New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[psalms144.1]

From my perspective of being on the line when someone ND'd during a draw, it was not at all clear that there were no injuries (life threatening or not) and I was not going to continue class until I knew for absolute certain that there were no injuries sustained.

If dude has a hole in his shoe, it's coming off and we're making absolutely certain there's no holes in anatomy and no blood loss. If there's a hole in dude's pants, his pants are coming at least down so we can check.

I can tell you from personal experience that when I was shot, I didn't feel it at first. The fountain of blood that soon followed was kind of a clue. That clue can easily be hidden by clothing.

Yeah, make the line safe. But you make the line safe and you personally check on dude. If you are smart and you have designated medical, you don't interfere with their checks, but you most def ensure that those checks are happening IMMEDIATELY and proceed from there.

Maybe I'm somewhat sensitive because I have actually been shot due to someone's negligence and because I've been about two feet away when a friend narrowly avoided shooting himself in the groin when he fouled his draw during training, but I'm not handling what is portrayed in the video that way. Line gets safed, assigned responders get involved immediately and the victim's anatomy is getting checked VERY CAREFULLY because the victim is not necessarily in the best position to evaluate their own injury or whether or not there's been one. We're making absolutely certain a full assessment happens before anything else, and that's absolutely not in evidence in the video.

When an accident happens priority one is assessing injury or damage and remediating if any is found. Everything else is secondary. If all that happens is someone's boots have a skylight, happy day...but we are going to be damned certain of that before anything else happens.

All of this. When I was shot, I felt NOTHING until I was in the ER and pumped full of morphine. My first clue I'd been shot was seeing blood on the wall. I even (stupidly) tried to drive myself in my manual transmission CJ7 to the hospital before I figured out that was a BAD IDEA.

There's nothing wrong with freezing everything until you're SURE there are no injuries, or SURE the injuries are being addressed. There's a plenty wrong with ASSUMING there are no injuries and finding out the hard way when someone who's leaking keels over.

[Gijoe906]

The firing line did freeze, the line was made safe, the guy was tended to by others, but because it took longer than the 15 seconds that you see and you don’t see it on camera it was all wrong?

[Mongo356]

What I believe is if the pistol passes the sear movement test, it means at the time of the test, the striker safety tab is preventing the striker from entering the chamber and hitting a primer without the trigger being pulled. There are P320's that also fail this test, meaning their striker safety tab is not preventing the striker from entering the chamber.

Here is what this tells me, there is an issue with a part or multiple parts in the fire control system and striker safety system. There is a combination of parts that will allow the striker to enter the chamber unobstructed and that is a problem.

One, because the 320 FCU is supposedly designed exactly the same and should all be within a set of specifications that maintain safe operation. This test proves that isn't true since some FCU fail this test, and some don't.

Secondly, an FCU that passes this test initially, may fail the test at a later time when parts are have more use, and the part or parts that at the time of initial testing were in spec, are now not within specs due to this usage.

With that, at this point, NO I do not believe the 320 is safe, just because if it passes the test on one occasion, doesn't mean it will continue to pass. The potential is there for a failure to block the striker and we don't know what criteria causes it or when it will occur, but it has been proven that the possibility of a failure is present. Because it is unknown exactly what criteria cause the problem, the potential for that failure exist in every P320.

Understand this isn't about the sear allowing the striker to slip past as much as it's about the fact that if that happens, some 320's allow the striker to enter the chamber. Obviously some parts within the FCU and the striker assembly aren't working correctly and in a safe manner in some pistols, this testing protocol proves that as factual. That's all the information I need to make my decision about the platform.

Point fingers at me if you want, but I have conducted this test on multiple examples, some of them passing and some failing. If the ones that failed had a round in the chamber, the pistol would have discharged without question.

I will say, I don't believe this is a design issue or flaw, because if that was the case, every 320 out there would fail this test. Based on that I firmly believe now it is a tolerance issue involving multiple parts upto and including frame to slide fitment tolerances.

FWIW I also conducted this test on three of my Glocks with GPTs installed in them. While much more difficult to get the sear to release the striker due to the Glock drop shelf, I was able to forcibly get the sear out of the way enough to allow the striker to slip past. All three passed as the striker was unable to protrude into the chamber due to the striker safety block.

This sear movement test is not an official 320 armorers test for function, which doesn't mean it is neither a valid or invalid testing protocol. Checking to see if a sear and striker engagement is within a specified range should be a normal function of the R&D section at the manufacturer when a firearm is being designed, developed and tested. I'll check my 320 armorers manuals when I get back to my shop to determine what is in there in reference to striker sear engagements and measurements if anything.

TXPO

Well written.
1- I'm not convinced the "test" is valid either. The striker block (safety lock) tab appears next the where the pick is inserted to push the sear down, depending on the thickness of the tool inserted maybe it is at lest partially depressing the block. May explain why some pass some don't.
2- In my armorers manual it reads when the trigger bar is pushed forward it pushes up on the safety arm. Is the sear connected to the trigger bar, and when a pick pushes down on the sear it also moves the trigger bar forward unlocking the striker lock ( block)??

[Texaspoff]

Well written.
1- I'm not convinced the "test" is valid either. The striker block (safety lock) tab appears next the where the pick is inserted to push the sear down, depending on the thickness of the tool inserted maybe it is at lest partially depressing the block. May explain why some pass some don't.
2- In my armorers manual it reads when the trigger bar is pushed forward it pushes up on the safety arm. Is the sear connected to the trigger bar, and when a pick pushes down on the sear it also moves the trigger bar forward unlocking the striker lock ( block)??

I briefly glanced over my manual, it was late last night when I finally made it home. I saw the same thing you mentioned above.

So, the sear is design has sort of a horse shoe to it. There is a tab on the trigger bar that fits between the U of the sear. There is a lot of room between the surfaces of the parts when they aren't moving, they don't rest against each other. The tolerance between the trigger bar tab and the sear is huge. They don't rest against each other per se, but when the sear is pushed downward, once it reaches its maximum point of movement downward, it will cause movement in the trigger bar.


When I conducted this test, the sear releases the striker before I note any movement in the trigger bar. I also made sure when I was applying pressure to the sear, the tool I was using was did not touch or get near any other part of the fire control assembly. There also wasn't any more or less noticeable trigger movement between the pistols I tested that failed or passed. Not saying there isn't some relation there, but nothing that immediately jumped out as a possible difference between guns that passed or failed.




TXPO

[Mongo356]

I briefly glanced over my manual, it was late last night when I finally made it home. I saw the same thing you mentioned above.


When I conducted this test, the sear releases the striker before I note any movement in the trigger bar. I also made sure when I was applying pressure to the sear, the tool I was using was did not touch or get near any other part of the fire control assembly. There also wasn't any more or less noticeable trigger movement between the pistols I tested that failed or passed. Not saying there isn't some relation there, but nothing that immediately jumped out as a possible difference between guns that passed or failed.

TXPO

Fair enough. Thank for your time and effort. Chasing down a cause can be very tiresome indeed.

In my mind I know the striker safety lock spring is tricky to get into place. I remember during the AC course they gave me some trouble to make sure they were right- Possibly a place to improve on the design?? That's out of my wheelhouse for sure.

If you are not careful when removing the striker, the safety lock spring can come out of the notch but still look like it's in place. Makes me wonder of the guns that fail the striker safety lock spring is ever examined and still in place.

I know I have several of these rabbit holes of potential what if's, I just cannot in my mind understand with all the modern machining, metallurgy, design, testing etc. that gun that "just goes off" wouldn't be discovered before it ever left the factory. Must have been built by anti-gunners.

All the best.
Jim M.

[HCM]

Fair enough. Thank for your time and effort. Chasing down a cause can be very tiresome indeed.

In my mind I know the striker safety lock spring is tricky to get into place. I remember during the AC course they gave me some trouble to make sure they were right- Possibly a place to improve on the design?? That's out of my wheelhouse for sure.

If you are not careful when removing the striker, the safety lock spring can come out of the notch but still look like it's in place. Makes me wonder of the guns that fail the striker safety lock spring is ever examined and still in place.

I know I have several of these rabbit holes of potential what if's, I just cannot in my mind understand with all the modern machining, metallurgy, design, testing etc. that gun that "just goes off" wouldn't be discovered before it ever left the factory. Must have been built by anti-gunners.

All the best.
Jim M.

I believe PF Member LWT16 ? Who is also a 320 armorer examined an older 320 which has been through the VUP and had an actual AD due to an issue with the striker safety lever spring not being installed correctly. I believe this was from the period in between the VUP and when SIG decided the striker safety liver spring was not necessary.

[Clusterfrack]

In my mind I know the striker safety lock spring is tricky to get into place. I remember during the AC course they gave me some trouble to make sure they were right- Possibly a place to improve on the design?? That's out of my wheelhouse for sure.

If you are not careful when removing the striker, the safety lock spring can come out of the notch but still look like it's in place. Makes me wonder of the guns that fail the striker safety lock spring is ever examined and still in place.

I remember thinking that little spring, fitting into the edge of the shim-weight striker block was the most retarded design I'd seen in quite a while.

[Sig_Fiend]

Something occurred to me this morning, and I don't think I've seen it discussed anywhere else. This is purely speculation on my part. IMO, I think the single most problematic component on the P320 platform is the striker safety and the fact it travels in an arc. It's been discussed many times earlier in this thread. Though, it occurred to me today, maybe the reason why isn't quite what we thought.

Take a look at the two circled areas in the pic below. On the left, the striker safety ledge on the striker body. On the right, the striker safety leg that interfaces with this ledge. The pictured configuration is with the striker fully cocked. It travels quite a distance before slamming in to the striker safety leg (more on that later...). According to the video linked below, merely 0.036" (just under 1mm) of striker safety travel is all it takes to defeat the striker safety ledge on the striker.


Pic sourced from this video: P320 - Striker Safety Disengagement Parameters

Now, consider the MIM striker and imprecise face of the safety ledge. Also consider the stamped striker safety leg and its inconsistent fitment and contact surface. Now, consider those inconsistencies and imperfections and whether it may (or not, I'm just speculating) impart a slight angle to either surface. Could be from flashing or other defects. Consider these potential angle combinations between the two:

I I - Neutral and probably not noteworthy.
I / - If anything, I could see this being biased towards forcing the safety lever down and to remain in contact with the safety ledge. Maybe not an issue.
I \ - Probably biased the wrong direction. Theoretically, could this bias the safety lever towards being flipped up and off when the striker slams into it?
/ I - Maybe relatively neutral.
\ I - Probably biased the wrong direction.
/ / - Neutral or biased a positive direction? I could see this being biased towards providing the most robust striker safety engagement.
\ \ - Seems like the worst case scenario, combined with the striker safety arc of travel. I would guess this combo, if it has ever occurred, would have a tendency to force the safety off of the safety ledge when the striker slams into it.

Putting all of that in perspective, we're talking about just under 1mm of movement needed to defeat the striker safety. Is it possible that the force of the striker slamming into the striker safety, combined with one of the theoretical angled conditions above, is enough to achieve that ~1mm of movement without even a trigger pull? Furthermore, what's to say even a full 1mm is needed? Maybe a fraction of that, combined with a rearward angled striker safety surface, is enough to achieve momentum on the striker safety when the striker slams into it. Again, pure speculation.

Of course none of that addresses what factors may be causing the striker to drop in the first place. I'm just speculating, maybe from some of the above theoretical conditions it's enough to defeat the striker safety without even a trigger pull. Hence the inconsistency with some of the recent independent sear movement test videos.

[AMC]

I think we're getting closer to a valid theory here. I agree that all else being equal, the striker safety block lever is ultimately the most problematic part. If this part doesn't fail its role, the striker never protrudes from the breech face, and the primer isn't struck.

The gun needs a conventional plunger style striker safety block, more robust sear/trigger bar engagement, and a trigger dingus. I think we all could agree that this would almost certainly eliminate the uncommanded discharge issues.

[Texaspoff]

Something occurred to me this morning, and I don't think I've seen it discussed anywhere else. This is purely speculation on my part. IMO, I think the single most problematic component on the P320 platform is the striker safety and the fact it travels in an arc. It's been discussed many times earlier in this thread. Though, it occurred to me today, maybe the reason why isn't quite what we thought.

Take a look at the two circled areas in the pic below. On the left, the striker safety ledge on the striker body. On the right, the striker safety leg that interfaces with this ledge. The pictured configuration is with the striker fully cocked. It travels quite a distance before slamming in to the striker safety leg (more on that later...). According to the video linked below, merely 0.036" (just under 1mm) of striker safety travel is all it takes to defeat the striker safety ledge on the striker.


Pic sourced from this video: P320 - Striker Safety Disengagement Parameters

Now, consider the MIM striker and imprecise face of the safety ledge. Also consider the stamped striker safety leg and its inconsistent fitment and contact surface. Now, consider those inconsistencies and imperfections and whether it may (or not, I'm just speculating) impart a slight angle to either surface. Could be from flashing or other defects. Consider these potential angle combinations between the two:

I I - Neutral and probably not noteworthy.
I / - If anything, I could see this being biased towards forcing the safety lever down and to remain in contact with the safety ledge. Maybe not an issue.
I \ - Probably biased the wrong direction. Theoretically, could this bias the safety lever towards being flipped up and off when the striker slams into it?
/ I - Maybe relatively neutral.
\ I - Probably biased the wrong direction.
/ / - Neutral or biased a positive direction? I could see this being biased towards providing the most robust striker safety engagement.
\ \ - Seems like the worst case scenario, combined with the striker safety arc of travel. I would guess this combo, if it has ever occurred, would have a tendency to force the safety off of the safety ledge when the striker slams into it.

Putting all of that in perspective, we're talking about just under 1mm of movement needed to defeat the striker safety. Is it possible that the force of the striker slamming into the striker safety, combined with one of the theoretical angled conditions above, is enough to achieve that ~1mm of movement without even a trigger pull? Furthermore, what's to say even a full 1mm is needed? Maybe a fraction of that, combined with a rearward angled striker safety surface, is enough to achieve momentum on the striker safety when the striker slams into it. Again, pure speculation.

Of course none of that addresses what factors may be causing the striker to drop in the first place. I'm just speculating, maybe from some of the above theoretical conditions it's enough to defeat the striker safety without even a trigger pull. Hence the inconsistency with some of the recent independent sear movement test videos.

That's something to consider for sure. Depending on the angle of attack at which the ledge on the striker and the ledge on the safety tab meet could mean something especially given the force imparted where the surfaces meet when
a slipped stiker event occurs. Well done thinking this out. You would think the designers at SIG would or should have accounted for this and thought it through, but maybe not.



TXPO