Quoted:


I keep seeing this. The response to a state LEA banning the gun from its training campus because of a witnessed event is "the agency is dumb/trans/liberal".

Remind me again who the fanboys are?

Quoted:

I had a German P228. I chose the P365 X-Macro over it any day!

Quoted:
Watch this and give an explanation as to how it is failing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0MpcFEXWhc

Quoted:



How did it pass the CA drop test thing?

Quoted:


Well no.

For example, a Glock has an internal firing pin block.

The firing pin is blocked from reaching the primer unless the trigger is pulled which disengages the firing pin block.

Quoted:


California version has some unusual features added to it. That may have had an impact

Quoted:



. It was easily replicated and there are a hundred videos of it happening. Why do you think they offered to fix the pistols that were out there already?

Quoted:



Really? Didn't know that.

Quoted:
GOOD GRIEF!

So lemme get this straight: the "safety" finger in the striker that keeps it from hitting the primer does not ride in the stop in normal usage, instead, what it does is ... gets in the way and gets smashed into the stop on the striker if something otherwise sets off the striker besides the trigger.

So you have to count on this "safety" which is *designed* to be slammed into with all the force of that spring every single time.

Neither the stop on the striker body OR the finger on the "safety" can fail, and it's two parts designed to slam into each other?

OH HECK NO.

Well, that's all she wrote for me, even if I had the money to buy one of these, I wouldn't now, not after seeing that.

Parts designed to ram into each other that you can't trivally inspect daily? Get out of here.

--- I am not an expert. I am not an amateur. I do not do this for a living or in any other way.

I am saying this because I don't trust lawyers and what I saw in that other video about sig's behavior.

Quoted:
To be fair they’re only supposed to ram each other assuming something else has already gone wrong with the sear/striker Interface.

Quoted:


The people defending sig will NEVER take the time to go look

“It never happened to me, so fake news”

It’s 2025, people are retarded and too lazy to educate themselves.

Quoted:
GOOD GRIEF!

So lemme get this straight: the "safety" finger in the striker that keeps it from hitting the primer does not ride in the stop in normal usage, instead, what it does is ... gets in the way and gets smashed into the stop on the striker if something otherwise sets off the striker besides the trigger.

So you have to count on this "safety" which is *designed* to be slammed into with all the force of that spring every single time.

Neither the stop on the striker body OR the finger on the "safety" can fail, and it's two parts designed to slam into each other?

OH HECK NO.

Well, that's all she wrote for me, even if I had the money to buy one of these, I wouldn't now, not after seeing that.

Parts designed to ram into each other that you can't trivally inspect daily? Get out of here.

--- I am not an expert. I am not an amateur. I do not do this for a living or in any other way.

I am saying this because I don't trust lawyers and what I saw in that other video about sig's behavior.

Quoted:
Or P365.........

Quoted:


They don't.

Required start position for DA/SA is hammer down.

Safety does not need to be applied.

Quoted:


The striker is only impacting the striker block if something fails allowing the striker to release without a pull of the trigger.

During normal operation, the trigger pull rotates the block up and out of that notch, so it’s not being impacted by anything.

Quoted:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCGiOsP9aymOaEKg6pLSObYXM9tRBv4p/view?usp=drivesdk

I’ve reviewed it ad nauseam, anyone with a technical background in the field and ounce of ethical impartiality would conclude it is a worthless assessment as far as conclusive evidence goes. It appeals to kitchen table engineers out of their depth and low information emotionally biased individuals with an axe to grind.

Sig is handling this all childishly but simultaneously so are the accusers. The whole fiasco is a great “when assholes collide” situation further inflamed by the parties directly involved having substantial financial gain or loss potential.

Quoted:



So, what financial gain does the military folks get that have accused Sig, ZERO.  There are plenty of reports out there, go watch the video I posted earlier.

Quoted:
Sure, I mean my explicit background is firearms design and development with a specialty in handguns with a couple white sheet product families (i.e. entire new models from scratch) and numerous line extensions and derivatives on the market today. Additionally I work and have worked exclusively for competitors of Sig my entire career and as such I take an interest in their products from an engineering perspective.

But let’s go ahead and cross examine Mr. Hicks’ analysis of the p320 as presented.

Statement 1 referring to the sear and striker being MIM components without secondary processing operations. Mr Hicks correctly points out that flashing, internal material shrinkage, required corner radii for molding and additional surface irregularity from the process can and (in his sample) does reduce contact surface between the sear and striker. This is shitty engineering on Sigs part from the standpoint of functional consistency unit to unit for things like trigger weight, feel, and long term wear characteristics, but reduction of surface contact does not equate to a failure to contact. In no way does he prove empirically or theoretically here that the sear would fail to retain the striker.  

He further goes into a dimensional analysis of the components in 4 against a partially supplied sig technical drawing in fig 8. First he admits the CT scan used to gather the empirical dimensional data was insufficient to qualify the values against the drawing. This is due to the scans used being unable to capture 3D geometric data. At best you could call them approximations which sure as hell is not what you should be using when trying to make conclusive statements. The first dimension falls within the tolerance zone for the sear nose radius. The radius for the striker foot is approximated to be .009” which exceeds the print call out of .002” max (0.05mm). The deviation value likely means the striker is a non-conforming component, but Mr. Hicks provides no analysis giving any indication that the non-conformance yields an unsafe component. He makes an assumption the specification reflects functional safety based parameter with nothing but conjecture to back it up.

Moving to 5 is where I’ll be honest, I get annoyed by the amount of ineptitude shown by the examiner and just how out of depth he is. He starts by showing a supposed mismatch is striker foot and sear face size. How much more the striker foot face extends above the sear face is entirely superfluous and it is very likely intentionally insured to be longer so deformation or manufacturing variance of the sear doesn’t yield a condition in which the sear would hook over the striker foot into the relief location. It’s as if the examiners only experience in sear engagement design is with an original positive engagement 1911 sear or simply believes that because the striker foot kinda looks like a hook, it should act like one. Followed by referring to .038” of sear and striker overlap as being minimal and at risk of disengagement. This is kind of an absurd statement on multiple fronts, A) he presents this as minimal when the reality is .038” of sear engagement and often even less is exceptionally common in firearms and in no way extraordinary on its own. B) he presents no evidence or analysis showing how far these components can move apart without trigger actuation to support it being extraordinary.  He also ends up making simple English to metric conversion errors once again (seriously, fire your intern man or whoever proof reads your documents)

Maybe I’ll get around to a part II of the review. But to be honest it continues about the same. Plenty of call outs of crappy engineering practices by sig (and they are crappy) and out of depth supposition of outputs from said practices (they made the part shitty, so it must also be unsafe.) but an entire lack of any empirical evidence or testing yielding the supposed failure or even simulated failure.  It’s the engineering equivalent of an ad hominem hack piece, saying the equivalent of “Sig cheated on their wife, has 2 DUI’s, lied on their tax return, and kicked a puppy; so obviously they must have also killed neighbor’s dog.

ETA. This is all to simply say, I think Sig makes some shitty engineering and manufacturing choices, but as much as I dislike them, I hate unethical “expert witnesses” and predatory lawfare even more.

Quoted:

sure about that?

Go watch the video.  Notice the 45+ minutes on ethics challenges.  

Shit, that's how Glock orginally won in the 80's 90's with PD's - strippers and parties for the right decision makers.   You sure no favor wa curried?   you sure the Army didn't just half ass for the much cheaper pistol?


shit, go read on how they half assed the trials with beater M4's and random mags vs New oiled SCAR's

Quoted:



WTF, are you talking about? I'm talking about the E3s, Security Police, and E4s that were wearing pistols that went off in their holsters. I'm well aware a General got placed on the SIG payroll after he retired and has been pushing inferior products onto the US Army.