[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 46 of 142)
|
Quoted: Did you guys think I was being facetious? I should have saved my CMR from when we were replacing M9s with M18s, the unit price on the M9 was ~$630 and the M18 was $176. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: uh huh, and the A2 Barrel profile is a good cut They cost less than 1/3 what the Beretta did Yep, they bought the contract, because they knew it would put their product in the forefront for other contracts and accounts. So the message of "millions have been sold and contracted", as some sort of validator of its quality - very much is not a validator of its quality. It means they bought the .gov contract and defacto endorsement with a cheap gun. .gov half-assed their test trials, which was supposed to catch and prevent it being a cheap unsafe gun, and relied on the safety-lever as the end-all full-safe-now, safety (which it's not). And then SIG used that to cash in on follow-on copy accounts (at a more lucrative price), and private sector purchases (at a much more lucrative price). It's an old standard ploy. Private sector buys what .gov uses, under the thought that therefor it must be good. And here we are, that same thought process being why were still stuck with most AR15's coming out with the worst barrel profile imaginable, the A2 cut (as an example). (and 1/7 twist as the norm, when 1/8 twist is the better choice today in 2025). So anyway - here we are - from Bud's Gun Shop just now: a base-model P320 (M17) is ~$600 A base-model 92FS (M9) is ~$650 A base-model Glock 17 is ~$550 Which tells you just how badly SIG is overpricing the P320 to the general public; after they bought the .gov contract with their cheap gun. Nailed it. And guess what? I was going to purchase one anyway despite knowing all of this, out of a sense of nostalgia. But the 320/M17 fails at the most basic level… Not go bang without pulling the trigger. So I’m gonna keep my money instead. I mean when you are designing a handgun, you pretty much start with that requirement in mind and go from there. For Sig it was more or less an afterthought, which speaks volumes. I do like how our resident Sig defenders are suddenly very quiet after the latest developments.  Did you guys think I was being facetious? I should have saved my CMR from when we were replacing M9s with M18s, the unit price on the M9 was ~$630 and the M18 was $176. Nope. Given the cost of manufacturing/design/machine time comparing the M9 to the M17, and the business model of getting the contract and making all the subsequent profit from civilian and LE sales, those numbers sound about right. I figured ~$200 is the cost to manufacture most striker fired handguns these days. |
|
Quoted: I also get that most police chiefs (and most police officers in general) aren't gun guys. Thing is, it doesn't take a gun guy to watch videos of P320s going off in holsters and say, "there's something wrong with that gun, I tell you h'wat." If it looks like a duck... You know rednecks be gettin pissed off when they start putting the H in front of the W. |
|
Quoted: If a department has not had one of these go off on their own, there is no budget to replace the weapons they are going to drag their feet on this. Also there is a shit ton of denial about this weapon system to those who are heavily invested in it. These threads are a prime example of this. Video after video of the them going off in holsters. Deny, deny, deny. Buying department issued guns is a huge expense. Add in the time to determine a replacement, the roll out and training on a new firearm is probably 6 months to a year depending on the money and staff. And I'll bet Glock reps are offering great deals on replacing those PD Sig 320's. May not even cost some departments anything. The marketing value is immeasurable. I can see the Glock memes now........"Gaston ended it.....again." |
|
Quoted: Did you guys think I was being facetious? I should have saved my CMR from when we were replacing M9s with M18s, the unit price on the M9 was ~$630 and the M18 was $176. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: uh huh, and the A2 Barrel profile is a good cut They cost less than 1/3 what the Beretta did Yep, they bought the contract, because they knew it would put their product in the forefront for other contracts and accounts. So the message of "millions have been sold and contracted", as some sort of validator of its quality - very much is not a validator of its quality. It means they bought the .gov contract and defacto endorsement with a cheap gun. .gov half-assed their test trials, which was supposed to catch and prevent it being a cheap unsafe gun, and relied on the safety-lever as the end-all full-safe-now, safety (which it's not). And then SIG used that to cash in on follow-on copy accounts (at a more lucrative price), and private sector purchases (at a much more lucrative price). It's an old standard ploy. Private sector buys what .gov uses, under the thought that therefor it must be good. And here we are, that same thought process being why were still stuck with most AR15's coming out with the worst barrel profile imaginable, the A2 cut (as an example). (and 1/7 twist as the norm, when 1/8 twist is the better choice today in 2025). So anyway - here we are - from Bud's Gun Shop just now: a base-model P320 (M17) is ~$600 A base-model 92FS (M9) is ~$650 A base-model Glock 17 is ~$550 Which tells you just how badly SIG is overpricing the P320 to the general public; after they bought the .gov contract with their cheap gun. Nailed it. And guess what? I was going to purchase one anyway despite knowing all of this, out of a sense of nostalgia. But the 320/M17 fails at the most basic level… Not go bang without pulling the trigger. So I’m gonna keep my money instead. I mean when you are designing a handgun, you pretty much start with that requirement in mind and go from there. For Sig it was more or less an afterthought, which speaks volumes. I do like how our resident Sig defenders are suddenly very quiet after the latest developments. Did you guys think I was being facetious? I should have saved my CMR from when we were replacing M9s with M18s, the unit price on the M9 was ~$630 and the M18 was $176. not at all. I took you literally |
|
Quoted: And I'll bet Glock reps are offering great deals on replacing those PD Sig 320's. May not even cost some departments anything. The marketing value is immeasurable. I can see the Glock memes now........"Gaston ended it.....again." Quoted: Quoted:If a department has not had one of these go off on their own, there is no budget to replace the weapons they are going to drag their feet on this. Also there is a shit ton of denial about this weapon system to those who are heavily invested in it. These threads are a prime example of this. Video after video of the them going off in holsters. Deny, deny, deny. Buying department issued guns is a huge expense. Add in the time to determine a replacement, the roll out and training on a new firearm is probably 6 months to a year depending on the money and staff. I can see the Glock memes now........"Gaston ended it.....again." |
|
Quoted: I'm sure there's at least one senior engineer at glock watching this whole 320 thing and saying "I told you guys". Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:If a department has not had one of these go off on their own, there is no budget to replace the weapons they are going to drag their feet on this. Also there is a shit ton of denial about this weapon system to those who are heavily invested in it. These threads are a prime example of this. Video after video of the them going off in holsters. Deny, deny, deny. Buying department issued guns is a huge expense. Add in the time to determine a replacement, the roll out and training on a new firearm is probably 6 months to a year depending on the money and staff. I can see the Glock memes now........"Gaston ended it.....again." Bank on it. Ive been that engineer, as have many others In every profession, there are stories like this. where your team got outsold by a dog - and you know it. And you know somewhere in the company dog there are engineers who know it too. |
|
Quoted: I also get that most police chiefs (and most police officers in general) aren't gun guys. Thing is, it doesn't take a gun guy to watch videos of P320s going off in holsters and say, "there's something wrong with that gun, I tell you h'wat." If it looks like a duck... Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I get that it takes a lot of time and costs a fuckton of money for police departments to replace their guns, I'm not at all denying that. My local PD took two fucking years to draft a policy allowing red dots on issued handguns, promised to acquire them on behalf of their officers, and then turned around and said, "derp, we used up all the money so you gotta pay for a new handgun and optic yourself!" What I'm referring to is blatant lies about the P320. Watch the video and you'll see what I'm talking about. Bellevue PD blatantly lied when they said "Sig has proved [the P320] cannot fire without a trigger pull," and Kirkland did the same when they said "we don't believe the data supports this decision" when referring to WCJTC's decision to ban the P320 from its properties. I'm sure that Sig has proven to the level that their lawyers and the local .gov lawyers say it won't fire without a trigger pull is probably accurate. Most police chiefs are not gun guys. I also get that most police chiefs (and most police officers in general) aren't gun guys. Thing is, it doesn't take a gun guy to watch videos of P320s going off in holsters and say, "there's something wrong with that gun, I tell you h'wat." If it looks like a duck... Look at this thread.  |
|
Quoted: Look at this thread. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I get that it takes a lot of time and costs a fuckton of money for police departments to replace their guns, I'm not at all denying that. My local PD took two fucking years to draft a policy allowing red dots on issued handguns, promised to acquire them on behalf of their officers, and then turned around and said, "derp, we used up all the money so you gotta pay for a new handgun and optic yourself!" What I'm referring to is blatant lies about the P320. Watch the video and you'll see what I'm talking about. Bellevue PD blatantly lied when they said "Sig has proved [the P320] cannot fire without a trigger pull," and Kirkland did the same when they said "we don't believe the data supports this decision" when referring to WCJTC's decision to ban the P320 from its properties. I'm sure that Sig has proven to the level that their lawyers and the local .gov lawyers say it won't fire without a trigger pull is probably accurate. Most police chiefs are not gun guys. I also get that most police chiefs (and most police officers in general) aren't gun guys. Thing is, it doesn't take a gun guy to watch videos of P320s going off in holsters and say, "there's something wrong with that gun, I tell you h'wat." If it looks like a duck... Look at this thread. As long as the checks from Sig don't bounce, the shills'll keep up the fight. |
|
Quoted: Are there durability concerns about the P320's striker block? We've apparently identified some non-functional striker blocks; do those striker blocks show signs of breakage or deformation? If I were a betting man I'd say that the issue is an incorrect angle on the striker that causes it to cam the block out of position, not an insufficiently strong striker block. I think the problem with the striker block can probably be fixed completely by altering the geometry of the striker to cam the striker block into position. Frankly I think the striker block is a secondary concern. A pistol with a faulty striker block and a properly functioning sear will function perfectly, albeit with a reduced margin for safety as parts wear. Conversely, a pistol with a good striker block and a faulty sear will fail to function properly and have a reduced margin for safety as parts wear. Quoted: Quoted: I think I lean towards Spart's argument on this one. A striker block that isn't a joke shouldn't have durability concerns, and a striker hitting it shouldn't be worried about as a "hard impact." I also generally agree that, in the event of a sear failure, the striker shouldn't be tensioned behind the block. If the striker hits the block, the ideal outcome of a subsequent trigger pull is nothing happens. There's no reason to get complicated with multi-piece strikers and elaborate geometry. Just use a solid plunger style block that intersects the striker at 90 degrees... like every other gun. Done. Are there durability concerns about the P320's striker block? We've apparently identified some non-functional striker blocks; do those striker blocks show signs of breakage or deformation? If I were a betting man I'd say that the issue is an incorrect angle on the striker that causes it to cam the block out of position, not an insufficiently strong striker block. I think the problem with the striker block can probably be fixed completely by altering the geometry of the striker to cam the striker block into position. Frankly I think the striker block is a secondary concern. A pistol with a faulty striker block and a properly functioning sear will function perfectly, albeit with a reduced margin for safety as parts wear. Conversely, a pistol with a good striker block and a faulty sear will fail to function properly and have a reduced margin for safety as parts wear. No. Nobody's going to carry a cocked Single Action Army w/ a loaded round under the hammer, which is what you're proposing. This has been known for 150 years. |
|
Quoted: Bank on it. Ive been that engineer, as have many others In every profession, there are stories like this. where your team got outsold by a dog - and you know it. And you know somewhere in the company dog there are engineers who know it too. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:If a department has not had one of these go off on their own, there is no budget to replace the weapons they are going to drag their feet on this. Also there is a shit ton of denial about this weapon system to those who are heavily invested in it. These threads are a prime example of this. Video after video of the them going off in holsters. Deny, deny, deny. Buying department issued guns is a huge expense. Add in the time to determine a replacement, the roll out and training on a new firearm is probably 6 months to a year depending on the money and staff. I can see the Glock memes now........"Gaston ended it.....again." Bank on it. Ive been that engineer, as have many others In every profession, there are stories like this. where your team got outsold by a dog - and you know it. And you know somewhere in the company dog there are engineers who know it too. I’m just waiting for the whistleblowers from Sig to come forward. You know they are out there. I think once that happens, that’s when the 320 really ends. What boggles my mind, is when the 320 came out and I realized it was a fully cocked striker without a trigger dingus I was like, “that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.” Then the drop issue unsurprisingly came out and I figured we’d see at least a dingus added and the problem would go away. Cohen’s attitude during that first issue painted was foreshadowing of the corporate rot at Sig. It blows my mind that the issue is much deeper than that. Who could’ve imagined a pistol designed, released, and widely adopted in this century that had not one but two ways to go bang without pulling the trigger? What a complete shit corporate culture. |
|
Quoted: I’m just waiting for the whistleblowers from Sig to come forward. You know they are out there. I think once that happens, that’s when the 320 really ends. What boggles my mind, is when the 320 came out and I realized it was a fully cocked striker without a trigger dingus I was like, “that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.” Then the drop issue unsurprisingly came out and I figured we’d see at least a dingus added and the problem would go away. Cohen’s attitude during that first issue painted was foreshadowing of the corporate rot at Sig. It blows my mind that the issue is much deeper than that. Who could’ve imagined a pistol designed, released, and widely adopted in this century that had not one but two ways to go bang without pulling the trigger? What a complete shit corporate culture. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:If a department has not had one of these go off on their own, there is no budget to replace the weapons they are going to drag their feet on this. Also there is a shit ton of denial about this weapon system to those who are heavily invested in it. These threads are a prime example of this. Video after video of the them going off in holsters. Deny, deny, deny. Buying department issued guns is a huge expense. Add in the time to determine a replacement, the roll out and training on a new firearm is probably 6 months to a year depending on the money and staff. I can see the Glock memes now........"Gaston ended it.....again." Bank on it. Ive been that engineer, as have many others In every profession, there are stories like this. where your team got outsold by a dog - and you know it. And you know somewhere in the company dog there are engineers who know it too. I’m just waiting for the whistleblowers from Sig to come forward. You know they are out there. I think once that happens, that’s when the 320 really ends. What boggles my mind, is when the 320 came out and I realized it was a fully cocked striker without a trigger dingus I was like, “that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.” Then the drop issue unsurprisingly came out and I figured we’d see at least a dingus added and the problem would go away. Cohen’s attitude during that first issue painted was foreshadowing of the corporate rot at Sig. It blows my mind that the issue is much deeper than that. Who could’ve imagined a pistol designed, released, and widely adopted in this century that had not one but two ways to go bang without pulling the trigger? What a complete shit corporate culture. The part that blows my mind is, Sig designed the P365 with this in mind, but refuse to fix the P320. They made absolutely sure to fix this problem with their second attempt at an FCU gun. |
|
Quoted: The part that blows my mind is, Sig designed the P365 with this in mind, but refuse to fix the P320. They made absolutely sure to fix this problem with their second attempt at an FCU gun. I'm betting the internal meetings about that ended with "changing the design will admit the design is flawed and open us to credible lawsuits. Right now the accidents are rare and ambiguous enough we can blame other factors". |
|
Quoted: I'm betting the internal meetings about that ended with "changing the design will admit the design is flawed and open us to credible lawsuits. Right now the accidents are rare and ambiguous enough we can blame other factors". With the information about the striker block intermittently failing, I don't see how that gets swept under the rug. This will get resolved one way or another. |
|
Quoted: No. Nobody's going to carry a cocked Single Action Army w/ a loaded round under the hammer, which is what you're proposing. This has been known for 150 years. Essentially no pistol made before the 70s has a firing pin block, so if you carry cocked and locked with anything from that era or earlier *cough*1911*cough* you're a sear failure away from an AD. The same is true of some modern pistols. Perhaps you've heard of CZ's Shadow series? No firing pin block, sear failure would result in an AD. Or maybe you like smaller guns? Ruger's LCP and LCP Max carry their hammers at half cock; if the sear holding it there fails it will fall onto a firing pin with nothing to block it. Some pistols mitigate the risk of sear failure with a manual safety designed to lock the sear in place, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that the only thing standing in the way of an AD with many pistols, historic and current, is a properly manufactured sear without excessive wear. Don't get me wrong, I think a functioning firing pin block is mandatory for a modern service pistol, but it's pretty clearly less important than a functioning sear. |
|
Quoted: Essentially no pistol made before the 70s has a firing pin block, so if you carry cocked and locked with anything from that era or earlier *cough*1911*cough* you're a sear failure away from an AD. The same is true of some modern pistols. Perhaps you've heard of CZ's Shadow series? No firing pin block, sear failure would result in an AD. Or maybe you like smaller guns? Ruger's LCP and LCP Max carry their hammers at half cock; if the sear holding it there fails it will fall onto a firing pin with nothing to block it. Some pistols mitigate the risk of sear failure with a manual safety designed to lock the sear in place, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that the only thing standing in the way of an AD with many pistols, historic and current, is a properly manufactured sear without excessive wear. Don't get me wrong, I think a functioning firing pin block is mandatory for a modern service pistol, but it's pretty clearly less important than a functioning sear. I’ll take a cocked and locked series 70 1911 over a P320 any day. The P320 was a step back in safety design. |
|
Quoted: The part that blows my mind is, Sig designed the P365 with this in mind, but refuse to fix the P320. They made absolutely sure to fix this problem with their second attempt at an FCU gun. It's hilarious that Ruger (and Magpul) just made a Glock with a FCU. It's the using a pencil vs engineering a pen to write upside down solution. |
|
Quoted: Essentially no pistol made before the 70s has a firing pin block, so if you carry cocked and locked with anything from that era or earlier *cough*1911*cough* you're a sear failure away from an AD. The same is true of some modern pistols. Perhaps you've heard of CZ's Shadow series? No firing pin block, sear failure would result in an AD. Or maybe you like smaller guns? Ruger's LCP and LCP Max carry their hammers at half cock; if the sear holding it there fails it will fall onto a firing pin with nothing to block it. Some pistols mitigate the risk of sear failure with a manual safety designed to lock the sear in place, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that the only thing standing in the way of an AD with many pistols, historic and current, is a properly manufactured sear without excessive wear. Don't get me wrong, I think a functioning firing pin block is mandatory for a modern service pistol, but it's pretty clearly less important than a functioning sear. Shadows can be carried in DA, and series 70 1911 safeties engage the sear rather than just the trigger as on the M17/18. There is the possibility of a discharge from the inertia of the firing pin if they are dropped on the muzzle, but a lot of S70 1911s mitigate that risk with stronger firing pin springs and titanium firing pins. The P320 is more akin to carrying a S80 1911 with the thumb safety off and a pinned grip safety, though the S80 1911 has a better FPB design. |
|
Quoted:It's kind of funny that this entire thread, which has been extremely informative, seemed to be initiated by a tweet from none other than Sig itself. I wonder if the executives at Sig (and Beretta and Glock for that matter) have been following this thread |
|
Quoted: I’ll take a cocked and locked series 70 1911 over a P320 any day. The P320 was a step back in safety design. Quoted: I’ll take a cocked and locked series 70 1911 over a P320 any day. The P320 was a step back in safety design. Personally I think all striker fired pistols with no external safety are a step backwards in safety and choose to use DA/SA pistols (with functioning firing pin blocks) but the market seems to have swung away from safety and towards shootability, even before we account for design and manufacturing flaws. Quoted: Shadows can be carried in DA, and series 70 1911 safeties engage the sear rather than just the trigger as on the M17/18. There is the possibility of a discharge from the inertia of the firing pin if they are dropped on the muzzle, but a lot of S70 1911s mitigate that risk with stronger firing pin springs and titanium firing pins. The P320 is more akin to carrying a S80 1911 with the thumb safety off and a pinned grip safety, though the S80 1911 has a better FPB design. You seem to have missed my point, which was that many firearms much more recent than the SAA are completely reliant on the sear to prevent AD, with no firing pin block backing up the sear. Yes the 1911's safety locks the sear; you may (or may not) have noticed that I mentioned safeties which lock the sear. |
|
So I post this: Quoted: I actually just measured a G45 using an inspection plate, too. When the striker is all the way forward, it's at a depth of 0.727 from the back of the slide. Fully to the rear just before the cruciform lets go of the striker, it's at a depth of 0.244. That's a total travel of 0.483. Meanwhile, the striker block only engages the the striker in the last 0.078 of travel. Put another way, the striker block allows the striker to travel 84% of the total travel before arresting the movement. 84% is a far cry from "preventing all forward motion" as you say is required of "a proper block". Take one apart yourself and try it. Report back on your findings. Otherwise, you're just spewing hogwash onto the internet. Quoted: I actually just measured a G45 using an inspection plate, too. When the striker is all the way forward, it's at a depth of 0.727 from the back of the slide. Fully to the rear just before the cruciform lets go of the striker, it's at a depth of 0.244. That's a total travel of 0.483. Meanwhile, the striker block only engages the the striker in the last 0.078 of travel. Put another way, the striker block allows the striker to travel 84% of the total travel before arresting the movement. 84% is a far cry from "preventing all forward motion" as you say is required of "a proper block". Take one apart yourself and try it. Report back on your findings. Otherwise, you're just spewing hogwash onto the internet. And how do you respond? By choosing option B: spewing hogwash onto the internet with the No True Scotsman Fallacy, of course! Quoted: Of all the manufacturers to use as an example, Glock is one of the last ones I'd choose. [snipped a bunch of pontificating that didn't include measuring anything] So let me get this right. Glock is a poor example. Glock, which has sold tens of millions. Glock, which has over a third of the market share of the civilian handgun market in the US and over half of the LEO market in the US. That Glock? Bad example! LOL, okay. Let's play your silly game and try the next runner up and see how many are Not True Scotsmen! The S&W M&P has essentially the same striker block design as the Glock, and unlike the Glock, it satisfies your "but but but": Quoted: It's also worth mentioning that the glock striker at rest is not fully tensioned like the P320, so glocks striker block isn't arresting the full striker travel either. The S&W M&P striker is, for all intents and purposes, "fully tensioned like the P320." There is a very slight camming action to the sear, which is in no way comparable to a Glock. While the M&P striker block is positioned further to the rear on the M&P, so too is the part of the striker that it engages positioned further to the rear on the M&P. It works the same way and uses the same concept: if something in the gun has failed and caused the striker to release without the trigger being to the rear, it absorbs energy from the striker spring. After it has done it's job, the striker/striker spring no longer have enough energy to set off a round should the gun have a partial trigger press or be jostled in some way. It's almost like there's a good reason that Glock chose to do it this way, and S&W chose to copy them. "but but but how would you know if the sear slipped?" - that's moving the goalposts, my guy. I never stated that the striker block needed to illuminate a blinking "PROBLEM" light. I stated that the striker block needed to let the gun fail in a safe way. The Glock striker block does that, and so does the M&P's. I await your response clarifying that the M&P is also a bad example. 
|
|
Quoted: ... I never stated that the striker block needed to illuminate a blinking "PROBLEM" light. I stated that the striker block needed to let the gun fail in a safe way. ...] In wood joinery, you can technically make joints stronger than mortise and tenon with biscuits ... but the difference is, the M&T loosens and fails gracefully over time and gives you warning - the biscut joints give virtually no warning and fails catastrophically all at once.  The biscut joint fails when the biscut shears.  M&T joints fail by getting loose and wobbly and you can literally see them starting to fail. Good engineering design takes the entire life cycle of the product into account. eta: I am not an engineer. I am a dumb uncredentialed poor schmuck. This is just life experience. |
|
Quoted: Here's the summary: the P320 is a piece of shit. Anyone defending it at this point is either a paid shill or a retard. /thread. Quoted: Quoted: Damn people have to argue about the most pedantic crap. /thread. "Yall screwed up. Now let's straighten this mess out and put it behind us." |
|
Quoted: Man, I'll argue to the point of insanity and call people names, but at a certain point you have to allow people to fail without shoving their faces into a cheese grater. "Yall screwed up. Now let's straighten this mess out and put it behind us." Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Damn people have to argue about the most pedantic crap. /thread. "Yall screwed up. Now let's straighten this mess out and put it behind us." Fair enough. However, I feel like the gun community is one of the last bastions of "bully anyone who does unsafe/stupid shit until they correct themselves" and this practice has to be rigidly adhered to. Sig is grifting at this point. Do we really want to be associated with people that defend it? |
|
Quoted: Fair enough. However, I feel like the gun community is one of the last bastions of "bully anyone who does unsafe/stupid shit until they correct themselves" and this practice has to be rigidly adhered to. Sig is grifting at this point. Do we really want to be associated with people that defend it? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Damn people have to argue about the most pedantic crap. /thread. "Yall screwed up. Now let's straighten this mess out and put it behind us." When the kid does wrong and you smack him across the face for being obstinate, he gets hurt, angry, and very likely decides to be even more obstinate, even if - espcially if - he knows he was wrong. Instead of helping him hate the wrong he did, you just make him hate you even more. Spank the brat that needs spanking for whom nothing else will work, tell him why before you do it, after that you help them fix their situation. Everyone gets spanked by life, we ought to remember how we handled it wrongly before when we have to dish it out. |
|
Quoted: https://hosting.photobucket.com/23247827-50af-440f-9de7-b64f728e3781/0c6398cd-eb3c-4cd3-bb4c-fa96169ad708.jpg I still can't believe someone in the marketing department allowed that clip to be in their video. Why are you surprised? Sig admits nothing is wrong with the gun at all and this ended days ago! |
|
Quoted: Why are you surprised? Sig admits nothing is wrong with the gun at all and this ended days ago! Quoted: Quoted: https://hosting.photobucket.com/23247827-50af-440f-9de7-b64f728e3781/0c6398cd-eb3c-4cd3-bb4c-fa96169ad708.jpg I still can't believe someone in the marketing department allowed that clip to be in their video. 
|
|
Quoted: In which case you'd do what we know gets the most people's heads right. When the kid does wrong and you smack him across the face for being obstinate, he gets hurt, angry, and very likely decides to be even more obstinate, even if - espcially if - he knows he was wrong. Instead of helping him hate the wrong he did, you just make him hate you even more. Spank the brat that needs spanking for whom nothing else will work, tell him why before you do it, after that you help them fix their situation. Everyone gets spanked by life, we ought to remember how we handled it wrongly before when we have to dish it out. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Damn people have to argue about the most pedantic crap. /thread. "Yall screwed up. Now let's straighten this mess out and put it behind us." When the kid does wrong and you smack him across the face for being obstinate, he gets hurt, angry, and very likely decides to be even more obstinate, even if - espcially if - he knows he was wrong. Instead of helping him hate the wrong he did, you just make him hate you even more. Spank the brat that needs spanking for whom nothing else will work, tell him why before you do it, after that you help them fix their situation. Everyone gets spanked by life, we ought to remember how we handled it wrongly before when we have to dish it out. So, humor me for a moment: how do you suppose that, when it comes to those denying clear-cut reality seen repeatedly on video, detailed repeatedly in court filings and internal documents, you convince them of the error of their ways? They're grasping for any straw they can reach, and posting blatant lies in support of something that has already taken life and limb because of its defective design. I personally don't see how one can do so. I get the value of trying to civilly convince another that they need to stop doing what they're doing, but some folks are beyond saving. |
|
Quoted: So, humor me for a moment: how do you suppose that, when it comes to those denying clear-cut reality seen repeatedly on video, detailed repeatedly in court filings and internal documents, you convince them of the error of their ways? They're grasping for any straw they can reach, and posting blatant lies in support of something that has already taken life and limb because of its defective design. I personally don't see how one can do so. I get the value of trying to civilly convince another that they need to stop doing what they're doing, but some folks are beyond saving. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Damn people have to argue about the most pedantic crap. /thread. "Yall screwed up. Now let's straighten this mess out and put it behind us." When the kid does wrong and you smack him across the face for being obstinate, he gets hurt, angry, and very likely decides to be even more obstinate, even if - espcially if - he knows he was wrong. Instead of helping him hate the wrong he did, you just make him hate you even more. Spank the brat that needs spanking for whom nothing else will work, tell him why before you do it, after that you help them fix their situation. Everyone gets spanked by life, we ought to remember how we handled it wrongly before when we have to dish it out. So, humor me for a moment: how do you suppose that, when it comes to those denying clear-cut reality seen repeatedly on video, detailed repeatedly in court filings and internal documents, you convince them of the error of their ways? They're grasping for any straw they can reach, and posting blatant lies in support of something that has already taken life and limb because of its defective design. I personally don't see how one can do so. I get the value of trying to civilly convince another that they need to stop doing what they're doing, but some folks are beyond saving. I was just pointing at the difference between smacking someone across the face vs telling them why and spanking their butts. One says "We will never accept you, you're broken goods" and the other says "you screwed up, fix it and rejoin us." Eventually those who are genuinely obstinate make themselves obvious by their behavior, get marked out by everyone as being that, and they get shunned into a corner where they belong. |
|
This all sounds familiar. Years ago I had a Kimber TLE/RL from the Cohen era, that I loved, but too often at the range I'd pull the trigger, the hammer would drop, but no impact to the cartridge primer. That's how I found out about the 'Swartz safety" which really isn't. I wanted to send it back to Kimber but I did some online research and the problem wasn't very uncommon. The consensus was to not bother sending it back in because "it was impossible for that to happen." I've heard Kimber is doing much better with different management. |
|
Quoted: I was just pointing at the difference between smacking someone across the face vs telling them why and spanking their butts. One says "We will never accept you, you're broken goods" and the other says "you screwed up, fix it and rejoin us." Eventually those who are genuinely obstinate make themselves obvious by their behavior, get marked out by everyone as being that, and they get shunned into a corner where they belong. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Damn people have to argue about the most pedantic crap. /thread. "Yall screwed up. Now let's straighten this mess out and put it behind us." When the kid does wrong and you smack him across the face for being obstinate, he gets hurt, angry, and very likely decides to be even more obstinate, even if - espcially if - he knows he was wrong. Instead of helping him hate the wrong he did, you just make him hate you even more. Spank the brat that needs spanking for whom nothing else will work, tell him why before you do it, after that you help them fix their situation. Everyone gets spanked by life, we ought to remember how we handled it wrongly before when we have to dish it out. So, humor me for a moment: how do you suppose that, when it comes to those denying clear-cut reality seen repeatedly on video, detailed repeatedly in court filings and internal documents, you convince them of the error of their ways? They're grasping for any straw they can reach, and posting blatant lies in support of something that has already taken life and limb because of its defective design. I personally don't see how one can do so. I get the value of trying to civilly convince another that they need to stop doing what they're doing, but some folks are beyond saving. I was just pointing at the difference between smacking someone across the face vs telling them why and spanking their butts. One says "We will never accept you, you're broken goods" and the other says "you screwed up, fix it and rejoin us." Eventually those who are genuinely obstinate make themselves obvious by their behavior, get marked out by everyone as being that, and they get shunned into a corner where they belong. Alright, that's fair. I much prefer being able to change someone's mind by reasoning with them. At this point, the P320 defender cabal is obstinate and I just can't bother with them. It's about putting the correct info out there for the newcomers to see so they don't buy a dangerous gun based on malicious or reckless misinformation. |
|
Quoted: Alright, that's fair. I much prefer being able to change someone's mind by reasoning with them. At this point, the P320 defender cabal is obstinate and I just can't bother with them. It's about putting the correct info out there for the newcomers to see so they don't buy a dangerous gun based on malicious or reckless misinformation. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Damn people have to argue about the most pedantic crap. /thread. "Yall screwed up. Now let's straighten this mess out and put it behind us." When the kid does wrong and you smack him across the face for being obstinate, he gets hurt, angry, and very likely decides to be even more obstinate, even if - espcially if - he knows he was wrong. Instead of helping him hate the wrong he did, you just make him hate you even more. Spank the brat that needs spanking for whom nothing else will work, tell him why before you do it, after that you help them fix their situation. Everyone gets spanked by life, we ought to remember how we handled it wrongly before when we have to dish it out. So, humor me for a moment: how do you suppose that, when it comes to those denying clear-cut reality seen repeatedly on video, detailed repeatedly in court filings and internal documents, you convince them of the error of their ways? They're grasping for any straw they can reach, and posting blatant lies in support of something that has already taken life and limb because of its defective design. I personally don't see how one can do so. I get the value of trying to civilly convince another that they need to stop doing what they're doing, but some folks are beyond saving. I was just pointing at the difference between smacking someone across the face vs telling them why and spanking their butts. One says "We will never accept you, you're broken goods" and the other says "you screwed up, fix it and rejoin us." Eventually those who are genuinely obstinate make themselves obvious by their behavior, get marked out by everyone as being that, and they get shunned into a corner where they belong. Alright, that's fair. I much prefer being able to change someone's mind by reasoning with them. At this point, the P320 defender cabal is obstinate and I just can't bother with them. It's about putting the correct info out there for the newcomers to see so they don't buy a dangerous gun based on malicious or reckless misinformation. He doesn't even have to make any commentary about it at all. People can see and make their own minds up "tap the sign" style. |
|
Quoted: Essentially no pistol made before the 70s has a firing pin block, so if you carry cocked and locked with anything from that era or earlier *cough*1911*cough* you're a sear failure away from an AD. The same is true of some modern pistols. Perhaps you've heard of CZ's Shadow series? No firing pin block, sear failure would result in an AD. Or maybe you like smaller guns? Ruger's LCP and LCP Max carry their hammers at half cock; if the sear holding it there fails it will fall onto a firing pin with nothing to block it. Some pistols mitigate the risk of sear failure with a manual safety designed to lock the sear in place, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that the only thing standing in the way of an AD with many pistols, historic and current, is a properly manufactured sear without excessive wear. Don't get me wrong, I think a functioning firing pin block is mandatory for a modern service pistol, but it's pretty clearly less important than a functioning sear. The big difference relative to the P320 is that all of those are hammer fired (I think). That's an important distinction because the trigger bar, sear, hammer, etc are all in the frame with an extremely low chance of any flexure causing loss of interface. With a striker fired gun, the sear and striker are in different parts of the gun (frame/slide), meaning there is a natural and unavoidable amount of play between the two that far exceeds anything that could happen in a hammer gun. I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's apples to apples with the P320. It's a different beast with a much higher chance of sear slippage since it's a striker gun. |
|
Quoted: Essentially no pistol made before the 70s has a firing pin block, so if you carry cocked and locked with anything from that era or earlier *cough*1911*cough* you're a sear failure away from an AD. In the design(s) at question, the "firing pin" (striker) is already under pressure from the spring that pushes it forwards with enough force to fire the primer. One design has multiple blockages to the hammer being let go, the other has the "firing pin" (striker) ready to go and you have to pull the stops on it off. It's not quite the same sort of animal.  How a gun (Colt M1911) works! (Animation) In order for a non-trigger pull to make the sear let go of the hammer, you have to move the sear out of the shelf on the hammer. The mainspring is pushing the hammer in rotation force (not technical language) against the sear. The sear has to overcome the leaf spring to move, as well; and this is designed so that in normal operation the trigger has to depress the sear and disconnector backwards against that spring pressure. Also, you have to *rotate* the sear or straight up break it in some way that allows the hammer to fall without the remains of the sear getting in the way. If the leaf spring with the fingers that pressure the sear agains the hammer fails or goes weak, you'll feel a difference in cocking the weapon. If the pin for the sear deforms, that's harder to spot, but you may note the faces on either side going out of paralell because the pin has bent. It's really not the same as having a striker / "firing pin" held back that is under spring loaded pressure that you "let go of."    Also, the safety, when in use, locks the sear to the hammer: |
|
To basically recap: we still do not know 100 percent what the issue is. We do have staged mechanical failures that show an issue that should not happen by design, and should be addressed. It is not the sole issue, as two failures would have to occur, by design. This is not defending sig, but rather pointing out we still do not know everything needed. What we do know with 100 percent certainty at this point is a trigger dingus would be NO solution whatsoever in solving the current staged mech failure. We also have opened the door to testing other striker fired models for issues that could explain what is commonly called glock leg as being something other than just trigger pulls/ad/nd. Sig helped this occur by taking a stance they saw glock use, without decades of usage to back it up that glock has. And yes, nearly all gun manufacturers have settled lawsuits out of court for things they should not have had to. The sooner a solution is found for the current staged mech issue, the better. The longer it takes, the more damage it can cause overall. It will never fix all the glock leg type issues, though… |
|
Quoted: To basically recap: we still do not know 100 percent what the issue is. We do have staged mechanical failures that show an issue that should not happen by design, and should be addressed. It is not the sole issue, as two failures would have to occur, by design. This is not defending sig, but rather pointing out we still do not know everything needed. What we do know with 100 percent certainty at this point is a trigger dingus would be NO solution whatsoever in solving the current staged mech failure. We also have opened the door to testing other striker fired models for issues that could explain what is commonly called glock leg as being something other than just trigger pulls/ad/nd. Sig helped this occur by taking a stance they saw glock use, without decades of usage to back it up that glock has. And yes, nearly all gun manufacturers have settled lawsuits out of court for things they should not have had to. The sooner a solution is found for the current staged mech issue, the better. The longer it takes, the more damage it can cause overall. It will never fix all the glock leg type issues, though… I do not think sig is going to willingly do that. I don't think even if they were willing that they should be trusted to. Some third party with the appropriate know how and backing is going to have to step up to the plate and do it. In the meantime, buyers, owners, and facilities can be presented with the knowledge we do have so they can make informed choices. |
|
Quoted: To basically recap: we still do not know 100 percent what the issue is. We do have staged mechanical failures that show an issue that should not happen by design, and should be addressed. It is not the sole issue, as two failures would have to occur, by design. This is not defending sig, but rather pointing out we still do not know everything needed. What we do know with 100 percent certainty at this point is a trigger dingus would be NO solution whatsoever in solving the current staged mech failure. We also have opened the door to testing other striker fired models for issues that could explain what is commonly called glock leg as being something other than just trigger pulls/ad/nd. Sig helped this occur by taking a stance they saw glock use, without decades of usage to back it up that glock has. And yes, nearly all gun manufacturers have settled lawsuits out of court for things they should not have had to. The sooner a solution is found for the current staged mech issue, the better. The longer it takes, the more damage it can cause overall. It will never fix all the glock leg type issues, though… You're kidding right? |
|
Quoted: Personally I think all striker fired pistols with no external safety are a step backwards in safety and choose to use DA/SA pistols (with functioning firing pin blocks) but the market seems to have swung away from safety and towards shootability, even before we account for design and manufacturing flaws. Same with choosing the DA/SA. However I wouldn't say that most striker fired guns are much more shootable than a typical DA/SA. I have a P80 with all glock internals, essentially a gen 3 glock. (I know they are on gen 5 now.) The trigger was pretty bad. I did the $0.50 trigger job and polished everything, and it actually shoots quite well for me now. Fist-sized groups at 20 feet rapid fire. But, measured on a trigger scale, the trigger is nearly 7 pounds. I have an M&P Shield that was just awful until I installed an aftermarket Apex sear, and that measures 5 pounds now. It was probably 10 pounds with the factory sear. I just bought a little Beretta 80X, and right out of the box, it has a 5 pound SA pull and the DA is short, very smooth, and quite light, though possibly a little more than the 7 pound top end of my trigger pull scale. Anyhow the point is I didn't have to change any parts or do any work to the trigger on this gun, but the two aforementioned striker fired guns both needed some work to not be awful. |
|
Quoted: So I post this: And how do you respond? By choosing option B: spewing hogwash onto the internet with the No True Scotsman Fallacy, of course! So let me get this right. Glock is a poor example. Glock, which has sold tens of millions. Glock, which has over a third of the market share of the civilian handgun market in the US and over half of the LEO market in the US. That Glock? Bad example! LOL, okay. Let's play your silly game and try the next runner up and see how many are Not True Scotsmen! The S&W M&P has essentially the same striker block design as the Glock, and unlike the Glock, it satisfies your "but but but": The S&W M&P striker is, for all intents and purposes, "fully tensioned like the P320." There is a very slight camming action to the sear, which is in no way comparable to a Glock. While the M&P striker block is positioned further to the rear on the M&P, so too is the part of the striker that it engages positioned further to the rear on the M&P. It works the same way and uses the same concept: if something in the gun has failed and caused the striker to release without the trigger being to the rear, it absorbs energy from the striker spring. After it has done it's job, the striker/striker spring no longer have enough energy to set off a round should the gun have a partial trigger press or be jostled in some way. It's almost like there's a good reason that Glock chose to do it this way, and S&W chose to copy them. "but but but how would you know if the sear slipped?" - that's moving the goalposts, my guy. I never stated that the striker block needed to illuminate a blinking "PROBLEM" light. I stated that the striker block needed to let the gun fail in a safe way. The Glock striker block does that, and so does the M&P's. I await your response clarifying that the M&P is also a bad example. Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that the striker spring must be de-energized by the striker block in order for it to be in a safe condition, but carrying it compressed day in and day out is just fine.  You can't have it both ways. If carrying it around for hours every day with a fully compressed striker spring hanging on the sear is okay, then having a compressed striker spring on a safety block is no less safe. The difference is that one way batters the safety components when it engages them, and the other doesn't. Look at it this way. Would you feel comfortable sitting on the 1st floor of a hotel knowing there was a grand piano sitting on the floor above your head? Probably. Would you feel comfortable sitting there if someone was going to drop that same piano from 10 feet up onto the floor above your head? Probably quite a bit less so. Now what if the piano was only going to be dropped an inch, and not 10 feet? A little dicey, but not nearly as risky as dropping it 10 feet to potentially crash through the floor and land on your head (the primer). If Sig's striker block was arresting the motion of the striker before the momentum is built up, I bet it doesn't allow the striker to pop a primer. And it is an easy test. You just push the back of the striker forward until it hits the block, and increase pressure until you equal the same weight as the fully compressed striker spring. If it doesn't push past the striker block, but it does when allowed to travel forward and impact it, then there's irrefutable proof that catching it before it accelerates to primer detonation speed is better. |
|
Quoted: Why? Arfcom and YouTube already exposed Sig. Quoted: Quoted: We need James O'keefe Why? Arfcom and YouTube already exposed Sig. O’Keefe would guarantee nothing would happen since that seems to be what happens to his stories. We might get a funny and inappropriate catfishing video out of it though. 
|