[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 108 of 142)
|
Quoted: I tried it with a Glock. https://imgur.com/a/vhjwBbo It works just like it does with a Sig. It's going to work exactly the same with any striker pistol where pulling the trigger forces the sear down. With a Glock or a P320, pulling the trigger defeats the striker block during the take up portion of the trigger pull, then starts forcing the sear down. At some point in the trigger stroke, it is inevitable that the striker block will have been defeated and the sear will have been lowered until the remaining sear engagement is less than the vertical slop in the slide, creating a condition where slide movement will finish releasing the sear. I believe the P320 has an issue, but a behavior that's inevitable in many (not all) striker fired designs probably ain't part of it. The envelope where this can happen in a Glock is smaller than the P320's envelope by a large amount. Your trigger was pulled almost fully to the rear in order to make that happen. Additionally, there are no known issues with Glock causing hangups in the sear engagement, and if the trigger doesn't get stuck pulled almost fully to the rear, then it can be assumed that full sear engagment is present owing to the design of the trigger housing which forces the cruciform to move up as the trigger and striker move forward. These failures are an IQ test: Can you combine issues A, B, C, and D and have a failure? Some of you get hung up on "well other guns have issue C so this isn't just a Sig problem! Checkmate!" 
|
|
Quoted: Removing the screw after applying the slight movement, then applying pressure, and having a discharge would have been much more interesting. That would be very interesting and would prove the sear has issues resetting correctly after partial loss of contact. Very interesting and problematic, but doesn’t explain how that initial partial loss of contact happens during normal use. People don’t usually take their loaded pistol, pull the trigger to the wall, then pull the trigger past the wall (but somehow not quite enough to fire it, but almost) then let go of the trigger and holster the pistol. I can’t argue nobody could do that, but who would and why? And hundreds of people do that (while simultaneously not NDing as they are fingering the trigger to this perfect spot)? Makes no sense. There must be a method of creating this partial loss of sear engagement absent a trigger pull. |
|
This one goes off with no pressure on the trigger: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMtf-7XycGU/ IG imbed no worky |
|
Quoted: That would be very interesting and would prove the sear has issues resetting correctly after partial loss of contact. Very interesting and problematic, but doesn’t explain how that initial partial loss of contact happens during normal use. People don’t usually take their loaded pistol, pull the trigger to the wall, then pull the trigger past the wall (but somehow not quite enough to fire it, but almost) then let go of the trigger and holster the pistol. I can’t argue nobody could do that, but who would and why? And hundreds of people do that (while simultaneously not NDing as they are fingering the trigger to this perfect spot)? Makes no sense. There must be a method of creating this partial loss of sear engagement absent a trigger pull. Quoted: Quoted: Removing the screw after applying the slight movement, then applying pressure, and having a discharge would have been much more interesting. That would be very interesting and would prove the sear has issues resetting correctly after partial loss of contact. Very interesting and problematic, but doesn’t explain how that initial partial loss of contact happens during normal use. People don’t usually take their loaded pistol, pull the trigger to the wall, then pull the trigger past the wall (but somehow not quite enough to fire it, but almost) then let go of the trigger and holster the pistol. I can’t argue nobody could do that, but who would and why? And hundreds of people do that (while simultaneously not NDing as they are fingering the trigger to this perfect spot)? Makes no sense. There must be a method of creating this partial loss of sear engagement absent a trigger pull. You say this, but his post almost describes the P365 videos. To me, that looks more like a transient friction issue that would be fixed with lubrication or a stronger trigger return spring, but a few people have done it on video. |
|
Quoted: The envelope where this can happen in a Glock is smaller than the P320's envelope by a large amount. Quoted: The envelope where this can happen in a Glock is smaller than the P320's envelope by a large amount. I'd like to see you quantify that. Quoted: Your trigger was pulled almost fully to the rear in order to make that happen. Yeah, no shit. The P320's trigger was pulled almost to the release point as well. You can tell because the sear had partially lowered. When the sear starts lowering, the pistol is about to fire. Quoted: Additionally, there are no known issues with Glock causing hangups in the sear engagement, and if the trigger doesn't get stuck pulled almost fully to the rear, then it can be assumed that full sear engagment is present owing to the design of the trigger housing which forces the cruciform to move up as the trigger and striker move forward. That's nice. I made my video in response to the people who think that the behavior in question is unique to the P320. It isn't. It's an inherent behavior in any striker fired gun that forces the sear down through trigger movement. Quoted: These failures are an IQ test: Well, when you're right, you're right. |
|
Quoted: This one goes off with no pressure on the trigger: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMtf-7XycGU/ IG imbed no worky Now this is going to be an instance where I say, yeah nah. The lockup of the barrel is what sets the forward limit for slide travel in a completely assembled gun. Without the barrel in place, if you let the slide travel beyond that point, you can expect wonky things to happen. If you want to prove something like this and you feel like all P320's are trash anyway, cut away the chamber of a P320 barrel while leaving the locking surfaces intact, so that you can see the striker movement. |
|
Quoted: That's nice. I made my video in response to the people who think that the behavior in question is unique to the P320. It isn't. It's an inherent behavior in any striker fired gun that forces the sear down through trigger movement. Quoted: That's nice. I made my video in response to the people who think that the behavior in question is unique to the P320. It isn't. It's an inherent behavior in any striker fired gun that forces the sear down through trigger movement. Bruh. Quoted: These failures are an IQ test: Can you combine issues A, B, C, and D and have a failure? Some of you get hung up on "well other guns have issue C so this isn't just a Sig problem! Checkmate!" |
|
Quoted: Bruh. Quoted: Quoted: That's nice. I made my video in response to the people who think that the behavior in question is unique to the P320. It isn't. It's an inherent behavior in any striker fired gun that forces the sear down through trigger movement. Bruh. Quoted: These failures are an IQ test: Can you combine issues A, B, C, and D and have a failure? Some of you get hung up on "well other guns have issue C so this isn't just a Sig problem! Checkmate!" "Try it on a Glock, report back with your findings" *does* *autistic screeching* |
|
Quoted: "Try it on a Glock, report back with your findings" *does* *autistic screeching* Quoted: "Try it on a Glock, report back with your findings" *does* *autistic screeching* Easy to set up that strawman and knock it down, huh? You fabricated a quote. Here's what I actually said: Quoted: None of their competitors have such sloppy slide to frame fit. That is what exacerbates the P320 issues. If there's any propensity for the striker to "walk" off the sear during movement between the slide and frame, the odds go up significantly when the slide is so free to move around. The issues with poor quality striker/sear MIM parts are also not shared with their competitors. The issues with the striker safety being easily defeated or assembled incorrectly from the factory are also not shared with their competitors. It's almost like almost none of this applies to their competitors, too. |
|
Quoted: I'd like to see you quantify that. Quoted: Quoted: The envelope where this can happen in a Glock is smaller than the P320's envelope by a large amount. I'd like to see you quantify that. Does he need to? We know the P320 has far more movement in the slide to frame fit which, by itself, means his statement is correct. And that's without even getting into the P320's floating sear design, crappy engagement surfaces, or anything else. |
|
Quoted: Easy to set up that strawman and knock it down, huh? You fabricated a quote. Quoted: Quoted: "Try it on a Glock, report back with your findings" *does* *autistic screeching* Easy to set up that strawman and knock it down, huh? You fabricated a quote.  Screech on, brother. Quoted: Does he need to? We know the P320 has far more movement in the slide to frame fit which, by itself, means his statement is correct. If we know that, then we should be able to quantify it. If we can't quantify it, then we don't know it, we believe it. That's why I keep saying that i believe the P320 has a problem causing it to fire without a trigger pull: I can't prove it, but I think it's likely. |
|
Quoted: Easy to set up that strawman and knock it down, huh? You fabricated a quote. Here's what I actually said: Quoted: Quoted: "Try it on a Glock, report back with your findings" *does* *autistic screeching* Easy to set up that strawman and knock it down, huh? You fabricated a quote. Here's what I actually said: Quoted: None of their competitors have such sloppy slide to frame fit. That is what exacerbates the P320 issues. If there's any propensity for the striker to "walk" off the sear during movement between the slide and frame, the odds go up significantly when the slide is so free to move around. The issues with poor quality striker/sear MIM parts are also not shared with their competitors. The issues with the striker safety being easily defeated or assembled incorrectly from the factory are also not shared with their competitors. It's almost like almost none of this applies to their competitors, too. If a sear can walk, then any amount of play in the slide/frame will allow that walking to happen. Whether that play is a little or a lot just impacts the number of compression and decompression cycles it takes for that walking sear to make its steps. Small steps or big strides. So, sure, it can make it worse… but it would still be flawed even if the clearance was reduced. You’d still have a sear walking, just walking more slowly. The issue is a floating sear that can walk, and the sear not being “bottomless” as Mischief Machine quite well demonstrates. He talks a lot about how that bottom which I’ve been calling a shelf limits overall engagement or how the surfaces can be poorly finished, but I think the design there causes a V trap which can collect debris and wedge the sear down. That would explain how any P320 can fire, when carried in a holster especially, because of an inherent part of the design.  Failed To Load Title |
|
Quoted: If a sear can walk, then any amount of play in the slide/frame will allow that walking to happen Good way to start your post with an obvious falsehood. "Any amount" of play in the slide frame will not cause the sear to walk. Why? There is necessarily also play in the striker within the slide, and the sear (or trigger bar in Glock-style designs) within the frame. So, in order for the sear to walk, the play in the slide to frame fit must exceed the combined play in the striker to slide fit and the sear to frame fit. If it doesn't, everything just wiggles around together. |
|
Quoted: If we know that, then we should be able to quantify it. If we can't quantify it, then we don't know it, we believe it. That's why I keep saying that i believe the P320 has a problem causing it to fire without a trigger pull: I can't prove it, but I think it's likely. Quoted: Quoted: Does he need to? We know the P320 has far more movement in the slide to frame fit which, by itself, means his statement is correct. If we know that, then we should be able to quantify it. If we can't quantify it, then we don't know it, we believe it. That's why I keep saying that i believe the P320 has a problem causing it to fire without a trigger pull: I can't prove it, but I think it's likely. It can be quantified. Anyone can sit down with a pile of striker pistols and a caliper and measure the vertical range of motion of the slide. But is there actual value in collecting those numbers when we see, from a layman's view, that the P320 has more slop than the field? |
|
Quoted: Good way to start your post with an obvious falsehood. "Any amount" of play in the slide frame will not cause the sear to walk. Why? There is necessarily also play in the striker within the slide, and the sear (or trigger bar in Glock-style designs) within the frame. So, in order for the sear to walk, the play in the slide to frame fit must exceed the combined play in the striker to slide fit and the sear to frame fit. If it doesn't, everything just wiggles around together. Quoted: Quoted: If a sear can walk, then any amount of play in the slide/frame will allow that walking to happen Good way to start your post with an obvious falsehood. "Any amount" of play in the slide frame will not cause the sear to walk. Why? There is necessarily also play in the striker within the slide, and the sear (or trigger bar in Glock-style designs) within the frame. So, in order for the sear to walk, the play in the slide to frame fit must exceed the combined play in the striker to slide fit and the sear to frame fit. If it doesn't, everything just wiggles around together. Okay, so does the amount of play in the SIG slide exceed that play in the striker? Can we just make the striker undersized so it can move more and fix this? No, because then it can move up the opposite way and fire. You can’t wiggle a P320 slide if everything is operating normally with the trigger not pulled and make it fire. People have tried that endlessly. Wyoming couldn’t do it, that’s why he had to pin the trigger rearward to artificially remove engagement. Regardless, the sear should rebound back up rather than walking. Why is it staying depressed? |
|
Emphasis mine: Quoted: You can’t wiggle a P320 slide if everything is operating normally with the trigger not pulled and make it fire. Quoted: You can’t wiggle a P320 slide if everything is operating normally with the trigger not pulled and make it fire. So now we're back to doing this again: Quoted: These failures are an IQ test: Can you combine issues A, B, C, and D and have a failure? Some of you get hung up on "well other guns have issue C so this isn't just a Sig problem! Checkmate!" This is exactly why I covered why it matters: Quoted: Because there is some element of randomness to the sear engagement after every cycle of the slide. If you had a cutaway gun under high speed video, I firmly believe you would see evidence of this. The sear is left "floating" on the sear springs after the trigger disconnects when the slide moves to the rear. It is free to bounce up and down under the forces of recoil and cycling (including when the slide bottoms out at full travel, slide strikes the back of the cartridge case to begin feeding, when the nose of the bullet strikes the feed ramp, and when the bullet frees itself from the feed lips.) All of those forces can induce small accelerations in the overall system which will cause anything free-floating to move around a bit. I have actually watched a good deal of high speed video of pistols operating, and you'd be surprised what you see going on. If things can move, they do. The magazine bounces around in the frame. The round bounces around after it's struck by the slide. The slide release bounces around. It is chaotic. Now how Sig (and other manufactures, S&W for instance) solve for this is with negative sear angle. If the sear catches the striker at all, the negative sear angle forces the sear and striker to come to full engagement, ----> IF <----- the negative sear angle can overcome friction. That's a very big IF in the case of the P320. The surfaces need to be free of burrs and other defects. I don't know why it is so hard to understand that multiple compounding factors are at play, and slide/frame fit being able to cause the sear to walk is only one issue. If one issue alone is not enough to cause an uncommanded discharge, but several issues in combination are, it's pretty obvious that one issue in isolation doesn't explain the whole problem. And writing that issue off as being irrelevant because it isn't 100% responsible is a failure of very simple reasoning. |
|
Quoted: It can be quantified. Anyone can sit down with a pile of striker pistols and a caliper and measure the vertical range of motion of the slide. But is there actual value in collecting those numbers when we see, from a layman's view, that the P320 has more slop than the field? Quoted: It can be quantified. Anyone can sit down with a pile of striker pistols and a caliper and measure the vertical range of motion of the slide. But is there actual value in collecting those numbers when we see, from a layman's view, that the P320 has more slop than the field? If you want to actually know, instead of just believing, then yeah, there's value in measurement. Perception is flawed. Quoted: Curious how you cropped not-my-quote to hide who actually wrote that. You were quoting my post when you attributed the quote to me. Silly me, I thought any reasonable person would know that I was attributing that to the original person I had replied to, before |
 Sig P320 accidental discharge tested in CNC machine. New video of the “screw manipulation” but using a cnc for accurate testing |
|
Quoted: So this video is actually wild. Sig screwed up redacting a file that's very incriminating. For background on why it matters, the FBI BRF evaluation of the P320 showed that the striker safety is wildly ineffective. I think we all knew that. This other document from like eight years ago was something Sig submitted as part of the MHS contract. It ended up as evidence in an ongoing lawsuit, but comically over-redacted so you can't see any of the details of what it's about. A guy on Instagram found it and figured out that they had "redacted" the PDF by leaving the text in place and just putting big black boxes on top of them, that you can remove with any software that edits PDFs. So what they were covering up in the document with redactions is Sig's self-evaluation that the M17 had a reasonable expectation of various sear failures that would cause the gun to go off, BUT - and this is a big, all-caps, BUT - Sig claimed to the Army that their mitigation for those sear failures is the striker safety. You know, the one that it turns out doesn't effin work. Sig knew about this for YEARS man.  Would that be the reason they added the secondary sear notch that doesn't work? |
This video is 7 years old. Nothing has changed, except now they come in FDE.  Drop test a sig p320 yes it goes BANG!! 1st time on carpet! |
|
Quoted:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYwUJejL88New video of the “screw manipulation” but using a cnc for accurate testing This kind of testing is great, not an expert but by how far the trigger has to be pulled it looks like his is a good one, it is a sample of one and the people that are posting in the comments make it seem like if this one is good then they all are good. |
|
Quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYwUJejL88New video of the “screw manipulation” but using a cnc for accurate testing Would like to see this with multiple P320s and multiple other brands' guns. |
|
Attached File Here’s the current DM running around to explain the recent sigcident. |
|
Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/312684/IMG_7875_jpeg-3597139.JPG Here’s the current DM running around to explain the recent sigcident. Where is the account of the other person being shot if this is the case? |
|
Quoted: This video is 7 years old. Nothing has changed, except now they come in FDE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsljmVh-GFQNo, something significant has changed. 320s, if they've been "voluntarily upgraded" won't fire if they land tits up; they now require being carried in a holster to unexpectedly discharge. There's some evidence the current issue stems from how SIG changed the FCU parts relationship in the "upgrade". |
|
Quoted: Where is the account of the other person being shot if this is the case? Quoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/312684/IMG_7875_jpeg-3597139.JPG Here’s the current DM running around to explain the recent sigcident. Where is the account of the other person being shot if this is the case? Wouldn't have to be a second airman shot. Airman A shoots airman B, Airman A claims Airman B was shot by Airman B's own M18. https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2804847_You-re-on-a-murder-jury-The-weapon-was-a-SIG-P320-.html |
|
Quoted: Wouldn't have to be a second airman shot. Airman A shoots airman B, Airman A claims Airman B was shot by Airman B's own M18. https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2804847_You-re-on-a-murder-jury-The-weapon-was-a-SIG-P320-.html I have heard this too from reliable sources. Also -- https://soldiersystems.net/2025/07/29/ice-renews-p320-contract-through-july-2027/ ICE renewed their contract with SIG and the P320 last week. The whole ICE thing was fake hype shit, wonder how much of this actually is? |
|
Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/312684/IMG_7875_jpeg-3597139.JPG Here's the current DM running around to explain the recent sigcident. |
|
Quoted: Wouldn't have to be a second airman shot. Airman A shoots airman B, Airman A claims Airman B was shot by Airman B's own M18. https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2804847_You-re-on-a-murder-jury-The-weapon-was-a-SIG-P320-.html I misread it. I thought it said they shot each other |
|
Quoted: I have heard this too from reliable sources. Also -- https://soldiersystems.net/2025/07/29/ice-renews-p320-contract-through-july-2027/ ICE renewed their contract with SIG and the P320 last week. The whole ICE thing was fake hype shit, wonder how much of this actually is? The ICE thing is due to budgeting purposes. Congress told then no funds for new guns so they are stuck with the 320 contract |
|
Quoted: Main thing im getting at is that the news the prior week was "ICE DROPPED THE P320 CONTRACT" which was straight up false. Quoted: Quoted: The ICE thing is due to budgeting purposes. Congress told then no funds for new guns so they are stuck with the 320 contract Main thing im getting at is that the news the prior week was "ICE DROPPED THE P320 CONTRACT" which was straight up false. Was it? 
|
|
Quoted: The ICE thing is due to budgeting purposes. Congress told then no funds for new guns so they are stuck with the 320 contract Quoted: Quoted: I have heard this too from reliable sources. Also -- https://soldiersystems.net/2025/07/29/ice-renews-p320-contract-through-july-2027/ ICE renewed their contract with SIG and the P320 last week. The whole ICE thing was fake hype shit, wonder how much of this actually is? The ICE thing is due to budgeting purposes. Congress told then no funds for new guns so they are stuck with the 320 contract That would have a paper trail, right? Whose name is on that? |
|
10 days later they renew the P320 contract. That's all I'm saying. |
|
ICE has a contract with SIG, which was originally to buy 320s. That is still in existence. However, they do not have to buy 320s- they just have to spend the money on SIG products. So they're going to buy 365s, holsters, ammo, etc. So both can be true: the contract is still in effect and ICE is still dropping use of the 320. |
|
Quoted: 10 days later they renew the P320 contract. That's all I'm saying. Quoted: 10 days later they renew the P320 contract. That's all I'm saying. Do you think this means: A) DHS changed their minds on their own for whatever reason. B) Sig did something to incentivize someone to change DHS's position. |
|
Quoted: ICE has a contract with SIG, which was originally to buy 320s. That is still in existence. However, they do not have to buy 320s- they just have to spend the money on SIG products. So they're going to buy 365s, holsters, ammo, etc. So both can be true: the contract is still in effect and ICE is still dropping use of the 320. Quoted: ICE has a contract with SIG, which was originally to buy 320s. That is still in existence. However, they do not have to buy 320s- they just have to spend the money on SIG products. So they're going to buy 365s, holsters, ammo, etc. So both can be true: the contract is still in effect and ICE is still dropping use of the 320. This was actually an OPTION to extend the contract. They did not have to extend it, they willingly chose to. It also says nowhere that it isn't for the P320. I genuinely do not believe ICE or DHS would willingly and knowingly choose an unsafe firearm, especially with govt money printers at their back so the whole "SIG paid them off" doesn't really work for me. Quoted: Do you think this means: A) DHS changed their minds on their own for whatever reason. B) Sig did something to incentivize someone to change DHS's position. A |
|
Quoted: This was actually an OPTION to extend the contract. They did not have to extend it, they willingly chose to. It also says nowhere that it isn't for the P320. I genuinely do not believe ICE or DHS would willingly and knowingly choose an unsafe firearm, especially with govt money printers at their back so the whole "SIG paid them off" doesn't really work for me. A Quoted: Quoted: ICE has a contract with SIG, which was originally to buy 320s. That is still in existence. However, they do not have to buy 320s- they just have to spend the money on SIG products. So they're going to buy 365s, holsters, ammo, etc. So both can be true: the contract is still in effect and ICE is still dropping use of the 320. This was actually an OPTION to extend the contract. They did not have to extend it, they willingly chose to. It also says nowhere that it isn't for the P320. I genuinely do not believe ICE or DHS would willingly and knowingly choose an unsafe firearm, especially with govt money printers at their back so the whole "SIG paid them off" doesn't really work for me. Quoted: Do you think this means: A) DHS changed their minds on their own for whatever reason. B) Sig did something to incentivize someone to change DHS's position. A The memo above doesn't say ICE wants to buy new guns. It says ICE officers are no longer authorized to carry P320s. Why would it say that? And why would that position change? |
|
Quoted: The memo above doesn't say ICE wants to buy new guns. It says ICE officers are no longer authorized to carry P320s. Why would it say that? And why would that position change? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ICE has a contract with SIG, which was originally to buy 320s. That is still in existence. However, they do not have to buy 320s- they just have to spend the money on SIG products. So they're going to buy 365s, holsters, ammo, etc. So both can be true: the contract is still in effect and ICE is still dropping use of the 320. This was actually an OPTION to extend the contract. They did not have to extend it, they willingly chose to. It also says nowhere that it isn't for the P320. I genuinely do not believe ICE or DHS would willingly and knowingly choose an unsafe firearm, especially with govt money printers at their back so the whole "SIG paid them off" doesn't really work for me. Quoted: Do you think this means: A) DHS changed their minds on their own for whatever reason. B) Sig did something to incentivize someone to change DHS's position. A The memo above doesn't say ICE wants to buy new guns. It says ICE officers are no longer authorized to carry P320s. Why would it say that? And why would that position change? And where is the memorandum reversing it? |
|
Quoted: The memo above doesn't say ICE wants to buy new guns. It says ICE officers are no longer authorized to carry P320s. Why would it say that? And why would that position change? It literally does say that they are to come up with a plan to acquire new glocks. Look - I'm not trying to be contentious here, I am looking at exactly what these 2 things say...not straying away from fact or even giving MY opinion at all. Solely based on the info in front of us. |
| One thing that befuddles me with the FCU and the abundant slide to frame up/down play (slop) - While the FCU incorporates slide rails, it is only the upper rails and no provision for lower guide rails. Instead, I guess the grip module is left to (very poorly) perform that task. You could argue that Glock doesn’t use lower guide rails either and it also relies on the frame to perform that task, the immediate response could be we’re not discussing Glock randomly popping off and Glock didn’t design their their handguns around a removable FCU, either. |
|
Quoted: One thing that befuddles me with the FCU and the abundant slide to frame up/down play (slop) - While the FCU incorporates slide rails, it is only the upper rails and no provision for lower guide rails. Instead, I guess the grip module is left to (very poorly) perform that task. You could argue that Glock doesn't use lower guide rails either and it also relies on the frame to perform that task, the immediate response could be we're not discussing Glock randomly popping off and Glock didn't design their their handguns around a removable FCU, either. |
|
|
Quoted: The rails perform that task. The slide rails and frame rails are cut to specific sizes to prevent excess movement. Some Sig's appear to daughter have super thin frame rails, or excessively tall slide rails. Quoted: Quoted: One thing that befuddles me with the FCU and the abundant slide to frame up/down play (slop) - While the FCU incorporates slide rails, it is only the upper rails and no provision for lower guide rails. Instead, I guess the grip module is left to (very poorly) perform that task. You could argue that Glock doesn't use lower guide rails either and it also relies on the frame to perform that task, the immediate response could be we're not discussing Glock randomly popping off and Glock didn't design their their handguns around a removable FCU, either. Doesn’t seem to be working, though. Also, it’s more about slide-to-FCU slop. Never mind the grip module. It’s the slide-to-FCU slop that needs to be cordoned. |
|
Did you clap and do a bunch of fist pumps? |