[ARCHIVED THREAD] - TDI will No Longer Allow the use of SIG P320 Pistols at their classes.. (Page 4 of 4)
|
Quoted: Seriously? I get what you're implying, but that is not an optical illusion. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33962/Screenshot_20250506-101540-742_png-3534404.JPG The only way a primer can extrude into the breech face and firing pin hole is due to chamber overpressure. It's absolutely inconceivable that a very thin piece of metal, vibrated against a piece of metal with a hole in it, could take on a circular mark? Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should be voluntarily using a P320 right now, and anyone who has to use one should be testing the striker block; I'd just like us to be honest about the evidence. Sig's report explicitly said that no primers were struck; is it possible that the pictures show primers that were vibrated against the breech face? |
|
Quoted: Do those pictures show primers that were struck, or do they show primers that took on an impression of the breech face after being vibrated against it? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And yet, confusingly, we have the case of the Japanese contract guard who was seen on video not futzing w/ his M17, safety on, and it still discharged. I wouldn't be surprised to learn there are different versions of FCU parts across the 320 fleet and the problem is limited to certain combinations. None of us has seen that video, only the one person who reviewed it, who knows what they could see, what their level of knowledge was etc. So far none of us have seen a SIG P320 go off uncommanded with our own eyes, and it's unclear how it would even be possibly with the manual safety engaged. Maybe a mix of parts, wear etc. could cause the striker to fail and fall on a non manual safety version but that's not even been able to be replicated in a controlled, court mandated setting where money was on the line. Well, SIG replicated it - we have the pics of primers struck that they took. Do those pictures show primers that were struck, or do they show primers that took on an impression of the breech face after being vibrated against it? Attached File |
|
Quoted: It's absolutely inconceivable that a very thin piece of metal, vibrated against a piece of metal with a hole in it, could take on a circular mark? Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should be voluntarily using a P320 right now, and anyone who has to use one should be testing the striker block; I'd just like us to be honest about the evidence. Sig's report explicitly said that no primers were struck; is it possible that the pictures show primers that were vibrated against the breech face? That picture very clearly shows a primer that was struck by a firing pin. Judging from the condition of the primer it was not an over pressure load. Primers are (should be) recessed below the case to prevent unwanted contact. Vibrating a live round against the breach would produce scratches on the case, and ideally not make contact with the primer. |
|
Quoted: That picture very clearly shows a primer that was struck by a firing pin. Judging from the condition of the primer it was not an over pressure load. Primers are (should be) recessed below the case to prevent unwanted contact. Vibrating a live round against the breach would produce scratches on the case, and ideally not make contact with the primer. We know for a fact that they were vibrated against the breech face; where are the scratches? |
|
Quoted: We know for a fact that they were vibrated against the breech face; where are the scratches? Quoted: Quoted: That picture very clearly shows a primer that was struck by a firing pin. Judging from the condition of the primer it was not an over pressure load. Primers are (should be) recessed below the case to prevent unwanted contact. Vibrating a live round against the breach would produce scratches on the case, and ideally not make contact with the primer. We know for a fact that they were vibrated against the breech face; where are the scratches? It's a zoom in on a photo at low resolution. I think there is more than one picture of a casing showing the dimpling of a firing pin strike. We all know what a primer strike looks like, and that's a primer strike. As to showing "scratches", you're not going to see that, at that resolution. In addition - this is yet another consistency with the issue. If someone posted that photo saying "see, P320's are dangerous I say!" with no meaningful level of elevated discharge incidents, and no safety-test showing a high failure rate of safety sears, I'd look at that with more scrutiny. At this stage - it basically has to be proven to be false, because it fits all the other pieces that are all fitting together. The main crux of those who question, is they are in the 9,999 out of 10,000 who haven't had their pistol self discharge. And as such, "well it hasn't happened to me, so must be fine". Which isn't how it works. Even more notable, at first, those 1/10,000 who did have it happen, for years were dismissed, and almost certainly in most cases self-dismissed, as a handling error on their part. This very likely has been going on the whole time, with a whole lot more cases that just weren't noted as a gun-failure, for a while. Even a few years ago this started getting pretty obvious something was wrong, and nobody was buying it. It wasn't until the safety-sear failure issue could be tested, that the doors finally got blown open that there's a mechanical gun-problem here. You can question every piece of data and event on this topic, but at some point, that's a whooollle lot of questioning on incidents, that nobody who is carrying any other gun, is having to do. The few AD's with other guns, are a whole lot more obvious as to why it AD's. Except for P320's. Who for years kept making up bullshit about how Gremlins somehow are stuck in P320 holsters (and very prefentially ONLY P320 holsters) and causing the guns to discharge. |
|
Quoted: It's a zoom in on a photo at low resolution. I think there is more than one picture of a casing showing the dimpling of a firing pin strike. We all know what a primer strike looks like, and that's a primer strike. As to showing "scratches", you're not going to see that, at that resolution. In addition - this is yet another consistency with the issue. If someone posted that photo saying "see, P320's are dangerous I say!" with no meaningful level of elevated discharge incidents, and no safety-test showing a high failure rate of safety sears, I'd look at that with more scrutiny. At this stage - it basically has to be proven to be false, because it fits all the other pieces that are all fitting together. The main crux of those who question, is they are in the 9,999 out of 10,000 who haven't had their pistol self discharge. And as such, "well it hasn't happened to me, so must be fine". Which isn't how it works. Even more notable, at first, those 1/10,000 who did have it happen, for years were dismissed, and almost certainly in most cases self-dismissed, as a handling error on their part. This very likely has been going on the whole time, with a whole lot more cases that just weren't noted as a gun-failure, for a while. Even a few years ago this started getting pretty obvious something was wrong, and nobody was buying it. It wasn't until the safety-sear failure issue could be tested, that the doors finally got blown open that there's a mechanical gun-problem here. You can question every piece of data and event on this topic, but at some point, that's a whooollle lot of questioning on incidents, that nobody who is carrying any other gun, is having to do. The few AD's with other guns, are a whole lot more obvious as to why it AD's. Except for P320's. Who for years kept making up bullshit about how Gremlins somehow are stuck in P320 holsters (and very prefentially ONLY P320 holsters) and causing the guns to discharge. Again, I'm just asking people to be honest about the evidence. If you say 'Sig's vibration testing produced marks on the primer that might be light strikes' I'm on board. If you say that Sig's testing clearly and definitively resulted in primer strikes, I disagree. If you say that it seems like Sigs are firing in holsters at a rate that can't be fully explained by foreign objects then I agree with you. If you state authoritatively that Sigs are definitely firing in holsters at a rate much greater than other pistols then I'd like to see your data. |
|
Quoted: Again, I'm just asking people to be honest about the evidence. If you say 'Sig's vibration testing produced marks on the primer that might be light strikes' I'm on board. If you say absolutely that Sig's testing resulted in primer strikes, I disagree. If you say that it seems like Sigs are firing in holsters at a rate that can't be fully explained by foreign objects then I agree with you. If you state authoritatively that Sigs are definitely firing in holsters at a rate much greater than other pistols then I'd like to see your data. It supposedly has a fucking firing pin block. It’s not an AR15… If there are marks on the firing pin, that means the internal safeties are failing. I can’t quite wrap my head around the cognitive dissonance it takes to be like, “Oh, but those are just firing pin marks, not strikes, the gun must be fine.” |
|
Quoted: Again, I'm just asking people to be honest about the evidence. If you say 'Sig's vibration testing produced marks on the primer that might be light strikes' I'm on board. If you say that Sig's testing clearly and definitively resulted in primer strikes, I disagree. If you say that it seems like Sigs are firing in holsters at a rate that can't be fully explained by foreign objects then I agree with you. If you state authoritatively that Sigs are definitely firing in holsters at a rate much greater than other pistols then I'd like to see your data. Quoted: Quoted: It's a zoom in on a photo at low resolution. I think there is more than one picture of a casing showing the dimpling of a firing pin strike. We all know what a primer strike looks like, and that's a primer strike. As to showing "scratches", you're not going to see that, at that resolution. In addition - this is yet another consistency with the issue. If someone posted that photo saying "see, P320's are dangerous I say!" with no meaningful level of elevated discharge incidents, and no safety-test showing a high failure rate of safety sears, I'd look at that with more scrutiny. At this stage - it basically has to be proven to be false, because it fits all the other pieces that are all fitting together. The main crux of those who question, is they are in the 9,999 out of 10,000 who haven't had their pistol self discharge. And as such, "well it hasn't happened to me, so must be fine". Which isn't how it works. Even more notable, at first, those 1/10,000 who did have it happen, for years were dismissed, and almost certainly in most cases self-dismissed, as a handling error on their part. This very likely has been going on the whole time, with a whole lot more cases that just weren't noted as a gun-failure, for a while. Even a few years ago this started getting pretty obvious something was wrong, and nobody was buying it. It wasn't until the safety-sear failure issue could be tested, that the doors finally got blown open that there's a mechanical gun-problem here. You can question every piece of data and event on this topic, but at some point, that's a whooollle lot of questioning on incidents, that nobody who is carrying any other gun, is having to do. The few AD's with other guns, are a whole lot more obvious as to why it AD's. Except for P320's. Who for years kept making up bullshit about how Gremlins somehow are stuck in P320 holsters (and very prefentially ONLY P320 holsters) and causing the guns to discharge. Again, I'm just asking people to be honest about the evidence. If you say 'Sig's vibration testing produced marks on the primer that might be light strikes' I'm on board. If you say that Sig's testing clearly and definitively resulted in primer strikes, I disagree. If you say that it seems like Sigs are firing in holsters at a rate that can't be fully explained by foreign objects then I agree with you. If you state authoritatively that Sigs are definitely firing in holsters at a rate much greater than other pistols then I'd like to see your data. The dimple in the middle of the primer, doesn't look like a dimple in the middle of the primer? As to honesty test - the dishonesty of those who claim P320's are not discharging, has been very bad. |
|
Quoted: It supposedly has a fucking firing pin block. It’s not an AR15… If there are marks on the firing pin, that means the internal safeties are failing. I can’t quite wrap my head around the cognitive dissonance it takes to be like, “Oh, but those are just firing pin marks, not strikes, the gun must be fine.” Quoted: It supposedly has a fucking firing pin block. It’s not an AR15… If there are marks on the firing pin, that means the internal safeties are failing. I can’t quite wrap my head around the cognitive dissonance it takes to be like, “Oh, but those are just firing pin marks, not strikes, the gun must be fine.” I am not suggesting that they're firing pin marks. If you take a primer and smack it into a piece of metal with a hole in it repeatedly, would you expect the primer to look unaffected, or would you expect it to get a circular mark the size of the hole? Quoted: The dimple in the middle of the primer, doesn't look like a dimple in the middle of the primer? There's a circular mark on the primer. Is it a dimple pressed in to the primer, or is it a raised section caused by repeatedly banging the primer into the breech face? How can you tell? Again, if you say that it looks like a firing pin mark, I'm on board. If you state authoritatively that the pictures show light strikes and there is no other possible reason for the marks, then you either lack imagination or aren't being honest. Quoted: As to honesty test - the dishonesty of those who claim P320's are not discharging, has been very bad. Ok. |
|
Quoted: I am not suggesting that they're firing pin marks. If you take a primer and smack it into a piece of metal with a hole in it repeatedly, would you expect the primer to look unaffected, or would you expect it to get a circular mark the size of the hole? There's a circular mark on the primer. Is it a dimple pressed in to the primer, or is it a raised section caused by repeatedly banging the primer into the breech face? How can you tell? Again, if you say that it looks like a firing pin mark, I'm on board. If you state authoritatively that the pictures show light strikes and there is no other possible reason for the marks, then you either lack imagination or aren't being honest. Ok. Quoted: Quoted: It supposedly has a fucking firing pin block. It’s not an AR15… If there are marks on the firing pin, that means the internal safeties are failing. I can’t quite wrap my head around the cognitive dissonance it takes to be like, “Oh, but those are just firing pin marks, not strikes, the gun must be fine.” I am not suggesting that they're firing pin marks. If you take a primer and smack it into a piece of metal with a hole in it repeatedly, would you expect the primer to look unaffected, or would you expect it to get a circular mark the size of the hole? Quoted: The dimple in the middle of the primer, doesn't look like a dimple in the middle of the primer? There's a circular mark on the primer. Is it a dimple pressed in to the primer, or is it a raised section caused by repeatedly banging the primer into the breech face? How can you tell? Again, if you say that it looks like a firing pin mark, I'm on board. If you state authoritatively that the pictures show light strikes and there is no other possible reason for the marks, then you either lack imagination or aren't being honest. Quoted: As to honesty test - the dishonesty of those who claim P320's are not discharging, has been very bad. Ok. You do see from the lighting and shadows that's obviously an indentation circle identical to the tip.of a primer strike? How are you not seeing that? As to P320 lovers and SIG dishonesty in the denials - yes. OK indeed. It's been pretty bad. |
|
Quoted: You do see from the lighting and shadows that's obviously an indentation circle identical to the tip.of a primer strike? How are you not seeing that? As to P320 lovers and SIG dishonesty in the denials - yes. OK indeed. It's been pretty bad. So be better than them. |
|
Attached File The above is a 9mm round that has been sitting in my primary carry piece for… Well way too fucking long for any measure. Literally years. (Yes, I need to do better rotating my carry ammo.) On my hip, riding around in cars, lawnmower, walking, etc for many an hr. There are some light scratches, but nothing close to what that photo from Sig shows. Quit grasping at straws. |
|
I think you are vastly underestimating how thick the cup of a primer is. Even BR-4 primers require a significant amount of pressure to deform into the primer hole. As a reloader I’ve spent a lot of time looking at primers, trying to spot signs of over pressure. Primer cups extruding into the firing pin hole is a sign of way over pressure. To put it another way, you need an unsafe explosive force to push a pimer back hard enough to make a mark that pronounced. The round would have to discharge to make that explosive force. Now what could have made the round discharge? Only two ways I know are a primer strike or a cook-off. |
|
Quoted: Preaching to the choir dude. I couldn't agree more. I'm just keeping an honest take on the whole deal. In no way am I in support of this just being left alone. This too is my take on it. I have 320 Scorpion with the newer, revised FCU. I have not performed the “punch test” because I fear it could damage the pistol and possibly the safeties in place. I like my 320 but I wouldn’t say I like it so much to ignore a potential problem with the design and I’m less than enthused by Sig’s response in all this. |
|
Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/68059/IMG_3749_jpeg-3534478.JPG The above is a 9mm round that has been sitting in my primary carry piece for… Well way too fucking long for any measure. Literally years. (Yes, I need to do better rotating my carry ammo.) On my hip, riding around in cars, lawnmower, walking, etc for many an hr. There are some light scratches, but nothing close to what that photo from Sig shows. Quit grasping at straws. Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/68059/IMG_3749_jpeg-3534478.JPG The above is a 9mm round that has been sitting in my primary carry piece for… Well way too fucking long for any measure. Literally years. (Yes, I need to do better rotating my carry ammo.) On my hip, riding around in cars, lawnmower, walking, etc for many an hr. There are some light scratches, but nothing close to what that photo from Sig shows. Quit grasping at straws. Which do you think experiences more vibration: your body, or a machine thats designed to produce vibrations? Quoted: I think you are vastly underestimating how thick the cup of a primer is. .017 inches, one thousandth of an inch thicker than aluminum foil? Stronger metal than aluminum obviously, but it's not exactly heavy duty. Quoted: This too is my take on it. I have 320 Scorpion with the newer, revised FCU. I have not performed the “punch test” because I fear it could damage the pistol and possibly the safeties in place. I like my 320 but I wouldn’t say I like it so much to ignore a potential problem with the design and I’m less than enthused by Sig’s response in all this. If you don't trust it right now (and you probably shouldn't), what do you have to lose? If your striker block does get damaged, that would add significantly to our knowledge of what's wrong with P320s. Measurable or visible damage to the striker block would give us a way to tell that the sear had previously released the striker on an individual pistol. |
|
Quoted: This too is my take on it. I have 320 Scorpion with the newer, revised FCU. I have not performed the “punch test” because I fear it could damage the pistol and possibly the safeties in place. I like my 320 but I wouldn’t say I like it so much to ignore a potential problem with the design and I’m less than enthused by Sig’s response in all this. Quoted: Quoted: Preaching to the choir dude. I couldn't agree more. I'm just keeping an honest take on the whole deal. In no way am I in support of this just being left alone. This too is my take on it. I have 320 Scorpion with the newer, revised FCU. I have not performed the “punch test” because I fear it could damage the pistol and possibly the safeties in place. I like my 320 but I wouldn’t say I like it so much to ignore a potential problem with the design and I’m less than enthused by Sig’s response in all this. That's a fair concern - but if your safeties are damaged by doing their job, of what use are they? If you do the punch test just once, it will add to the public knowledge of what percentage of 320s have a working striker block and what percentage do not. That will give us some understanding of the size of this problem. |
|
Quoted: It's absolutely inconceivable that a very thin piece of metal, vibrated against a piece of metal with a hole in it, could take on a circular mark? Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should be voluntarily using a P320 right now, and anyone who has to use one should be testing the striker block; I'd just like us to be honest about the evidence. Sig's report explicitly said that no primers were struck; is it possible that the pictures show primers that were vibrated against the breech face? Quoted: Quoted: Seriously? I get what you're implying, but that is not an optical illusion. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33962/Screenshot_20250506-101540-742_png-3534404.JPG The only way a primer can extrude into the breech face and firing pin hole is due to chamber overpressure. It's absolutely inconceivable that a very thin piece of metal, vibrated against a piece of metal with a hole in it, could take on a circular mark? Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should be voluntarily using a P320 right now, and anyone who has to use one should be testing the striker block; I'd just like us to be honest about the evidence. Sig's report explicitly said that no primers were struck; is it possible that the pictures show primers that were vibrated against the breech face? Primers are seated below casehead, so primers would not be able to rub against breechface. Next..... |
| I ditched a few of my 320s, my only 320s, not because they’re dangerous but because I didn’t carry or use them, I prefer all metal Sigs, HKs, revolvers etc. I always thought the 320 trigger was way too short/light. I just don’t carry striker guns, I’m not getting into gunfights on the regular, da/sa, dao, and sao are fine by me. |
|
Quoted: That would fix it. You or anyone else have links to that update? Quoted: Quoted: SIG upgraded the 320 FCU design with a sear disconnect. That was part of the requirement for the ICE contract. With that said, I've played with a few of the 320's and own one myself. I like the gun but it's not in my carry rotation just because of its size. But I wouldn't have an issue carrying one if I had to. That would fix it. You or anyone else have links to that update? Yea, that doesnt fix it either. The ICE P320s have had issues too. One of the ICE gunsmiths at the ICE training center on Fort Benning did a bunch of in depth testing, and documented how he was able to reproduce the ND's pretty consistently. When he retired, he posted it to the internet... Do a search for ICE P320 report, it has been posted on several forums including this one... Quoted: I've been told that the ICE pistols are sourced differently. Folks I know state that you can have personally owned G26/19/17 pistols or the various P320/P365 as duty pistols. The Glocks can be purchased off the shelf. The Sigs have a serial # prefix that denotes them as ICE contract compliant and can only be purchased through one of two LE distributors. The P320 can be purchased from two distributors, and yes the personally purchased P320s all start with "DBP" in the serial#. Issued guns start with "DB"... If you see a "DB" serial P320 in the wild, and its not with a Fed, its probably stolen. The guns are not sold, or gifted to retired agents or anything. They dont leave the government. The 365 can be purchased anywhere, it just has to be one of the specific model numbers that has been tested and authorized. Most of the 365 models are now approved except the Fuse, which is probably going to be authorized at some point... Glocks can be purchased anywhere. The 26/19/17/45 ( gen3/4/5) are all good to go. |
|
Quoted: So be better than them. Quoted: Quoted: You do see from the lighting and shadows that's obviously an indentation circle identical to the tip.of a primer strike? How are you not seeing that? As to P320 lovers and SIG dishonesty in the denials - yes. OK indeed. It's been pretty bad. So be better than them. Occam’s Razor. It’s far more likely those are primer strikes than “marks” caused by scraping against the breech face. Fewer variables are required to conclude they’re primer strikes. |