Page 21 of 25 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 247

Thread: New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

  1. #201
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by KevH View Post
    I've heard the same thing. Bill Wilson is (and has been for decades) a Beretta connoisseur.

    I know for a fact that he talked Ken Hackathorn out of his Beretta 92G CQB (a one of a kind Ken did a magazine article about). Ken told me that for trade he had WC build him a custom 9mm Government Model with ivory grips (a gun that I have shot which is unbelievably nice). The specs of that gun became the basis of the "Hackathorn Special" that WC offers.

    Ultimately, Bill Wilson is a very successful businessman. He combined personal passion for Beretta with filling a market void and I think it paid off. The P320 has been very commercially successful and I think Wilson saw trend and a market gap to take advantage of that would only require minimal effort on his company's part.
    There have been over 1 million P320s made in 6 years - what ever itís flaws the market is there.

  2. #202
    Site Supporter 98z28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Quote Originally Posted by arooni View Post
    As a new p320 m18 owner (manufacturer date: May 2020) I very much appreciate the existence of this thread. I knew about this issue prior to purchasing but felt it was addressed to my liking, but after reading 20 pages of this, I'm not so sure.

    I posted about this issue on sigtalk and sigforums but many people there felt that the lawsuit recently filed was just someone chasing money. I'm glad to see such a substantive discussion.

    I'm still a little unclear on whether my manual safety is simply preventing the trigger from moving and/or affecting the internals of the FCU in a way I can't see or experience.

    Would forum members who had a M18 of my manufacture date feel comfortable keeping a round chambered (with the safety on)? Why or why not?

    Many thanks!
    The thumb safety blocks the trigger bar's movement only. It does not block the sear's movement. The potential drop safe (or lack thereof) issue is from the sear releasing without the trigger being pressed. If a particular gun has the combination of parts, poor QC, and bad luck that will let the sear release uncommanded, then it would not matter if it had a thumb safety or not.

    That said, the issue appear to be isolated to a particular date range and set of parts that lwt16 has identified. The first few pages of this very thread isolates the suspected parts and date ranges. Pay particular attention to comments from lwt16.

    This thread has some good information about the inner workings of the P320 before and after the "voluntary upgrade program": https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-safety-issues. Pay particular attention to comments from Tom-Jones.

  3. #203
    Site Supporter MGW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    I donít know if it fits here or not but I have a few pictures of the internals of a new .mil M17. If it adds to the discussion let me know and Iíll add them.
    ďIf you know the way broadly you will see it in everything." - Miyamoto Musashi

  4. #204
    People are talking about how mamy sigs were sold, didn't glock sell 1 mil. 19X in a little less than a year? With how many people buying guns now, i don't know if 1 million guns is the benchmark it once was

  5. #205
    Regular guy. Cory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by MGW View Post
    I donít know if it fits here or not but I have a few pictures of the internals of a new .mil M17. If it adds to the discussion let me know and Iíll add them.
    I've offered the same. Nobody seems interested.

  6. #206
    Site Supporter 98z28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    South Mississippi
    I'm definitely interested. I finally have my hands on a manual safety FCU from AB Prototype, though I don't know if it differs from the M17/18 in a meaningful way.

    There also seems to be a lot of confusion about how the manual safety on the 320 works, which makes sense given the rarity. Some pictures would be nice.

    Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

  7. #207
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Smart folks would do well to pay a LOT of attention to what psalms144.1 wrote back in post #131:

    "it's damn near impossible to know what you're getting UNLESS you're getting a DHS contract pistol...........in a world of Gen5 Glocks, CZ P10s, M&P 2.0s, APXs, VP9s and 1911s, I wouldn't put my money or my safety into one (Sig 320)..."
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  8. #208
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by 98z28 View Post
    The thumb safety blocks the trigger bar's movement only. It does not block the sear's movement. The potential drop safe (or lack thereof) issue is from the sear releasing without the trigger being pressed. If a particular gun has the combination of parts, poor QC, and bad luck that will let the sear release uncommanded, then it would not matter if it had a thumb safety or not.

    That said, the issue appear to be isolated to a particular date range and set of parts that lwt16 has identified. The first few pages of this very thread isolates the suspected parts and date ranges. Pay particular attention to comments from lwt16.

    This thread has some good information about the inner workings of the P320 before and after the "voluntary upgrade program": https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-safety-issues. Pay particular attention to comments from Tom-Jones.
    I thought the problem was firing from inertia. inertia caused the trigger to move far enough to the rear for the the pistol to fire. I could be wrong and I always listen to Tom Jones. It is possible I remembered incorrectly

  9. #209
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by WOLFIE View Post
    I thought the problem was firing from inertia. inertia caused the trigger to move far enough to the rear for the the pistol to fire. I could be wrong and I always listen to Tom Jones. It is possible I remembered incorrectly
    The AD issue is inertia but the trigger /trigger bar was not the primary issue. The trigger bar on the 320 actually moves forward when the trigger is pulled. Reducing the weight of the trigger was just a supplement to the real fix, which was internal.

  10. #210
    Site Supporter 98z28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Quote Originally Posted by WOLFIE View Post
    I thought the problem was firing from inertia. inertia caused the trigger to move far enough to the rear for the the pistol to fire. I could be wrong and I always listen to Tom Jones. It is possible I remembered incorrectly
    Again, I'm no engineer, so I might be wrong as well, but my takeaway from reading Tom-Jone's, lwt16's, and JonInWA's comments in this and the other threads over the last couple of years is that the internal safeties can be defeated with inertia on the 320. The trigger moving in the videos is in some ways an artifact of the safeties being defeated.

    I was/am confused about this as well. Confused enough that I pulled some bullets and started dropping my TDA guns in single action with primed cases in the chamber to see if inertia could pull the trigger and defeat the internal safeties on those guns as well. The triggers are heavier and the force/distance needed release the sear is less on those guns than on the 320. If the hammer fell, it always fell to half-cock. The primer never detonated like we've seen with the 320. I think something else was/is going on with the 320.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •