That is a TQ on the front of the holster. It wasn’t unsecured.
The bale was up and locked.
That is a TQ on the front of the holster. It wasn’t unsecured.
The bale was up and locked.
That is an incredibly bold (and I think stupid) statement for Sig to have released. There’s a lot of video out there that hasn’t been seen yet and if what many of us suspect is the case (that it’s a TQ case and the bale is up) then Sigs statement will be easily debunked. I would think a better statement would have been “we’re aware of the video and we have reached out to the agency to see if we can talk with them about the incident.” Or some such statement acknowledging the video and are trying to work with the agency to see what happened.
Oh, well. I’ll be interested to see what the agency releases down the road.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com
It’s clear there is a TQ mounted to the front of the holster and that it is a WML capable holster. It’s hard to see if the bake is in place or not but it’s only relevant if the gun had a WML mounted.
Without the WML in place, I’d the pistol is not properly locked into the ALS/muzzle plug, the pistol’s muzzle can be canted rearward into the space intended for the WML, allowing the bale to be closed and exposing the trigger more than normal.
I see this at work on a regular basis with plainclothes officers who don’t run a light. The fact that they’re allowed to qualify out of a rig that they only wear once every 90 days at the range is a whole other issue.
Last edited by HCM; 07-31-2023 at 09:39 PM.
Not just dumb. That's a bad look altogether. One might say conduct unbecoming to throw an agency end user under the bus like that publicly, and by their own words, apparently without verified proof.
I get that it's a tough and volatile situation. To respond with a blog post and what almost amounts to a meme? Based on this and past fiascos, it seems like there is a serious institutional behavioral problem at SIG.
Administrator for PatRogers.org
During a 4 year period (2000-2003), the 38% of shootings by the USMS, DEA, ATF and FBI we NDs of some sort:
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/plus/e0410/intro.htm
I know of one agency close to me that of the 5 on duty firearm discharges (over a span of 20 years), 2 were NDs. Both were Officer error and had nothing to do with a weapon malfunction.
So yes, NDs are much more prevalent than most people think.
Scary, actually.
Formerly known as xpd54.
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com