And a brief lesson in logic.

It’s often stated by the unthinking that it’s impossible to disprove a negative.
Well, that’s nonsense if we consider something like, “There is no dead cat in my refrigerator,” or “A P320 isn’t in this desk drawer.” All that’s necessary to disprove either negative is to look in my refrigerator or the drawer and find a dead cat or P320.

On the other hand it is impossible to disprove an unfalsifiable statement as defined by Karl Popper: I.e., if a claim is such that there is no way to demonstrate that it is false, then it is on its face impossible to debate. If we accept that a P320 could discharge on its own despite there being no mechanical way for that to happen, then the claim is unfalsifiable. And why might someone believe that? An obvious answer would be something that was accepted either seriously or in jest about problems with aircraft in World War II: gremlins.

If our claim is that a supernatural being that cannot be seen or detected in any other way by human senses or instrumentation nevertheless has the power to enter the pistols of a very limited set of law enforcement officers and push down on the sear to release the striker and at the same time move the striker safety out of the way of the striker, then there’s no way to refute the claim except by denying the existence of such a supernatural being and its motive. And because such a belief would be just one more example of unsubstantiated faith that human beings are capable of holding, then all the rest of us can do is say, “You have faith that such an entity with that power and motive exists; I have a reasonable belief based on long experience with the real world that it doesn’t.”

quote:

There is no way to determine from the video if there was something in the holster along with the gun that could have contacted the trigger.

Circumstantially I think there is...
Notice the gun doesn't go off until he stands up.
If part of his clothing was in the holster, standing up is going pull whatever is in there taut and up and activate the trigger.
Although the video is grainy, it looks like the holster is partially covered when he gets out.

It just really hinges on:

A. Were their problems in the design initially?
B. Do you believe Sig fixed them?

A. Yes
B. I do not.

Using that logic you would never buy a product from basically any manufacturer. Ever. Ford, GM, Apple, nobody. How about this? The problem that was actually identified, drop safety from a very specific position, was that fixed?

The answer is very obviously and very quantifiably yes.

Everything else is noise. That video proves nothing. Put that cop back in the car with nothing besides a gun in that holster and have him get out 10,000 more times. Are you willing to put your money on anything other than “nothing happens”? Of course not. If it’s an actual defect it could be repeated.

A gun that goes off when the trigger is pulled isnt defective. If it’s a system you don’t think is safe then carry something else. Until you can prove “it just goes off” it is all bullshit money grubbing lawyer bullshit.

quote:

A gun that goes off when the trigger is pulled isnt defective.

A DA/SA gun in single-action mode fits that definition. Does that mean it's safe to carry that way?

(Second time I've asked you this question.)

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

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You do realize that, in particular, Smith & Wesson is a larger manufacturer than SIG Sauer. Smith makes about 50% more pistols a year than SIG does (this is from 2020 ATF reporting.)

The discussion seems to center around the 320's full cocked striker, which, as far as I know, the M&P does not use, so I left Smith out of the discussion, mentioning only Walther and Springfield, which also use fully cocked strikers.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You do realize that, in particular, Smith & Wesson is a larger manufacturer than SIG Sauer. Smith makes about 50% more pistols a year than SIG does (this is from 2020 ATF reporting.)

The discussion seems to center around the 320's full cocked striker, which, as far as I know, the M&P does not use, so I left Smith out of the discussion, mentioning only Walther and Springfield, which also use fully cocked strikers.

Agreed. While they are nice to shoot, I’m not a big fan of the fully cocked striker for safety purposes.

[/QUOTE]


The discussion seems to center around the 320's full cocked striker, which, as far as I know, the M&P does not use, so I left Smith out of the discussion, mentioning only Walther and Springfield, which also use fully cocked strikers.[/QUOTE]

The M&P has a trigger safety, allowing for a greater margin of error. Why won't Sig just offer a trigger safety like they originally said they would!

I can't say I know this definitively, but I recently watched some action animations of the M&P action, and it looked like it was fully cocked after cycled, and there was no additional cocking as part of the trigger stroke.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
You do realize that, in particular, Smith & Wesson is a larger manufacturer than SIG Sauer. Smith makes about 50% more pistols a year than SIG does (this is from 2020 ATF reporting.)

The discussion seems to center around the 320's full cocked striker, which, as far as I know, the M&P does not use, so I left Smith out of the discussion, mentioning only Walther and Springfield, which also use fully cocked strikers.

The M&P has a "98%" tensioned striker. Stage 2 press of the trigger moves the striker a minuscule 2%, essentially making it a fully-cocked striker gun.

So why hasn't the M&P been the subject of accidental discharges? The answer is, it has. In 2015 the LA County Sheriff released a report identifying the M&P as AD-prone. Included in the reasons cited were a trigger that was easier to pull than the Berettas they replaced, and the lack of a manual safety (even though a thumb safety has been available since 2009).

I don't know how many, if any, of the discharges were during incidental handling vs. actual target engagement (at which point you'd have the safety off anyway), but this could be skewed by the fact that the M&P does have a trigger safety (in this case a jointed trigger as opposed to a tab safety).

Los Angeles Sheriff M&P report

Kkina you are dying to have that question answered. Let’s play a fucking game. I’ll answer your question if you answer mine. No I don’t think that is safe. Here’s my question. If a striker fired gun only goes off if something pulls the trigger is it defective?

You got your panties in a wad for some reason. Striker guns and yes 320’s specifically are safe in that they won’t fire unless you pull the trigger. Your question really is that you don’t think striker fired guns are safe. I say that because if for some dumb reason you see a massive difference because a Glock has a tab in the trigger and a slightly longer heavier pull, well that is just stupid. It’s funny you argue this when Glocks have had more ND’s then every other striker gun combined. They have been around longer so that’s no surprise but they have had a ton of ND’s which n this discussion you seem to basically ignore.

You're making this personal. There's no need for that. We're here to discuss and debate ideas, not engage in personal conflicts. We don't have to agree. We do have to be civil to one another, even those with divergent opinions.

You seem to be making a habit of incorrectly rephrasing my statements, then attacking something I never said in the first place. Straw man arguments don't advance the issue in any way. Fine if you want to disagree, but disagree with what I'm actually saying.

Fine with the answering each other's questions, but mine was the first question.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
You're making this personal. There's no need for that. We're here to discuss and debate ideas, not engage in personal conflicts. We don't have to agree. We do have to be civil to one another, even those with divergent opinions.

You seem to be making a habit of incorrectly rephrasing my statements, then attacking something I never said in the first place. Straw man arguments don't advance the issue in any way. Fine if you want to disagree, but disagree with what I'm actually saying.

Kkina,

I had the same exact problem across 2 different threads.

pedropcola,

You need to seriously lighten up.

Flipping through that report, the unintentional discharges seemed to attributed to handling issues. Deputies were pulling the triggers, just not when they were supposed to. Glock has had the same issue over the decades, and I don't doubt P320s do also. What the is being reported with P320s are uncommanded discharges, meaning the trigger wasn't pulled by the carrier. Is there a reason departments could figure out that members were NDing there Glocks and Smiths, but not P320s?

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
The M&P has a "98%" tensioned striker. Stage 2 press of the trigger moves the striker a minuscule 2%, essentially making it a fully-cocked striker gun.

So why hasn't the M&P been the subject of accidental discharges? The answer is, it has. In 2015 the LA County Sheriff released a report identifying the M&P as AD-prone. Included in the reasons cited were a trigger that was easier to pull than the Berettas they replaced, and the lack of a manual safety (even though a thumb safety has been available since 2009).

I don't know how many, if any, of the discharges were during incidental handling vs. actual target engagement (at which point you'd have the safety off anyway), but this could be skewed by the fact that the M&P does have a trigger safety (in this case a jointed trigger as opposed to a tab safety).

Los Angeles Sheriff M&P report

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
The M&P has a "98%" tensioned striker. Stage 2 press of the trigger moves the striker a minuscule 2%, essentially making it a fully-cocked striker gun.

So why hasn't the M&P been the subject of accidental discharges? The answer is, it has. In 2015 the LA County Sheriff released a report identifying the M&P as AD-prone. Included in the reasons cited were a trigger that was easier to pull than the Berettas they replaced, and the lack of a manual safety (even though a thumb safety has been available since 2009).

I don't know how many, if any, of the discharges were during incidental handling vs. actual target engagement (at which point you'd have the safety off anyway), but this could be skewed by the fact that the M&P does have a trigger safety (in this case a jointed trigger as opposed to a tab safety).

Los Angeles Sheriff M&P report

Difference with the LASO ADs, their pistols were in hand. Many of the P320 incidents seem to involve a holstered firearm and some movement, possibly causing tension on a shirt or something else in the holster and in the trigger guard. Maybe, a short trigger with no trigger safety is more susceptible.

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
Maybe, a short trigger with no trigger safety is more susceptible.

There's no 'maybe' about it.

Kkina it isn’t a straw man. You are very clearly implying the striker design on the 320 is defective or.perhaps just a bad design. I think you actually said those words. You are right that it clearly was before the “upgrade”. The bottom line is none of these guns has ONE single time been shown to just go off. They aren’t defective. You can keep saying they are more “susceptible” while implying they are a bad design, but using your logic a Glock with a “-“ connector is more “susceptible” to ND as well. I guess any gun that has a lighter trigger is more susceptible. So if we are hanging our collective hats on susceptible then I concede the argument, sure, a lighter trigger or no tab or no manual safety, is always easier to set off. Any implication of bad design is where I disagree.

The argument is clear though. Is it a problem as the OP suggests? Well if it is then it is a striker problem not a 320 problem. Glocks have had more of these than any modern gun ever. They have the lawsuits to prove it. We even have the cutesy name Glock leg. DEA video, you can go on and on.

You seem determined to paint the 320 as a bad design and are using the cover of these lawsuits as “proof”. They are proof that people are careless. The lawsuits are alleging they just go off without any input. That cop isn’t alleging his shirt fired the gun, he is alleging it went off just by movement. Threads like this seem to indicate people believe that.

Do you actually believe in that linked video it just went off or that there was probably a foreign element in the holster?

Either way I think I’m getting close to Para input so I will make this my self imposed hiatus from this thread before it becomes imposed imposed. Lol

It’s not personal though no matter what you think. I’ve sold most of my 320’s and only have a couple left. I would get rid of them except my son doesn’t want me to. I just hate frivolous lawsuits and these seem to be exactly that, frivolous. And I hate that as gun guys we appear to be giving these lawsuits veracity that they don’t deserve.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
You seem to be making a habit of incorrectly rephrasing my statements, then attacking something I never said in the first place. Straw man arguments don't advance the issue in any way. Fine if you want to disagree, but disagree with what I'm actually saying.

Kkina,

I had the same exact problem across 2 different threads.

pedropcola, ...

I've gotten into the habit, when people argue in bad faith, of henceforth simply ignoring them.

Makes like ever so much better

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:

quote:

Originally posted by roboster2013:
I do however, wish Sig offered more 320 choices with a manual safety, and not just the M17 and M18.

The only other current P320 available with a manual safety is a compact model, 320C-9-BSS-MS-MA.

You can buy the safety from Sig and install it yourself. Someone here has done exactly that in a thread here. Or you can buy an FCU with a safety from AB Prototype but since they modified the FCU, the warranty is voided. I don't know if installing the safety you get from Sig voids the warranty.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
You seem to be making a habit of incorrectly rephrasing my statements, then attacking something I never said in the first place. Straw man arguments don't advance the issue in any way. Fine if you want to disagree, but disagree with what I'm actually saying.

Kkina,

I had the same exact problem across 2 different threads.

pedropcola, ...

I've gotten into the habit, when people argue in bad faith, of henceforth simply ignoring them.

Makes like ever so much better

I think you might be right on this one.