[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 119 of 142)
|
Quoted:We have strong indications, albeit not officially confirmed, that the USAF incident was not the fault of the pistol. Quoted:We have strong indications, albeit not officially confirmed, that the USAF incident was not the fault of the pistol. Quoted: I think I speak for everyone that we were waiting on the edge of our seats for your take on this. https://i.ibb.co/t2nw8kY/dwayne-johnson-the-rock.gif |
|
Quoted: No we don't. We have one screenshot of some fever-dream DM. In the meantime, the inspections on M18's in the USAF is now no longer limited to one command, it is service-wide as of 8/1: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/01/air-force-conducting-service-wide-inspections-of-sig-sauer-m18-pistol-after-airmans-death.html Quoted: Quoted: We have strong indications, albeit not officially confirmed, that the USAF incident was not the fault of the pistol. No we don't. We have one screenshot of some fever-dream DM. In the meantime, the inspections on M18's in the USAF is now no longer limited to one command, it is service-wide as of 8/1: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/01/air-force-conducting-service-wide-inspections-of-sig-sauer-m18-pistol-after-airmans-death.html We have members here with good placement within the USAF that aren't saying specifics, but that are hearing things that suggest there may be fire where that smoke is. I'd be surprised if the USAF sidelined a weapon system due to a lower enlisted derp event, but maybe they did. I dunno. What we can say is that while the result of that investigation might shape public perception, but it has no bearing on the mechanical design of the P320. It's either a safe pistol or it isn't, and safe pistols don't have unblocked sears and failure prone striker blocks. |
|
I shot the crap out of my personal 320 X Carry. Yes, it has a flat trigger and its light/short. I noticed the slide does drop slightly when it fires. Maybe 1-2MM of fall. That said, it has tight slide/frame fit and no amount of slide movement makes it fire. I've shaken it on a vibrator case tumbler, dropped it with a primed case in it, dropped the slide on a primed case over and over...and its never been cleaned. I can see an ND from the light trigger issue...but I don't see how it could fire without pressing the trigger. I FEEL like there must be something wrong with the 320...but I need a lab to prove it. |
|
Quoted: I shot the crap out of my personal 320 X Carry. Yes, it has a flat trigger and its light/short. I noticed the slide does drop slightly when it fires. Maybe 1-2MM of fall. That said, it has tight slide/frame fit and no amount of slide movement makes it fire. I've shaken it on a vibrator case tumbler, dropped it with a primed case in it, dropped the slide on a primed case over and over...and its never been cleaned. I can see an ND from the light trigger issue...but I don't see how it could fire without pressing the trigger. I FEEL like there must be something wrong with the 320...but I need a lab to prove it. Most P320s, if manufactured correctly and kept clean, aren't in a state in which these failures can occur. Of the P320s in a state in which these failures can occur, most won't because it requires two systems to fail, those failures must occur simultaneously, and they must occur while the gun is loaded. 1) The sear engagement must fail: This can happen due to manufacturing defects or due to debris interfering with the sear. The former has been documented by engineers during lawsuits, and the latter has been demonstrated and repeated in testing. There's nothing blocking or otherwise supporting the sear except spring pressure, so by design, there's nothing really preventing this from happening. 2) The striker block/striker safety must fail: There are several documented modes through which the striker block can fail. Force can back-feed from the sear through the trigger bar and simply disengage it. Dirt/debris can enter the striker channel jam it up. The little spring can break or the leg fall off the surface of the lever. Or, the small engagement surface can be cut wrong or damaged, and it just slips off. Pick any failure from #1 and combine it with any failure from #2, and you've got yourself a UD. |
|
Quoted: We have members here with good placement within the USAF that aren't saying specifics, but that are hearing things that suggest there may be fire where that smoke is. I'd be surprised if the USAF sidelined a weapon system due to a lower enlisted derp event, but maybe they did. I dunno. What we can say is that while the result of that investigation might shape public perception, but it has no bearing on the mechanical design of the P320. It's either a safe pistol or it isn't, and safe pistols don't have unblocked sears and failure prone striker blocks. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We have strong indications, albeit not officially confirmed, that the USAF incident was not the fault of the pistol. No we don't. We have one screenshot of some fever-dream DM. In the meantime, the inspections on M18's in the USAF is now no longer limited to one command, it is service-wide as of 8/1: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/01/air-force-conducting-service-wide-inspections-of-sig-sauer-m18-pistol-after-airmans-death.html We have members here with good placement within the USAF that aren't saying specifics, but that are hearing things that suggest there may be fire where that smoke is. I'd be surprised if the USAF sidelined a weapon system due to a lower enlisted derp event, but maybe they did. I dunno. What we can say is that while the result of that investigation might shape public perception, but it has no bearing on the mechanical design of the P320. It's either a safe pistol or it isn't, and safe pistols don't have unblocked sears and failure prone striker blocks. |
|
Quoted: 1) The sear engagement must fail: This can happen due to manufacturing defects or due to debris interfering with the sear. The former has been documented by engineers during lawsuits, and the latter has been demonstrated and repeated in testing. There's nothing blocking or otherwise supporting the sear except spring pressure, so by design, there's nothing really preventing this from happening. |
|
Quoted: We have members here with good placement within the USAF that aren't saying specifics, but that are hearing things that suggest there may be fire where that smoke is. I'd be surprised if the USAF sidelined a weapon system due to a lower enlisted derp event, but maybe they did. I dunno. What we can say is that while the result of that investigation might shape public perception, but it has no bearing on the mechanical design of the P320. It's either a safe pistol or it isn't, and safe pistols don't have unblocked sears and failure prone striker blocks. Which scenario is more likely: 1. A pistol was misused by idiots, but just to be sure, a general ordered a full stop of the use of the gun and wants them all checked out. 2. The initial narrative is close to correct, it was on video or with witnesses, causing the general to pull the guns. |
|
Quoted: This video, with no soyjak, explains how that document in concert with the FBI BRF evaluation doc indicate that Sig likely knows there's a problem and has known for some time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY4SicvhEpY Quoted: Quoted: Despite the soyjak faces I skimmed the video to see what "The Smoking Gun" was. TL;DR: like most soyjak videos, it's fucking stupid. The document referenced is the risk acceptance matrix from the MHS competition. Soyjak highlights the line regarding the risk of a pistol firing accidentally due to impacts or vibration, and points out that Sig graded the risk at about .1%. This, he concludes, means that Sig believes that .1% of their pistols can be expected to AD due to vibration or impact at some point. Since Sig has millions of P320s in circulation, this means that Sig expects 5000+ P320s to fire without a trigger pull, according to soyjak. This video, with no soyjak, explains how that document in concert with the FBI BRF evaluation doc indicate that Sig likely knows there's a problem and has known for some time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY4SicvhEpY He did a better job than soyjak, but he's still clearly ignorant of how US Army risk assessments work. For anyone who hasn't been in a position to prepare Army risk assessments, pretty much everything you do in the Army is supposed to have a deliberate risk assessment prepared prior to execution. Morning pt, which everyone in the Army does every day? Supposed to have a risk assessment. Unit family day and cookout at the park? Needs a risk assessment. Going to the range to zero and qualify with M-4s? You bet that needs a risk assessment. These assessments are supposed to identify everything that could potentially go wrong and explain how you intend to mitigate that risk, no matter how obvious that risk and the controls you're taking might be. Take, for example, going to the range to zero and qualify with the M-4. Everyone in the Army knows pretty much how that range is going to work, because almost everyone in the Army has been zeroing and qualifying with the M-4 twice a year every year. Despite the fact that almost all Army ranges run pretty much the same way, the unit is going to prepare a risk assessment that says there's a high risk that someone will be shot before controls are implemented. The risk assessment will then go on to explain that they're going to control the risk by running the range in the normal way, and that these controls reduce the risk to low. The unit doesn't actually think that there's a high risk someone will be shot and killed at their range, they're saying that if you ran a theoretical range with no safety controls then there would be a high risk. The same principle applies to Sig's risk assessment. They're not saying that their design in particular will fire accidentally several times across the fleet, they're saying that a theoretical weapon with no safety controls could be expected to occasionally fire accidentally, while their pistol, which is designed with controls, makes it extremely unlikely. Every MHS competitor will have submitted a risk assessment that says basically the same thing as Sig's because thats just how these things are done. It in no way indicates that they had any knowledge of a problem with the P320 (except the drop issue with pre-upgrade P320s, which is probably the only real revelation from this document). I think the biggest revelation from the FBI report and the follow up in conjunction with Sig is that how you depress the sear apparently has a huge influence on whether the striker block functions or not. Unfortunately I don't see anyone really talking about that and what it might mean, let alone using that info to formulate follow up tests. |
|
Quoted: Which scenario is more likely: 1. A pistol was misused by idiots, but just to be sure, a general ordered a full stop of the use of the gun and wants them all checked out. 2. The initial narrative is close to correct, it was on video or with witnesses, causing the general to pull the guns. Third possible scenario: a pistol was misused by idiots and the surviving idiot lied about the incident. Investigators initially believed the idiot leading to an order to stop using the gun, but subsequent investigation has changed their minds. Fourth possible scenario: All the rumors we've heard have been false, the truth is something else completely. |
|
Quoted: They're not saying that their design in particular will fire accidentally several times across the fleet, they're saying that a theoretical weapon with no safety controls could be expected to occasionally fire accidentally, while their pistol, which is designed with controls, makes it extremely unlikely. Yeah, that video went right over your head. It says right in the doc that Sig's "designed controls" include (or are exclusively in one case) the striker safety lock (lever.) You know, the one that's been demonstrated over and over again to be either failure prone, assembled incorrectly from the factory, missing the spring from the factory, or just straight-up ineffective or easily overridden (as shown by FBI BRF.) So the point is that their analysis relied on a trash component. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, that video went right over your head. Quoted: Yeah, that video went right over your head. Uh oh, there's that reeeing. Quoted: It says right in the doc that Sig's "designed controls" include (or are exclusively in one case) the striker safety lock (lever.) You know, the one that's been demonstrated over and over again to be either failure prone, assembled incorrectly from the factory, missing the spring from the factory, or just straight-up ineffective or easily overridden (as shown by FBI BRF.) So the point is that their analysis relied on a trash component. If that was your point then you should have said that. What you actually said is "This video ... explains how that document ... indicate[s] that Sig likely knows there's a problem". It doesn't. Nothing in that document indicates in the slightest that Sig believed there was a problem (except the drop fires). Anyone who believes it does just doesn't understand what they're reading, as I have explained. I do think that the follow up FBI test, which was not mentioned in the video, indicates that Sig might understand something about the problem that we don't. |
|
Quoted: Third possible scenario: a pistol was misused by idiots and the surviving idiot lied about the incident. Investigators initially believed the idiot leading to an order to stop using the gun, but subsequent investigation has changed their minds. Fourth possible scenario: All the rumors we've heard have been false, the truth is something else completely. So one guys tells a story and a good portion of an entire service pulls that piece of equipment? Please give an example of that ever happening. |
|
Quoted: If that was your point then you should have said that. What you actually said is "This video ... explains how that document ... indicate[s] that Sig likely knows there's a problem". It doesn't. Nothing in that document indicates in the slightest that Sig believed there was a problem (except the drop fires). Anyone who believes it does just doesn't understand what they're reading, as I have explained. I do think that the follow up FBI test, which was not mentioned in the video, indicates that Sig might understand something about the problem that we don't. Ah yes, the follow-up FBI test that somehow escaped a recent FOIA of just such tests, but exists in the minds of Sig's PR department and nowhere else that I can see. When I say "Sig knew" - that FBI BRF evaluation only recently came to light, but it's nearly a year old. Sig knew about this long before an airman died. And if you can draw any conclusions from the fact that they scrapped a very compact design for a striker safety that would have worked well for their scaled-down P365, and instead went with an option that required a lot more machine time on the slide for seemingly no reason all the way back in 2018... Come on man. Sig fucking knew. |
|
Quoted: Ah yes, the follow-up FBI test that somehow escaped a recent FOIA of just such tests, but exists in the minds of Sig's PR department and nowhere else that I can see. Quoted: Ah yes, the follow-up FBI test that somehow escaped a recent FOIA of just such tests, but exists in the minds of Sig's PR department and nowhere else that I can see. The initial FBI test was released by the MSP, not the FBI. I suspect that the FBI has classified their testing as falling into a FOIA exemption, while Michigan didn't. Quoted: When I say "Sig knew" - that FBI BRF evaluation only recently came to light, but it's nearly a year old. Sig knew about this long before an airman died. And if you can draw any conclusions from the fact that they scrapped a very compact design for a striker safety that would have worked well for their scaled-down P365, and instead went with an option that required a lot more machine time on the slide for seemingly no reason all the way back in 2018... Come on man. Sig fucking knew. You're so busy trying to argue with me that you don't seem to grasp that I agree: Sig seems to know something that we don't. The fixture used in follow up testing indicates to me that Sig knows why striker blocks are failing the punch test, and I don't know of any particular reason to believe that Sig's fixture is more reflective of reality than a punch. Quoted: So one guys tells a story and a good portion of an entire service pulls that piece of equipment? Please give an example of that ever happening. You don't believe that they would stop usage of a piece of equipment if there were initial indications the equipment might be faulty? Ok. |
|
Quoted: I shot the crap out of my personal 320 X Carry. Yes, it has a flat trigger and its light/short. I noticed the slide does drop slightly when it fires. Maybe 1-2MM of fall. That said, it has tight slide/frame fit and no amount of slide movement makes it fire. I've shaken it on a vibrator case tumbler, dropped it with a primed case in it, dropped the slide on a primed case over and over...and its never been cleaned. I can see an ND from the light trigger issue...but I don't see how it could fire without pressing the trigger. I FEEL like there must be something wrong with the 320...but I need a lab to prove it. That’s the thing. The P320’s mechanism is such that it’s a lot harder to rule out a malfunction by a simple review of the design. The physics and tolerance studies and testing and whatnot are insurmountable compared to Glock where you can just look at the drop safety shelf, trigger blade, and firing pin block and say “it’s mechanically not happening unless the striker foot snaps off, the firing pin block is stuck, and the primer is soft enough.” Safety of a pistol design should be apparent by inspection. Sig has pretended that it is on the P320 but it is not. |
|
Quoted: You don't believe that they would stop usage of a piece of equipment if there were initial indications the equipment might be faulty? Ok. I've seen multiple NDs with the M9 that were initially blamed on the gun being faulty, not once did a general issue a stand down order. |
|
Quoted: I have spent an enormous amount of understanding how the P320 works recently and reviewing many videos including technical ones and peoples opinions like most recently hickock45 and Washington Gun Law. At this time until a reputable testing lab can show us repeatedly that the unintentional discharge will occur Im not going to believe it. I want to read the report and see the test procedure. Quoted: I have spent an enormous amount of understanding how the P320 works recently and reviewing many videos including technical ones and peoples opinions like most recently hickock45 and Washington Gun Law. At this time until a reputable testing lab can show us repeatedly that the unintentional discharge will occur Im not going to believe it. I want to read the report and see the test procedure. You've just admitted in public that you refuse to believe anything that cant: be repeated and: be repeated in a reputable testing lab (whatever it is you think reputable is). I sincerely hope you don't work at a job that requires you to diagnose / troubleshoot problems and fix them, that belief will assure that there are all sorts of intermittent things you wouldn't be able to so much as approach diagnosis wise. eta: this whle debacle looks like a combination of: multiple falure modes - known revisions of hardware in the failing design - known subpar component quality - and less than best practices in design - along with it being known that there are multiple safties and components involved. This means you should EXPECT that things will be extremely hard to track down and repeat and that when or if these things finally get tracked down, there will be multiple pinned down failure modes. The route to finding that out will of necessity involve "we can't get this to repeat easily and we arne't sure what's up." "Diagnosis is clean and neat and in a lab" is the child's version of this situation. Quoted: The more I see countless videos of people playing with the trigger and saying "look it went off"  The ONLY thing worth testing is what happens if the trigger isn't moved at all - who cares if people are interested in seeing when the safties are disabled, that just can't matter. ----------------- Also, this is why I was saying that, for the tests where the trigger isn't involved, wire the darn thing to the front of the guard, so people have less excuses do pull this kind of crummy trick. "well the trigger could move, hur-durp, that invalidates everything!" ---------------- Quoted: ... the more I'm temped to side with Sig. Its complete nonsense and goes against anything a rational educated person would believe. In Engineering there is a saying "Without data it's just an opinion." Waiting for a reputable test lab report and the report from the Air Force.. Except, of course, your post here has just said that all datapoints with trigger movement or "fiddling" should be excluded, if peple are trying to see if sig screwed up the gun. |
|
Quoted: The initial FBI test was released by the MSP, not the FBI. I suspect that the FBI has classified their testing as falling into a FOIA exemption, while Michigan didn't. You're so busy trying to argue with me that you don't seem to grasp that I agree: Sig seems to know something that we don't. The fixture used in follow up testing indicates to me that Sig knows why striker blocks are failing the punch test, and I don't know of any particular reason to believe that Sig's fixture is more reflective of reality than a punch. You don't believe that they would stop usage of a piece of equipment if there were initial indications the equipment might be faulty? Ok. Quoted: Quoted: Ah yes, the follow-up FBI test that somehow escaped a recent FOIA of just such tests, but exists in the minds of Sig's PR department and nowhere else that I can see. The initial FBI test was released by the MSP, not the FBI. I suspect that the FBI has classified their testing as falling into a FOIA exemption, while Michigan didn't. Quoted: When I say "Sig knew" - that FBI BRF evaluation only recently came to light, but it's nearly a year old. Sig knew about this long before an airman died. And if you can draw any conclusions from the fact that they scrapped a very compact design for a striker safety that would have worked well for their scaled-down P365, and instead went with an option that required a lot more machine time on the slide for seemingly no reason all the way back in 2018... Come on man. Sig fucking knew. You're so busy trying to argue with me that you don't seem to grasp that I agree: Sig seems to know something that we don't. The fixture used in follow up testing indicates to me that Sig knows why striker blocks are failing the punch test, and I don't know of any particular reason to believe that Sig's fixture is more reflective of reality than a punch. Quoted: So one guys tells a story and a good portion of an entire service pulls that piece of equipment? Please give an example of that ever happening. You don't believe that they would stop usage of a piece of equipment if there were initial indications the equipment might be faulty? Ok. Lol, no. You're saying a good portion of the military would replace weapons and order thousands of man hours to be expended examining thousands of firearms on the word of one guy? Lol, no. |
|
Quoted: The initial FBI test was released by the MSP, not the FBI. I suspect that the FBI has classified their testing as falling into a FOIA exemption, while Michigan didn't. It was released by Protraband and I don't believe he specified which agency he FOIA'd to obtain it. Whether he FOIA'd FBI or MSP is irrelevant to my point, both parties would have any updated test results (if they actually exist) as the FOIA was many months after the date on the document. |
|
Quoted: Lol, no. You're saying a good portion of the military would replace weapons and order thousands of man hours to be expended examining thousands of firearms on the word of one guy? Lol, no. I'm saying that if there were indications that a piece of equipment was unsafe, it wouldn't be surprising at all to see an order to stop using that equipment until the equipment was inspected or the investigation was complete. A couple years ago the whole Army was ordered to use a torque wrench to check the steering wheel bolt on every Humvee because a guard unit crashed one after the steering wheel came off. Thousands of man hours were expended because one mechanic missed torquing one bolt. No one cares about expending thousands of military man hours chasing a potential safety problem; it's not like the military gets overtime. If by 'replace weapons', you mean 'issue the M4s that are right next to the M17s in the arms room', no one cares about that either. |
|
Quoted: Maybe spend some of that time on making your sentences clear and fully understandable, that first one is atrocious. You've just admitted in public that you refuse to believe anything that cant: be repeated and: be repeated in a reputable testing lab (whatever it is you think reputable is). I sincerely hope you don't work at a job that requires you to diagnose / troubleshoot problems and fix them, that belief will assure that there are all sorts of intermittent things you wouldn't be able to so much as approach diagnosis wise. eta: this whle debacle looks like a combination of: multiple falure modes - known revisions of hardware in the failing design - known subpar component quality - and less than best practices in design - along with it being known that there are multiple safties and components involved. This means you should EXPECT that things will be extremely hard to track down and repeat and that when or if these things finally get tracked down, there will be multiple pinned down failure modes. The route to finding that out will of necessity involve "we can't get this to repeat easily and we arne't sure what's up." "Diagnosis is clean and neat and in a lab" is the child's version of this situation. Because the timing of mechanical events doesn't matter at all, right? The ONLY thing worth testing is what happens if the trigger isn't moved at all - who cares if people are interested in seeing when the safties are disabled, that just can't matter. ----------------- Also, this is why I was saying that, for the tests where the trigger isn't involved, wire the darn thing to the front of the guard, so people have less excuses do pull this kind of crummy trick. "well the trigger could move, hur-durp, that invalidates everything!" ---------------- The content of your post I'm replying here to is not the sort of content a rational educated person would write. Except, of course, your post here has just said that all datapoints with trigger movement or "fiddling" should be excluded, if peple are trying to see if sig screwed up the gun. Quoted: Quoted: I have spent an enormous amount of understanding how the P320 works recently and reviewing many videos including technical ones and peoples opinions like most recently hickock45 and Washington Gun Law. At this time until a reputable testing lab can show us repeatedly that the unintentional discharge will occur Im not going to believe it. I want to read the report and see the test procedure. You've just admitted in public that you refuse to believe anything that cant: be repeated and: be repeated in a reputable testing lab (whatever it is you think reputable is). I sincerely hope you don't work at a job that requires you to diagnose / troubleshoot problems and fix them, that belief will assure that there are all sorts of intermittent things you wouldn't be able to so much as approach diagnosis wise. eta: this whle debacle looks like a combination of: multiple falure modes - known revisions of hardware in the failing design - known subpar component quality - and less than best practices in design - along with it being known that there are multiple safties and components involved. This means you should EXPECT that things will be extremely hard to track down and repeat and that when or if these things finally get tracked down, there will be multiple pinned down failure modes. The route to finding that out will of necessity involve "we can't get this to repeat easily and we arne't sure what's up." "Diagnosis is clean and neat and in a lab" is the child's version of this situation. Quoted: The more I see countless videos of people playing with the trigger and saying "look it went off" The ONLY thing worth testing is what happens if the trigger isn't moved at all - who cares if people are interested in seeing when the safties are disabled, that just can't matter. ----------------- Also, this is why I was saying that, for the tests where the trigger isn't involved, wire the darn thing to the front of the guard, so people have less excuses do pull this kind of crummy trick. "well the trigger could move, hur-durp, that invalidates everything!" ---------------- Quoted: ... the more I'm temped to side with Sig. Its complete nonsense and goes against anything a rational educated person would believe. In Engineering there is a saying "Without data it's just an opinion." Waiting for a reputable test lab report and the report from the Air Force.. Except, of course, your post here has just said that all datapoints with trigger movement or "fiddling" should be excluded, if peple are trying to see if sig screwed up the gun. Engineers are not poets. I wont go into by education or my resume but lets say Ive worked all over the world for some of the biggest and most profitable companies in an an Engineering and Management capacity. I started my career working at a testing equipment company during the summer when I was going to University, Finding out WTF is going on with the 320 would not be that big of a deal if someone contacted me. Ive got contacts at testing companies offshore that could do it and they would keep their mouths shut. (Bringing guns in might be an issue but we could get around that) US ones too. Ive been retired for awhile edited |
|
Quoted: It was released by Protraband and I don't believe he specified which agency he FOIA'd to obtain it. Whether he FOIA'd FBI or MSP is irrelevant to my point, both parties would have any updated test results (if they actually exist) as the FOIA was many months after the date on the document. He doesnt say where he got it from, but The War Zone says he got it from Michigan. Since the report says right on the front that it contains info exempt from FOIA, and since The War Zone has a picture of the fixture used in follow up testing, I think the possibility that Sig just sort of made up the follow up testing is pretty remote when compared to the possibility that follow up testing occurred but wasnt released. |
|
Quoted: It was released by Protraband and I don't believe he specified which agency he FOIA'd to obtain it. Whether he FOIA'd FBI or MSP is irrelevant to my point, both parties would have any updated test results (if they actually exist) as the FOIA was many months after the date on the document. Quoted: Quoted: The initial FBI test was released by the MSP, not the FBI. I suspect that the FBI has classified their testing as falling into a FOIA exemption, while Michigan didn't. It was released by Protraband and I don't believe he specified which agency he FOIA'd to obtain it. Whether he FOIA'd FBI or MSP is irrelevant to my point, both parties would have any updated test results (if they actually exist) as the FOIA was many months after the date on the document. The FBI document was labeled as FOIA exempt - looks like someone in Michigan DGAF and released it anway. SIG has claimed they responded to the FBI after the initial test and showed the FBI how to test their striker safety sear "properly" - which involved putting the pistol in a jig and pushing the sear from one particular angle to release it. The striker safety worked every time in that "test". |
|
Quoted: LGS is full of used p320s and 365s, I was there for 30 minutes today and a guy came in trying to dump another one as “ he simply didn’t trust it anymore “, and buddy said his coworker was dumping his 365 for same reason. If any of the stores around here price out used 320's for so cheap that it is worth it to get them as spare parts donors, I will pick up 2 or 3. |
|
Quoted: He doesnt say where he got it from, but The War Zone says he got it from Michigan. Since the report says right on the front that it contains info exempt from FOIA, and since The War Zone has a picture of the fixture used in follow up testing, I think the possibility that Sig just sort of made up the follow up testing is pretty remote when compared to the possibility that follow up testing occurred but wasnt released through FOIA. Contains info exempt from FOIA ? all info contained is exempt from FOIA. There were redactions made. If TWZ has a different version of the document, or if they just stole it from Protraband without crediting him and took some artistic license on explaining how they got it, who knows. I like TWZ, but I never trust journalists. Regardless, Sig is the only one making these claims of an updated report. FBI BRF and MSP have not come forward to corroborate this. I also think Sig's strategy relies on testing each problem exclusive of the others. Does simply releasing the sear fire the pistol? Not if the striker safety lock is operational. In the real world, problems can happen simultaneously. |
|
Quoted: Took a look at my vp9 It too has a floating sear with springs on the rear holding it in a constant up position. The trigger bar makes the same motion to drop it down to release a pre-cocked striker. Not the exact same mechanism as sigs but very similar. The striker block seems very robust. It rotates out of the way on a hinge pin. Slide to frame rails fit is very tight though in comparison. Are there any reports of vp9s UDing or having dead triggers? VP9s had dead triggers reported early on. The sear could fall from a sharp blow to the gun, but because they used a functional firing pin safety it didn’t fire the weapon. https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?26543-VP9-dead-trigger-due-to-impact-issue-(split-from-Personal-SIG-320-Journey-thread) |
|
Quoted: Contains info exempt from FOIA ? all info contained is exempt from FOIA. There were redactions made. If TWZ has a different version of the document, or if they just stole it from Protraband without crediting him and took some artistic license on explaining how they got it, who knows. I like TWZ, but I never trust journalists. Regardless, Sig is the only one making these claims of an updated report. FBI BRF and MSP have not come forward to corroborate this. I also think Sig's strategy relies on testing each problem exclusive of the others. Does simply releasing the sear fire the pistol? Not if the striker safety lock is operational. In the real world, problems can happen simultaneously. I can see how what I said was ambiguous; i should have said The War Zone, and other news outlets, say that Protraband got it from Michigan. |
|
Quoted: I can see how what I said was ambiguous; i should have said The War Zone, and other news outlets, say that Protraband got it from Michigan. Can't speak to the unnamed others, but what TWZ said was "The MSP released the report with minor redactions last week in response to a public records request" - no mention of Protraband. |
|
Quoted: There is a scene in the excellent “Chernobyl” miniseries where a character named Fomin states, “tell me, how does an RBMK reactor explode?” and uses the scientists inability to explain the science of how it could explode as evidence that it can’t explode. He asks this question while right next to an exploded RBMK reactor which he was unwilling to believe has exploded despite all evidence and his own eyes. This is the position you are taking. Quoted: Quoted: I have spent an enormous amount of understanding how the P320 works recently and reviewing many videos including technical ones and peoples opinions like most recently hickock45 and Washington Gun Law. At this time until a reputable testing lab can show us repeatedly that the unintentional discharge will occur Im not going to believe it. I want to read the report and see the test procedure. There is a scene in the excellent “Chernobyl” miniseries where a character named Fomin states, “tell me, how does an RBMK reactor explode?” and uses the scientists inability to explain the science of how it could explode as evidence that it can’t explode. He asks this question while right next to an exploded RBMK reactor which he was unwilling to believe has exploded despite all evidence and his own eyes. This is the position you are taking. Attached File |
|
Quoted: They are probably paying him off in fertile gun bunny breeder currency. Good work if you can get it.... Hated what he did with his personal life and I'm not buying any of that schtick, but guy knows guns. If he found something, I would listen ON THAT POINT. |
|
Quoted: Engineers are not poets. I wont go into by education or my resume but lets say Ive worked all over the world for some of the biggest and most profitable companies in an an Engineering and Management capacity. I started my career working at a testing equipment company during the summer when I was going to University, Finding out WTF is going on with the 320 would not be that big of a deal if someone contacted me. Ive got contacts at testing companies offshore that could do it and they would keep their mouths shut. (Bringing guns in might be an issue but we could get around that) US ones too. Ive been retired for awhile edited Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I have spent an enormous amount of understanding how the P320 works recently and reviewing many videos including technical ones and peoples opinions like most recently hickock45 and Washington Gun Law. At this time until a reputable testing lab can show us repeatedly that the unintentional discharge will occur Im not going to believe it. I want to read the report and see the test procedure. You've just admitted in public that you refuse to believe anything that cant: be repeated and: be repeated in a reputable testing lab (whatever it is you think reputable is). I sincerely hope you don't work at a job that requires you to diagnose / troubleshoot problems and fix them, that belief will assure that there are all sorts of intermittent things you wouldn't be able to so much as approach diagnosis wise. eta: this whle debacle looks like a combination of: multiple falure modes - known revisions of hardware in the failing design - known subpar component quality - and less than best practices in design - along with it being known that there are multiple safties and components involved. This means you should EXPECT that things will be extremely hard to track down and repeat and that when or if these things finally get tracked down, there will be multiple pinned down failure modes. The route to finding that out will of necessity involve "we can't get this to repeat easily and we arne't sure what's up." "Diagnosis is clean and neat and in a lab" is the child's version of this situation. Quoted: The more I see countless videos of people playing with the trigger and saying "look it went off" The ONLY thing worth testing is what happens if the trigger isn't moved at all - who cares if people are interested in seeing when the safties are disabled, that just can't matter. ----------------- Also, this is why I was saying that, for the tests where the trigger isn't involved, wire the darn thing to the front of the guard, so people have less excuses do pull this kind of crummy trick. "well the trigger could move, hur-durp, that invalidates everything!" ---------------- Quoted: ... the more I'm temped to side with Sig. Its complete nonsense and goes against anything a rational educated person would believe. In Engineering there is a saying "Without data it's just an opinion." Waiting for a reputable test lab report and the report from the Air Force.. Except, of course, your post here has just said that all datapoints with trigger movement or "fiddling" should be excluded, if peple are trying to see if sig screwed up the gun. Engineers are not poets. I wont go into by education or my resume but lets say Ive worked all over the world for some of the biggest and most profitable companies in an an Engineering and Management capacity. I started my career working at a testing equipment company during the summer when I was going to University, Finding out WTF is going on with the 320 would not be that big of a deal if someone contacted me. Ive got contacts at testing companies offshore that could do it and they would keep their mouths shut. (Bringing guns in might be an issue but we could get around that) US ones too. Ive been retired for awhile edited Unless you are and were someone who was more interested in the guild's and profession's authority signals and supposed prestiege. ------------ The first sentencee in the bit I quoted was atrocious not for being nicely rendered, it was atrocious for being unclear. I'd be shocked if technical writing classes didn't beat students around the head and shoulders on the topic of " MAKE IT UNMISTAKEABELY CLEAR." |
|
Quoted: Can't speak to the unnamed others, but what TWZ said was "The MSP released the report with minor redactions last week in response to a public records request" - no mention of Protraband. Quoted: Quoted: I can see how what I said was ambiguous; i should have said The War Zone, and other news outlets, say that Protraband got it from Michigan. Can't speak to the unnamed others, but what TWZ said was "The MSP released the report with minor redactions last week in response to a public records request" - no mention of Protraband. If you can't put the pieces together from that, We Are the Mighty was more explicit. |
|
Quoted: I have spent an enormous amount of understanding how the P320 works recently and reviewing many videos including technical ones and peoples opinions like most recently hickock45 and Washington Gun Law. At this time until a reputable testing lab can show us repeatedly that the unintentional discharge will occur Im not going to believe it. I want to read the report and see the test procedure. The more I see countless videos of people playing with the trigger and saying "look it went off" the more I'm temped to side with Sig. Its complete nonsense and goes against anything a rational educated person would believe. In Engineering there is a saying "Without data it's just an opinion." Waiting for a reputable test lab report and the report from the Air Force. . You mean like the FBI report? I see where you are coming from, there's a lot of stupidity recently, now that the sentiment has swung against the P-320. The problem with repeatability across multiple samples, is that assumes that these cheap pieces of shit are similar enough to behave in the same way... We've seen many credible claims that Sig has deliberately changed parts, and shipped new guns, with completely wrong parts for that model. |
Posted this on the sig forum. It might be good in here too.  Glock "Uncommanded Discharge" w/ Cutaway Demonstration @IvanPrintsGuns (Sig P320 Pt 1) |
|
Quoted: If you can't put the pieces together from that, We Are the Mighty was more explicit. At least they recognized the original source and gave credit where it's due: "YouTuber Protraband obtained the BRF evaluation following a FOIA request to the Michigan State Police." However, I would note that they seem to be connecting dots that aren't necessarily there: Protraband never stated in his video which agency he FOIA'd. All these journalists (not just in this space, but in every space) play this game where they basically copy each other's scoops, reword things a bit, and publish them as their own work. All it took was one of them claiming one thing and it gets repeated ad nauseum with zero source. And as I said before: it doesn't matter. If FBI BRF did a follow-up report for MSP, *both entities* are going to have that document and it should have been included in a FOIA response by either entity. |
|
Quoted: Posted this on the sig forum. It might be good in here too.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaV32HarnRYCompletely misses the point of what wyoming soyjack 1mm dude was trying to explain. To be fair, wyoming soyjack 1mm dude had about 30 minutes of useless video obfuscating what he was trying to explain. He was simulating a hang up of the sear surfaces caused by a ledge on the striker, as seen in the FBI BRF report. He even says as much at 15:01 in the video: "Let's simulate, because remember again, the FBI report said there was a ledge on - it was either on the sear or striker hook, I don't remember - and you pulled the trigger a little bit, less than a millimeter, and it caught on that ledge, and then you holstered your gun." His entire premise is based on something that doesn't happen and as far as I or anyone can tell, can't happen to Glocks. The Glock trigger housing has a drop safety slot that forces the cruciform to return to full engagement with the striker when the trigger is released forward again. The Sig P320 lacks that feature. People who compare the P320 to a Glock in this regard, are fully regarded. |
|
Quoted: Posted this on the sig forum. It might be good in here too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaV32HarnRYHaven't had a chance to watch it yet. Pinned first comment by the video maker: Pinned by @JaredAF @JaredAF 15 hours ago (edited) Just to clarify: this is not really an "uncommanded discharge." This does not mean Glock or striker fired in general is unsafe. This test basically only shows that if you pull the trigger... the gun fires. Also I am apparently a Sig fanboy despite owning exactly zero American Sig Saurer products and multiple Glonks ?? ETA: Just finished watching it. The guy is explaining what was being tested in the test with the wyoming whatever channel and how this happens with striker fired pistols. Basically, striker fired pistols have the striker in the slide and the sear in the body and if the slide and the frame have any slop/play that amount of slop/play is going to modify how much or how little the sear and striker protrusion can pull apart. The wyoming test says something about the sig p320 in particular - it shows how the ones he checked react to the amount of slide to body play they have. Less play, harder to make it go bang. The amount or not of trigger actuation required to make the striker safety lever go up and disconnect hte striker safety lever and *when that happens in the trigger pull* are also not specific to striker fired guns, rather, they are particular to the 320 design. Barring if sig revised that on the production line. Aka, mechanical timing. These are datapoints. You take them and add them to the growing body of observations about the p320 we're having to make because sig wont fix their stuff. |
|
Quoted: Completely misses the point of what wyoming soyjack 1mm dude was trying to explain. To be fair, wyoming soyjack 1mm dude had about 30 minutes of useless video obfuscating what he was trying to explain. He was simulating a hang up of the sear surfaces caused by a ledge on the striker, as seen in the FBI BRF report. He even says as much at 15:01 in the video: "Let's simulate, because remember again, the FBI report said there was a ledge on - it was either on the sear or striker hook, I don't remember - and you pulled the trigger a little bit, less than a millimeter, and it caught on that ledge, and then you holstered your gun." His entire premise is based on something that doesn't happen and as far as I or anyone can tell, can't happen to Glocks. The Glock trigger housing has a drop safety slot that forces the cruciform to return to full engagement with the striker when the trigger is released forward again. The Sig P320 lacks that feature. People who compare the P320 to a Glock in this regard, are fully regarded. Simulating something that isn't a trigger pull by pulling the trigger into the range where the gun is supposed to fire is stupid. |
|
Quoted: Simulating something that isn't a trigger pull by pulling the trigger into the range where the gun is supposed to fire is stupid. Invalid premise. This isn't about a range where the gun is supposed to fire, it's about something reducing sear engagement. Which if you listen to what he said at 15:01, is exactly what he was trying to s-i-m-u-l-a-t-e. Simulate is a big word. Dictionary.com: to create a simulation, likeness, or model of (a situation, system, or the like). to simulate crisis conditions. A ledge on the striker could cause the sear and striker to hang up, reducing sear engagement. Pulling the trigger just a little bit past "the wall" will hold the sear and striker at reduced sear engagement. I can't break it down barney-style any further. |
|
Quoted: Engineers are not poets. I wont go into by education or my resume but lets say Ive worked all over the world for some of the biggest and most profitable companies in an an Engineering and Management capacity. I started my career working at a testing equipment company during the summer when I was going to University, Finding out WTF is going on with the 320 would not be that big of a deal if someone contacted me. Ive got contacts at testing companies offshore that could do it and they would keep their mouths shut. (Bringing guns in might be an issue but we could get around that) US ones too. Ive been retired for awhile edited Join date. Post count. Click. |
|
Quoted: Invalid premise. This isn't about a range where the gun is supposed to fire, it's about something reducing sear engagement. Which if you listen to what he said at 15:01, is exactly what he was trying to s-i-m-u-l-a-t-e. Simulate is a big word. Dictionary.com: to create a simulation, likeness, or model of (a situation, system, or the like). to simulate crisis conditions. A ledge on the striker could cause the sear and striker to hang up, reducing sear engagement. Pulling the trigger just a little bit past "the wall" will hold the sear and striker at reduced sear engagement. I can't break it down barney-style any further. I understand the concept, it's just a stupid concept. He could have ground down the sear to reduce engagement, like the FBI did. He could have filed away some of the foot on the striker to reduce engagement. He could have built up the ledge under the sear surface to reduce sear engagement, sort of like the debris tests some people have done. What he actually did was pull the trigger to a point where the gun is supposed to fire. He functioned the gun in the way that it is intended to function, which doesn’t really simulate anything. |
|
https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2025-08-04/years-before-air-force-base-fatality-investigators-found-failure-in-a-sig-sauer-gun Aside from the Air Force's suspension of the M18 for its Global Strike Force unit, the broader U.S. military has said it remains confident in the gun, and Sig Sauer has staunchly defended the weapon's design and construction.
But records obtained by New Hampshire Public Radio through a Freedom of Information Act Request show that years before the death of Airman Brayden Lovan on July 20, Air Force investigators concluded that an M18 pistol appeared to have fired without a trigger pull on a U.S. base in Italy. The incident occurred on Aviano Air Base in 2022: As a staff sergeant loaded a magazine into his M18 and released the slide — with the gun’s safety on — the weapon fired unexpectedly. Air base staff treated the area as a “crime scene” and took statements from 15 military personnel. Investigators went so far as to fingerprint the gun, finding no prints on the gun’s trigger, according to an Air Force report. Investigators then disassembled the pistol and found wear marks on an internal component of the gun called the mechanical disconnect, leading them to conclude that “the weapon suffered a mechanical failure.” According to the squadron commander who authored the report, “negligent discharges are on the rise” and there have been other “reported possible mechanical malfunctions” of the M18 documented by the Air Force. Asked about the statement in the Aviano report about other possible incidents involving the gun, U.S. military officials said “to date, there is no documented instance within the Air Force of an M18 discharging unintentionally in any of the reported negligent discharges.” |
|
Quoted: I understand the concept, it's just a stupid concept. He could have ground down the sear to reduce engagement, like the FBI did. He could have filed away some of the foot on the striker to reduce engagement. He could have built up the ledge under the sear surface to reduce sear engagement, sort of like the debris tests some people have done. What he actually did was pull the trigger to a point where the gun is supposed to fire. He functioned the gun in the way that it is intended to function, which doesn’t really simulate anything. Quoted: Quoted: Invalid premise. This isn't about a range where the gun is supposed to fire, it's about something reducing sear engagement. Which if you listen to what he said at 15:01, is exactly what he was trying to s-i-m-u-l-a-t-e. Simulate is a big word. Dictionary.com: to create a simulation, likeness, or model of (a situation, system, or the like). to simulate crisis conditions. A ledge on the striker could cause the sear and striker to hang up, reducing sear engagement. Pulling the trigger just a little bit past "the wall" will hold the sear and striker at reduced sear engagement. I can't break it down barney-style any further. If the other ways of simulating the sear disengagement are valid, why is achieving the same with the trigger stupid? Maybe let's just acknowledge that his video is what happend to coincide with the spread of others on YT noticing the 320 problems and pay attention, and because of that specific fact, everyone who values sig not getting in grief and those who value sig geeting in grief are going to be tempted to let their emotions lead on this? I suspect that if his vid had not coincided with everyone else noticing the "desired conclusion first, rationalization second" behavior wouldn't be so prevalent. eta: the video gives a few useful datapoints to add to the spreadsheets, and given how this is working out, we probably aren't going to get a singular smoking gun datapoint. Instead, we'll finally get enough pieces onto the playing field to be able to start successfully mapping out the failure modes. |
 1ShotTV: Sig Sauer Is In Trouble! https://youtube.com/shorts/Et0u4UZzEJE?si=O5U6bFtT6M4D9cie |
|
Quoted: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Et0u4UZzEJEhttps://youtube.com/shorts/Et0u4UZzEJE?si=O5U6bFtT6M4D9cie 1ShotTV: Sig Sauer Is In Trouble! |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 119 of 142)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter