quote:

Originally posted by Bruskie456:
Seemed real to me as well - the issue here, is that Sig did in fact have problems with their drop safety in the past on the 320, and it was "fixed". However, there have been numerous reports of 320 LEO pistols that have discharged in their holsters. Now if these pistols were ever sent in for the drop safety report, i'm not sure of. But I do understand not trusting a pistol after it goes off randomly... Let's say you're carrying appendix. I DEFINITLY would not trust that pistol again... just sayin

You have multiple claims of pistols going off in holsters. When a guy is playing with his gun and negligently discharges it, is he going to say “I was playing with my gun” or “I never touched it!”?

Every instance that I am aware of has a likely end-user error cause, and no mechanical failures found on inspecting the firearm. There’s been using a wrong holster, which allowed “a foreign object” into the trigger guard with CA special forces. But people just read headlines these days and don’t hear the follow-ups.

I get it, where there’s smoke there’s often fire. But how many times have smoke alarms gone off in your house because of cooking?

The "Sig Armorer" tool in the video, claims it's "due to manufacturing problems between those parts and put in the gun unfinished from the factory". 4:06.

Investigative reporting, straight from the horses ass mouth.

Where striker fired pistols are concerned, I will stay with Glock.

On something like the P320, could you do something similar to putting your thumb on a DA/SA hammer by putting your trigger finger behind the trigger so if there’s something wrong during reholstering, you’ll have some warning? I know some people are going to have a freakout, but companies have been putting extra stuff in trigger guards on rifles for decades.

For years to come, the P320 drop-safe debacle combined with SIG's subsequent voluntary upgrade program will provide a convenient alibi for those guilty of a negligent discharge.

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:

You have multiple claims of pistols going off in holsters. When a guy is playing with his gun and negligently discharges it, is he going to say “I was playing with my gun” or “I never touched it!”?

Every instance that I am aware of has a likely end-user error cause, and no mechanical failures found on inspecting the firearm. There’s been using a wrong holster, which allowed “a foreign object” into the trigger guard with CA special forces. But people just read headlines these days and don’t hear the follow-ups.

I get it, where there’s smoke there’s often fire. But how many times have smoke alarms gone off in your house because of cooking?

Think about this:

If they go off in the holster all by themselves, no human intervention of any kind, then they'll also go off all by themselves sitting on a counter, in a safe, on a headboard, etc.

Yet, not a single claim of one going off anywhere but a holster.

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
Take a look at the inset photo at 1:25. Note the shirts rather untucked.

Agreed. You can see the significant "roll" sticking out and over to the point it's cast a shadow onto his gun belt and the roll is actually over the top left side of the holster and belt loop attachment.

When he attempts to show his shirt wasn't untucked, well, doesn't quite look the same as the "before" pic. Almost looks like he's pulling his shirt taut from behind. Talk about framing a pitch.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
On something like the P320, could you ... [put] your trigger finger behind the trigger ...?

Not that I would ever admit to the practice myself, but doing that is easily possible, especially with the straight trigger.

I recall someone’s asking the same question a few years ago and I pointed out then, as you have, that if it were observed in a training class or at a commercial range it would cause some people to have kittens on the spot. It is of course somewhat dangerous and breaks the “no toucha da trigger until you shoot” rule, but if done carefully and properly it would prevent the trigger from being pushed back without our knowing it. From a theoretical standpoint, of course, and without any practical experience to speak of.

I think you all are missing the point. Either the gun "just went off" or something was in the holster and activated the trigger, like his big ass T shirt.

There is zero, zero, zero reason to start some bad technique of sticking your finger BEHIND the trigger if you just slow down and make reholstering a non stress, slow, careful reinsertion then the gun won't go off.

It either is just going off or its a ND. It is that simple. The guy above had a good point, if its just going off why is it only just going off inside a holster? Makes no sense.

Looked back again. Belt is over over the shirt, so the shirt isn't untucked. It might be blousing a bit, but that wouldn't likely get into the trigger guard.

I'm willing to take this guys claim at face value, insofar as he really thinks it happened they way he said. Why put this out to the world if he didn't think it really happened this way. Did it really happen the way he thinks it happened, we'll (an he) will never know.

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
Take a look at the inset photo at 1:25. Note the shirts rather untucked.

Pretty clear to me that he was trying to be “high speed” by making ready and slamming his pistol into the holster without looking. He caught some shirt material in it. As he raised his hands, his shirt pulled up, against the trigger and *bang*.

People keep blaming their gear for their failures. He has poor gun handling skills and paid the price for it. Unfortunately, he doesn’t understand he was at fault and won’t learn from his mistake.

I’d post a pic of that inset, but my photo sharing site doesn’t seem to be working.

Denial of his own fallibility.

I usually wear an untucked, loose fitting shirt over my gun. Years ago I trained myself to raise the shirt tail with my off hand as I drew. As a natural habit, I do the same thing re-holstering, cause I don't want any extra holes in my body.

Is that the correct holster for the gun? I can see some type of retention system on it.

His finger was on the trigger when he holstered the gun.

Period.

For those who believe that a P320 could fire without the trigger’s being pressed/pulled to the rear: How? How could it happen?

The reason I ask the question is primarily because of one part in the pistol’s striker assembly, the “striker safety” whose function is to block the forward movement of the striker unless it is moved out of the way by the action of pulling the trigger. Don’t pull/press the trigger, and the striker safety prevents the striker from hitting the cartridge primer.


“Well, what if the striker safety malfunctioned and didn’t stay in position to block the striker?”
In that case, there would have to be another mechanical malfunction at the same time. The striker would have to be released from its normal position where it’s held captive by the sear. It has been posited that the retention hook on the striker could somehow be jarred or vibrate off its normal position in contact with the sear. That’s evidently why SIG added a second engagement point to the sear ahead of the normal ledge that keeps the striker held in position at the rear. If the lug somehow slipped off the first ledge, it would be stopped by the second.

Striker lug:




Two sear engagement points:




Some Internet experts decry the fact that the engagement between the sear and striker lug is very small, and so it is. If it were deeper and rougher and the striker spring were stronger it would be harder to disengage the sear from the striker when pulling the trigger. How many of us P320 shooters would like that? If you have a Classic line SIG like a P226 or P229, how much engagement is there between the hammer and sear when the hammer is cocked? If you’re frightened by the P320’s mechanism, a helpful hint: Don’t look.

And that takes us back to the striker safety. To reiterate, it blocks the striker unless the trigger is pulled. But even if it were completely missing from the assembly, that wouldn’t release the striker.

So, if the striker safety blocks the striker and the sear holds the striker back until the trigger is pulled, how was it possible for the pre-“upgrade” guns to fire when dropped in a certain way?
In the same way it’s possible to fire the gun by pulling the trigger. The difference was that the trigger was “pulled” to the rear by its inertia: the gun stopped moving when it hit the surface, but the trigger didn’t. It moved to the rear far enough to disengage the striker safety and sear, thereby allowing the striker to do its thing of firing the round.

That fact about the original triggers isn’t something SIG is evidently happy to have bandied about, but did they in fact recognize it and do something about it? The answer, I believe, is obvious from an examination of the original triggers and the upgraded models. The originals were solid at the rear whereas the new types are hollowed out at the rear to reduce their weight, and thereby keep their inertia from being enough to fire the gun if it’s dropped. Some (all?) of SIG’s straight triggers are even skeletonized to further reduce their weight.

So, to return to my question, if the P320 can be fired without pulling the trigger in the normal way by the shooter’s finger, pressure of a foreign object on the trigger, or by being dropped from a great enough height to allow the trigger’s inertia to perform the mechanical task: How? How it is possible? (Please cite examples and show your work.)

The actions of the striker safety, striker, and other features of the P320 are illustrated very well by the videos of SIG Mechanics. https://www.youtube.com/c/SIGMECHANICS

quote:

Originally posted by Snake207:

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
Take a look at the inset photo at 1:25. Note the shirts rather untucked.

Agreed. You can see the significant "roll" sticking out and over to the point it's cast a shadow onto his gun belt and the roll is actually over the top left side of the holster and belt loop attachment.

When he attempts to show his shirt wasn't untucked, well, doesn't quite look the same as the "before" pic. Almost looks like he's pulling his shirt taut from behind. Talk about framing a pitch.

Maybe, maybe not...
Pict #2 he's standing straight or leaning slightly left, away from the holster to "expose" the area of concern. Makin the fabric of the shirt taught.

Pict #2, he's leaning toward the right, unless he's got monkey arms that reach under the holster that far, this action would cause the fabric to bunch up on the right side.

Or, he just staged that photo opp and tucked his shirt in.

I don't know what his motivation is:
Anti- Sig Sauer?
Wanted to cover up for his mistake?
Wants to become Internet famous?
Maybe just doesn't know what happened?

Or a combination of any of the above.

I find it a little hard to believe, that on a Sig Sauer P320, that a bit of cloth will make that weapon discharge. Not impossible, just highly improbable. But then again, I'm not an expert, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn in the recent past.

Guns, in my experience since 1988, just don't go ***BANG*** by themselves. There needs to be some sort of contact with the primer in the round for the thing to go off... This is USUALLY caused by pulling the trigger, and occasionally a free floating firing pin might have enough force to hit the primer- like when a gun is dropped. In this situation, I don't believe that the user would force that gun in the holster hard and fast enough for the gun to slip a safety mechanism.

Then there's the "cook off" situation, where the chamber gets hot enough to set off the round. This is usually found in fully automatic weapons- more so with belt fed. Yeah, NOT HAPPENING in this situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruskie456:
Seemed real to me as well - the issue here, is that Sig did in fact have problems with their drop safety in the past on the 320, and it was "fixed". However, there have been numerous reports of 320 LEO pistols that have discharged in their holsters. Now if these pistols were ever sent in for the drop safety report, i'm not sure of. But I do understand not trusting a pistol after it goes off randomly... Let's say you're carrying appendix. I DEFINITLY would not trust that pistol again... just sayin

Guns just don't go off randomly.
***SOMETHING*** needs to be the catalyst, the action, for the reaction of the ***BANG***

quote:

then they'll also go off all by themselves sitting on a counter, in a safe, on a headboard, etc.

Exactly! I have an upstairs safe and a downstairs safe, both with P320s with one in the chamber and neither have gone off. 4+ years and no discharges.

It appears as though the holster "in dents" in the trigger guard. No trigger tab safety so if there is pressure on the sides of the trigger, the safety mechanism is defeated by movement of the trigger. Short trigger pull to disengage the sear and bang!