SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    P320 Drop Safety in Question (Formerly DPD Recall thread)
Page 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
P320 Drop Safety in Question (Formerly DPD Recall thread) Login/Join 
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
I'm having a hard time believing that Sig would design a handgun with that small of an engagement surface on a critical interface. .25 mm is 1\64 of an inch. That's not an engagement surface, it's shim stock. There has to be a mistake in the numbers.


quote:
Originally posted by roboster2013:
Also, the edge of the striker foot which has a height thickness of approximately 2mm, is only making contact with approximately .25 of a mm of the leading edge only of the disconnector hook. Since the striker has been changed with a lighter weight version during the “upgrade program”, it is quite possible that any abrupt movement or twisting of the P-320 while holstered, could cause the foot of the striker to disengage itself from the disconnector hook on its own since there is so little contact between the striker foot and the [sear]." In a subsequent interview with a Boston news station, Viillani also stated "'Either Sig Sauer or their subcontractors, who made the parts for them, never finished the parts,' Villani said. 'They basically put the parts in raw so that the surface contacts weren't very finely tuned, so that would cause slippage.' So, since you too are a Sig armorer, I would be very interested in your take on MAJ Villani's conclusions.


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 6836 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I can see substantially more wear indication on my striker and sear, than that.

Pull your P320 apart and look for yourself. It's obvious.

If you're really in need of the data, then mark the striker with some prussian blue or even a dry erase marker and dry fire a few times. Then measure.
 
Posts: 5659 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have one of the original P320 pistols purchased through the range master program. I used it for IDPA and an LE league. In and out of numerous holsters for the last six years and no unintentional discharges!


DPR
 
Posts: 543 | Registered: March 10, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SgtGold:
I'm having a hard time believing that Sig would design a handgun with that small of an engagement surface on a critical interface. .25 mm is 1\64 of an inch. That's not an engagement surface, it's shim stock. There has to be a mistake in the numbers.


quote:
Originally posted by roboster2013:
Also, the edge of the striker foot which has a height thickness of approximately 2mm, is only making contact with approximately .25 of a mm of the leading edge only of the disconnector hook. Since the striker has been changed with a lighter weight version during the “upgrade program”, it is quite possible that any abrupt movement or twisting of the P-320 while holstered, could cause the foot of the striker to disengage itself from the disconnector hook on its own since there is so little contact between the striker foot and the [sear]." In a subsequent interview with a Boston news station, Viillani also stated "'Either Sig Sauer or their subcontractors, who made the parts for them, never finished the parts,' Villani said. 'They basically put the parts in raw so that the surface contacts weren't very finely tuned, so that would cause slippage.' So, since you too are a Sig armorer, I would be very interested in your take on MAJ Villani's conclusions.


Seems rather small to me as well, but that is the figure that is quoted in the lawsuit filing. One other question is, if accurate, is that common to all 320s manufactured, or is it just common to some? Do we have a design flaw affecting all 320s, or a manufacturing flaw that only affects some 320s? If it is the later, it could explain why we haven't seen widespread wholesale unintended discharges with the 320.
 
Posts: 11 | Registered: December 31, 2020Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
Or a flaw effecting lawyers? That is the more likely question. Th e 320 suit seems to highlight the desperate need for a “loser pays” system. Right now, it’s the ghetto lottery where dumbasses can have NDs and GET PAID!




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 34943 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Prepared for the Worst, Providing the Best
Picture of 92fstech
posted Hide Post
quote:
Seems rather small to me as well, but that is the figure that is quoted in the lawsuit filing. One other question is, if accurate, is that common to all 320s manufactured, or is it just common to some? Do we have a design flaw affecting all 320s, or a manufacturing flaw that only affects some 320s? If it is the later, it could explain why we haven't seen widespread wholesale unintended discharges with the 320.


Are you hearing anything that anyone is saying here?

Once again, the document states that Maj. Villani is an armorer. The Sig armorer class does not train an individual to evaluate the tolerances of parts the gun beyond the point of basic function, only to test function and replace parts as needed. I can't verify that the major measured properly, nor can I speak to the proper spec for that engagement surface, as this is not something that an armorer is trained on.

I don't see where it says anything about Maj Villani being able to replicate the problem, or in any way to induce the striker hook to slip off the sear while the gun was assembled. Nor do I see him addressing the issue of the striker safety and how that would have been defeated without the trigger being pulled in order to allow the gun to fire. These would be the things that an armorer should be looking for. Instead, all I see is him speculating about one measurement without replicating the supposed issue, or even comparing his observations to the factory spec for the engagement surface.

I would assume that as part of this investigation the gun would have been evaluated by an engineer, either from Sig or someone independent. Where are the results of that report? I'd like to see evidence from someone with the appropriate qualifications stating whether or not the gun is out of spec, replicating the issue, and explaining the full sequence of events that allowed it to discharge without the trigger being pulled.

Absent that, I find it much more plausible that the officer in question either pulled the trigger himself, or allowed it to be pulled by some other foreign object through negligent handling.
 
Posts: 4134 | Location: In the Cornfields | Registered: May 25, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 92fstech:
quote:
Seems rather small to me as well, but that is the figure that is quoted in the lawsuit filing. One other question is, if accurate, is that common to all 320s manufactured, or is it just common to some? Do we have a design flaw affecting all 320s, or a manufacturing flaw that only affects some 320s? If it is the later, it could explain why we haven't seen widespread wholesale unintended discharges with the 320.


Are you hearing anything that anyone is saying here?

Once again, the document states that Maj. Villani is an armorer. The Sig armorer class does not train an individual to evaluate the tolerances of parts the gun beyond the point of basic function, only to test function and replace parts as needed. I can't verify that the major measured properly, nor can I speak to the proper spec for that engagement surface, as this is not something that an armorer is trained on.

I don't see where it says anything about Maj Villani being able to replicate the problem, or in any way to induce the striker hook to slip off the sear while the gun was assembled. Nor do I see him addressing the issue of the striker safety and how that would have been defeated without the trigger being pulled in order to allow the gun to fire. These would be the things that an armorer should be looking for. Instead, all I see is him speculating about one measurement without replicating the supposed issue, or even comparing his observations to the factory spec for the engagement surface.

I would assume that as part of this investigation the gun would have been evaluated by an engineer, either from Sig or someone independent. Where are the results of that report? I'd like to see evidence from someone with the appropriate qualifications stating whether or not the gun is out of spec, replicating the issue, and explaining the full sequence of events that allowed it to discharge without the trigger being pulled.

Absent that, I find it much more plausible that the officer in question either pulled the trigger himself, or allowed it to be pulled by some other foreign object through negligent handling.


Evidently you missed my qualifier "if accurate" Obviously if the information attributed to MAJ Villani is not accurate then it has no value. If the data is accurate, then the questions become why was this the case? Is this common to all 320s, or is it an anomaly? And as you point out, what are the factory specs for the engagement surface, and from a firearm engineering standpoint, what should they be?

"I would assume that as part of this investigation the gun would have been evaluated by an engineer, either from Sig or someone independent. Where are the results of that report? I'd like to see evidence from someone with the appropriate qualifications stating whether or not the gun is out of spec, replicating the issue, and explaining the full sequence of events that allowed it to discharge without the trigger being pulled."

I would like to see that as well. It could go a long way to determining whether there is actually an issue with the 320, or if these were simply NDs. Unfortunately, the trial isn't scheduled to start until 3/15/2022, so it may be some time before that information is publicized. It would be great if there was someone in the sigforum community who actually knew the answer to the engineering questions that have been posed.

I personally don't have a dog in this fight as I do not currently own a 320. I have several other Sigs, but not a 320. I, like many others, would simply like to definitively know if there is any merit to the AD allegations, or whether these were NDs.
 
Posts: 11 | Registered: December 31, 2020Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Unflappable Enginerd
Picture of stoic-one
posted Hide Post
quote:
It would be great if there was someone in the sigforum community who actually knew the answer to the engineering questions that have been posed.
I'm MORE than certain there are a couple people here that could answer the questions (actually involved in the design), will they is the real question. There's a better than 50-50 chance those very people may be queued up to actually testify or submit documentation if it becomes necessary.


__________________________________

NRA Benefactor
I lost all my weapons in a boating, umm, accident.
http://www.aufamily.com/forums/
 
Posts: 4675 | Location: Headland, AL | Registered: April 19, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by stoic-one:
quote:
It would be great if there was someone in the sigforum community who actually knew the answer to the engineering questions that have been posed.
I'm MORE than certain there are a couple people here that could answer the questions, will they is the real question. There's a better than 50-50 chance those very people may be queued up to actually testify or submit documentation if it becomes necessary.


If queued to provide testimony or documentation, I suppose it would not go well for them if they gave us a sneak peak at the info. :-)
 
Posts: 11 | Registered: December 31, 2020Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Behold my
Radiance!
Picture of Grayguns
posted Hide Post
What is a "disconnector hook"? Who writes this drivel?

The net sear engagement height of post-voluntary upgrade P320's is nominally 1mm, or about .040".

-Bruce




Designer and custom pistolsmith at Grayguns Inc. Privileged to be R&D consultant to the world's greatest maker of fine firearms: SIG SAUER

Visit us at http://opspectraining.com/product-cat/videos/ to order yours, and Thank You for making GGI the leader in custom SIG and HK pistolsmithing and high-grade components.

Bruce Gray, President
Grayguns Inc.
Grayguns.com / 888.585.4729
 
Posts: 9505 | Location: Reedsport & Spray, Oregon | Registered: October 06, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
Thanks for that info. Do you have any idea what the pre upgrade sear engagement surface measurement was? I looked at pictures of the original part and they're completly different.

quote:
Originally posted by Grayguns:
What is a "disconnector hook"? Who writes this drivel?

The net sear engagement height of post-voluntary upgrade P320's is nominally 1mm, or about .040".

-Bruce


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 6836 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grayguns:
What is a "disconnector hook"? Who writes this drivel?

The net sear engagement height of post-voluntary upgrade P320's is nominally 1mm, or about .040".

-Bruce


Thanks for the info Bruce. Since you have extensive experience with Sigs in general, and with the P320 in particular, what's your take on these unintended discharges, and the safety of the P320?
 
Posts: 11 | Registered: December 31, 2020Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Meaning only 1mm of contact before bam? How much variance is there? What are some other sear engagements in other brands I wonder. May be just fine but it doesn’t sound like a lot?
 
Posts: 1117 | Location: Roswell,GA,USA | Registered: November 14, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Web Clavin Extraordinaire
Picture of Oat_Action_Man
posted Hide Post
A 1911 sear engagement is less than that. I've seen some diagrams showing .035" at full cock engagement, but my Kuhnhausen shop manual says they can go down to .025".

I'm not a gunsmith, so I could be reading the drawings wrong!


----------------------------

Chuck Norris put the laughter in "manslaughter"

Educating the youth of America, one declension at a time.
 
Posts: 19016 | Location: SE PA | Registered: January 12, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sox:
Meaning only 1mm of contact before bam? How much variance is there? What are some other sear engagements in other brands I wonder. May be just fine but it doesn’t sound like a lot?

Look at the Glock the sear engagement is no more important, disassemble the rear plate of the slide and you can see that.
 
Posts: 457 | Registered: November 09, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by toto:
quote:
Originally posted by sox:
Meaning only 1mm of contact before bam? How much variance is there? What are some other sear engagements in other brands I wonder. May be just fine but it doesn’t sound like a lot?

Look at the Glock the sear engagement is no more important, disassemble the rear plate of the slide and you can see that.


When you rack the slide of a Glock the striker is in the half cock position. In the Sig it's fully cocked. Much bigger problem is the striker is let go by accident.


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 6836 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The only way that P320 is discharging accidentally is when someone presses the trigger, and that's not an accident.

It's stupidity. You can't bubble wrap that.
 
Posts: 5659 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
The question about how much contact there was in the P320 firing mechanism to prevent the striker from being released without pulling the trigger piqued my interest.

The striker pin is held to the rear in the cocked position by the sear that engages the striker pin lug. When the trigger is pulled, the sear is rotated down and the striker released.

The first photo shows the primary engagement surface of the sear circled in yellow. After the Dykem was applied, the slide was put on the gun and the trigger pulled one time. By the rub mark below the sear hook it appears that the lug engages the full height of the sear hook. That seems to be confirmed by the mark on the striker pin lug in the second photo.

I have no way of precisely measuring the height of the sear hook, but using a small rule it’s a bit over 1 millimeter (~0.04"), or just as Bruce Gray reported.

The blue ellipse circles the second engagement hook of the sear that would capture the striker pin lug if it slipped off the primary hook.

Sear:



Front surface of striker pin lug that engages the sear:





To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
— Thomas Paine
 
Posts: 43387 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
Nice photos. It looks like the striker doesn't engage the full 1mm height of the sear, but by the wear pattern in the blue it's captured by a fair amount, and it's centered on the engagement surface. This is the new and improved sear\striker engagement pattern. It would be interesting to see the older style for comparison.

quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
The question about how much contact there was in the P320 firing mechanism to prevent the striker from being released without pulling the trigger piqued my interest.

The striker pin is held to the rear in the cocked position by the sear that engages the striker pin lug. When the trigger is pulled, the sear is rotated down and the striker released.

The first photo shows the primary engagement surface of the sear circled in yellow. After the Dykem was applied, the slide was put on the gun and the trigger pulled one time. By the rub mark below the sear hook it appears that the lug engages the full height of the sear hook. That seems to be confirmed by the mark on the striker pin lug in the second photo.

I have no way of precisely measuring the height of the sear hook, but using a small rule it’s a bit over 1 millimeter (~0.04"), or just as Bruce Gray reported.

The blue ellipse circles the second engagement hook of the sear that would capture the striker pin lug if it slipped off the primary hook.

Sear:



Front surface of striker pin lug that engages the sear:



_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 6836 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
1 mm should be plenty. I just swapped out CGW parts on all my CZ’s and the sear doesn’t engage on those more than 1 mm I can tell you that. This is where my non engineer side still tells me that the firing pin block and half cock notch (on CZ) are still protecting you. I have to think in that 320 fcu there’s a safety as well. Sigfruends picture appears to show one of those. While I own a bunch of 320’s that fcu is still a bit of a mystery to me.
 
Posts: 3319 | Registered: June 18, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    P320 Drop Safety in Question (Formerly DPD Recall thread)

© SIGforum 2021