disables the striker safety. I think he feels that if this happens and the striker safety mechanism in the slide is in good working order, the timing of the sear drop-trigger bar moves-safety lever rises is such that the striker will move forward enough to hit the safety block before the lever deactivating it rises up fully. This timing is a bit different than when you normally pull the trigger, there you're moving the trigger bar first, so the striker safety gets disabled before the sear drops. He also mentioned how having a strong striker spring helped prevent a failure, so it would seem that the stronger spring gets the striker flying forward faster so it can hit and stop on the safety before the safety has a chance to start getting impinged on. However, a combination of a faulty striker block sear (misshapen surfaces, broken spring, fouling binding it up, etc.) and the sudden striker drop leading to impinging on the striker safety to move it enough that it then fails when the striker hits it could be a follow on factor, and why some guns pass the "punch test" and some don't. I think the idea is a combination of poor timing and design can lead to a cascading failure. The main question now is how the sear drops and sets it all in motion. A lot of the instances we've seen stem from a bump or pressure on the holster where the gun is, or the reports that a drop in one specific orientation would cause repeated discharges. Maybe another case of poor tolerances has guns where sear/striker engagement is minimal and a bump allows the striker to slip the sear. As the striker moves forward, it will slide over the sear arm, bumping it down and causing the trigger bar and safety disable arm movement to start pushing the striker safety up. If the timing of all that happening lines up, then the striker slips past the safety block that's now being partially or fully disabled and it fires. A lot is happening in the sequence of events, but it's set off by one event, something causing the striker to slip over the sear. Definitely not definitive, but interesting. We'll have to see what the Sig armorer guy is supposedly releasing Monday. According to the video's author in the comments, they are not working together. |
|
Quoted: It seems like in the video that he thinks both aspects are important. If the striker drops for some reason, and pushes the trigger bar, that then pushed up on the lever in the FCU that disables the striker safety. I think he feels that if this happens and the striker safety mechanism in the slide is in good working order, the timing of the sear drop-trigger bar moves-safety lever rises is such that the striker will move forward enough to hit the safety block before the lever deactivating it rises up fully. This timing is a bit different than when you normally pull the trigger, there you're moving the trigger bar first, so the striker safety gets disabled before the sear drops. He also mentioned how having a strong striker spring helped prevent a failure, so it would seem that the stronger spring gets the striker flying forward faster so it can hit and stop on the safety before the safety has a chance to start getting impinged on. However, a combination of a faulty striker block sear (misshapen surfaces, broken spring, fouling binding it up, etc.) and the sudden striker drop leading to impinging on the striker safety to move it enough that it then fails when the striker hits it could be a follow on factor, and why some guns pass the "punch test" and some don't. I think the idea is a combination of poor timing and design can lead to a cascading failure. The main question now is how the sear drops and sets it all in motion. A lot of the instances we've seen stem from a bump or pressure on the holster where the gun is, or the reports that a drop in one specific orientation would cause repeated discharges. Maybe another case of poor tolerances has guns where sear/striker engagement is minimal and a bump allows the striker to slip the sear. As the striker moves forward, it will slide over the sear arm, bumping it down and causing the trigger bar and safety disable arm movement to start pushing the striker safety up. If the timing of all that happening lines up, then the striker slips past the safety block that's now being partially or fully disabled and it fires. A lot is happening in the sequence of events, but it's set off by one event, something causing the striker to slip over the sear. Definitely not definitive, but interesting. We'll have to see what the Sig armorer guy is supposedly releasing Monday. According to the video's author in the comments, they are not working together. Quoted: Quoted: I still think y'all are barking up the wrong tree worrying about the sear. We've established the safety mechanism doesn't always work, and a test to verify. Based on ARFCOM's reported punch tests, that's a staggering number of 320s walking around w/o a working striker block. If you don't have a working striker block, are you worried about the particular action that might trip the sear? Are you gonna go, well, as long as I don't hit the back of the slide just so, this thing won't blow my left nut off and shove it in yer pants w/o a working striker block? I think the path forward is to get more punch tests, and to identify the common features of 320s that fail the striker block punch test. It seems like in the video that he thinks both aspects are important. If the striker drops for some reason, and pushes the trigger bar, that then pushed up on the lever in the FCU that disables the striker safety. I think he feels that if this happens and the striker safety mechanism in the slide is in good working order, the timing of the sear drop-trigger bar moves-safety lever rises is such that the striker will move forward enough to hit the safety block before the lever deactivating it rises up fully. This timing is a bit different than when you normally pull the trigger, there you're moving the trigger bar first, so the striker safety gets disabled before the sear drops. He also mentioned how having a strong striker spring helped prevent a failure, so it would seem that the stronger spring gets the striker flying forward faster so it can hit and stop on the safety before the safety has a chance to start getting impinged on. However, a combination of a faulty striker block sear (misshapen surfaces, broken spring, fouling binding it up, etc.) and the sudden striker drop leading to impinging on the striker safety to move it enough that it then fails when the striker hits it could be a follow on factor, and why some guns pass the "punch test" and some don't. I think the idea is a combination of poor timing and design can lead to a cascading failure. The main question now is how the sear drops and sets it all in motion. A lot of the instances we've seen stem from a bump or pressure on the holster where the gun is, or the reports that a drop in one specific orientation would cause repeated discharges. Maybe another case of poor tolerances has guns where sear/striker engagement is minimal and a bump allows the striker to slip the sear. As the striker moves forward, it will slide over the sear arm, bumping it down and causing the trigger bar and safety disable arm movement to start pushing the striker safety up. If the timing of all that happening lines up, then the striker slips past the safety block that's now being partially or fully disabled and it fires. A lot is happening in the sequence of events, but it's set off by one event, something causing the striker to slip over the sear. Definitely not definitive, but interesting. We'll have to see what the Sig armorer guy is supposedly releasing Monday. According to the video's author in the comments, they are not working together.  God, this is fucking awful. There's possibly hundreds of thousands of these things the striker block isn't working in.
|
|
Quoted: Very interesting video from the guy that showed the sear drop with a punch test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_30DVjmaJsThat was an enlightening video, but it was about twice as long as it needed to be. In any case, I think the proper place to focus the investigation of UDs is the takedown lever. Sig engineered a second way to trip the sear besides the trigger.  They would have been better off with idiots shooting holes in their hands by field stripping the guns without clearing them first than to design the gun to release the sear by a secondary mechanism, and then relying on the striker safety to prevent a primer impact. I've seen the video where the takedown lever can't trip the sear with a magazine inserted, etc. But I can't help but feel somehow the takedown lever sear trip mechanism is contributing to the UDs. It's an external control that could contact a tightly molded internal holster surface. Anything that applies force to the gun that makes it move inside the holster could potentially cause the takedown lever to move. I'm curious, for those who own 320s, how far must you rotate the takedown lever before the sear releases? Does the sear release early in the takedown lever rotation, or just before the slide is freed from the frame? |
|
Quoted: That was an enlightening video, but it was about twice as long as it needed to be. In any case, I think the proper place to focus the investigation of UDs is the takedown lever. Sig engineered a second way to trip the sear besides the trigger. They would have been better off with idiots shooting holes in their hands by field stripping the guns without clearing them first than to design the gun to release the sear by a secondary mechanism, and then relying on the striker safety to prevent a primer impact. I've seen the video where the takedown lever can't trip the sear with a magazine inserted, etc. But I can't help but feel somehow the takedown lever sear trip mechanism is contributing to the UDs. It's an external control that could contact a tightly molded internal holster surface. Anything that applies force to the gun that makes it move inside the holster could potentially cause the takedown lever to move. I'm curious, for those who own 320s, how far must you rotate the takedown lever before the sear releases? Does the sear release early in the takedown lever rotation, or just before the slide is freed from the frame? Quoted: Quoted: Very interesting video from the guy that showed the sear drop with a punch test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_30DVjmaJsThat was an enlightening video, but it was about twice as long as it needed to be. In any case, I think the proper place to focus the investigation of UDs is the takedown lever. Sig engineered a second way to trip the sear besides the trigger. They would have been better off with idiots shooting holes in their hands by field stripping the guns without clearing them first than to design the gun to release the sear by a secondary mechanism, and then relying on the striker safety to prevent a primer impact. I've seen the video where the takedown lever can't trip the sear with a magazine inserted, etc. But I can't help but feel somehow the takedown lever sear trip mechanism is contributing to the UDs. It's an external control that could contact a tightly molded internal holster surface. Anything that applies force to the gun that makes it move inside the holster could potentially cause the takedown lever to move. I'm curious, for those who own 320s, how far must you rotate the takedown lever before the sear releases? Does the sear release early in the takedown lever rotation, or just before the slide is freed from the frame? At least now we know how curiosity killed the cat. He wanted to fully understand the problem w/ a P320, so he bought one & it shot him.
|
|
Quoted: They’re junk. We received 22 M18’s when they were first fielded. 2 were deadlined and red tagged right out of the box. How do you ship a pistol that can’t cycle a single round? Not test-firing…that’s how. Quoted: They’re junk. We received 22 M18’s when they were first fielded. 2 were deadlined and red tagged right out of the box. How do you ship a pistol that can’t cycle a single round? Not test-firing…that’s how. Really put a damper on my optimism for the M17. Quoted: That was an enlightening video, but it was about twice as long as it needed to be. In any case, I think the proper place to focus the investigation of UDs is the takedown lever. Sig engineered a second way to trip the sear besides the trigger. They would have been better off with idiots shooting holes in their hands by field stripping the guns without clearing them first than to design the gun to release the sear by a secondary mechanism, and then relying on the striker safety to prevent a primer impact. I've seen the video where the takedown lever can't trip the sear with a magazine inserted, etc. But I can't help but feel somehow the takedown lever sear trip mechanism is contributing to the UDs. It's an external control that could contact a tightly molded internal holster surface. Anything that applies force to the gun that makes it move inside the holster could potentially cause the takedown lever to move. I'm curious, for those who own 320s, how far must you rotate the takedown lever before the sear releases? Does the sear release early in the takedown lever rotation, or just before the slide is freed from the frame? |
|
Quoted: I still think y'all are barking up the wrong tree worrying about the sear. We've established the safety mechanism doesn't always work, and a test to verify. Based on ARFCOM's reported punch tests, that's a staggering number of 320s walking around w/o a working striker block. If you don't have a working striker block, are you worried about the particular action that might trip the sear? Are you gonna go, well, as long as I don't hit the back of the slide just so, this thing won't blow my left nut off and shove it in yer pants w/o a working striker block? I think the path forward is to get more punch tests, and to identify the common features of 320s that fail the striker block punch test. In the same line of thought, though, let's say the striker block is fixed -- would you want to carry a gun that can randomly release the striker? I wouldn't. For that reason, I think it's important to isolate and fix both apparent problems. |
|
To those who say they'll stick to classic SIGs, the biggest problem here is not the 320 going off, it's SIG's response. Why would you give them money? Also, why do you think the QC problem is specific to 320s and not their entire product line? Buy an older one. In 2010 my department went from 2340/2022s to 229s. Out of the 20 people in my familiarization course 5-6 had broken recoil guide rods within the first 100 rounds. That was my first experience with SIG under Cohen. |
|
Watched the latest video of suit man's analysis. Very thorough. Three things stand out to me: 1. Holy shit, who would design a striker sear that can move a trigger bar in reverse and disable its own safety?! What a massive design flaw. At this point, it doesn't matter what the P320's level of QC is. The fact that the post-upgrade sear can defeat its own safety means the gun is junk at the baseline and should be entirely discontinued. 2. Do any other popular striker guns do the same thing? 3. Not mentioned in suit man's video is that I consider the takedown lever dropping the sear a design flaw as well. Unless I'm missing something, this means the takedown lever literally releases the striker and is only depending on the striker safety to prevent an ND. Granted, if someone follows safe gun handling practices, this shouldn't matter, but dear God, this has to be worse than requiring a purposeful trigger pull given that the dropped sear disables its own safeties.
|
|
Quoted: To those who say they'll stick to classic SIGs, the biggest problem here is not the 320 going off, it's SIG's response. Why would you give them money? Also, why do you think the QC problem is specific to 320s and not their entire product line? Is this trenchcoat guy the same one who was going to release a vid on monday? |
|
Quoted: The p22*? First thing I can think of is people in ban states who are grandfathered in with magazines for the platform. In my case Ive been buying/trading/shooting the p226 and p220 for the last 35yrs. Despite the whole "sig isnt what it use to be!" hype from people who prefered folded slide german guns..... Ive never noticed a difference. For me they all work, and work well. Is this trenchcoat guy the same one who was going to release a vid on monday? Different guy. |
|
Quoted: To those who say they'll stick to classic SIGs, the biggest problem here is not the 320 going off, it's SIG's response. Why would you give them money? Also, why do you think the QC problem is specific to 320s and not their entire product line? Buy an older one. In 2010 my department went from 2340/2022s to 229s. Out of the 20 people in my familiarization course 5-6 had broken recoil guide rods within the first 100 rounds. That was my first experience with SIG under Cohen. My 226 was made before that clown Cohen was let in the door. |
|
Quoted: I still think y'all are barking up the wrong tree worrying about the sear. We've established the safety mechanism doesn't always work, and a test to verify. Based on ARFCOM's reported punch tests, that's a staggering number of 320s walking around w/o a working striker block. If you don't have a working striker block, are you worried about the particular action that might trip the sear? Are you gonna go, well, as long as I don't hit the back of the slide just so, this thing won't blow my left nut off and shove it in yer pants w/o a working striker block? I think the path forward is to get more punch tests, and to identify the common features of 320s that fail the striker block punch test. It makes sense if you follow the progression of Trench Coat's videos. In the original punch test video, when he swaps parts around, we see that the failures follow the FCU, not the striker assembly. The subsequent videos explain this. But we also see that the failure rate changes, and I have yet to see a hypothesis for why that is. In the second video, he works with FCUs and demonstrates that in the one with the failures, when he moves the sear, the sear engages the trigger bar and the lever for the striker block. In the third video, he identifies this sear leg as the point of contact that produces this trigger bar movement. |
|
Quoted: If the claim about .45 ACP takedown levers ending up in 9mm guns is true, and knowing the takedown lever can trip the sear, I wonder if this has something to do with it all. If the .45 takedown lever has more magazine clearance, then the magazine insertion safety might be non-functional when the .45 takedown lever is installed in a 9mm gun. This would allow the takedown lever to release the sear with a magazine inserted. |
|
Quoted: I think the idea is a combination of poor timing and design can lead to a cascading failure. The main question now is how the sear drops and sets it all in motion. A lot of the instances we've seen stem from a bump or pressure on the holster where the gun is, or the reports that a drop in one specific orientation would cause repeated discharges. Maybe another case of poor tolerances has guns where sear/striker engagement is minimal and a bump allows the striker to slip the sear. As the striker moves forward, it will slide over the sear arm, bumping it down and causing the trigger bar and safety disable arm movement to start pushing the striker safety up. If the timing of all that happening lines up, then the striker slips past the safety block that's now being partially or fully disabled and it fires. A lot is happening in the sequence of events, but it's set off by one event, something causing the striker to slip over the sear. Definitely not definitive, but interesting. We'll have to see what the Sig armorer guy is supposedly releasing Monday. According to the video's author in the comments, they are not working together. I think this is the part where the troubleshooting gets harder. I don't think the defect, as shown, would lead to a discharge if the striker was simply slipping off the sear. The sear itself has to move far enough and with enough force to push the trigger bar and the striker safety lever. Most of the videos we have don't show an impact type force that you might expect to cause this. Some of these guns are discharging when forces are applied to the gun relatively slowly when someone bends over, gets out of a car, or rests their hand on the holstered gun. The implied question is, how do those motions translate to the sear movement required to produce the failure shown? Does the striker slipping "kick" the sear with enough force to knock open the striker safety before the striker gets there? Does the relationship between these parts wander during movement or change each time the gun cycles? Or is it something with the takedown lever? |
|
Quoted: To those who say they'll stick to classic SIGs, the biggest problem here is not the 320 going off, it's SIG's response. Why would you give them money? Also, why do you think the QC problem is specific to 320s and not their entire product line? Buy an older one. In 2010 my department went from 2340/2022s to 229s. Out of the 20 people in my familiarization course 5-6 had broken recoil guide rods within the first 100 rounds. That was my first experience with SIG under Cohen. This is my stance as well. l I see no reason to buy anything from them, be their beta tester, or reward poor ethics. It hasn't just been pistols either, the Cross had major safety issues. |
|
Quoted: To those who say they'll stick to classic SIGs, the biggest problem here is not the 320 going off, it's SIG's response. Why would you give them money? Also, why do you think the QC problem is specific to 320s and not their entire product line? Buy an older one. In 2010 my department went from 2340/2022s to 229s. Out of the 20 people in my familiarization course 5-6 had broken recoil guide rods within the first 100 rounds. That was my first experience with SIG under Cohen. There are still plenty of used P220s, P226s, P229s, etc... including police trade ins that don't contribute money to Sig when you buy them. |
|
Quoted: To those who say they'll stick to classic SIGs, the biggest problem here is not the 320 going off, it's SIG's response. Why would you give them money? Also, why do you think the QC problem is specific to 320s and not their entire product line? Buy an older one. In 2010 my department went from 2340/2022s to 229s. Out of the 20 people in my familiarization course 5-6 had broken recoil guide rods within the first 100 rounds. That was my first experience with SIG under Cohen. Most signs point to the P320's issues being design flaws, not QC. The P22X guns are legendary pistols that have been around for decades, that have a great reputation, and that have tons of support. If a guy wants a P226 with modern features like an optics cut, buying a new model is the only option. We've already beat the dead horse of Sig's response. We can fault them for their PR people being trash, but it's easy to understand how they might have thought these really were user induced problems, at least up to a certain point, and America's legal landscape forces them to deny and settle. They CAN'T admit fault, even if they know what's wrong. |
|
Quoted: To those who say they'll stick to classic SIGs, the biggest problem here is not the 320 going off, it's SIG's response. Why would you give them money? Also, why do you think the QC problem is specific to 320s and not their entire product line? Buy an older one. In 2010 my department went from 2340/2022s to 229s. Out of the 20 people in my familiarization course 5-6 had broken recoil guide rods within the first 100 rounds. That was my first experience with SIG under Cohen. I started in 07 with an Sig 229 in .357 sig. We went to new guns in about 2012 because there was an issue with frames cracking; the fleet was about 7 years old, and had on average ~3-4k rounds through them with beyond recommended maintenance and spring changes. These were German framed guns. We got new US made guns. We started experiencing frame cracking in 2017; many of these guns had 2-3k through them. Sig blamed the ammo. Speer Lawman practice and Gold Dot duty ammo. When you buy an Sig branded gun chambered in an Sig cartridge, you expect they should go together pretty well. Apparently not, and Sigs stance at the time was BS…soured me on the company. The p320 debacle is more of the same. Nothing is their fault; their product is perfect. Except it’s not. I won’t buy anything they make, as I don’t want to support the company as currently structured. |
|
Quoted: They're junk. We received 22 M18's when they were first fielded. 2 were deadlined and red tagged right out of the box. How do you ship a pistol that can't cycle a single round? Not test-firing that's how. It was one of the first P320s sold. I won't carry it until there is a proven fix. |
|
Quoted: 3. Not mentioned in suit man's video is that I consider the takedown lever dropping the sear a design flaw as well. Unless I'm missing something, this means the takedown lever literally releases the striker and is only depending on the striker safety to prevent an ND. Granted, if someone follows safe gun handling practices, this shouldn't matter, but dear God, this has to be worse than requiring a purposeful trigger pull given that the dropped sear disables its own safeties.No the slide has to be locked back to rotate the take down lever. I dont own a 320, but on a 365 the take down lever wont rotate unless the slide stop is holding the slide back ( up position ), I assume they did the same on the 320. @bigfatOTMs: |
|
Quoted: No the slide has to be locked back to rotate the take down lever. I dont own a 320, but on a 365 the take down lever wont rotate unless the slide stop is holding the slide back ( up position ), I assume they did the same on the 320. @bigfatOTMs: Quoted: Quoted: 3. Not mentioned in suit man's video is that I consider the takedown lever dropping the sear a design flaw as well. Unless I'm missing something, this means the takedown lever literally releases the striker and is only depending on the striker safety to prevent an ND. Granted, if someone follows safe gun handling practices, this shouldn't matter, but dear God, this has to be worse than requiring a purposeful trigger pull given that the dropped sear disables its own safeties.No the slide has to be locked back to rotate the take down lever. I dont own a 320, but on a 365 the take down lever wont rotate unless the slide stop is holding the slide back ( up position ), I assume they did the same on the 320. @bigfatOTMs: The P320 is similar. There's a curved cutout in the slide; if that curved cutout isn't aligned with the takedown lever then the slide prevents the takedown lever from rotating. You're supposed to lock the slide back, but it's possible to rotate the lever if you simply hold the slide in the correct position, although I read somewhere that can cause problems. |
|
Quoted: It seems like in the video that he thinks both aspects are important. If the striker drops for some reason, and pushes the trigger bar, that then pushed up on the lever in the FCU that disables the striker safety. I think he feels that if this happens and the striker safety mechanism in the slide is in good working order, the timing of the sear drop-trigger bar moves-safety lever rises is such that the striker will move forward enough to hit the safety block before the lever deactivating it rises up fully. This timing is a bit different than when you normally pull the trigger, there you're moving the trigger bar first, so the striker safety gets disabled before the sear drops. He also mentioned how having a strong striker spring helped prevent a failure, so it would seem that the stronger spring gets the striker flying forward faster so it can hit and stop on the safety before the safety has a chance to start getting impinged on. Quoted: It seems like in the video that he thinks both aspects are important. If the striker drops for some reason, and pushes the trigger bar, that then pushed up on the lever in the FCU that disables the striker safety. I think he feels that if this happens and the striker safety mechanism in the slide is in good working order, the timing of the sear drop-trigger bar moves-safety lever rises is such that the striker will move forward enough to hit the safety block before the lever deactivating it rises up fully. This timing is a bit different than when you normally pull the trigger, there you're moving the trigger bar first, so the striker safety gets disabled before the sear drops. He also mentioned how having a strong striker spring helped prevent a failure, so it would seem that the stronger spring gets the striker flying forward faster so it can hit and stop on the safety before the safety has a chance to start getting impinged on. Yes I think in this situation the timing is different. Pull the trigger and it moves the striker block before the sear drops. Move the sear and the striker is released first and hits the block, at least if everything is in spec. Bent block, dirt build up lots of things can throw the timing off. Quoted: However, a combination of a faulty striker block sear (misshapen surfaces, broken spring, fouling binding it up, etc.) and the sudden striker drop leading to impinging on the striker safety to move it enough that it then fails when the striker hits it could be a follow on factor, and why some guns pass the "punch test" and some don't. I just said this above and agree Quoted: I think the idea is a combination of poor timing and design can lead to a cascading failure. The main question now is how the sear drops and sets it all in motion. A lot of the instances we've seen stem from a bump or pressure on the holster where the gun is, or the reports that a drop in one specific orientation would cause repeated discharges. Maybe another case of poor tolerances has guns where sear/striker engagement is minimal and a bump allows the striker to slip the sear. As the striker moves forward, it will slide over the sear arm, bumping it down and causing the trigger bar and safety disable arm movement to start pushing the striker safety up. If the timing of all that happening lines up, then the striker slips past the safety block that's now being partially or fully disabled and it fires. A lot is happening in the sequence of events, but it's set off by one event, something causing the striker to slip over the sear. Definitely not definitive, but interesting. We'll have to see what the Sig armorer guy is supposedly releasing Monday. According to the video's author in the comments, they are not working together. I do think the leg on the sear, as he said was added to let the trigger spring help the sear return. It may have been added as a back up to the sear spring, in case of failure it would make sure the sear returns to the up position. I still want to know the sear angle, is it positive or negative. If I had a 320 I would take the slide plate off and put an indicator on the striker and pull the trigger. This would tell if the sear angle it neg or pos, by if it moves the striker back any more at all. If there is no more movement to the rear or even worse moves forward at all before release it means the sear angle is just a ramp that the striker spring is trying to push down. Just like a 1911 the angle of the sear notch is very important. This could also explain something with a stronger striker spring causing more friction and not allowing the sear to wiggle its way down. |