quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
The reason for no manual safety is that the change to Glocks and similar pistols over the last 30 years has created an entire narrative about how a manual safety can get you killed because you will forget to deactivate it under stress and will only have enough motor control to pull a trigger.

Yet I have seen no actual evidence to support the claim that people carrying pistols with manual safeties "forgot" to deactivate them and subsequently were unable to fire their pistol when drawn.

Who is claiming this?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Let me ask you- do you think this would have happened in the pistol had been a Glock? Everything else exactly the same, but a Glock instead of a P320.

Partially-cocked striker instead of fully-cocked, and the trigger dingus. What happens then?

If your answer is 'no' or 'probably not', then the pistol is a factor, is it not?

Remember all of the Glock ND stories from the 90's when officers went from revolvers to Glocks? As far as holstering, a trigger dingus doesn't mean much if there's an obstruction in the holster as this DEA agent demonstrates to a classroom:



When the cause seems to be holster obstruction, pre-cocked, partially cocked, or trigger dingus doesn't seem to make a difference. If there's something in the holster that would yank a P320 trigger it's generally large enough to defeat the trigger dingus as well.

quote:

Who is claiming this?

Gunstore fudd lore. I've lost track of how many times I've heard a safety on a gun "will get you killed" yet the same twatwaffle has a shotgun with a safety and/or a rifle with a safety. As far as big name "trainers," I think James Yeager was the only one throwing that out there and he had several credibility issues that don't need repeated.

Trigger dingus helps. It’s not a magic bullet against complacency or stupidity. The 320 has a really short throw which is even more intolerant.

I have moved away from 320’s, only have a few left, but I will say they are great shooters (insert joke here I guess lol) and I put one of my fcu’s into a metal frame when Sig put them on sale. It is a really nice handling and shooting gun.

At this point I question why Sig hasn’t at least offered a dingus option or figured out an easy way to add a MS.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
At this point I question why Sig hasn’t at least offered a dingus option or figured out an easy way to add a MS.

Supposedly they were going to offer a dingus in the original literature IIRC, but it never came out. Agency Arms makes one for $75 that's a straight drop in part, but doesn't work for the AXG frame.

And I'd love a manual safety P320, but Sig doesn't seem as interested in promoting it as none of their souped up models have the safety and there is no AXG or TXG frame option that is cut for the manual safety.

It seems to me that at this point, adding a safety blade to the trigger would be a tacit admission that it should have been there in the first place.

And it should have been

^^Exactly what I think is going on.

Same reason that you'll never see a manual safety on a Glock.
Tacit admission that their Safe Action system needed assistance, and perhaps it didn't.

I think that weapons designers, like other disciplines, have some degree of arrogance when it comes to their finalized designs.
This can get them trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by dsiets:

quote:

Originally posted by DirectDrive:
Same reason that you'll never see a manual safety on a Glock.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...-glock-thumb-safety/

That was made because in order to qualify for the NHS trials. If the US Govt didn't force them to put a safety in, they never would have made one.

And as such was not on their 19X that was "suppose" to be their MHS gun but wasn't.

Yeah, keep dreaming, but don't let those Glocks give you nightmares, boys.

I'll take a partially-cocked striker and a safety blade on the trigger over a fully-cocked striker and no safety blade, any day. If you can't discern which is the safer system, well...

Also, if you think the Glock needs a manual safety, then that means you think the P320 is really lacking.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:

quote:

Originally posted by dsiets:

quote:

Originally posted by DirectDrive:
Same reason that you'll never see a manual safety on a Glock.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...-glock-thumb-safety/

That was made because in order to qualify for the NHS trials. If the US Govt didn't force them to put a safety in, they never would have made one.

And if you click on one of the links, in there, there is also a crossbolt safety version for the Taiwanese Police issue Glock 19.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com...fety-taiwan-edition/

I thought I read of one other w/ a slide mounted safety somewhere but can't find it.

I guess the point being, Glock seems to be willing to work for contracts and give them what they want.

Gaston Glock didn't put a manual safety on the pistol, because it didn't need it. It didn't need it then and it doesn't need it now. If you want to make a striker-fired pistol much safer, put a safety blade on the trigger of the P320.

quote:

Originally posted by dsiets:
I thought I read of one other w/ a slide mounted safety somewhere but can't find it.

There's the Cominolli Manual Safety Kit I've seen offered:

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1004084779

Suarez Internation use to offer that service, but it looks like they stopped and this works for Gen 3 only.

quote:

I guess the point being, Glock seems to be willing to work for contracts and give them what they want.

Money talks and even Glock will listen if you front enough of it.

Found this video that provides a better breakdown.

^^^^Yup. It's a hot topic over on that big, totally commercialized Glock forum.

Bend over and have one hell of a shock...

quote:

Originally posted by monoblok:
Bend over and have one hell of a shock...

What does this mean?

quote:

I think that weapons designers, like other disciplines, have some degree of arrogance when it comes to their finalized designs.
This can get them trouble.

Mr Borchardt, paging Hugo Borchardt…

But then, if it weren’t for his insistence that his design was just fine as is, we wouldn’t have gone from this:


To this (with the help of Georg Luger, brought in by DWM after Borchardt dug his heels in on a redesign):


I am kind of guessing though, Sig’s reluctance to change their design is… unlikely to result in anything as cool as the 1900 Luger!

Bill R

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by monoblok:
Bend over and have one hell of a shock...

What does this mean?

Um...I think I see what could be insinuated. However my comment is quite literal. The officer bent over to grab the legs of the guy they were arresting. And supposedly as a result of this action, he and everyone else in the room were in for one hell of surprise when the gun discharged.

I posted a link to the below video elsewhere, but I believe it’s relevant here as well in light of this thread’s subject which is the claim that P320 pistols can self-discharge without the trigger’s being pulled.

When the claim is made that the pistol can fire a round without pulling the trigger I’ve tried to explain that unless the trigger is pulled, the striker assembly part named the “safety lock” blocks the striker from moving far enough forward to contact the cartridge primer. That is, even if the sear were to release the striker by some (unlikely) means, the striker would still be stopped by the safety lock.
But because that verbal description may be difficult to follow and understand, I strongly recommend that anyone who is interested in the question watch the introductory part of the video that clearly illustrates the mechanism’s operation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WqpL7A5zd8&t=25s

The video’s primary purpose, however, is to discuss how triggers that can be adjusted to reduce pretravel can affect the operation of the safety lever and safety lock mechanism. That’s an issue that probably affects only a small percentage of P320 owners, but is still something that should be understood by anyone who may question whether a stock P320 is somehow unsafe.

The video is detailed and somewhat technical, so a brief synopsis of the producer’s findings and discussion:
1. The normal operation of the striker safety lock it to block the movement of the striker unless it (the safety lock) is moved out of the way by the “safety lever” in the fire control unit.
2. The safety lever pushes the safety lock up when the trigger is pulled.
3. Adjusting an adjustable trigger to reduce pretravel partially rotates the trigger to the rear just as if a shooter were pulling on it prior to breaking a shot.
4. When the trigger is pulled or rotated to the rear by the pretravel adjustment, it only has to move a small distance to start pushing up on the safety lever which in turn pushes up the safety lock.
5. When the safety lock is pushed up, that decreases the amount of possible engagement between it and the striker that it’s supposed to block before the trigger is pulled. If the safety lock is pushed up far enough by the pretravel adjustment of a trigger, it won’t block the striker at all if somehow the sear releases the striker.

The point of all this is that improperly adjusting an adjustable trigger to reduce pretravel can reduce the effectiveness of or completely disable an important safety feature of the P320 pistol.

The sear of “upgraded” P320 pistols has two intercept ledges*, the second of which is designed to catch the striker lug if somehow it slips or is jarred off the first ledge, and therefore the striker safety lock isn’t the only thing that would (hopefully) prevent a discharge without the trigger’s being pulled.
The safety lock is nevertheless the final and (IMO) most important safety feature of the pistol and should not be disabled.

* The upgraded P320 sear and its two intercept points:



Edited for terminology.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Can you lift the rear of the slide up enough to disengage the sear?