Presenting experts who did not do their own testing?!Originally Posted by Mitch
I agree that the testimony would be unconvincing.
Presenting experts who did not do their own testing?!
I agree that the testimony would be unconvincing.
I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying here.
I somehow quoted the wrong post, and meant to quote the post above yours. The post I intended to quote included this link:
https://legalnewsline.com/stories/64...discharge-case
The standard for admissibility of expert testimony comes from the Daubert case, described here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard
The factors which are evaluated include "(1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4)the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community."
Under that standard, an "expert" who claimed a gun could discharge without the trigger being touched, without having ever tested their theory of how it could have happened clearly would not meet that standard. I am not at all surprised that the judge found the testimony unreliable. I am surprised that an attorney who is specifically seeking to represent these plaintiffs would not have lined up an expert who would actually perform a test and testify about the results.
Regarding your last point: this is perhaps because there are not nearly as many actual experts in this field as there are people who claim expertise, and even fewer who can.conduct a relevant test, or would even seek to do so. The info that Bruce Gray has put out comes closest to that standard, but still wouldn't be adequate for court in my opinion. Few people have put forward actual theories as to how these mechanical failures are occurring, much less demonstrated them.
ETA: and again I'll state for the record that Sig created the trust problem themselves, with how they handled the drop safety issue.
I just bought a 320 today. So I guess my answer is a tentative yes as long as I don’t have any problems with this in the first thousand rounds or so.
hmmm. probably not. There are other pistols out there, why risk it to own a P320? Glock, M&P, Canik, CZ P10c, so many greats out there...
NOT the YouTuber by the same name.
My main reason was that I am very invested in P365s (mainly XLs) for carry. They’re fantastic guns, but they aren’t full size pistols. For practicing, home defense and possibly even a side arm while hunting I want a bigger gun. I don’t switch guns well any more, I don’t practice enough for that and I’ve found the grip/trigger finger placement I need for the 365 is pretty specific and doesn’t work as well for me with Glocks, 1911s, whatever.
The nice part too with the gun being fully module I can by a 320 compact, and with just a magazine and a grip module have a carry model as well.
Have you checked out the P365 XMacro? Is that large enough?
I have not. I may get a macro module to try it out, but I’m thinking the the slide weight will make the biggest difference. It’s more about shootability to me than capacity.
I have a Macro grip module you can borrow if you want to try it out.
Reply With Quote