P320 drop safety issues

[walker2713]

Now that I've been able to sign up with Sig for the "upgrade," it occurred to me: I've replaced the original Medium grip module with a Small one, and had it very nicely stippled.

Can I expect to get the same grip module back that I send them?

Thanks,

George

[Bucky]

Yes, I get that, in fact I've had M&P Compact 9 and 45, and still have shield 9 and 45. What I don't get is in what way the hinge between the top and bottom half of the trigger is supposed to prevent the inertial fire.

The way the tabbed safety works, is there is so little mass in the trigger tab, compared to the rest of the trigger assembly, that inertia is unable to move that part, and it catches on the "trigger safety ledge" (for lack of a better term). The hinged trigger works exactly the same way. The lower portion of the hinge is very light / has very little mass, so inertia is unable to move that part of the trigger assembly.

[JustOneGun]

Of course, but I wasn't implying that that was all that was needed -- I was answering GJMs question as to why it wasn't there (in the original trigger or the upgraded one).

I've stated (way too many times I'm sure, and people are likely tired of hearing it) that I'd approach this particular problem differently than SIG has chosen to do so. I'd go with a mechanical sear support/block via a tail on the trigger bar and tabbed trigger safety in addition to reduced mass (and maybe stronger springs) in key components. The tabbed trigger safety would prevent rearward movement of the trigger, thus forward movement of the trigger bar, and therefore keep the sear block in place. If the sear can't move down, it can't release the striker. It's a belt and suspenders solution.

I stand by the reasoning I presented as to why a tabbed trigger safety is not there: people complain about it being "irritating" and, largely due to an unfortunate choice of words a few decades ago by Glock's marketing team, almost universal misunderstanding of the purpose of it. The absence of a tabbed trigger safety on the P320 isn't due to engineering prudence, but rather market appeal.

Regarding the move from a trigger over-travel based sear reset mechanism to a more typical disconnector and slide cam method, I think that's a smart move. The original mechanism, while very clever and had some benefit in dry-fire, garnered LOTS of complaints because of the "double click" issue and did present a real, albeit low probability, risk of a dead trigger while firing. I think this voluntary upgrade is worth it just to get the new disconnector.

Thanks for the reply. You reasoning for why they wouldn't do it is probably sound then. And it's also a shame that Sig won't do it. Such an eloquent solution as to make it a win/win for Sig and the Customer.

[LOKNLOD]

This is all speculation on my part, but I don't think the dropped 320s were firing due to the trigger moving fully through it's ~7 pound pull. I suspect there were other inertial issues with the sear mechanism that caused it to release the striker.

I do think that movement of the non-tabbed trigger in its lighter weight pre-travel played a role in disengaging the firing pin block. Had the firing bin block not been disabled, we be looking at a released striker and dead trigger issue (similar to the VP9 and PPQ when they were introduced to Enel's mallet) and not an unintentional discharge issue. We'd also be seeing a much different reaction from people regarding all this.

From my limited tinkering with it I think you're spot on.

The last bit makes me wonder if any of the other models had dead triggers after the last big group test from Omaha Outdoors, even though they didn't go off. There wasn't a mention of that I missed somewhere, was there?

[walker2713]

Tom: what do you think about having a separate thread dealing with the return process and people's experiences with same?

I know I have questions, and they don't necessarily relate to the substance of this thread.

After reading the Sig explanation of what to expect in terms of process and timing after signing up my P320 for return, it's apparent that this aspect of the brouhaha is going to be going on for a long time.

Your thoughts?

George

[pblanc]

Of course, but I wasn't implying that that was all that was needed -- I was answering GJMs question as to why it wasn't there (in the original trigger or the upgraded one).

I've stated (way too many times I'm sure, and people are likely tired of hearing it) that I'd approach this particular problem differently than SIG has chosen to do so. I'd go with a mechanical sear support/block via a tail on the trigger bar and tabbed trigger safety in addition to reduced mass (and maybe stronger springs) in key components. The tabbed trigger safety would prevent rearward movement of the trigger, thus forward movement of the trigger bar, and therefore keep the sear block in place. If the sear can't move down, it can't release the striker. It's a belt and suspenders solution.

I stand by the reasoning I presented as to why a tabbed trigger safety is not there: people complain about it being "irritating" and, largely due to an unfortunate choice of words a few decades ago by Glock's marketing team, almost universal misunderstanding of the purpose of it. The absence of a tabbed trigger safety on the P320 isn't due to engineering prudence, but rather market appeal.

Regarding the move from a trigger over-travel based sear reset mechanism to a more typical disconnector and slide cam method, I think that's a smart move. The original mechanism, while very clever and had some benefit in dry-fire, garnered LOTS of complaints because of the "double click" issue and did present a real, albeit low probability, risk of a dead trigger while firing. I think this voluntary upgrade is worth it just to get the new disconnector.

Tom, can you hazard any guess as to what effect this modification will have (if any) on the trigger pull quality and weight? One thing that bothered me a bit on one of the videos is the appearance of the new reduced mass trigger. It seems to be hollowed out on the backside all the way to the tip, and some people experienced trigger sting (or whatever you want to call trigger finger pain) with that trigger. That problem seemed to be corrected with the "adverse trigger" which was solid on the backside near the tip.

The concavity on the face of the new trigger shoe also seemed to be rather exaggerated, somewhat resembling that of the SIG "short" or "reduced reach" trigger for the classic P-series SIGs. A lot of people really don't find that trigger too comfortable.

[farscott]

I have not seen the new P320 action, but the description from Tom Jones implies that this is more than a simple tweak to the existing action. In many ways, with the addition of the disconnect, it appears that the revised action is literally a new action for the P320. If that is true, it would appear to obsolete any previous agency testing, including that performed for LE agencies like ICE/HS. What am I missing?

[WOLFIE]

I have not seen the new P320 action, but the description from Tom Jones implies that this is more than a simple tweak to the existing action. In many ways, with the addition of the disconnect, it appears that the revised action is literally a new action for the P320. If that is true, it would appear to obsolete any previous agency testing, including that performed for LE agencies like ICE/HS. What am I missing?

Good point regarding the testing already done being obsolete.

[busykngt]

Can I expect to get the same grip module back that I send them?

I'd guess yes. But at this point, that's all it is (a guess).

Sig's admonishment to not send in pistols equipped with "accessories" came across to me, as having more to do with them not wanting to take on the responsibility of not loosing customer's custom 'add-ones'. PIus them not wanting to have to reassemble non-Sig parts which their assembly folks are likely to not be familiar with. I suspect all the 'returns' will be kitted on individual travelers (shop work orders) and the parts will all be kept together. As long as Sig can consider the stippling to just be a cosmic thing, and not something that changed the fit or function, then you'll likely have your own grip module returned.

[Rack]

Is anyone else waiting for feedback from others on the recall fix before sending theirs' in to Sig?