[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sig M18 might have just killed an Airman (Page 24 of 28)
|
Quoted: Were they deadlined due to normal parts/maintenance failures? Or due to the defects we now know exist in the P320? |
|
Quoted: the sig hate is delusional at this point. no matter what proof comes out saying the gun is safe, or all the alleged issues arent real, no one will care. The same could be said for Sic P320 defenders at this point, they are delusional and smoking tons of copeium if they believe this gun is anywhere near safe. |
|
Quoted: If you're going to immediately believe the only answer some massive government conspiracy covering up a fatal flaw that somehow not a single member of the entire gun community can find then there really isn't much to discuss. This whole thing has never been about logic or reason, from the start, it's been pure emotion and confirmation bias from people out to get sig and prove that glock should have won the contract. Your text cited in bold is the logical fallacy of the appeal to ignorance. You claim no one can find a "fatal flaw" to impugn the safety of the Sig P320 platform. Evidence empirical, anectdotal, and circumstantial proves otherwise. "An appeal to ignorance tries to make an incorrect argument based on its not yet having been proven false. . . In truth, the absence of opposing evidence proves nothing" (Lynn Quitman Troyka, Handbook For Writers, Page 136). Your post in its entirety "has never been about logic or reason." Do you have vested interest in Sig since you reside in New Hampshire? |
|
Quoted: I wouldn't hold my breath. I won't either, because they're already galloping off on other tangents. Also, I make it a point not to say "I told you so" to my wife, but some of you need to hear this again. Quoting myself, this thread, page 4, post 32. "The best and quickest way to look like a damn fool in the military is to run to your boss with the first version of any story. This may play out as advertised, but there are several factors that have the potential to take it in a different direction. Let the OSI do their investigation. They're pretty good at what they do, and they're not going to suppress the result." |
|
Quoted: What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. Quoted: Quoted: Were they deadlined due to normal parts/maintenance failures? Or due to the defects we now know exist in the P320? What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. We know there is a significant issue w/ the striker safety block in which it doesn't always work in some 320s - either from backfeeding off sear movement, spring failure, debris, or MIM part failure in pre-stamped steel parts. We know there is some mechanism which causes the striker to slip off the sear, resulting in a dead trigger in guns w/ working striker safety blocks, and UDs in guns which don't. There have been several possible failure modes of the sear, but no smoking gun yet, due to the fact that it's a very intermittent problem. |
|
Quoted: What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. Quoted: Quoted: Were they deadlined due to normal parts/maintenance failures? Or due to the defects we now know exist in the P320? What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. There are two systems in questions, and both have significant issues. The sear is floating, and it is only supported by spring pressure. Nothing in the P320 design blocks or secures the sear at any time, and this includes the manual safety models. The manual safety blocks the trigger, not the sear. With this being the case, there's nothing in the gun stopping the sear from slipping off or being pushed off of the striker. This problem is further exacerbated by the shape and the placement of the sear.  The sear has a shelf/lever at the back for the sear springs, it's relatively exposed at the back of the firearm, and it sits in a pocket where debris/FOD can collect. When this gun is in the holster, that debris will fall downward into the sear striker engagement surface. If you get a small piece of debris on that surface, or a larger piece of debris further back that can get compressed by the striker or the slide, it lets go, and there's nothing to stop it. The other system is the striker block/striker safety. The P320 striker safety is a relatively complicated and delicate design with a narrow operating margin, and depending upon how you count them, there are roughly four different known failure modes for the striker safety, and three of those have been validated through testing or review by engineers. Without digging in too deep, those failure modes are: -Sear movement back-feeding through the trigger bar activating the striker safety when it shouldn't. (This was proven in testing by the FBI and others.) -Problems with the striker safety spring including improper assembly during manufacturing, spring legs slipping off, and broken springs. (All of these have been found and documented in real world guns.) -The striker safety lever can have poor engagement with the corresponding engagement surface on the striker. (This is detailed in a report from an engineer.) -The striker safety lever can be jammed upwards by debris due to it's large outside surface area. (This one needs validation, but makes complete sense.) It takes one failure mode of the striker safety combined with one from the sear for a UD to occur. This is a low probability event, which is why these UDs are low frequency occurrences, and why it's so hard to replicate. But once you start isolating systems and looking at what does and does not work, we see problem areas, and we can piece together the puzzle. Everything listed here is either fixed completely or heavily mitigated in the design of the P365. And in the case of the manual safety P365, it's fixed 100%. |
|
Quoted: What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. We know, from SIG's own tests, that 30% of their tested guns' firing pin/striker blocks fail. Attached File |
|
Quoted: What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. To add to what GenYRevolverGuy (I cannot say that in my head without doing the Bill Nye The Science Guy jingle) and glklvr said: Any given P320 is going to have Z sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.02", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Any given P320 is going to be able to reduce sear engagement by Y via up/down movement of the slide. Whether that's 0.01, 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. SOME P320's have been seen to have dimensional variance, surface issues, or wear in the sear surfaces. FBI BRF's report showed a "ledge" in the striker hook. USAF is currently looking for "burrs or spurs" on these surfaces. There's a possibility for the sear surfaces to get stuck not fully engaged, reducing the sear engagement by X. Whether that reduces sear engagement by 0.02", 0.03", 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. If W + X + Y >= Z, then the sear lets go of the striker without the trigger needing to move at all. Add to that the problematic design of the striker safety (see glklvr's post about Sig's own testing) and you've got a gun that can, under the right circumstances, go off on it's own in a holster. |
|
Quoted: To add to what GenYRevolverGuy (I cannot say that in my head without doing the Bill Nye The Science Guy jingle) and glklvr said: Any given P320 is going to have Z sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.02", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Any given P320 is going to be able to reduce sear engagement by Y via up/down movement of the slide. Whether that's 0.01, 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. SOME P320's have been seen to have dimensional variance, surface issues, or wear in the sear surfaces. FBI BRF's report showed a "ledge" in the striker hook. USAF is currently looking for "burrs or spurs" on these surfaces. There's a possibility for the sear surfaces to get stuck not fully engaged, reducing the sear engagement by X. Whether that reduces sear engagement by 0.02", 0.03", 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. If W + X + Y >= Z, then the sear lets go of the striker without the trigger needing to move at all. Add to that the problematic design of the striker safety (see glklvr's post about Sig's own testing) and you've got a gun that can, under the right circumstances, go off on it's own in a holster. Fantastic explanation. |
|
Quoted: To add to what GenYRevolverGuy (I cannot say that in my head without doing the Bill Nye The Science Guy jingle) and glklvr said: Any given P320 is going to have Z sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.02", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Any given P320 is going to be able to reduce sear engagement by Y via up/down movement of the slide. Whether that's 0.01, 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. SOME P320's have been seen to have dimensional variance, surface issues, or wear in the sear surfaces. FBI BRF's report showed a "ledge" in the striker hook. USAF is currently looking for "burrs or spurs" on these surfaces. There's a possibility for the sear surfaces to get stuck not fully engaged, reducing the sear engagement by X. Whether that reduces sear engagement by 0.02", 0.03", 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. If W + X + Y >= Z, then the sear lets go of the striker without the trigger needing to move at all. Add to that the problematic design of the striker safety (see glklvr's post about Sig's own testing) and you've got a gun that can, under the right circumstances, go off on it's own in a holster. Quoted: Quoted: What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. To add to what GenYRevolverGuy (I cannot say that in my head without doing the Bill Nye The Science Guy jingle) and glklvr said: Any given P320 is going to have Z sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.02", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Any given P320 is going to be able to reduce sear engagement by Y via up/down movement of the slide. Whether that's 0.01, 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. SOME P320's have been seen to have dimensional variance, surface issues, or wear in the sear surfaces. FBI BRF's report showed a "ledge" in the striker hook. USAF is currently looking for "burrs or spurs" on these surfaces. There's a possibility for the sear surfaces to get stuck not fully engaged, reducing the sear engagement by X. Whether that reduces sear engagement by 0.02", 0.03", 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. If W + X + Y >= Z, then the sear lets go of the striker without the trigger needing to move at all. Add to that the problematic design of the striker safety (see glklvr's post about Sig's own testing) and you've got a gun that can, under the right circumstances, go off on it's own in a holster. 
|
|
Quoted: To add to what GenYRevolverGuy (I cannot say that in my head without doing the Bill Nye The Science Guy jingle) and glklvr said: Any given P320 is going to have Z sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.02", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Any given P320 is going to be able to reduce sear engagement by Y via up/down movement of the slide. Whether that's 0.01, 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. SOME P320's have been seen to have dimensional variance, surface issues, or wear in the sear surfaces. FBI BRF's report showed a "ledge" in the striker hook. USAF is currently looking for "burrs or spurs" on these surfaces. There's a possibility for the sear surfaces to get stuck not fully engaged, reducing the sear engagement by X. Whether that reduces sear engagement by 0.02", 0.03", 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. If W + X + Y >= Z, then the sear lets go of the striker without the trigger needing to move at all. Add to that the problematic design of the striker safety (see glklvr's post about Sig's own testing) and you've got a gun that can, under the right circumstances, go off on it's own in a holster. Quoted: Quoted: What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. To add to what GenYRevolverGuy (I cannot say that in my head without doing the Bill Nye The Science Guy jingle) and glklvr said: Any given P320 is going to have Z sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.02", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Any given P320 is going to be able to reduce sear engagement by Y via up/down movement of the slide. Whether that's 0.01, 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. SOME P320's have been seen to have dimensional variance, surface issues, or wear in the sear surfaces. FBI BRF's report showed a "ledge" in the striker hook. USAF is currently looking for "burrs or spurs" on these surfaces. There's a possibility for the sear surfaces to get stuck not fully engaged, reducing the sear engagement by X. Whether that reduces sear engagement by 0.02", 0.03", 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. If W + X + Y >= Z, then the sear lets go of the striker without the trigger needing to move at all. Add to that the problematic design of the striker safety (see glklvr's post about Sig's own testing) and you've got a gun that can, under the right circumstances, go off on it's own in a holster. That folks, is a quality post. |
|
Quoted: To add to what GenYRevolverGuy (I cannot say that in my head without doing the Bill Nye The Science Guy jingle) and glklvr said: Any given P320 is going to have Z sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.02", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Any given P320 is going to be able to reduce sear engagement by Y via up/down movement of the slide. Whether that's 0.01, 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. SOME P320's have been seen to have dimensional variance, surface issues, or wear in the sear surfaces. FBI BRF's report showed a "ledge" in the striker hook. USAF is currently looking for "burrs or spurs" on these surfaces. There's a possibility for the sear surfaces to get stuck not fully engaged, reducing the sear engagement by X. Whether that reduces sear engagement by 0.02", 0.03", 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. If W + X + Y >= Z, then the sear lets go of the striker without the trigger needing to move at all. Add to that the problematic design of the striker safety (see glklvr's post about Sig's own testing) and you've got a gun that can, under the right circumstances, go off on it's own in a holster. Quoted: Quoted: What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. To add to what GenYRevolverGuy (I cannot say that in my head without doing the Bill Nye The Science Guy jingle) and glklvr said: Any given P320 is going to have Z sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.02", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Any given P320 is going to be able to reduce sear engagement by Y via up/down movement of the slide. Whether that's 0.01, 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. SOME P320's have been seen to have dimensional variance, surface issues, or wear in the sear surfaces. FBI BRF's report showed a "ledge" in the striker hook. USAF is currently looking for "burrs or spurs" on these surfaces. There's a possibility for the sear surfaces to get stuck not fully engaged, reducing the sear engagement by X. Whether that reduces sear engagement by 0.02", 0.03", 0.005", doesn't matter. But it's some number. ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. If W + X + Y >= Z, then the sear lets go of the striker without the trigger needing to move at all. Add to that the problematic design of the striker safety (see glklvr's post about Sig's own testing) and you've got a gun that can, under the right circumstances, go off on it's own in a holster. That is by far the best explanation that I’ve seen on this. Thank you. |
|
My slide does have play but my slide is fully pushed upwards by the sear to striker leg connection and I can only push it downward. In fact pulling the trigger causes the slide to move downward until it reaches the lower slop limit and then the sear starts moving off the striker. I have very strong sear engagement in my particular one. BUT I can fully see how a shorter striker leg or a sear that cannot move upwards enough would cause the slipping. Its possible when they added the out of battery feature it added slop to the sear trigger bar connection as well. |
|
Quoted: That is by far the best explanation that I’ve seen on this. Thank you. I appreciate it guys. I think keeping those concepts in your head, and watching this video will really give you a solid understanding of the failure mode(s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuuvu4it1Mw Or, if you're a visual learner, do it backwards and then revisit this and read my description of it. I think that actually made it click for me. |
|
Does anyone have a link to the actual FBI report. Lots of videos and articles discussing it but the only place that might have actually posted it is an Instagram report and I don't have Instagram. I did read one report that said the FBI cut a window into the slide to view the striker safety "live". Sig's claim is this removed support for the striker safety block spring. ETA: Outdoor Life's article is less conclusive than other writers/gun tubers. |
|
Quoted: Does anyone have a link to the actual FBI report. Lots of videos and articles discussing it but the only place that might have actually posted it is an Instagram report and I don't have Instagram. I did read one report that said the FBI cut a window into the slide to view the striker safety "live". Sig's claim is this removed support for the striker safety block spring. ETA: Outdoor Life's article is less conclusive than other writers/gun tubers. They have a link to the actual report: https://www.outdoorlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/MSP-M18-Pistol-Evaluation_FINAL_Redacted_Outdoor_Life.pdf |
|
Quoted: Does anyone have a link to the actual FBI report. Lots of videos and articles discussing it but the only place that might have actually posted it is an Instagram report and I don't have Instagram. I did read one report that said the FBI cut a window into the slide to view the striker safety "live". Sig's claim is this removed support for the striker safety block spring. ETA: Outdoor Life's article is less conclusive than other writers/gun tubers. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L7RXrneHlzfjrewMFIeeyc-nel3bsDnM/view |
|
Quoted: They have a link to the actual report: https://www.outdoorlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/MSP-M18-Pistol-Evaluation_FINAL_Redacted_Outdoor_Life.pdf Quoted: Quoted: Does anyone have a link to the actual FBI report. Lots of videos and articles discussing it but the only place that might have actually posted it is an Instagram report and I don't have Instagram. I did read one report that said the FBI cut a window into the slide to view the striker safety "live". Sig's claim is this removed support for the striker safety block spring. ETA: Outdoor Life's article is less conclusive than other writers/gun tubers. They have a link to the actual report: https://www.outdoorlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/MSP-M18-Pistol-Evaluation_FINAL_Redacted_Outdoor_Life.pdf Thanks for the link. After reading the Live Fire Testing, Supplementary Testing and Conclusions, I'm confused at some of the writing on this. They were able to fire the weapon and replicate a mark on the trigger guard with keys. The striker safety test passed. The secondary sear test (such as it was) passed. The only way they got the weapon to fire in the holster without object intrusion was to release the striker from the first sear notch and THEN manipulate it in the holster (third striker safety test). From the Conclusion: "While examination of the subject weapon did not independently provide evidence of an uncommanded discharge it does indicate that it may be possible if sear engagement is lost." |
|
Quoted: What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. Quoted: Quoted: Were they deadlined due to normal parts/maintenance failures? Or due to the defects we now know exist in the P320? What defects do we now know exist in the P320? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but gun tubers left and right are doing different things claiming they've found the problem. They're manipulating things that would not be manipulated in a holstered pistol. Or manipulating the trigger which defeats the striker block. I'll preface this I honestly have no skin in the game on this. Sig either knows what it is and is keeping quiet and figure paying out lawsuits is cheaper than a recall or has no flipping clue. Eta: should have read further down the page 
|
|
Quoted: ALL P320's are vulnerable to fouling reducing the sear engagement by W. Because of a combination of design decisions, there's a ramp on the sear under the striker hook and parts of the frame that form a "pocket" where debris can either enter or fouling from the gun can accumulate and reduce sear engagement. Whether that's 0.05", 0.01", or 0.000", doesn't matter. But it's some number. Carry guns get.... dirty. Really dirty. They accumulate a lot of crud from a combination of dead skin cells, lint from clothing, and environmental dirt and debris. Are there any of the P320 incidents that have not involved "carried" pistols? |
|
Quoted: Carry guns get.... dirty. Really dirty. They accumulate a lot of crud from a combination of dead skin cells, lint from clothing, and environmental dirt and debris. Yes. This issue is a bit of a litmus test for the range warriors out there with pristine safe queens. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for the link. After reading the Live Fire Testing, Supplementary Testing and Conclusions, I'm confused at some of the writing on this. They were able to fire the weapon and replicate a mark on the trigger guard with keys. The striker safety test passed. The secondary sear test (such as it was) passed. The only way they got the weapon to fire in the holster without object intrusion was to release the striker from the first sear notch and THEN manipulate it in the holster (third striker safety test). From the Conclusion: "While examination of the subject weapon did not independently provide evidence of an uncommanded discharge it does indicate that it may be possible if sear engagement is lost." I think you're misinterpreting the third striker safety test. In that test they manipulated the pistol to simulate the forces experienced in a holster, then released the striker, which is the opposite of the way you described it. Combine that with the second striker assembly, which failed with no manipulation, and I completely disagree that the striker safety passed testing. I do think people are skipping past the bits about the keys because they don't support the desired conclusion, but at a minimum the FBI report should give you grave concerns about the function of the striker safety. |
|
Quoted: I think you're misinterpreting the third striker safety test. In that test they manipulated the pistol to simulate the forces experienced in a holster, then released the striker, which is the opposite of the way you described it. Combine that with the second striker assembly, which failed with no manipulation, and I completely disagree that the striker safety passed testing. I do think people are skipping past the bits about the keys because they don't support the desired conclusion, but at a minimum the FBI report should give you grave concerns about the function of the striker safety. Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for the link. After reading the Live Fire Testing, Supplementary Testing and Conclusions, I'm confused at some of the writing on this. They were able to fire the weapon and replicate a mark on the trigger guard with keys. The striker safety test passed. The secondary sear test (such as it was) passed. The only way they got the weapon to fire in the holster without object intrusion was to release the striker from the first sear notch and THEN manipulate it in the holster (third striker safety test). From the Conclusion: "While examination of the subject weapon did not independently provide evidence of an uncommanded discharge it does indicate that it may be possible if sear engagement is lost." I think you're misinterpreting the third striker safety test. In that test they manipulated the pistol to simulate the forces experienced in a holster, then released the striker, which is the opposite of the way you described it. Combine that with the second striker assembly, which failed with no manipulation, and I completely disagree that the striker safety passed testing. I do think people are skipping past the bits about the keys because they don't support the desired conclusion, but at a minimum the FBI report should give you grave concerns about the function of the striker safety. Allow me to quote from Section VI Paragraph B Striker Safety Lock Test: A second test with the striker at the primary sear notch location was conducted to test the striker safety lock. The test involved tapping the holstered weapon (on both the holster and weapon) with a dead blow hammer 50 times at multiple locations. After every 50 taps the sear was manually disengaged and the primed case was inspected for contact by the striker. The following locations were struck: - Holster- Right Side - Holster- Slide Cover - Holster- Back Side Top Screw - Holster- Front - Holster- Bottom 32 This method allows for the loss of sear engagement without the expected loss of the striker safety lock and prevents the secondary sear notch from interfering with the test. Page 29 of 32 Federal Bureau of Investigation & Drug Enforcement Administration - Holster- Left Side - Weapon- Rear Slide Cap - Weapon- Magazine Floor Plate - Weapon- Right Side - Weapon- Left Side - Weapon- Pistol Grip The striker safety lock successfully prevented the striker from contacting the primed case after each manual release of the sear. No slip of the sear engagement was observed during the strikes; however, the striker would shift laterally on the primary sear surface approximately 1/32”. I agree that I unintentionally misrepresented the third test. But keep in mind they intentionally overrode a safety feature in order to make the weapon fire. As was beat into my head during weapons quals: safety features are man made and subject to failure. That was when I was qualifying on the venerable Colt 1911. And I'll yell this again for the cheap seats, I don't disagree there may be something wrong the P320. But no one has produced a smoking gun. We have a lot of supposition about cleanliness, tolerance stacking, and Indian MIM. If this, and this, then that may happen. The bottom line is at least three safety features have to simultaneously fail and no one can replicate reliably how that condition presents itself. One guy did this, another guy did that. ETA: And I still find people passing on the fallacy that the P320 doesn't have a striker block. It does, the FBI specifically tested it in this firearm and it passed the first and second tests absent any manipulation by the lab in this firearm. |
|
Quoted: Allow me to quote from Section VI Paragraph B Striker Safety Lock Test: I agree that I unintentionally misrepresented the third test. But keep in mind they intentionally overrode a safety feature in order to make the weapon fire. As was beat into my head during weapons quals: safety features are man made and subject to failure. That was when I was qualifying on the venerable Colt 1911. And I'll yell this again for the cheap seats, I don't disagree there may be something wrong the P320. But no one has produced a smoking gun. We have a lot of supposition about cleanliness, tolerance stacking, and Indian MIM. If this, and this, then that may happen. The bottom line is at least three safety features have to simultaneously fail and no one can replicate reliably how that condition presents itself. One guy did this, another guy did that. My counter argument is that there are really only two things that have to happen for a P320 to fire without a trigger pull: the striker has to slip off the sear, and the striker block has to fail to catch it. We know from the FBI test and various youtube videos that under some circumstances the striker block will fail to catch the striker. We know from a couple of youtube videos, including one by Arfcom's own VeryAverage, that a small piece of debris in the wrong place can cause the striker to slip off the sear. To me, that's at least 95% of the way to a smoking gun. |
|
Quoted: My counter argument is that there are really only two things that have to happen for a P320 to fire without a trigger pull: the striker has to slip off the sear, and the striker block has to fail to catch it. We know from the FBI test and various youtube videos that under some circumstances the striker block will fail to catch the striker. We know from a couple of youtube videos, including one by Arfcom's own VeryAverage, that a small piece of debris in the wrong place can cause the striker to slip off the sear. To me, that's at least 95% of the way to a smoking gun. It has to slip two different sear notches AND the striker block has to fail. That's three failures in order to fire without pulling the trigger. |
|
Quoted: It has to slip two different sear notches AND the striker block has to fail. That's three failures in order to fire without pulling the trigger. The testing I've seen so far seems to indicate that the secondary sear notch doesn't really do much. It certainly didn't catch the striker in the debris videos. I think there's more to be learned about why the striker block is failing under some circumstances, but overall I really think we're 95% of the way to a smoking gun. |
|
Quoted: It has to slip two different sear notches AND the striker block has to fail. That's three failures in order to fire without pulling the trigger. Quoted: Quoted: My counter argument is that there are really only two things that have to happen for a P320 to fire without a trigger pull: the striker has to slip off the sear, and the striker block has to fail to catch it. We know from the FBI test and various youtube videos that under some circumstances the striker block will fail to catch the striker. We know from a couple of youtube videos, including one by Arfcom's own VeryAverage, that a small piece of debris in the wrong place can cause the striker to slip off the sear. To me, that's at least 95% of the way to a smoking gun. It has to slip two different sear notches AND the striker block has to fail. That's three failures in order to fire without pulling the trigger. Has anyone been able to demonstrate the 2ndary notch actually does anything? |
|
Quoted: The testing I've seen so far seems to indicate that the secondary sear notch doesn't really do much. It certainly didn't catch the striker in the debris videos. I think there's more to be learned about why the striker block is failing under some circumstances, but overall I really think we're 95% of the way to a smoking gun. Quoted: Quoted: It has to slip two different sear notches AND the striker block has to fail. That's three failures in order to fire without pulling the trigger. The testing I've seen so far seems to indicate that the secondary sear notch doesn't really do much. It certainly didn't catch the striker in the debris videos. I think there's more to be learned about why the striker block is failing under some circumstances, but overall I really think we're 95% of the way to a smoking gun. The procedure was conducted 100 times at both the primary and secondary sear notch locations. After every 10 attempts the primed case was inspected for primer indentation. Across all attempts at both locations the primed case never fired nor was there any indication the striker touched the primer. Therefore, the striker safety lock functioned as designed under these conditions. From the primary sear notch test did the second sear notch stop the striker or did the striker block? |
|
Quoted: Has anyone been able to demonstrate the 2ndary notch actually does anything? I haven't seen anything positive (which isn't to say it doesn't exist) but I have seen photos of wear on the very edge of that secondary notch. Wear that theoretically shouldn't be there if the sear is only being released by trigger pulls. Maybe it serves to slow the striker a bit. |
|
Quoted: I haven't seen anything positive (which isn't to say it doesn't exist) but I have seen photos of wear on the very edge of that secondary notch. Wear that theoretically shouldn't be there if the sear is only being released by trigger pulls. Maybe it serves to slow the striker a bit. Is that wear from the sear moving rearward on the top of the entire sear assembly during cycling/when admin loading the gun/dry firing before coming back and resting on the primary sear again? If your secondary sear notch is catching the sear often that should cause alarm. |
 I was wrong about the SIG P320…It’s the Best ?? |
|
Quoted: I mean... is that a hit piece? We have whole threads devoted to bringing the M9s out of storage. Quoted: Quoted: Hit piece in the Cheyenne paper about how the family of the Airman wants the AF to pull the deadly pistol from service. I mean... is that a hit piece? We have whole threads devoted to bringing the M9s out of storage. At this time Hi points are safer |
|
Well, I didn't see this coming, fuck Sig anyway. Airman arrested for death that prompted Air Force-wide safety review of Sig M18 |
|
Quoted: Well, I didn't see this coming, fuck Sig anyway. Airman arrested for death that prompted Air Force-wide safety review of Sig M18 So much information, what a vague craptastic article 
|
|
Quoted: Well, I didn't see this coming, fuck Sig anyway. Airman arrested for death that prompted Air Force-wide safety review of Sig M18  Now I'm waiting for the Glock death cult to bring up muh admirals and generals. |
|
Quoted: Well, I didn't see this coming, fuck Sig anyway. Airman arrested for death that prompted Air Force-wide safety review of Sig M18 I'll wait to see what kind of defense the arrested airman puts up. I will say this, hypothetically: A ND of some kind occurs on a military base. Someone dies. You're in charge of the investigation. The only witness states the deceased's gun went off in the holster while sitting on a desk, at which time he removed the gun from the holster, cleared it, tossed it to the side and then began rendering aid. (Prints on the gun.) You consult the manufacturer of the firearm. They insist that what was described by the witness cannot happen, that something had to pull the trigger. What do you do? |
|
Quoted: Rumor is, dude was playing with his weapon, it goes off and kills his coworker and the other witness lied about it as well. Weird, guess the boys in my chat owe me an apology. That's the very thing I proposed. At the end of the day, Sigs reputation is still further destroyed from this. And tragically an Airman is still dead. |
|
No better information in Air Force Times article. Air Force Times |
|
Quoted: You can argue that SIG brought the reputation that allowed this story to get so much initial traction on themselves, but I think them calling bullshit on a lot of the downstream effects to be sorta reasonable now It isn't over yet. The airman has been charged. Anyone can be charged with anything, doesn't make it true. See my post with the hypothetical above. I would not even blame the investigator for coming to the conclusion of foul play without any direct evidence. We all have a normalcy bias that says "guns don't go off by themselves." It will be interesting to see what other evidence comes to light. I would caution that with a general court-martial, we may hear absolutely nothing until the trial has concluded. Could be a long while unless they drop the charges. |
|
Quoted: I'll wait to see what kind of defense the arrested airman puts up. I will say this, hypothetically: A ND of some kind occurs on a military base. Someone dies. You're in charge of the investigation. The only witness states the deceased's gun went off in the holster while sitting on a desk, at which time he removed the gun from the holster, cleared it, tossed it to the side and then began rendering aid. (Prints on the gun.) You consult the manufacturer of the firearm. They insist that what was described by the witness cannot happen, that something had to pull the trigger. What do you do? I'd investigate without arresting anyone until I developed probable cause that a crime or crimes had taken place. Which, given the time frame, kind of seems like what happened. Of course we won't know for sure until there's a trial and it's still possible that the earlier rumor was true or that the truth is something unrelated to either rumor, but lol at everyone who committed hard to the first rumor and dismissed the second rumor out of hand. |
|
Quoted: It isn't over yet. The airman has been charged. Anyone can be charged with anything, doesn't make it true. See my post with the hypothetical above. I would not even blame the investigator for coming to the conclusion of foul play without any direct evidence. We all have a normalcy bias that says "guns don't go off by themselves." It will be interesting to see what other evidence comes to light. I would caution that with a general court-martial, we may hear absolutely nothing until the trial has concluded. Could be a long while unless they drop the charges. Absent anything more than the released article, I think we need to remember the value of forensic evidence and recreation, combined with the interview process, when events like these occur. The initial report was the Airman's M18 went off when it was placed / sitting on a table. The plethora of questions start from that part of the story, was it his individually assigned weapon that went off? If so, how was it off his side or out of the holster? Or was it another troops weapon that was actually discharged? Powder residue testing, angle of the wound, position of the body, blood patterns, etc., etc. Witness statements will show immediate inconsistencies as fabricating a lie is hard and sticking to it even harder when fabricated details are interpreted when trying to be recalled. Agree the process needs to proceed, but let's acknowledge the professionalism of the investigators who are working to find truth for the Airman's next of kin and family and not go outside our limiting stakes with conjecture. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sig M18 might have just killed an Airman (Page 24 of 28)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter