quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Is it sear perch? MIM parts? Poor assembly? The tabbed trigger won’t fix any of that.

It actually does fix quite a few of the immediate issues, other than a potential problem with the striker block getting bound up somehow.

No it won’t. The only thing a tabbed trigger will do is potentially lessen the likelihood of an ND just like it does with any trigger safety striker gun. If sear perch is a real thing a trigger safety doesn’t solve that. For the same reason a manual safety doesn’t solve it on M17/18 because it doesn’t block the sear just the trigger bar. If something nefarious is happening in the fcu or striker or FPB the fix has to be to those not the trigger itself.

The tabbed trigger would have made the drop safety issue never happen. Now that is true.

All of the technical issues or not aside wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall in SIG's board rooms?

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
No it won’t. The only thing a tabbed trigger will do is potentially lessen the likelihood of an ND just like it does with any trigger safety striker gun. If sear perch is a real thing a trigger safety doesn’t solve that. For the same reason a manual safety doesn’t solve it on M17/18 because it doesn’t block the sear just the trigger bar. If something nefarious is happening in the fcu or striker or FPB the fix has to be to those not the trigger itself.

The tabbed trigger would have made the drop safety issue never happen. Now that is true.

Blocking the trigger isn't the only thing that it does. Or--perhaps more accurately--blocking the trigger does more than you think.

The whole thing that lets the gun go off when you push on the sear is that the trigger bar moves and lifts the striker block. Having the tabbed trigger changes the way the trigger bar moves, and prevents the striker block from getting lifted.

If you've got a sear perch issue or a tolerance stacking thing that puts you in a position where the sear tries to bounce off the striker, it's not going to push the trigger bar to lift the striker block while it's happening.

You are giving the tabbed trigger too much credit. It aids in reducing ND’s and it prevents inertia from releasing the trigger in an impact.

If the problem is the fcu or the striker assembly the tabbed trigger is not the fix. At all. It will reduce ND’s in the same way it does for a Glock but if the actual issue is with those other two items a tabbed trigger does not fix that.

If on the other hand none of that other nonsense turns out to be factual then a tabbed trigger might actually be the perfect fix.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
You are giving the tabbed trigger too much credit. It aids in reducing ND’s and it prevents inertia from releasing the trigger in an impact.

If the problem is the fcu or the striker assembly the tabbed trigger is not the fix. At all. It will reduce ND’s in the same way it does for a Glock but if the actual issue is with those other two items a tabbed trigger does not fix that.

If on the other hand none of that other nonsense turns out to be factual then a tabbed trigger might actually be the perfect fix.

I dunno. I've spent quite a few hours screwing around with mine to make it launch a pencil out of the barrel. I can do it without the tabbed trigger. I can't do it with.

^^ Exactly how much of that can occur in the absence of screwing around with the P320 when it's secured in a holster? Serious question...

Based on my understanding of how the P320 trigger bar interacts with the safety lever and sear, a tabbed trigger would indeed block the trigger bar from moving, and in turn prevent the captive safety lever from being actuated if the sear was somehow manually depressed. It would not prevent the sear from being pushed down. I'm not sure if that solves the problem or not, because we still don't know what the problem is, but there are some mechanical advantages to adding a trigger tab safety beyond simply preventing an unknown percentage of unintended trigger pulls.

While I'm not a huge fan of how trigger tabs feel, if I'm honest it really is mostly transparent in function to the user. It would also be relatively inexpensive and easy to implement. Sig would just have to eat some crow and probably pay out some lawsuits as it would essentially be admitting that they were wrong about not including it in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:
Based on my understanding of how the P320 trigger bar interacts with the safety lever and sear, a tabbed trigger would indeed block the trigger bar from moving,

It's not that it blocks the trigger bar from moving, it's that it locks down one of the end points, and this has the effect of changing the direction that it's able to move if the sear presses on it, so it goes in a direction that won't activate the striker block. Also, I *think* (but haven't yet measured to verify) that it makes the pressure required to move the sear manually harder, due to reduced mechanical advantage from changing the direction of movement.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^ Exactly how much of that can occur in the absence of screwing around with the P320 when it's secured in a holster? Serious question...

There were a couple of things that were at least as viable as the dumb story about a seat belt buckle getting in there and pulling the trigger. That said, I wasn’t testing for feasibility so much as looking at cases where the sear would be jarred somehow into releasing the striker.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
Here's something Bruce Gray posted on his YouTube channel that I hadn't seen which is a detailed and accurate CG model of how the P320 works from SIG Sauer:

No offence DanH - and I'm just using you as an example - I'm amazed at how many people did not know about this video since SIG posted at the end of March or the first couple of days of April.

Bruce and I discussed this briefly Friday night, and we thought it would be a good idea to add it to the Grayguns YouTube and Rumble channels. The only place SIG had it posted was on their website.

I'll be one of the first to agree that SIG hit a sour note when their marketing people released that stupid campaign/response. But I think they are getting better. But I do find it interesting nobody seems to be sharing videos like this (from SIG), or video shorts from the interviews Phil has done.

^^ I posted a link to that video on page 64 of this thread (7 days ago on 8/11), AND on page 45 as part of the Email from SIG re: P320 Safety Information back on July 29th.

Here's a link to my 8/11 post, which has a couple of very good videos detailing the multiple interacting safety mechanisms of the P320 FCU.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...600076615#6600076615

Of course all of this was prior to it's debut on the GrayGuns YouTube channel, so there was no way to actually embed it at the time.

That video has been out for a while...or at least one very similar to it. The Sig sales rep showed it to us back in 2022-ish when we bought our current batch of optic-equipped P320s, and they also showed it at the beginning of the P320 armorer course I attended in April. I'm pretty sure it's been linked here before, too, in addition to the instances that nhraceccraft mentioned above. It is pretty easy for stuff to get buried deep in one of the many threads that we've had on this issue, though. I think it was a good call to put it up on the Grayguns channel as it will get more visibility there...especially now. If nothing else it will help people understand the mechanical workings of the gun.

Clicked on the link for Sig P320’s Safety Information.

https://www.sigsauer.com/blog/p320-information

At least they’re updating the website.
I guess it eNDs tomorrow?

I wrote the IDPA to request they reconsider their ban...

"Hello, IDPA

I request that IDPA now review IDPA data on any uncommanded discharges at all IDPA matches over the past ten years. Categorize the UDs by various attributes, such as shooter credentials, division, and of course, pistol. Review the data carefully, and use a Poisson distribution for analysis since this distribution is made for very rare events such as UDs. It would not surprise me that there are very few UD in matches, and that the UD might be more easily related to shooter skill than equipment.

The IDPA has all the data it needs to assess overall match safety. Instead of reacting solely to the information from external sources, as it appears the IDPA has done, please use IDPA data over the millions of rounds shot in IDPA competition over the past ten years. If there are no distinctions related to the P320, please allow its use in IDPA matches."


In a very quick reply, IDPA representative said

"This decision remains in effect, as it was not based on the airman incident. While it was coincidentally close to the publication of our statement, it was not a concluding factor in the decision. The goal of IDPA is safety first for our members, competitors, staff and spectators and all others associated with any IDPA event. While we have no direct knowledge of the potential technical defect of the weapon system, the volume of ranges, organizations and military units declaring a problem has made it too visible to deny. We will re-evaluate this decision in the future if new credible information emerges."

So, IDPA has its own data but is relying on external "credible information."

^^^^^

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
"While we have no direct knowledge of the potential technical defect of the weapon system, the volume of ranges, organizations and military units declaring a problem has made it too visible to deny."

Translation.

"Because of the shit show and the propensity of many people to be morons and believe the majority of crap they swallow, the percentage of any 12 jurors returning anything but a kneejerk verdict in any lawsuit. You think we are stupid enough to let anyone on a range with a P320, where the likelihood of someone fiddle fucking with the gun, because that's the latest Tik-Tok fantasy?



See our response in less than a thousand words, below..."



(it's not about the gun)

I don't blame IDPA or anyone else at this juncture to "ban" the P320.

All these organizations are worried about their liability. The personal opinions of those individuals making the decision to prohibit the P320 are of no consequence.

By disallowing the P320 in their matches or on their premises or the usage of the P320 by their personnel, they shield themselves from litigation.

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but it really is as simple as that. Even if every single person in all of these various organizations believes that all of this is overblown, their decision to disallow the P320 is the only truly safe course at this point. If our society were not so very litigious, the decision of some of these organizations might be different.

quote:

"This decision remains in effect, as it was not based on the airman incident.
<snip>
...the volume of <snip> military units declaring a problem has made it too visible to deny.

Huh?

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:

The IDPA has all the data it needs to assess overall match safety. Instead of reacting solely to the information from external sources, as it appears the IDPA has done, please use IDPA data over the millions of rounds shot in IDPA competition over the past ten years.

Except for an immediate match disqualification, does IDPA track the number of ADs, shooter and which weapon was used? And do they have a reportable database on which to pull this info?

Even if the IDPA gave their acceptance, the range hosting the event may ban the P320 to avoid any liability. What then? IDPA going to foot the attorney fees and liability?