Is Decocking a TDA Pistol Strictly Necessary?

[JRV]

The only public info I’m aware of for post upgrade UD/ND are the SRO and SEPTA, both cases have not resulted in definitive failure analysis (human vs. mechanical failure). If it is mechanical on Sig’s part then I’m of the opinion that Sig should payout dearly in the many civil suits that follow.

Outside of the thread I posted, the SEPTA suit was the one most recently swimming around in my brain.

The system Sig uses provides no redundancies for human failure in an environment (duty use) where human failure is an accepted and expected part of the market. That's where, I think, they might be hosed in the future.

Let's use a hypothetical. Forget, for a moment, that vehicles are required by law to have certain safety features (violation of a safety law meant to protect from a specific kind of harm establishes per se negligence in tort).

Imagine you sell the PERFECT patrol car... except it doesn't have a seat belt or airbags. Everyone else in the marketplace does, but you omit those features. You can even have an arguable reason (e.g. quicker egress from a patrol car in cases of vehicular assault/pursuits that culminate in a collision/vehicle fires).

Now, neither of those features are guaranteed to save your life in a head on collision. A perfect human driver, surrounded by perfect human drivers, in perfect conditions would never need those features.

However, you sell your car to cops in the real world, and lo and behold, some dude editing a report on his MDT while driving, or eating a burrito, wrecks his car. He gets mildly injured. Another guy gets injured in a similar manner.

Human error is involved in both cases. Arguably, those standard-but-not-mandated-in-this-universe features would have prevented the injuries.

Are you liable in a products liability tort action for omitting industry standard redundancies/safety features, despite human error causing the injuries?

That's the issue Sig is facing.





(Seriously, I'm asking. I could barely stay awake in torts and products liability wasn't on the bar exam.)

[DpdG]

I don’t have the answer to that one, but I’m not sure the analogy is accurate. Any non-manual safety pistol will fire if someone or something pulls the trigger to the rear. I don’t think trigger safeties, or lack thereof, have a significant effect on objects (including fingers) pulling triggers unintentionally. Longer/heavier DA pulls provide a greater margin of error, but SFA pistols generally all go bang with similar outside influence.

I cannot recall if it was San Diego PD or maybe one of the LA agencies, but one of them reportedly experienced a drastic increase in UD/NDs upon transition from B92 to M&P a few years ago. The failure analysis revealed it was a human/training issue that was covered up by the long DA trigger and nothing to do with the specific variant/brand of SFA. I suspect there is an element of this with agencies (including mine) going from legacy Sig to P320. Add in the well publicized issues with the P320 and there is a tendency to blame the pistol as it’s easier than blaming people or training programs. This is why competent failure analysis is so necessary.

[GJM]

The system Sig uses provides no redundancies for human failure in an environment (duty use) where human failure is an accepted and expected part of the market. That's where, I think, they might be hosed in the future.

Can you elaborate on this statement, and contrast the Sig with other striker pistols?

[spinmove_]

I would have to partially disagree. While the safe action is a very big part of it, and it’s likely the partially cocked striker has enough stored energy to fire (dependent on ammo and striker spring weight), I do think there’s another component, either real or perceived, that makes some feel slightly safer with a Glock versus a true SAO system. That is, the trigger pull requires moving against a heavier striker spring, versus a much lighter trigger return spring. Even with a same weight trigger pull, the Glock will take more resistance throughout the pull, whereas the SAO will only hits most of its weight near the end of the pull... essentially allowing for a “running start” of sorts.

Again, real or perceived?? In my mind it’s a step better. YMMV.

It’s been tested and proven that DISTANCE of trigger travel is more of an indicator of something wrong than trigger WEIGHT. A heavier trigger is merely more difficult to shoot well unless it’s ridiculously heavy.

Plus, the trigger dongle prevents the trigger from moving rearward unless the center of the trigger is depressed. It's barely a safety mechanism, but it's better than nothing.

The trigger dingus does sometimes help with that, yes, but it’s more of an inertial drop safety. Imagine your Glock is free falling to the ground grip plug first or rear sight first. If there was enough force behind the drop and it didn’t have that dingus, the trigger would travel rearward and fire.

[JRV]

Can you elaborate on this statement, and contrast the Sig with other striker pistols?

I... already did? Post #66.

Contrasted with the Glock, and virtually every other striker gun that has a trigger dongle (APX, VP9, XD (blech), PPQ, Canik, Steyr M9, P10) or a "decockable" action (P99). Hell, even the Hudson had a dongle.

I'm not a huge fan of the hinged M&P trigger, either for feel or as a means of addressing partial snags.

Sigs just have a plain trigger shoe and a fully-cocked striker with little-to-no pretravel. I cannot think of another prolific model on the market that combines those features, or fathom why a manufacturer would think those features are a "good idea" for a duty pistol.

[JTQ]

All others? I’ve never owned one, but doesn’t a Makarov and the like have down to fire?

Only because the Soviets took that whole "reverse engineering" thing literally.

[DpdG]

I... already did? Post #66.

Contrasted with the Glock, and virtually every other striker gun that has a trigger dongle (APX, VP9, XD (blech), PPQ, Canik, Steyr M9, P10) or a "decockable" action (P99). Hell, even the Hudson had a dongle.

I'm not a huge fan of the hinged M&P trigger, either for feel or as a means of addressing partial snags.

Sigs just have a plain trigger shoe and a fully-cocked striker with little-to-no pretravel. I cannot think of another prolific model on the market that combines those features, or fathom why a manufacturer would think those features are a "good idea" for a duty pistol.

I don’t want to speak for George, but my point (and I suspect his) is the trigger safety, regardless of M&P style or dongle style, does little to nothing to mitigate human error. It’s primary (and nearly sole) function is part of the inertial drop safety system.

I look at all SFA pistols, minus the de-cockable P99 or variants having a manual safety, as having similar levels of human error mitigation. Whether that level is acceptable is a user/agency decision, not a manufacturer one.

[JRV]

I don’t want to speak for George, but my point (and I suspect his) is the trigger safety, regardless of M&P style or dongle style, does little to nothing to mitigate human error. It’s primary (and nearly sole) function is part of the inertial drop safety system.

I mean, that's a fair enough point, but I know of at least two instances (I used to manage an indoor range and ran competitions) where the dongle on a Glock prevented shooters from NDing when their leather holsters snagged on the sides of the trigger shoe. I definitely view it as less of a safety feature and more of insurance against equipment failures in somewhat-rare occurences.

I look at all SFA pistols, minus the de-cockable P99 or variants having a manual safety, as having similar levels of human error mitigation. Whether that level is acceptable is a user/agency decision, not a manufacturer one.

Products liability law disagrees with this, unfortunately. I'll industry standard product features and practices are admissible evidence for jury consideration, and manufacturers typically plan and design accordingly.

[john c]

Not for me, thanks. If I want an SA gun I'll buy a gun designed to be carried SA. Of course I also won't carry a striker gun AIWB, so maybe I'm just a fraidy-cat.

I don't disagree with this. But if your agency issued you a P320 or PPQ, what would your thoughts be? What actions would you take?

[john c]

No.

Then how will large agencies that have adopted the P320 deal with it? This is a serious question, because I'm old school, myself, and am wondering how the AD/ND issue will be addressed. Anecdotally, I think we have many fewer NDs at my agency than in years past. I attribute it to the adoption of the Glock. Our old P226s and S&W Gen3s basically invited a finger on the trigger when not intending to shoot.