- Messages
- 353
- Reactions
- 556
What mitigates the ND from holstering a P320?The external safety is to mitigate the much vaunted Sig "triple action" feature in case you drop it….
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What mitigates the ND from holstering a P320?The external safety is to mitigate the much vaunted Sig "triple action" feature in case you drop it….
Same here!Seven pages dissecting a "Youtube personality's" preference for carry mode of a pistol he doesn't even carry?
Must be a slow month for topics in the wide world of firearms.
View attachment 1059100
View attachment 1059099
What mitigates the ND from holstering a P320?
I'd probably just tape it to my hand and wrist to be on the safe side.POCKET CARRY…… oh, and bubble wrap!
This also happened in IL and PA, those were police officers as well and not just some Chad.MPD guns fired on their own twice in 6 months
The second accidental shooting happened after police supervisors internally raised questions about the safety of the SIG Sauer P320.www.wisn.com
I have always been a fan of Paul... but the more I learn about firearms the more I find myself questioning him as a person, and therefore his videos as well.
Specifically what I am talking about is the fact that Paul has been involved in at least 2 major shooting incidents that left people dead. Paul was not convicted in either of these shootings, but the fact that he has even been involved in a single fatal shooting would raise my brow, and having it happen twice is either the worst luck in the world or something else is going on.
Anyway like I said I have always been a fan of Paul, but as I learn more about him and his past I find it harder and harder to take his advice seriously - especially when it comes to gun safety.
Never said LEOs were the end all best all "Experts" my point was they were and are people who have hands on training with firearms, and not total newbs who just didn't know what they were doing."Chad?" WTF is some Chad?
And I wouldn't be looking at police officers as role models in terms of being firearms experts or super-careful gun-handlers. Wanna know how I know?
The lawyer who's going after SIG is angling for a big payday. And the cases in question... let's just say there are more questions raised. Not trying to be an apologist for SIG by any means, but it's appeared there was some, let's say, prevarication going on in some, equipment issues in others and a hint of guys trying to cover up NDs by blaming the pistol.
TTAG had a good piece recently on this very topic. If you dig long enough, you may notice that some of the reports of 320s "going off by themselves" have just kinda faded away into the sunset with no documentation of any resolution. Hmm.
I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in a bidding war, I am more so thinking along the lines of enduring popularity and how it will be perceived long after it is "obsolete."People bid up the military surplus M17's into the thousands when Sig sold those. So yes.
My personal opinion on the P320; from the perspective of a military sidearm, it really doesn't make any sense how they ended up with the contract (aside from underbidding). It is also just lacking in any real style, which, while not a requirement, is something the last two US Service handguns had an abundance of!
I mean let's be honest, in 25 years is anybody going to be clamoring for a "classic" P320 like they do for a 1911 or Beretta M9??
Not like the "classic" P22x metal framed DA/SA guns will be.My personal opinion on the P320; from the perspective of a military sidearm, it really doesn't make any sense how they ended up with the contract (aside from underbidding). It is also just lacking in any real style, which, while not a requirement, is something the last two US Service handguns had an abundance of!
I mean let's be honest, in 25 years is anybody going to be clamoring for a "classic" P320 like they do for a 1911 or Beretta M9??
Their new LMG in 338 Norma looks pretty cool and seems to have sound design principles!They wound up with the contract because they had the only pistol that passed most of the tests and actually met the requirements, along with substantially beating Glock's price.
Of the guns submitted to the testing - which called for MODULAR handguns - literally the only gun submitted that met that requirement was the P320. The Glock is not modular in any way, shape, or form. Neither was the Smith & Wesson M&P, the Beretta, or the FN FNS pistol that was submitted.
All of the competitors except Glock were eliminated in the first round of trials for one reason or another.
The Glock pistol still met less of the criteria, and scored lower on the tests over-all than the M320 did, especially when they reviewed the field-use reviews by troopers issued the guns for testing.
Glock was relying on their reputation and prior government contracts - hoping they could ignore the full list of criteria and still get the contract. They lost, they sued, they lost their lawsuit.
A guns "style" is far less important than function. Aesthetic shouldn't even be a consideration when talking about a duty pistol - ergonomics yes, aesthetics? Nope, no way. The P320 is more ergonomic for sure than the Beretta 92. Its ergonomics compared to a 1911 are not as different. The frame mounted safety, vs slide mount alone is a big difference, the Beretta's grip is larger than most .45's out there, including the unnecessarily chunky Glock 21.
Sig has had some challenges with the P320, yes. The trigger design, as original is dangerous. There's a reason every other striker fired pistol with a sub-7lb trigger pull has some sort of safety device integrated into the trigger shoe. The "drop safe" gun, wasn't. They had to make changes, yes. Glock isn't infallible, but they do have a safer, more proven trigger design. Glocks failings originate in other areas, typically.
The contract also wasn't just for the pistols themselves - it was for accessories and ammunition. Glock doesn't make ammo. Sig does, and Sig developed ammunition along with the M17 trial pistol.
As much as one can dislike Sig, their corporate officers, and their attitude of beta-testing designs on the consumer base for the last decade or so - their firearms are overall still high quality and price alone isn't why they're gobbling up contracts. They'll be making the new wave of replacement rifles, SMGs, and LMG's for the US Army in addition to the sidearms. They also got the contract for replacement optics as the military phases out the ACOG and Aimpoint sights in favor of LVPOs.
Beretta submitted the M9A3 which was not Modular, they then submitted the APX which is modular in the very same way the p320 is.They wound up with the contract because they had the only pistol that passed most of the tests and actually met the requirements, along with substantially beating Glock's price.
Of the guns submitted to the testing - which called for MODULAR handguns - literally the only gun submitted that met that requirement was the P320. The Glock is not modular in any way, shape, or form. Neither was the Smith & Wesson M&P, the Beretta, or the FN FNS pistol that was submitted.
All of the competitors except Glock were eliminated in the first round of trials for one reason or another.
The Glock pistol still met less of the criteria, and scored lower on the tests over-all than the M320 did, especially when they reviewed the field-use reviews by troopers issued the guns for testing.
Glock was relying on their reputation and prior government contracts - hoping they could ignore the full list of criteria and still get the contract. They lost, they sued, they lost their lawsuit.
A guns "style" is far less important than function. Aesthetic shouldn't even be a consideration when talking about a duty pistol - ergonomics yes, aesthetics? Nope, no way. The P320 is more ergonomic for sure than the Beretta 92. Its ergonomics compared to a 1911 are not as different. The frame mounted safety, vs slide mount alone is a big difference, the Beretta's grip is larger than most .45's out there, including the unnecessarily chunky Glock 21.
Sig has had some challenges with the P320, yes. The trigger design, as original is dangerous. There's a reason every other striker fired pistol with a sub-7lb trigger pull has some sort of safety device integrated into the trigger shoe. The "drop safe" gun, wasn't. They had to make changes, yes. Glock isn't infallible, but they do have a safer, more proven trigger design. Glocks failings originate in other areas, typically.
The contract also wasn't just for the pistols themselves - it was for accessories and ammunition. Glock doesn't make ammo. Sig does, and Sig developed ammunition along with the M17 trial pistol.
As much as one can dislike Sig, their corporate officers, and their attitude of beta-testing designs on the consumer base for the last decade or so - their firearms are overall still high quality and price alone isn't why they're gobbling up contracts. They'll be making the new wave of replacement rifles, SMGs, and LMG's for the US Army in addition to the sidearms. They also got the contract for replacement optics as the military phases out the ACOG and Aimpoint sights in favor of LVPOs.
They were eliminated early on - I don't remember what got them the boot, but they failed the first round test. I don't remember if FN got the boot, or if they withdrew their submission. Going into round two, the Smith & Wesson, Glock, and Sig submissions were the remaining, and the M&P was eliminated from consideration.Beretta submitted the M9A3 which was not Modular, they then submitted the APX which is modular in the very same way the p320 is.
As far as I can tell the APX checked all the boxes for the military requirements, it was a late submission but still seems like they got very little real consideration.
I seem to recall that FN unilaterally withdrew their submission. Don't recall why, if a reason was even given.They were eliminated early on - I don't remember what got them the boot, but they failed the first round test. I don't remember if FN got the boot, or if they withdrew their submission. Going into round two, the Smith & Wesson, Glock, and Sig submissions were the remaining, and the M&P was eliminated from consideration.
"Upon receipt of hardware submission, inspections will be conducted to ensure that the Modular Handgun System candidate has an integrated rail, an external safety mechanism, adjustability for ergonomics (by means of grip inserts, grip panels, front- or backstraps, different triggers, or other means) and be other than single action only. Submissions without these features will not be considered for evaluation.
Since it was already under contract, Beretta's first bid was the M9A3 as a parts-compatible improvement on the existing M9, making it a low-cost option. This was rejected seemingly out of hand. While the solicitation didn't specify against a double-action/single-action (DA/SA) option, language seemed to imply that an always-consistent trigger was preferred, provided it wasn't a single action. Interestingly, Beretta's DA/SA design providing a "double-strike" capability on misfired ammunition was a selection point over the Glock 17 in 1985, yet it may have hindered its re-adoption here. More damning was the lack of a compact version of the M9A3, as required, and not really having a modular design
Pretty sure I read, that the APX was just to late to the game, and never actually failed any of the testing but by the time it was submitted, they had already pretty much narrowed the field down to signature, glock and SW.Doing some digging into the case history for the M17 trials, came across a few nuggets from some articles on the subject
Here's one
The 8 Pistols That Battled to Win the Army’s XM17 MHS Competition
By now you’re probably aware that Sig Sauer’s P320 won the U.S. Army’s XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition to replacewww.tactical-life.com
Here's the wiki on the trials:
XM17 Modular Handgun System competition - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Can't find solid data on exactly why the APX was dumped so early - but I am guessing either it was not performing up to standards in round one, the ergonomics weren't a hit with the field testers, or Beretta supplied a bad batch of guns.
It is interesting that the APX hasn't garnered a lot of ground commercially too. Even during the current panic, they're cheaper than Glocks and XD's.