Page 46 of 55 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 544

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

  1. #451
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Polecat View Post
    They should just update the 320 to actually be an upsized P365, then all that suddenly disappears, and I can feel safe carrying a 320!
    An upsized P365 as “320 2.0” has been discussed several times in this very thread, as has the reasons it won’t happen. The Macro is as close as we are likely to see.

  2. #452
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    I guess I was thinking that you witnessed (I think) "weird" stuff happening to .40 Glocks that had some correlation to WML's. I wonder if there's some "weird" interaction between 320's and their WML's: it affects how the holster fits, or disturbs the trigger, or some other unanticipated thing.
    Uhm, alright, so it seems the conversation is about the NDs the 320 is reportedly having. Not being a Sig user, I haven't followed it closely enough to have any idea of causal factors. While I'm aware of a single really odd ND with a Glock M22 with a WML in a duty holster, the event isn't public - another agency. I don't know how the movable chassis / changeable frames would or would not have some effect.

    The Glock M22 issues I'm intimately familiar with are well known. From '00 on until '11 or '12, the Gen 3 M22 had significant function issues when a WML was attached (at least initially). The theory is that the presence of the WML impacted the speed at which the slide cycled which affected the feeding of the next round. Later, there were Gen 3 M22 pistols that displayed the same stoppage even without a light being attached. There were numerous changes to the magazine springs, the frames, the magazines, and probably more.

    My old org dumped the Gen 3s for Gen 4 M22s, which then had their own different problems. We dumped those for Gen 4 9mms.

  3. #453
    Quote Originally Posted by Polecat View Post
    They should just update the 320 to actually be an upsized P365, then all that suddenly disappears, and I can feel safe carrying a 320!
    Mind catching me up? How is the P365 safe compared to the P320?

  4. #454
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Super77 View Post
    Mind catching me up? How is the P365 safe compared to the P320?
    The short answer is there are no known or reported instances of P365s firing “uncommanded.”

    This has already been discussed here on PF many times including at least twice in this thread.

    The P365 is similar to the 320 but is not a “shrunken P320.”

    The primary difference being the FCU of the P365 is a machine casting rather than a stamping and the 365 used a disconnector and lighter striker from the start.

    Many of the changes incorporated into the post 2019 / current production guns, which I believe are also mechanically safe, were taken from the 365.

    To my knowledge all validated instances of P320s going off without a trigger pull involve the original P320 design or original guns sent back for “upgrade.”

    There is a sort of “P320 pit bull” hysteria In which any P320 ND is predjudicially presumed defective.

    While the problems with the original design and some of the factory upgrade guns are real I have yet to see a validated instance of a post 2019 P320 which has been validated as going off without the trigger being pulled.

    I do know that the affidavit for the lawsuit which is the subject of the original post on this thread cited two P320 NDs involving members of my agency and claimed them as “Uncommanded” discharges.

    In one of those instances, that characterization is a straight up lie by the attorney who filed the affidavit. In that instance, the ND happened during agency training on a range. The shooter was witnessed putting his finger on the trigger when he should not have, the shooter admitted fault and examination of the weapon by both SIG and our agency confirmed there was nothing mechanically wrong with the weapon.

    In the second instance the shooter is denying fault, and has filed their own lawsuit, however that instance also occurred during agency training, and the shooter was witnessed putting his finger on the trigger when he should not have. Again the pistol was examined by both our agency and SIG and found to have no mechanical defect. In this instance the shooter was using a personally owned SERPA holster designed for his previously issued P229R. The incident occurred on an outdoor firing range in the winter in the shooter was wearing winter gloves at the time of the incident.
    Last edited by HCM; 09-14-2022 at 09:00 PM.

  5. #455
    The P365 also has a typical spring-loaded plunger firing pin block, while the P320 has a unique-ish lever type system that is mounted to the rear of the striker assembly. Allegations against the P320, IIRC, are that the striker assembly, if rotated in the right direction, can disengage the firing pin block lever while allowing the striker lug to slip off the sear. In the second picture, that spring-loaded lever at the back of the striker assembly is the firing pin block:

    https://www.midwestgunworks.com/page...prod/1300926-r

    Other guns with firing pin block "lever" systems have had allegations that they are not as safe as the plungers. I think the CZ P10 had some concerns about this, I think the VP9 also has a lever system but I am not aware of concerns with that. I think their firing pin block levers are mounted to the slide, not to the striker assembly which would introduce more play into the system.

    I am not an engineer and have no definite knowledge of any inherent defects with this system. But as an amateur I look at this, and other aspects of the P320, and just wonder, "why would they ever design it that way?" I do not know they are inherently flawed or anything, but to me there are way more proven systems that fill the same role and are not such odd ducks.

  6. #456
    Murder Machine, Harmless Fuzzball TCinVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    I haven't been following this methodically, but from what I understand, the .MIL guns don't show these issues.
    I have heard from a couple of military sources that AD/ND events have jumped significantly since the guns have gone in service, but the context blamed lack of a long DA trigger pull more than mechanical defect.
    3/15/2016

  7. #457
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    SE Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by TCinVA View Post
    I have heard from a couple of military sources that AD/ND events have jumped significantly since the guns have gone in service, but the context blamed lack of a long DA trigger pull more than mechanical defect.
    I would also blame a lack of quality handgun training in general. Someone keeping their finger on the trigger when they are not supposed to for sure is more likely to cause an ND with the short travel striker trigger of the M17/M18 than the long DA pull of the M9. Once saw a guy go to clear his M9 in a clearing barrel. M9 was holstered, hammer dropped, empty chamber and full mag was loaded. I watched him unholster cycle the slide, then drop the mag and pint the M9 in the barrel. Before I could stop him he pulled the trigger.

  8. #458
    Site Supporter ST911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by TCinVA View Post
    I have heard from a couple of military sources that AD/ND events have jumped significantly since the guns have gone in service, but the context blamed lack of a long DA trigger pull more than mechanical defect.
    Troops transitioning from M9 to M17/18 are trying to manage the new triggers like the M9. Bad habits they had gotten away with the longer and heavier trigger now result in the "usual" NDs from fiddling, but also early shots somewhere in the drawstroke. Insufficient transition time and reps, dry and live. Less an issue in those without M9 experience (or new to handguns).

    Also seen in some who ran an M9 for duty but carried striker guns CCW or on other jobs.
    الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب

  9. #459
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Quote Originally Posted by ST911 View Post
    Troops transitioning from M9 to M17/18 are trying to manage the new triggers like the M9. Bad habits they had gotten away with the longer and heavier trigger now result in the "usual" NDs from fiddling, but also early shots somewhere in the drawstroke. Insufficient transition time and reps, dry and live. Less an issue in those without M9 experience (or new to handguns).

    Also seen in some who ran an M9 for duty but carried striker guns CCW or on other jobs.
    One southern CA agency has an internal IG report addressing NDs after transitioning from a very large number of DA/SA pistols to a striker-fired one.

    Rule #3 matters.

  10. #460
    Quote Originally Posted by Guerrero View Post
    I haven't been following this methodically, but from what I understand, the .MIL guns don't show these issues.
    This may have much to do with the fact that all the .mil guns have manual safeties affixed.

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
  •