[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 75 of 142)
|
Quoted: Buddy sent this Never heard of the site so I don't vouch for it https://www.christianwarriortraining.com/p/safety-advisory-immediate-prohibition Here's the documentation PDF that site links of incidents, legal actions and lawsuits, various agency responses and bans of the 320, and technical evaluations shorn of all the insane link hijinx (this stuff is too important to be doing that kind of stuff): https://www.christianwarriortraining.com/api/v1/file/ea6f9ffc-394d-4710-9de9-6324b90c42a9.pdf Text of the publicly available PDF in the spoiler fold below. Please at least go to the guy's substack (give him a click by visiting) for his effort! IDK the guy at all. He put in some effort documenting stuff. Click To View Spoiler |
Interesting. I have no idea who he is. Dear Sig Sauer |
|
Comment from the video: @joshuabracke5775 1 hour ago "I've passed the test, I will dimish, and go into the west, and remain Galadiral" - trench grenade after being tempted by Sig Sauron 26 Reply Quality roast, that. |
|
Trench is a bit of a mixed bag. Sometimes his takes can be a little all over the place. He's the one that came out immediately after the AHT video saying the video looked faked or staged. |
|
Quoted: Buddy sent this Never heard of the site so I don't vouch for it https://www.christianwarriortraining.com/p/safety-advisory-immediate-prohibition About 25% of churches in America have some form of safety team or security team, and of those, a whole bunch are armed. CWT is a pretty popular resource among those churches. Policies are set by individual churches, and most equipment decisions are made by the individual member, but that report will likely further reduce the P320's user base. |
|
Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn’t pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause  A Thoughtful & Nuanced Take on SIG's P320 Nightmare |
Rather less thoughtful & nuanced: Sig's Continue to Go BOOM! |
|
Quoted: Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn't pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XYBeyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poorly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? |
|
Quoted: I would argue Ian makes good points about the public confusing the drop safety with the current issue and the myriad of cheap polymer handguns makes it easy for the consumer to not consider the p320 at all for a next purchase. Beyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poirly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? Quoted: Quoted: Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn't pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XYBeyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poirly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? Ian has an engineering background - thus he won't blame it on engineering, he'll blame it on production. Thus is it ever so. 
|
|
Quoted: From the CWT blog detailing 320 incidents: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33962/Screenshot_20250514-061937-895_png-3540103.JPG What blog is this? |
|
Quoted: I would argue Ian makes good points about the public confusing the drop safety with the current issue and the myriad of cheap polymer handguns makes it easy for the consumer to not consider the p320 at all for a next purchase. Beyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poorly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? Quoted: Quoted: Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn't pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XYBeyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poorly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. |
"It is what it is". Please don't take a shot everytime he says that, you won't get through the video: The Sig P320 is a liability and a no go…. |
|
Quoted: this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. I think his video is good for someone walking in the door asking WTH is going on. He doesn't get overly technical. |
|
Quoted: I think his video is good for someone walking in the door asking WTH is going on. He doesn't get overly technical. Quoted: Quoted: this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. I think his video is good for someone walking in the door asking WTH is going on. He doesn't get overly technical. Fair enough. I'm not his target Demo on that. And the voice of Ian saying there is a problem, is very potent voice, that will save legs. |
|
Quoted: this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn't pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XYBeyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poorly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. The safety is certainly stamped, there's no reason for it to be MIM or anything else. Some stampings might be out of tolerance, or the design might need a post-stamping finishing step they didn't plan on in the initial design, or the overall design just sucks, but those are different issues. Maybe SIG removed a finishing step from the safety to save money, and it was $30 per batch (thousand units?) given the overseas production? Or maybe there was a project-wide effort to reduce the production cost of the entire gun by $30 and we're hearing it fourth hand. Kharn |
|
Quoted: this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. I watched almost the entire MAC video. The Sig guy did say something that alludes to a positive sear engagement angle. To paraphrase, he said the angle of the sear/striker was such that the striker spring alone would hold the sear in positive engagement even in the absence of a sear spring. But, he also said the striker was not fully tensioned. 
|
|
Quoted: I agree with everything you mention, plus the sear and striker being in two different halves of the gun. Bolt action rifles have fully tensioned strikers with zero issue, but the bolt can't wiggle when the action is closed to change the engagement geometry. A pistol slide can wiggle, and if everything is just teetering on the edge of engagement then it will release. The safety is certainly stamped, there's no reason for it to be MIM or anything else. Some stampings might be out of tolerance, or the design might need a post-stamping finishing step they didn't plan on in the initial design, or the overall design just sucks, but those are different issues. Maybe SIG removed a finishing step from the safety to save money, and it was $30 per batch (thousand units?) given the overseas production? Or maybe there was a project-wide effort to reduce the production cost of the entire gun by $30 and we're hearing it fourth hand. Kharn Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn't pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XYBeyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poorly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. The safety is certainly stamped, there's no reason for it to be MIM or anything else. Some stampings might be out of tolerance, or the design might need a post-stamping finishing step they didn't plan on in the initial design, or the overall design just sucks, but those are different issues. Maybe SIG removed a finishing step from the safety to save money, and it was $30 per batch (thousand units?) given the overseas production? Or maybe there was a project-wide effort to reduce the production cost of the entire gun by $30 and we're hearing it fourth hand. Kharn I haven't really been following the MIM vs stamped aspect. I think that's a detail.more than a cause. I think the design is just unsafe, and will fail at times regardless, but maybe. As to the savings - I've been on and seen enough contract negotiations , that I can see an Indian MIM facility asking for a complete scope.package. "we will make all 12 of these parts, for this contract price (maybe the $30 less?)" and that part just got rolled into the package Stuff like that happens all the time. |
|
Quoted: I would argue Ian makes good points about the public confusing the drop safety with the current issue and the myriad of cheap polymer handguns makes it easy for the consumer to not consider the p320 at all for a next purchase. Beyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poorly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? Quoted: Quoted: Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn't pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XYBeyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poorly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? Ian was very indirect and political and avoided speaking in absolutes. He was being nice. |
|
Quoted: "It is what it is". Please take a shot everytime he says that, you won't get through the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHdkDGT3VsQFixed |
|
Quoted: I agree with everything you mention, plus the sear and striker being in two different halves of the gun. Bolt action rifles have fully tensioned strikers with zero issue, but the bolt can't wiggle when the action is closed to change the engagement geometry. A pistol slide can wiggle, and if everything is just teetering on the edge of engagement then it will release. The safety is certainly stamped, there's no reason for it to be MIM or anything else. Some stampings might be out of tolerance, or the design might need a post-stamping finishing step they didn't plan on in the initial design, or the overall design just sucks, but those are different issues. Maybe SIG removed a finishing step from the safety to save money, and it was $30 per batch (thousand units?) given the overseas production? Or maybe there was a project-wide effort to reduce the production cost of the entire gun by $30 and we're hearing it fourth hand. Kharn Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn't pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XYBeyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poorly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. I agree with everything you mention, plus the sear and striker being in two different halves of the gun. Bolt action rifles have fully tensioned strikers with zero issue, but the bolt can't wiggle when the action is closed to change the engagement geometry. A pistol slide can wiggle, and if everything is just teetering on the edge of engagement then it will release. The safety is certainly stamped, there's no reason for it to be MIM or anything else. Some stampings might be out of tolerance, or the design might need a post-stamping finishing step they didn't plan on in the initial design, or the overall design just sucks, but those are different issues. Maybe SIG removed a finishing step from the safety to save money, and it was $30 per batch (thousand units?) given the overseas production? Or maybe there was a project-wide effort to reduce the production cost of the entire gun by $30 and we're hearing it fourth hand. Kharn Clearly MIMing the striker block isn't saving $30. Switching from a combination of machining billet, forged, and (finish machining) stamped parts to Indian MIM could save $30 per pistol, and that would be significant over the 320's production run. Maybe even enough to settle wrongful death lawsuits. To be clear, some machining is certainly still occurring on 320s, but MIM is certainly offering SIG some cost savings in production - or was, before they had to pay labor to final QC each pistol. |
|
Quoted: Fixed Quoted: Quoted: "It is what it is". Please https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHdkDGT3VsQFixed I'm wondering why he left at 15 years rather than sticking it out for retirement? Could be the clot shot, that got me out, but I had 20. |
|
Quoted: I'm wondering why he left at 15 years rather than sticking it out for retirement? Could be the clot shot, that got me out, but I had 20. Never heard of or seen his channel. It did pop up in my recommended on YT before I checked here, but I figured it was just some random YouTuber making a p320 video for clicks since the p320 fiasco is generating plenty of clicks and views in the gun tube at the moment. That trench grenade guy went off the rails and went after Gun Jesus in a video yesterday. |
|
Quoted: The safety is certainly stamped, there's no reason for it to be MIM or anything else. Some stampings might be out of tolerance, or the design might need a post-stamping finishing step they didn't plan on in the initial design, or the overall design just sucks, but those are different issues. Maybe SIG removed a finishing step from the safety to save money, and it was $30 per batch (thousand units?) given the overseas production? Or maybe there was a project-wide effort to reduce the production cost of the entire gun by $30 and we're hearing it fourth hand. Kharn I'm 95% certain that the guy who claimed Sig replaced stamped striker blocks with MIM striker blocks just had his facts backwards.  The pre-upgrade striker block on the right is very obviously a MIM part, while the post-upgrade striker block is very obviously stamped. Sig replaced a MIM part with a stamped part, not the other way around. Someone heard that, half understood it, and made a false claim. |
|
Quoted: I watched almost the entire MAC video. The Sig guy did say something that alludes to a positive sear engagement angle. To paraphrase, he said the angle of the sear/striker was such that the striker spring alone would hold the sear in positive engagement even in the absence of a sear spring. But, he also said the striker was not fully tensioned. Quoted: Quoted: this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. I watched almost the entire MAC video. The Sig guy did say something that alludes to a positive sear engagement angle. To paraphrase, he said the angle of the sear/striker was such that the striker spring alone would hold the sear in positive engagement even in the absence of a sear spring. But, he also said the striker was not fully tensioned. He also said they couldn't get any of the pistols to fire when put through vibration testing. |
|
Quoted: He also said they couldn't get any of the pistols to fire when put through vibration testing. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: this. It wasn't a bad video from Ian, and he correctly points out there are actually 3 items of fail, in Sig's P320. With item 1 being the drop-safety issue. Which IMHO he kind of dismisses. The fact that SIG let such a flaw out the door in the first place, is a very bad sign of spotty engineering, IMHO. And then for#2, With the fully tensioned striker combined with a light trigger and lack of safetys, wasn't a good call. (as item 2). So mostly I'm in agreement with him on those. With item 3, he danced around a lot, and finally settled on it being a tolerance stackign issue probably, but was good enough to note he doesn't know enough for sure to say yet, but something is up. I agree with your point. It was poor engineering to allow such a failure from simple tolerance stacking at all. That, and I think it's just a fundamentally unsafe design, that could well be "conditions" stacking, as much as tolerance stacking. I'm growing more convinced it's a combination of fouling and thickening oils with the weak spring and minimilistic sear-engagement surfaces, that are adding up to the sears walking off with vibration. There may be a tolerance stack component to that, but Ian implies if SIG just tightens up their QC, the problem will go away. It might, but I'm less willing to make that claim. It's just a bad gun design. As Ian says, SIG certainly would have known about this long before we did, and as such, note they redesigned the P365 striker and safety system. If it were correctable by QC and tolerance stacking as the single corrective action, why redesign it at all? All in all, while I have much respect of Ian, he didn't really say anything we haven't covered - and it some ways, says less. I think he is overemphesisign Tolerance Stacking alone, and it's correcability. I watched almost the entire MAC video. The Sig guy did say something that alludes to a positive sear engagement angle. To paraphrase, he said the angle of the sear/striker was such that the striker spring alone would hold the sear in positive engagement even in the absence of a sear spring. But, he also said the striker was not fully tensioned. He also said they couldn't get any of the pistols to fire when put through vibration testing. That may well be true. The primers we saw may only be light strikes. SIG claimed in court, when producing those pictures, the firearms in question had not fired during the testing. If I was going to do that test w/ my company's future on the line, I might have used really hard primers in that test. |
|
Quoted: Clearly MIMing the striker block isn't saving $30. Switching from a combination of machining billet, forged, and (finish machining) stamped parts to Indian MIM could save $30 per pistol, and that would be significant over the 320's production run. Maybe even enough to settle wrongful death lawsuits. Quoted: Clearly MIMing the striker block isn't saving $30. Switching from a combination of machining billet, forged, and (finish machining) stamped parts to Indian MIM could save $30 per pistol, and that would be significant over the 320's production run. Maybe even enough to settle wrongful death lawsuits. Phil said in the MAC video that they made 3.5 million P320s (IIRC) so we are talking 105 million bucks of saving. Quoted: That may well be true. The primers we saw may only be light strikes. SIG claimed in court, when producing those pictures, the firearms in question had not fired during the testing. If I was going to do that test w/ my company's future on the line, I might have used really hard primers in that test. Doesn't matter at all, not one iota. The final line of defense against any unintentional BOOM is that striker block. The block should not allow the striker to move all the way forward unless the trigger is pulled. If the block did not move or physically fail then NONE of those primers should have the slightest indentation. The only way they get an indentation is if the striker block mechanism (the one part of the pistol that absolutely CANNOT fail even on the worst day) failed. Even if the pistol didn't go BOOM, that picture tells me all I need to know. There is a severe design flaw somewhere in the 320 system. |
|
Quoted: Phil said in the MAC video that they made 3.5 million P320s (IIRC) so we are talking 105 million bucks of saving. Doesn't matter at all, not one iota. The final line of defense against any unintentional BOOM is that striker block. The block should not allow the striker to move all the way forward unless the trigger is pulled. If the block did not move or physically fail then NONE of those primers should have the slightest indentation. The only way they get an indentation is if the striker block mechanism (the one part of the pistol that absolutely CANNOT fail even on the worst day) failed. Even if the pistol didn't go BOOM, that picture tells me all I need to know. There is a severe design flaw somewhere in the 320 system. Quoted: Quoted: Clearly MIMing the striker block isn't saving $30. Switching from a combination of machining billet, forged, and (finish machining) stamped parts to Indian MIM could save $30 per pistol, and that would be significant over the 320's production run. Maybe even enough to settle wrongful death lawsuits. Phil said in the MAC video that they made 3.5 million P320s (IIRC) so we are talking 105 million bucks of saving. Quoted: That may well be true. The primers we saw may only be light strikes. SIG claimed in court, when producing those pictures, the firearms in question had not fired during the testing. If I was going to do that test w/ my company's future on the line, I might have used really hard primers in that test. Doesn't matter at all, not one iota. The final line of defense against any unintentional BOOM is that striker block. The block should not allow the striker to move all the way forward unless the trigger is pulled. If the block did not move or physically fail then NONE of those primers should have the slightest indentation. The only way they get an indentation is if the striker block mechanism (the one part of the pistol that absolutely CANNOT fail even on the worst day) failed. Even if the pistol didn't go BOOM, that picture tells me all I need to know. There is a severe design flaw somewhere in the 320 system. I quite agree. But SIG may have told the truth to the court when they said the pistols in their vibration test did not set off any primers. |
|
Quoted: I'm 95% certain that the guy who claimed Sig replaced stamped striker blocks with MIM striker blocks just had his facts backwards. https://i.imgur.com/GknKghM.jpeg The pre-upgrade striker block on the right is very obviously a MIM part, while the post-upgrade striker block is very obviously stamped. Sig replaced a MIM part with a stamped part, not the other way around. Someone heard that, half understood it, and made a false claim. So does that track with the post from a couple of days ago that stamping is probably cheaper than MIM for this part? Meaning moving to the stamped part was the $30 cost cutting measure? For what it's worth, the edges of stamped metal need additional finishing in order to be consistent. This is a case where the Indian MIM might have a better surface finish than the stamped part, but might be more brittle as well.
|
|
Quoted: So does that track with the post from a couple of days ago that stamping is probably cheaper than MIM for this part? Meaning moving to the stamped part was the $30 cost cutting measure? For what it's worth, the edges of stamped metal need additional finishing in order to be consistent. This is a case where the Indian MIM might have a better surface finish than the stamped part, but might be more brittle as well. Quoted: Quoted: I'm 95% certain that the guy who claimed Sig replaced stamped striker blocks with MIM striker blocks just had his facts backwards. https://i.imgur.com/GknKghM.jpeg The pre-upgrade striker block on the right is very obviously a MIM part, while the post-upgrade striker block is very obviously stamped. Sig replaced a MIM part with a stamped part, not the other way around. Someone heard that, half understood it, and made a false claim. So does that track with the post from a couple of days ago that stamping is probably cheaper than MIM for this part? Meaning moving to the stamped part was the $30 cost cutting measure? For what it's worth, the edges of stamped metal need additional finishing in order to be consistent. This is a case where the Indian MIM might have a better surface finish than the stamped part, but might be more brittle as well. Looks as if the striker went from a machined part to MIM as well. Likely saved $30 per gun. |
|
Quoted: Phil said in the MAC video that they made 3.5 million P320s (IIRC) so we are talking 105 million bucks of saving. Doesn't matter at all, not one iota. The final line of defense against any unintentional BOOM is that striker block. The block should not allow the striker to move all the way forward unless the trigger is pulled. If the block did not move or physically fail then NONE of those primers should have the slightest indentation. The only way they get an indentation is if the striker block mechanism (the one part of the pistol that absolutely CANNOT fail even on the worst day) failed. Even if the pistol didn't go BOOM, that picture tells me all I need to know. There is a severe design flaw somewhere in the 320 system. What if a stamped striker block with an unfinished, stamped edge is able to be bashed out of the way of the striker ledge? This would slow the striker somewhat by absorbing some of the energy while still allowing it to protrude from the breech face and cause a light strike. |
|
Quoted: So does that track with the post from a couple of days ago that stamping is probably cheaper than MIM for this part? Meaning moving to the stamped part was the $30 cost cutting measure? For what it's worth, the edges of stamped metal need additional finishing in order to be consistent. This is a case where the Indian MIM might have a better surface finish than the stamped part, but might be more brittle as well. That’s just a matter of throwing batches of parts in a deburring tumbler to get the smooth edges. |
|
Quoted: So does that track with the post from a couple of days ago that stamping is probably cheaper than MIM for this part? Meaning moving to the stamped part was the $30 cost cutting measure? For what it's worth, the edges of stamped metal need additional finishing in order to be consistent. This is a case where the Indian MIM might have a better surface finish than the stamped part, but might be more brittle as well. Quoted: Quoted: I'm 95% certain that the guy who claimed Sig replaced stamped striker blocks with MIM striker blocks just had his facts backwards. https://i.imgur.com/GknKghM.jpeg The pre-upgrade striker block on the right is very obviously a MIM part, while the post-upgrade striker block is very obviously stamped. Sig replaced a MIM part with a stamped part, not the other way around. Someone heard that, half understood it, and made a false claim. So does that track with the post from a couple of days ago that stamping is probably cheaper than MIM for this part? Meaning moving to the stamped part was the $30 cost cutting measure? For what it's worth, the edges of stamped metal need additional finishing in order to be consistent. This is a case where the Indian MIM might have a better surface finish than the stamped part, but might be more brittle as well. MIM or stamped, you're talking around $.30 per striker block, not $30. If SIG is saving $30 switching to MIM, a lot of that is in the striker itself - that honeycomb structure lends itself to MIM rather than milling. |
|
Quoted: I'm wondering why he left at 15 years rather than sticking it out for retirement? Could be the clot shot, that got me out, but I had 20. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "It is what it is". Please https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHdkDGT3VsQFixed I'm wondering why he left at 15 years rather than sticking it out for retirement? Could be the clot shot, that got me out, but I had 20. I know someone getting out at 17 and an e7. Some people are just done. |
|
Quoted: I know someone getting out at 17 and an e7. Some people are just done. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "It is what it is". Please https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHdkDGT3VsQFixed I'm wondering why he left at 15 years rather than sticking it out for retirement? Could be the clot shot, that got me out, but I had 20. I know someone getting out at 17 and an e7. Some people are just done. |
|
Quoted: So does that track with the post from a couple of days ago that stamping is probably cheaper than MIM for this part? Meaning moving to the stamped part was the $30 cost cutting measure? For what it's worth, the edges of stamped metal need additional finishing in order to be consistent. This is a case where the Indian MIM might have a better surface finish than the stamped part, but might be more brittle as well. My guess is the switch had more to do with mass than cost. Remember that the pre-upgrade P320s didn't go off when dropped with the nuzzle straight up; they fired when dropped at what Sig called a minus 30 degree angle. At that angle the momentum of the striker block would tend to lift it out of the way, so a lighter striker block might have been necessary. |
|
Quoted: That's just a matter of throwing batches of parts in a deburring tumbler to get the smooth edges. But a smooth, burnished edge is totally wrong for this application. You want the striker ledge to contact a sharp, flat (or even slightly positive angled) face on the edge of the striker block safety. If this part is smooth and "dehorned" it could potentially cam off the striker ledge and out of the way, allowing the striker to hit the primer. |
|
Quoted: But a smooth, burnished edge is totally wrong for this application. You want the striker ledge to contact a sharp, flat (or even slightly positive angled) face on the edge of the striker block safety. If this part is smooth and "dehorned" it could potentially cam off the striker ledge and out of the way, allowing the striker to hit the primer. Tomorrow when I get a chance I’ll have to take mine apart and get a good look at it, but when I had it apart the other day, the striker safety lock did not look like it had any sharp edges, it looked smooth and rounded on the edges. |
|
Quoted: I quite agree. But SIG may have told the truth to the court when they said the pistols in their vibration test did not set off any primers. Did Sig say the primers didn't detonate? I was told in another thread this: SIG did not state the primers ignited. In fact, they didn't say anything. The pictures were submitted to the defense without commentary. |
|
Quoted: Did Sig say the primers didn't detonate? I was told in another thread this: SIG did not state the primers ignited. In fact, they didn't say anything. The pictures were submitted to the defense without commentary. Quoted: Quoted: I quite agree. But SIG may have told the truth to the court when they said the pistols in their vibration test did not set off any primers. Did Sig say the primers didn't detonate? I was told in another thread this: SIG did not state the primers ignited. In fact, they didn't say anything. The pictures were submitted to the defense without commentary. From FlashMan's giant post on page 54: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCGiOsP9aymOaEKg6pLSObYXM9tRBv4p/view Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted: Ian has an engineering background - thus he won't blame it on engineering, he'll blame it on production. Thus is it ever so. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Pretty damning video by a firearms expert. At this point, you couldn't pay me to carry a SIG USA pistol! -There are many reputable, well-vetted shooters who have had NDs -Tolerance stacking due to lax QC is the likely root cause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XYBeyond that, his discussion of the tolerance stacking is just a discussion of what other people think. It is in itself not evidence that there is a tolerance stack issue. I also think there is a lack of understanding about tolerances a little. Everyone sounds like they are bashing sig for having bad qc and allowing parts that are out of tolerance.... what if they have poirly spec'ed tolerances from engineering? Ian has an engineering background - thus he won't blame it on engineering, he'll blame it on production. Thus is it ever so. It's always Productions fault! And day-shift!
|
Have not watched, nor am I likely to watch this guy again: Sig Sauron Shall be Cast Into the Fires of Mount Doom |
 Does a Sig mag work in a Glock????? At least the 320 mags won't go to waste. |
|
That was me, and that's my bad. SIG said the primers had not been struck, which is obviously wrong. |
|
Quoted: That was me, and that's my bad. SIG said the primers had not been struck, which is obviously wrong. Quoted: That was me, and that's my bad. SIG said the primers had not been struck, which is obviously wrong. Keeping all the details in your head about this is impossible. I got it wrong too. That's why I started the index thread in Tech, so at least folks can find it. |
|
Quoted: Keeping all the details in your head about this is impossible. I got it wrong too. That's why I started the index thread in Tech, so at least folks can find it. Quoted: Quoted: That was me, and that's my bad. SIG said the primers had not been struck, which is obviously wrong. Keeping all the details in your head about this is impossible. I got it wrong too. That's why I started the index thread in Tech, so at least folks can find it. It's an important picture, and it's not given the weight that it should in these discussions. SIG themselves submitted a picture showing primer indentation on three of ten pistols after vibration and jolt testing. Pistols with a firing pin block. More than that, it shows SIG's knowledge of block failures on almost 1/3 of their guns, and SIGs willingness to submit this into evidence in a suit and tell you not to believe your lying eyes. And yet still people say "prove it to me!". SIG did. |