We need a Crowder table meme with the following sign. Sig 320’s are not just going off on their own. Prove me wrong.

It is why I didn’t originally watch the posted video. I assumed (my bad) it was one of the litany of ridiculous videos that talk a lot and have zero proof. My latest favorites are the guy who disassembles the 320 then holds the slide and frame together and sticks a dental probe into its nethers to defeat one of the safeties. WTF? It either fires on its own or it doesn’t. Either below a certain temperature flame can get around an O ring or it can’t. Science. Somebody prove their hypothesis in a rational manner that is repeatable and makes sense. Until then these videos (most) are merely hit the like button click bait bs.

But the scientific method doesn't help with monetization or scaling your viewer engagement stats...

Alas, I agree with you. (which is why I didn’t watch the video at first lol)

How does a gun, with an internal firing pin block safety, discharge without pulling the trigger? Isn't that the purpose of a firing pin block in the first place? Nobody seems to have brought up this point.

quote:

Originally posted by bob ramberg:
How does a gun, with an internal firing pin block safety, discharge without pulling the trigger? Isn't that the purpose of a firing pin block in the first place? Nobody seems to have brought up this point.

I have had that question as well, and when I saw the video that pedropcola referenced above where the guy stuck a pick inside the back of the gun and pushed the sear down, a thought occurred to me: the sear foot is nested around the trigger bar, which is also nested against the striker safety lever. Is it possible that by pushing the sear down it might move the trigger bar enough, and in turn the safety lever, to defeat the striker safety?

So I chambered a primed case and stuck my gun in a vice and tried it. Five times.

The conclusion: No, the striker safety lever does not move enough to defeat the striker safety, even when the sear is fully depressed. After five attempts, there wasn't even a tiny mark on the primer...the striker pin was captured by the striker safety every time and never came forward of the breech face.

Just because the condition cannot be duplicated does not mean that occurrences of pistols firing without the finger touching the trigger aren’t happening. Maybe the Achilles Heel Tactical event isn’t good evidence to prove that the 320 can fire without a finger on the trigger but there have been enough other videos of pistols firing while in the holster, that weren’t just reholstered to prove that it can happen. Duplication of circumstances is not required to prove that something happened.

I still think that material properties and tolerance stacking are the most probable causes for these uncommanded discharges. If these components were machined out of tool steel, I’d be more confident in them. Frankly, if SIG made these parts in house instead of subcontracting them out, I’d feel more confident in them. I just think it’s unreasonable for a company to so enthusiastically state that parts and pieces that they don’t actually manufacture themselves could not even possibly be a problem. I similarly feel that it’s unreasonable for anyone to categorically deny the possibility that one of these 320 pistols could possibly fire while already in the holster, when there is video evidence of P320 pistols firing unexpectedly when they’re in their holsters. I certainly don’t discount the possibility that a number of the events investigated are caused by improper handling of the gun, but to state that they are ALL caused by mishandling is also false at this point as evidenced by a number of videos out there in the public domain.

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:
Just because the condition cannot be duplicated does not mean that occurrences of pistols firing without the finger touching the trigger aren’t happening. Maybe the Achilles Heel Tactical event isn’t good evidence to prove that the 320 can fire without a finger on the trigger but there have been enough other videos of pistols firing while in the holster, that weren’t just reholstered to prove that it can happen. Duplication of circumstances is not required to prove that something happened.

I still think that material properties and tolerance stacking are the most probable causes for these uncommanded discharges. If these components were machined out of tool steel, I’d be more confident in them. Frankly, if SIG made these parts in house instead of subcontracting them out, I’d feel more confident in them. I just think it’s unreasonable for a company to so enthusiastically state that parts and pieces that they don’t actually manufacture themselves could not even possibly be a problem. I similarly feel that it’s unreasonable for anyone to categorically deny the possibility that one of these 320 pistols could possibly fire while already in the holster, when there is video evidence of P320 pistols firing unexpectedly when they’re in their holsters. I certainly don’t discount the possibility that a number of the events investigated are caused by improper handling of the gun, but to state that they are ALL caused by mishandling is also false at this point as evidenced by a number of videos out there in the public domain.

So what would you propose as a solution then? There are literally millions of these guns in service right now with the military, LE, and private citizens. How do we solve the issue without identifying the problem? We're past the point where it's in any way reasonable to just remove them all from service and replace them with something else...the cost to taxpayers alone would be staggering.

Even if the problem is out-of-spec parts or tolerance stacking, it should be a simple matter for an engineer to take a gun that is suspected of an un-commanded discharge and inspect, measure, and compare the components and tolerances to demonstrate what is allowing the gun to discharge on its own. But so far I've seen no reports that demonstrate that, despite plenty of incentive for someone to produce one.

It's going to take something like that to identify what needs to be fixed.

I wouldn’t assume that all these pistols are manufactured 100% the same way. The testing of one doesn’t necessarily confirm anything about someone else’s gun. I think Sig has some QC issues that are resulting in these discharges.

quote:

Originally posted by FP2000H:
I wouldn’t assume that all these pistols are manufactured 100% the same way. The testing of one doesn’t necessarily confirm anything about someone else’s gun. I think Sig has some QC issues that are resulting in these discharges.

I agree with that. But if one were to examine one of the actual guns that is supposedly experiencing those QC issues, should it not be a simple matter (with the proper tools and technique) to determine what is out of spec, or how the tolerances are allowing the failure? That would identify the problem parts and determine what needs to be recalled.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

quote:

Originally posted by FP2000H:
I wouldn’t assume that all these pistols are manufactured 100% the same way. The testing of one doesn’t necessarily confirm anything about someone else’s gun. I think Sig has some QC issues that are resulting in these discharges.

I agree with that. But if one were to examine one of the actual guns that is supposedly experiencing those QC issues, should it not be a simple matter (with the proper tools and technique) to determine what is out of spec, or how the tolerances are allowing the failure? That would identify the problem parts and determine what needs to be recalled.

Personally, I think part of the problem is the relative unpredictability of a cocked striker in the first place. In the EOD world, a cocked striker is one of the biggest hazards in dealing with ordnance, precisely because of its relative unpredictability. Unquestionably that complicates matters and could possibly explain the difficulty in duplicating some of these issues.

A far as what to do next, likely any solution will drive SIG into bankruptcy or at least hurt them for a number of years financially so I understand why they’re trying to hide from the potential problem. I think one potential solution lies in the P365. The trigger mechanism is different there and with the enormous popularity of that pistol, if there were going to be problems like the P320 has experienced, I feel like we’d have seen them by now. One possibility would be to retrofit the P320 mechanism into a variant of the P365 trigger system and go from there. If this is successful then SIG could issue a recall, not a voluntary upgrade, but a recall and fix all of the P320s out there. This would be enormously costly, so of course SIG isn’t going to want to do this.

I think another option would be to begin manufacturing the trigger control parts in house at SIG, and make them from tool steel. This could ensure near 100% vertical integration of a group of critical safety parts’ supply chain and manufacture. SIG would ideally swallow its pride and subject itself to testing of the P320 using some of the tests that other people are using to try to identify problem guns. I don’t know how good those tests are but in aggregate there is likely some value there. If in house manufacturing from upgraded materials allows all the P320s to pass all of these tests then they might have something. It may be that a trigger mechanism of this design just doesn’t lend itself well to parts manufactured from different places.

I’m not saying that there’s any guarantee that any of these suggestions would work, but they could be the start of a potential fix. The reality is that any fix is going to result in a lot of embarrassment and financial pain. I do believe that putting off such a reckoning is only going to make it that much more painful in the end. I also know that SIG is absolutely not doing their reputation any favors right now with the way they are handling things currently. I’m aware of several LE agencies through direct interactions with them that have either switched out of P320s or disallowed them for personally owned duty or off duty weapons, or won’t allow them on their firing lines or some combination of those three. I absolutely think it would behoove SIG to alter their current policies with respect to handling the P320, whatever way that turns out to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:
Maybe the Achilles Heel Tactical event isn’t good evidence to prove that the 320 can fire without a finger on the trigger.

Maybe????

That really hurts your narrative, doesn’t it?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:
Maybe the Achilles Heel Tactical event isn’t good evidence to prove that the 320 can fire without a finger on the trigger.

Maybe????

That really hurts your narrative, doesn’t it?

I wouldn’t say that it constitutes “proof” either way - for or against GBRS’ position about the P320. My opinions aren’t derived from the Achilles Heel Tactical video anyway. Frankly, there are plenty of other videos out there showing P320s firing from the holster that I don’t need to rely upon that incident to cause me concern. In fact, there was another video today that popped up on my YouTube feed of a Pennsylvania SEPTA officer whose P320 fired while in his drop leg holster.

If being concerned that a popular pistol has the potential to fire unexpectedly while in a holster is a “narrative” I don’t think I would say that the Achilles Heel Tactical video has any impact on that opinion. Frankly I wasn’t aware that I had a narrative at all. I’ve carried an issued P320, shot thousands of rounds through it, absolutely found it to perform adequately. I wouldn’t say that it was better or worse than Glock pistols that I’ve been issued and shot extensively, or for that matter better or worse than striker fired HK or Smith and Wesson pistols that I’ve shot a bunch either. Frankly, I doubt I’d even be talking about the P320 if it wasn’t for SIG calling fire on their own position with their asinine “it ends now” campaign. I even carry a P365 to this day, and think it’s an excellent carry option. I call it like I see it, especially on a discussion forum.

You can’t tell if pulling trigger on a pistol while holstering is a design flaw or not?

You serious, Clark?

(Yes I’m well aware of the closeup and its origin as it’s explained in the video)

quote:

Personally, I think part of the problem is the relative unpredictability of a cocked striker in the first place. In the EOD world, a cocked striker is one of the biggest hazards in dealing with ordnance, precisely because of its relative unpredictability. Unquestionably that complicates matters and could possibly explain the difficulty in duplicating some of these issues.

I agree that a pre-cocked striker is mechanically "scarier" than a system that doesn't store energy in the firing mechanism. But if we're disqualifying designs based on that, you have to throw out pretty much every mainstream striker-fired handgun on the market today. Even Glock, which while considered "partially cocked", still retains enough energy to reliably ignite a primer if the striker drops. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if everybody was still shooting DA handguns, but that's simply not the reality today.

quote:

One possibility would be to retrofit the P320 mechanism into a variant of the P365 trigger system and go from there. If this is successful then SIG could issue a recall, not a voluntary upgrade, but a recall and fix all of the P320s out there.

How would you measure the success of this approach without ever determining the cause of the original problem? wait and see how many people the P365-ed P320s shoot and hope it's less?

Like you, if there's a problem here I absolutely want it fixed, and I don't care how much it costs to do it. But the problem has to be identified before that can happen...you can't just throw parts at it hoping you get lucky and solve it.

If a given gun goes off without a trigger pull, some mechanical condition enabled it to do that. If we're ruling out user input, it could be out of spec parts, a tolerance stacking condition created by marginal yet in-spec parts, broken parts, missing parts, improperly assembled parts, or foreign object debris interfering with the parts. There have been enough of these claims now, with enough affected guns, that I don't understand why nobody has been able to take one of those guns and show us the design flaw that allows this to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I don't understand why nobody has been able to take one of those guns and show us the design flaw that allows this to happen.

And that’s the truth.

To this point, it might as well be the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot. But, rest assured, that both sides in this skirmish seem to be running right up to the Capricorn One line……

I'll be honest. I didn't watch the video and I probably won't. There are too many videos on this subject and it's hard to piece things together without having to first wade through a barrage of personal bias, poor technical knowledge, and monetized showmanship. In the last thread about this, one of the posted videos actually had a compelling technical argument, but the guy in it had his face covered and saw fit to load everything with innuendo. It was totally unnecessary and it made him come across as an unbelievable idiot. However, from what I've been able to piece together throughout these videos, here are the main reasons for the issues with the P320:

1. The tolerance ranges throughout the entire pistol are often too wide.
2. The material quality of many of the small parts and assemblies is often subpar.
3. The physical design of many of the small parts and assemblies is often inappropriate.

The P320 was adapted from the earlier P250. This doesn't necessarily spell bad news, but one example of an area where a hammer-fired pistol (like the P250) can allow for a wider tolerance range than a striker-fired pistol (like the P320) is in slide-to-frame fit, specifically with respect to up-and-down motion. This is because a hammer-fired pistol has its entire action contained within the receiver, whereas a striker-fired pistol has one part of its action in the receiver and the other part of its action in the slide. The striker (in the slide) rests its leg on the sear (in the frame). Excess up-and-down play in the slide-to-frame fit can therefore increase the risk of the striker leg slipping off of the sear. One of the YouTube videos actually does a good job of showing this by sticking a couple of paper cards in the space between the slide and the frame. It changes the sound of the sear releasing the striker when the trigger is pulled.

The subpar material quality of the small parts is not inherently because they are MIM. It's because the MIM method allows for more options than the older methods, and SIG simply chose a more profitable approach. Skimping on QC goes hand in hand with this.

The P320 is full of small parts that have unconventional designs. This also doesn't necessary spell bad news because there have been a number of phenomenal and proven pistol designs with unconventional insides. The idiot in the YouTube video I referenced at the beginning of this post quipped that SIG's main goal must have been just to differentiate itself from Glock as much as possible. True or not, it's easy to see how he arrived at that conclusion. There are a few areas where the P320 could potentially allow for a primer strike without a trigger pull; SIG's own P365 (which does not exhibit the P320's issues) employs a more conventional parts design in some of these areas.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
I don't understand why nobody has been able to take one of those guns and show us the design flaw that allows this to happen.

And that’s the truth.

To this point, it might as well be the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot. But, rest assured, that both sides in this skirmish seem to be running right up to the Capricorn One line……

There's a video late in the pages of the other recent thread where a guy takes a Grayguns tuned 320 and gets it to go off by tapping the top of the slide with a deadblow mallet.

quote:

There's a video late in the pages of the other recent thread where a guy takes a Grayguns tuned 320 and gets it to go off by tapping the top of the slide with a deadblow mallet.

Any chance you could point me the link for that video? I must have missed it the first time around, and I'd like to watch it, but for the life of me I can't find it. It's probably right in front of my face...my wife accuses me of that all the time, and she's usually right!

I’m mobile, so it’s the first video in Chris174’s post on this page.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...935/m/7020040415/p/7

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
I’m mobile, so it’s the first video in Chris174’s post on this page.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...935/m/7020040415/p/7

Thanks, I did miss that one the first time around.

IMO his methodology is a bit of a stretch. He took a pre-upgrade gun, with a clearly non-functional striker safety lock, a modified sear with reduced (and lopsided) engagement, and reduced-power springs and managed to get it to fire when hitting it with a hammer. That outcome is not particularly surprising.

It's also observable and repeatable. If that gun had gone off in someone's holster, the first thing I would check after removing the slide would be the operation of the striker safety, and it would have been immediately obvious that it was not working. The abnormal sear wear and lighter springs would have been observable and measurable as well.

If the guns from these incidents are experiencing these conditions, why aren't we hearing that in the follow-up reports? It would be a simple matter for an independent inspector to document, and even Sig would probably be motivated to show that the problem is due to abnormal wear or maintenance problems with an individual gun rather than an overarching design problem.

I get that the video guy is trying to make the point that the gun can in fact fire without a trigger pull, but the conditions that he had to create to make that happen are so far removed from your average factory-spec duty gun that they're pretty much irrelevant. It's a good warning for the competition guys, though...I sure as hell wouldn't be putting lighter sear and/or safety springs in a P320, keep up on your cleanings, and check the striker-safety operation regularly.