[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 120 of 142)
|
Quoted: If he used the trigger to move the sear to the point where the gun was supposed to fire, it would have fired from the trigger pull. Quoted: If he used the trigger to move the sear to the point where the gun was supposed to fire, it would have fired from the trigger pull. There is no one point where the gun is supposed to fire; there's a range. Where exactly the striker slips off the sear is influenced by a ton of variables: how clean or dirty the gun is, how well lubricated the sear surfaces are, how hot or cold the gun is, etc. Consider, for example, how a fully loaded magazine might have changed things. He pulled the trigger to a point where lifting the back of the slide caused the striker to slip off the sear. A fully loaded magazine will press upwards on the slide, holding it at the top of it's range. In other words, with a fully loaded mag his pistol would have fired by that point. His test consisted of pulling the trigger into the range where it is supposed to release the striker. It's a dumb test that proved nothing, simulated nothing. Quoted: If the other ways of simulating the searh disengagement are valid, why is achieving the same with the trigger stupid? Reducing sear engagement without pulling the trigger tells you how the gun will behave of the sear is worn, or if the striker is worn, or if debris enters the gun, depending on how you reduce the engagement. Pulling the trigger tells you that the gun shoots when you do the thing that is supposed to make the gun shoot. Let's consider the FBI test and it's followup. Using a punch, the FBI got inconsistent results on whether the striker blocks they tested worked or not: it worked for 100 tries, then it worked for 50 tries where the hit the pistol with a hammer, then it failed in 15 out of 50 tries after they pressed the slide up and down, then they got one to fail with no slide manipulation. Using the jig that Sig wanted them to use, the striker block worked 500 times. To me, that suggests that how the sear is depressed (depth, angle) has a significant effect on whether or not the striker block functions. If that's true, then how the sear gets reduced engagement could be very important. A worn down sear or striker would release the striker with the sear still quite high; does that mean the striker block will still work? Building up the ledge or pushing the sear lower on the striker could push the sear farther down; does that disable the striker safety? We dont know, because all soyjak proved is that pulling the trigger shoots the gun. |
|
Quoted:  https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Et0u4UZzEJEhttps://youtube.com/shorts/Et0u4UZzEJE?si=O5U6bFtT6M4D9cie @DOG559 just use the forum youtube function, and in the text it puts down, manually remove shorts/  1ShotTV: Sig Sauer Is In Trouble! |
|
Quoted: There is no one point where the gun is supposed to fire; there's a range. Quoted: There is no one point where the gun is supposed to fire; there's a range. When you have to do stuff like that that's a blinking neon sign in your face that you should consider taking a mulligan. You're not going to die if you cede something. eta: and it wouldn't mean a single blasted thing to my ego if you did. Quoted: Where exactly the striker slips off the sear is influenced by a ton of variables: You just pointed at the "one point" where the gun is supposed to fire. Are we going to have to define what "fire" means next? |
|
Quoted: 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". I'm not sure that's been discussed enough here. The premise is kinda funny. Even though the sear is sitting in a exposed trough that can catch FOD and sediment, and that FOD can act on the sear in any number of ways, only one way is valid in the eyes of Sig. That kind of approach seems like a pretty good way to wind up in the exact place where we are now. lol |
|
Quoted: There is no one point where the gun is supposed to fire; there's a range. Where exactly the striker slips off the sear is influenced by a ton of variables: how clean or dirty the gun is, how well lubricated the sear surfaces are, how hot or cold the gun is, etc. Consider, for example, how a fully loaded magazine might have changed things. He pulled the trigger to a point where lifting the back of the slide caused the striker to slip off the sear. A fully loaded magazine will press upwards on the slide, holding it at the top of it's range. In other words, with a fully loaded mag his pistol would have fired by that point. His test consisted of pulling the trigger into the range where it is supposed to release the striker. It's a dumb test that proved nothing, simulated nothing. Reducing sear engagement without pulling the trigger tells you how the gun will behave of the sear is worn, or if the striker is worn, or if debris enters the gun, depending on how you reduce the engagement. Pulling the trigger tells you that the gun shoots when you do the thing that is supposed to make the gun shoot. Let's consider the FBI test and it's followup. Using a punch, the FBI got inconsistent results on whether the striker blocks they tested worked or not: it worked for 100 tries, then it worked for 50 tries where the hit the pistol with a hammer, then it failed in 15 out of 50 tries after they pressed the slide up and down, then they got one to fail with no slide manipulation. Using the jig that Sig wanted them to use, the striker block worked 500 times. To me, that suggests that how the sear is depressed (depth, angle) has a significant effect on whether or not the striker block functions. If that's true, then how the sear gets reduced engagement could be very important. A worn down sear or striker would release the striker with the sear still quite high; does that mean the striker block will still work? Building up the ledge or pushing the sear lower on the striker could push the sear farther down; does that disable the striker safety? We dont know, because all soyjak proved is that pulling the trigger shoots the gun. Quoted: Quoted: If he used the trigger to move the sear to the point where the gun was supposed to fire, it would have fired from the trigger pull. There is no one point where the gun is supposed to fire; there's a range. Where exactly the striker slips off the sear is influenced by a ton of variables: how clean or dirty the gun is, how well lubricated the sear surfaces are, how hot or cold the gun is, etc. Consider, for example, how a fully loaded magazine might have changed things. He pulled the trigger to a point where lifting the back of the slide caused the striker to slip off the sear. A fully loaded magazine will press upwards on the slide, holding it at the top of it's range. In other words, with a fully loaded mag his pistol would have fired by that point. His test consisted of pulling the trigger into the range where it is supposed to release the striker. It's a dumb test that proved nothing, simulated nothing. Quoted: If the other ways of simulating the searh disengagement are valid, why is achieving the same with the trigger stupid? Reducing sear engagement without pulling the trigger tells you how the gun will behave of the sear is worn, or if the striker is worn, or if debris enters the gun, depending on how you reduce the engagement. Pulling the trigger tells you that the gun shoots when you do the thing that is supposed to make the gun shoot. Let's consider the FBI test and it's followup. Using a punch, the FBI got inconsistent results on whether the striker blocks they tested worked or not: it worked for 100 tries, then it worked for 50 tries where the hit the pistol with a hammer, then it failed in 15 out of 50 tries after they pressed the slide up and down, then they got one to fail with no slide manipulation. Using the jig that Sig wanted them to use, the striker block worked 500 times. To me, that suggests that how the sear is depressed (depth, angle) has a significant effect on whether or not the striker block functions. If that's true, then how the sear gets reduced engagement could be very important. A worn down sear or striker would release the striker with the sear still quite high; does that mean the striker block will still work? Building up the ledge or pushing the sear lower on the striker could push the sear farther down; does that disable the striker safety? We dont know, because all soyjak proved is that pulling the trigger shoots the gun. Whole lotta words. Too bad I ain't reading 'em. |
|
Quoted: 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". SIG KNOWS a/the way to tweak the sear to make it perform the way THEY want it to?  Stop and THINK about what that means they would HAVE to know or have done beforehand to have arrived at that knowledge! 
|
|
Quoted: If he used the trigger to move the sear to the point where the gun was supposed to fire, it would have fired from the trigger pull. 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? People around here are just invested in him being wrong because he's annoying. He's not wrong though. His delivery just sucks and his video was ten times the length it needed to be to get the point across. And his face didn't need to be in frame when the gun went off. But he's not wrong. |
|
Quoted: Oh for the love of pete. When you have to do stuff like that that's a blinking neon sign in your face that you should consider taking a mulligan. You're not going to die if you cede something. eta: and it wouldn't mean a single blasted thing to my ego if you did. Oh look. You just pointed at the "one point" where the gun is supposed to fire. Are we going to have to define what "fire" means next? ...what? My guy, it is simply a fact that there is no one point in the trigger stroke where the gun is supposed to fire. There is instead a range in the trigger stroke where the gun is supposed to fire, with where it fires in that range determined by a bunch of variables. If you can't understand that, maybe you should read more and post less. |
|
Quoted: People around here are just invested in him being wrong because he's annoying. He's not wrong though. His delivery just sucks and his video was ten times the length it needed to be to get the point across. And his face didn't need to be in frame when the gun went off. But he's not wrong. In your own words, what do you think his test proved? |
|
Quoted: WAIT. SIG KNOWS a/the way to tweak the sear to make it perform the way THEY want it to? Stop and THINK about what that means they would HAVE to know or have done beforehand to have arrived at that knowledge! Quoted: Quoted: 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". SIG KNOWS a/the way to tweak the sear to make it perform the way THEY want it to? Stop and THINK about what that means they would HAVE to know or have done beforehand to have arrived at that knowledge!  When you put it that way... |
|
Quoted: WAIT. SIG KNOWS a/the way to tweak the sear to make it perform the way THEY want it to? Stop and THINK about what that means they would HAVE to know or have done beforehand to have arrived at that knowledge! Quoted: Quoted: 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". WAIT. SIG KNOWS a/the way to tweak the sear to make it perform the way THEY want it to? Stop and THINK about what that means they would HAVE to know or have done beforehand to have arrived at that knowledge! If I were SIG, and didn't have an effective internal email system that recorded discussions for future jury deliberations, I would watch some YouTube videos on my personal phone about the Punch Test, and then have one of my engineers build a jig and have them experiment punching the sear down ONLY in the direction the trigger bar pulls it. Then I'd hop in my personal time machine and talk to the FBI last year about why they really needed to clamp the pistol in a jig and push the sear down at a very specific angle to make the test scientific. No harm, no foul. |
|
Quoted: ...what? My guy, it is simply a fact that there is no one point in the trigger stroke where the gun is supposed to fire. There is instead a range in the trigger stroke where the gun is supposed to fire, with where it fires in that range determined by a bunch of variables. If you can't understand that, maybe you should read more and post less. The part here where you're being obtuse is that with a Glock, you can pull the trigger about 90% of the way before the point at which point moving the slide around will get the striker to release without further movement of the trigger. With a P320, that's more like 50%. So you're talking about a 10% window of opportunity vs a 50% window of opportunity. It's so comically non-comparable that it beggars belief, yet you all keep showing up to harp on bUt gLoCk dUz sEm tHnG. And that completely ignores the fact that if you let the Glock trigger forward, there is a physical mechanism that forces the striker to completely re-engage the cruciform: the ramp of the drop safety slot in the trigger housing. There is no such corresponding mechanism in a P320. The only thing that causes a P320 striker to re-engage the sear fully is the pressure of the sear springs combined with the pressure of the striker spring by way of a very minimal negative sear angle. There is no solid binding geometric force like there is in the Glock, only spring pressure. And so, if your P320 has some sort of ledge or burr or poor surface finish on the sear surfaces - enough so that the friction overcomes the spring pressure - your sear engagement will not reset. You'll be left with a "prepped" hair-trigger even though the trigger itself has returned fully forward. This is additionally not possible in the Glock because Glocks actually don't have a dedicated trigger return spring, the striker spring is all that serves to reset the Glock trigger forward. The Glock "trigger spring" actually helps you pull the trigger, which is why an XP Glock trigger spring gives you a lighter trigger. Incredibly easy to imagine a set of circumstances where this can be set up in a completely prosaic way: you're shooting your P320 and you prep your trigger for a follow-up shot, but then decide not to take it (perhaps you knocked a steel target down but didn't hear the ping) and then decide to holster the gun. Because you prepped the trigger and something is wrong with your sear surfaces, the gun now has reduced sear engagement to the point that slide movement in the holster can let the striker go. Stop being so purposely obtuse. You know all of this, you just can't let the dude have a small w because you don't like his YouTube thumbnail. More important shit is going on besides your ego. |
|
Quoted: People around here are just invested in him being wrong because he's annoying. He's not wrong though. His delivery just sucks and his video was ten times the length it needed to be to get the point across. And his face didn't need to be in frame when the gun went off. But he's not wrong. Quoted: Quoted: If he used the trigger to move the sear to the point where the gun was supposed to fire, it would have fired from the trigger pull. 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? People around here are just invested in him being wrong because he's annoying. He's not wrong though. His delivery just sucks and his video was ten times the length it needed to be to get the point across. And his face didn't need to be in frame when the gun went off. But he's not wrong. He is annoying. He also doesn't seem to understand that it's commonplace if not standard for the FPB/striker block to be deactivated during the pre-travel in a trigger pull. He seems to expect the pre-travel to do literally nothing. This position does not help his credibility elsewhere. A guy simply could have explained that the relationship between slide and the FCU was important for the relationship between the striker and the sear. He could have even attempted to measure THAT instead of his "1mm" nonsense. But he didn't do any of those things. |
|
Quoted: https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/sudden_realization_christopher_lloyd.gif When you put it that way... Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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". SIG KNOWS a/the way to tweak the sear to make it perform the way THEY want it to? Stop and THINK about what that means they would HAVE to know or have done beforehand to have arrived at that knowledge! https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/sudden_realization_christopher_lloyd.gif When you put it that way... They could KNOW failure modes and just NOT BE TELLING US.  |
|
Quoted: IF they have that knowledge then they could theoretically test the ways to disconnect the sear from the striker appendage in other ways. They could KNOW failure modes and just NOT BE TELLING US. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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". SIG KNOWS a/the way to tweak the sear to make it perform the way THEY want it to? Stop and THINK about what that means they would HAVE to know or have done beforehand to have arrived at that knowledge! https://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/sudden_realization_christopher_lloyd.gif When you put it that way... IF they have that knowledge then they could theoretically test the ways to disconnect the sear from the striker appendage in other ways. They could KNOW failure modes and just NOT BE TELLING US. Telling us there are known failure modes would bankrupt SIG. It would be a Self Inflicted Gunshot. |
|
Quoted: ...what? My guy, it is simply a fact that there is no one point in the trigger stroke where the gun is supposed to fire. There is instead a range in the trigger stroke where the gun is supposed to fire, with where it fires in that range determined by a bunch of variables. If you can't understand that, maybe you should read more and post less. .... no ... that is not right, that's not how this works, that's not how this works at all. Take a breath, step back, reacquire target, you're sniper-bind on the topic, I think. Of course there is a point in the trigger pull where the gun is supposed to fire. When the trigger has gone far enough to defeat the safety lever AND has gone far enough to pull the sear away from the striker appendage that contacts the sear. That one point in the mechanical timing is when the trigger position determines that the gun fires, where "fire" is defined as " sear lets go of the striker and the safety that would stop the striker is disengaged." |
|
Quoted: He is annoying. He also doesn't seem to understand that it's commonplace if not standard for the FPB/striker block to be deactivated during the pre-travel in a trigger pull. He seems to expect the pre-travel to do literally nothing. This position does not help his credibility elsewhere. A guy simply could have explained that the relationship between slide and the FCU was important for the relationship between the striker and the sear. He could have even attempted to measure THAT instead of his "1mm" nonsense. But he didn't do any of those things. There's swarms of videos but he did do one on the mechanical timing of the striker safety actuation during trigger pull.  Does the SIG P320’s Striker Safety disengage too soon? |
Local news departments are picking up on it now: More departments reconsider Sig Sauer P320 after airman's death ETA: News anchor says huston pd has banned the use of the 320. |
|
Quoted: If I were SIG, and didn't have an effective internal email system that recorded discussions for future jury deliberations, I would watch some YouTube videos on my personal phone about the Punch Test, and then have one of my engineers build a jig and have them experiment punching the sear down ONLY in the direction the trigger bar pulls it. Then I'd hop in my personal time machine and talk to the FBI last year about why they really needed to clamp the pistol in a jig and push the sear down at a very specific angle to make the test scientific. No harm, no foul. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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". WAIT. SIG KNOWS a/the way to tweak the sear to make it perform the way THEY want it to? Stop and THINK about what that means they would HAVE to know or have done beforehand to have arrived at that knowledge! If I were SIG, and didn't have an effective internal email system that recorded discussions for future jury deliberations, I would watch some YouTube videos on my personal phone about the Punch Test, and then have one of my engineers build a jig and have them experiment punching the sear down ONLY in the direction the trigger bar pulls it. Then I'd hop in my personal time machine and talk to the FBI last year about why they really needed to clamp the pistol in a jig and push the sear down at a very specific angle to make the test scientific. No harm, no foul. It's amazing. It's one thing for us to sit here and speculate that Sig went with a clean sheet design on the P365 for a damn good reason, but here we're being told that they made this damn jig a year ago, the FBI went along with it, and somehow neither party thought it was an issue? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Telling us there are known failure modes would bankrupt SIG ... It would be a Self Inflicted Gunshot. https://i.imgflip.com/785xrm.jpg The meaning of 'self-inflicted' places the blame on the user, not SIG. I've seen this everywhere, and I don't see what's so funny about an inaccurate acronym. If, at this point, you're still carrying a P320, then yeah, you deserve it. |
|
Quoted: The meaning of 'self-inflicted' places the blame on the user, not SIG. I've seen this everywhere, and I don't see what's so funny about an inaccurate acronym. If, at this point, you're still carrying a P320, then yeah, you deserve it. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Telling us there are known failure modes would bankrupt SIG ... It would be a Self Inflicted Gunshot. https://i.imgflip.com/785xrm.jpg The meaning of 'self-inflicted' places the blame on the user, not SIG. I've seen this everywhere, and I don't see what's so funny about an inaccurate acronym. If, at this point, you're still carrying a P320, then yeah, you deserve it. There was a term we used for IEDs... Victim initiated. That's more accurate, but less funny. |
|
Quoted: .... no ... that is not right, that's not how this works, that's not how this works at all. Take a breath, step back, reacquire target, you're sniper-bind on the topic, I think. Quoted: .... no ... that is not right, that's not how this works, that's not how this works at all. Take a breath, step back, reacquire target, you're sniper-bind on the topic, I think. Lol. Quoted: Of course there is a point in the trigger pull where the gun is supposed to fire. Nah, it's a range. Quoted: When the trigger has gone far enough to defeat the safety lever AND has gone far enough to pull the sear away from the striker appendage that contacts the sear. That one point Yeah, that's not one point though. The slide can move up and down through a range, which affects how far down the sear has to move before the striker can slip off of it. To illustrate this point I've made some high quality visual aids. This first image represents a pistol with it's slide at the bottom of it's vertical range.  As you can see, for the sear to fall far enough for the striker to fall, it will have to fall below the blue line. This second image represents a pistol with it's slide at the top of it's vertical range. Everything is the same except the striker, which obviously will sit higher when the slide is higher.  With the slide and therefore the striker higher, the sear will slip off the striker before it reaches the blue line. Since the sear doesnt have to fall as far, the pistol will fire earlier in the trigger stroke. You can see this same principle at work if you've got a glock and some snap caps. In the first video at the link below we can see how my glock behaves when the trigger is pulled with no magazine inserted. https://imgur.com/a/yBxGTak As you can see, the slide moves down as the trigger is pulled, then springs back up after the striker is released. The trigger pull has to force the sear down through the distance of the slide's vertical movement plus the engagement with the striker. The second video shows how my glock behaves when the trigger is pulled with a mag with couple snap caps inserted. The slide does not move down dramatically then snap up, because the spring pressure from the magazine is holding the slide up towards the top of it's range. The trigger pull only has to move the sear down through the engagement of the striker. Because the sear only has to move down through the engagement of the striker rather than through the engagement of the striker plus the vertical slop in the slide, it will fire slightly earlier in the trigger pull. Quoted: in the mechanical timing is when the trigger position determines that the gun fires, where "fire" is defined as " sear lets go of the striker and the safety that would stop the striker is disengaged." Why do you think triggers have overtravel? I'll give you a hint: it's because the precise mechanical timing can vary depending on a bunch of variables. Quoted: The part here where you're being obtuse is that with a Glock, ... snipped for length... why an XP Glock trigger spring gives you a lighter trigger. What does any of that have to do with anything I've said? Quoted: Incredibly easy to imagine a set of circumstances where this can be set up in a completely prosaic way: you're shooting your P320 and you prep your trigger for a follow-up shot, but then decide not to take it (perhaps you knocked a steel target down but didn't hear the ping) and then decide to holster the gun. Because you prepped the trigger and something is wrong with your sear surfaces, the gun now has reduced sear engagement to the point that slide movement in the holster can let the striker go. You know what might be a good test to simulate that? Using a punch to reduce the sear's engagement, then manipulating the slide to simulate holstering. You know what's not a good test to simulate that? Just pulling the trigger, because that functions the pistol as designed. It's supposed to shoot when you pull the trigger. Quoted: Stop being so purposely obtuse. You know all of this, you just can't let the dude have a small w because you don't like his YouTube thumbnail. More important shit is going on besides your ego. Lol. Do you plan to explain what you think his test proves? |
|
Quoted: Posted this on the sig forum. It might be good in here too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaV32HarnRYIt’s interesting how many p320 rebuttals are ‘but Glock does too!’ like Glock has anything to do with the 320. |
|
Quoted: There was a term we used for IEDs... Victim initiated. That's more accurate, but less funny. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Telling us there are known failure modes would bankrupt SIG ... It would be a Self Inflicted Gunshot. I've seen this everywhere, and I don't see what's so funny about an inaccurate acronym. If, at this point, you're still carrying a P320, then yeah, you deserve it.  |
|
Quoted: It’s interesting how many p320 rebuttals are ‘but Glock does too!’ like Glock has anything to do with the 320. Quoted: Quoted: Posted this on the sig forum. It might be good in here too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaV32HarnRYIt’s interesting how many p320 rebuttals are ‘but Glock does too!’ like Glock has anything to do with the 320. He says quite clearly in the video that what he's showing neither exonerates the P320 nor indicts the Glock. |
|
Quoted: It’s interesting how many p320 rebuttals are ‘but Glock does too!’ like Glock has anything to do with the 320. Quoted: Quoted: Posted this on the sig forum. It might be good in here too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaV32HarnRY |
|
Quoted: Lol. Nah, it's a range. Yeah, that's not one point though. The slide can move up and down through a range, which affects how far down the sear has to move before the striker can slip off of it. To illustrate this point I've made some high quality visual aids. This first image represents a pistol with it's slide at the bottom of it's vertical range. https://i.imgur.com/xfe8bl7.jpeg As you can see, for the sear to fall far enough for the striker to fall, it will have to fall below the blue line. This second image represents a pistol with it's slide at the top of it's vertical range. Everything is the same except the striker, which obviously will sit higher when the slide is higher. https://i.imgur.com/wDboebR.jpeg With the slide and therefore the striker higher, the sear will slip off the striker before it reaches the blue line. Since the sear doesnt have to fall as far, the pistol will fire earlier in the trigger stroke. You can see this same principle at work if you've got a glock and some snap caps. In the first video at the link below we can see how my glock behaves when the trigger is pulled with no magazine inserted. https://imgur.com/a/yBxGTak As you can see, the slide moves down as the trigger is pulled, then springs back up after the striker is released. The trigger pull has to force the sear down through the distance of the slide's vertical movement plus the engagement with the striker. The second video shows how my glock behaves when the trigger is pulled with a mag with couple snap caps inserted. The slide does not move down dramatically then snap up, because the spring pressure from the magazine is holding the slide up towards the top of it's range. The trigger pull only has to move the sear down through the engagement of the striker. Because the sear only has to move down through the engagement of the striker rather than through the engagement of the striker plus the vertical slop in the slide, it will fire slightly earlier in the trigger pull. Why do you think triggers have overtravel? I'll give you a hint: it's because the precise mechanical timing can vary depending on a bunch of variables. What does any of that have to do with anything I've said? You know what might be a good test to simulate that? Using a punch to reduce the sear's engagement, then manipulating the slide to simulate holstering. You know what's not a good test to simulate that? Just pulling the trigger, because that functions the pistol as designed. It's supposed to shoot when you pull the trigger. Lol. Do you plan to explain what you think his test proves? Quoted: Quoted: .... no ... that is not right, that's not how this works, that's not how this works at all. Take a breath, step back, reacquire target, you're sniper-bind on the topic, I think. Lol. Quoted: Of course there is a point in the trigger pull where the gun is supposed to fire. Nah, it's a range. Quoted: When the trigger has gone far enough to defeat the safety lever AND has gone far enough to pull the sear away from the striker appendage that contacts the sear. That one point Yeah, that's not one point though. The slide can move up and down through a range, which affects how far down the sear has to move before the striker can slip off of it. To illustrate this point I've made some high quality visual aids. This first image represents a pistol with it's slide at the bottom of it's vertical range. https://i.imgur.com/xfe8bl7.jpeg As you can see, for the sear to fall far enough for the striker to fall, it will have to fall below the blue line. This second image represents a pistol with it's slide at the top of it's vertical range. Everything is the same except the striker, which obviously will sit higher when the slide is higher. https://i.imgur.com/wDboebR.jpeg With the slide and therefore the striker higher, the sear will slip off the striker before it reaches the blue line. Since the sear doesnt have to fall as far, the pistol will fire earlier in the trigger stroke. You can see this same principle at work if you've got a glock and some snap caps. In the first video at the link below we can see how my glock behaves when the trigger is pulled with no magazine inserted. https://imgur.com/a/yBxGTak As you can see, the slide moves down as the trigger is pulled, then springs back up after the striker is released. The trigger pull has to force the sear down through the distance of the slide's vertical movement plus the engagement with the striker. The second video shows how my glock behaves when the trigger is pulled with a mag with couple snap caps inserted. The slide does not move down dramatically then snap up, because the spring pressure from the magazine is holding the slide up towards the top of it's range. The trigger pull only has to move the sear down through the engagement of the striker. Because the sear only has to move down through the engagement of the striker rather than through the engagement of the striker plus the vertical slop in the slide, it will fire slightly earlier in the trigger pull. Quoted: in the mechanical timing is when the trigger position determines that the gun fires, where "fire" is defined as " sear lets go of the striker and the safety that would stop the striker is disengaged." Why do you think triggers have overtravel? I'll give you a hint: it's because the precise mechanical timing can vary depending on a bunch of variables. Quoted: The part here where you're being obtuse is that with a Glock, ... snipped for length... why an XP Glock trigger spring gives you a lighter trigger. What does any of that have to do with anything I've said? Quoted: Incredibly easy to imagine a set of circumstances where this can be set up in a completely prosaic way: you're shooting your P320 and you prep your trigger for a follow-up shot, but then decide not to take it (perhaps you knocked a steel target down but didn't hear the ping) and then decide to holster the gun. Because you prepped the trigger and something is wrong with your sear surfaces, the gun now has reduced sear engagement to the point that slide movement in the holster can let the striker go. You know what might be a good test to simulate that? Using a punch to reduce the sear's engagement, then manipulating the slide to simulate holstering. You know what's not a good test to simulate that? Just pulling the trigger, because that functions the pistol as designed. It's supposed to shoot when you pull the trigger. Quoted: Stop being so purposely obtuse. You know all of this, you just can't let the dude have a small w because you don't like his YouTube thumbnail. More important shit is going on besides your ego. Lol. Do you plan to explain what you think his test proves? Ok. You just cant' stand to be wrong on any given point and you'll do whatever you have to protect yourself from that. I tried. |
|
Quoted: You know what might be a good test to simulate that? Using a punch to reduce the sear's engagement, then manipulating the slide to simulate holstering. You know what's not a good test to simulate that? Just pulling the trigger, because that functions the pistol as designed. It's supposed to shoot when you pull the trigger. If you're isolating your test to sear engagement and slide movement (ignoring the striker safety lock, which is it's own problem) then both methods accomplish the same thing with regard to setting up sear engagement. A narrow feeler gauge would be more appropriate to consistently set the sear engagement than a punch. But it doesn't matter. You know it doesn't. Everyone knows it doesn't. This conversation is pointless. |
|
It’s morning for me. Lol. I think what Brosnarp is trying to say is that there are factors that influence exactly where in the trigger shoe’s travel, the striker is released. For example, slide height. Which also has factors influencing it. Like whether a loaded magazine is present. If that’s what he’s trying to say, then he’s correct. Whether it invalidates or validates any test, I don’t know and probably never will. I think we can all agree that the details would be less contentious if the gun wasn’t a Rube Goldberg device full of broken pocketwatch parts and recycled G11 bits, but produced in fucking India by Bob from Customer Service. I didn’t watch the video. Concluded that it was transvestite propaganda from the thumbnail and don’t want my Youtube Al Gore Rhythm thinking I like LPVO+ stuff. |
|
Quoted: If you're isolating your test to sear engagement and slide movement (ignoring the striker safety lock, which is it's own problem) then both methods accomplish the same thing with regard to setting up sear engagement. A narrow feeler gauge would be more appropriate to consistently set the sear engagement than a punch. But it doesn't matter. You know it doesn't. Everyone knows it doesn't. This conversation is pointless. So all his test shows is that if you reduce sear engagement until it's less than the play in the slide, the striker will fall with slide movement? Did anyone doubt that? |
 Failed To Load Title There is a patented fix already allegedly - this is big |
|
Quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMQpBXfnpdIThere is a patented fix already allegedly - this is big JD has really let himself go. |
|
Quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMQpBXfnpdIThere is a patented fix already allegedly - this is big Very interesting video finally a safe design that locks the sear when safety is on. That could fix it. |
|
Quoted: It can fix it while on safe, so. It's not a true fix. Quoted: Quoted: Very interesting video finally a safe design that locks the sear when safety is on. That could fix it. It can fix it while on safe, so. It's not a true fix. |
|
Quoted: Exactly. And the vast majority of P320s don't have manual safeties. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Very interesting video finally a safe design that locks the sear when safety is on. That could fix it. It can fix it while on safe, so. It's not a true fix. Additionally, I think most users would not consider this a fix as it fundamentally modifies the manual of arms. Most P320s don’t have a manual safety, because most purchasers don’t want one. If the P320 requires one to be safe (I kind of think it always did due to there being no other external safety device) then that means there are a lot of options which either don’t require that due to passive safeties, or manually safetied options which may have other benefits not offered by the P320. In short, a P320 which requires a manual safety to be safe isn’t the bill of goods which was sold or bought. |
|
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. Boom Dont be the Engineer who will blow Chernobyl Reactor 3, but with confidence. In the P320 case, to disregard the statistically blaring repetition of failures is negligent safety engineering. this was noticed and been talked about now for YEARS, with the body of recurrences and video evidence growing enormously. |
|
Patent link P320 Patent for Added Safety Lever 'effn video is done like shit and the dork is so annoying moving the images all around until it gives you a headache The patent still relies on the sear to stay engaged on the striker It does not lock the striker directly. Edited . |
|
So, will the fear of lawsuits by admitting the P320 has a safety issue prevent SIG from actually offering a fix for all of the pistols out there? Would it be a better move for them to keep saying the P320 is one of the safest on the planet and deal with the continued heat or would it be better for them to say that for those that still have safety concerns, here is a widget we designed that improves the sear mechanism |
|
Quoted: So all his test shows is that if you reduce sear engagement until it's less than the play in the slide, the striker will fall with slide movement? Did anyone doubt that? Nobody was talking about it as a compounding factor with the other sear issues until he dropped that video. First in, worst dressed. Give the man his credit and move on. |
|
Quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMQpBXfnpdIThere is a patented fix already allegedly - this is big That patent was filed in April of 2024. It's fair to ask who commissioned it, but it's another log on the fire either way. |
|
Quoted: It can fix it while on safe, so. It’s not a true fix. Quoted: Quoted: Very interesting video finally a safe design that locks the sear when safety is on. That could fix it. It can fix it while on safe, so. It’s not a true fix. It's a true fix for the sear problem. It doesn't address the striker block problem, but it reduces that system's exposure enough that it wouldn't matter as much. |