SIG P-320, redux...

[mhayd93]

Not true. You have to pull from the center of the trigger blade. If something grabs the slide of the trigger and the lever is not depressed the trigger will not engage. No matter how hard you pull.

It has to be direct. With that said could something still get wrapped around the front of the trigger… sure. But it's a whole lot harder to engage the trigger.

I could've sworn you were one of those "this is my safety" guys though?

Are you an advocate for manual safeties then? That's really the ultimate failsafe if we can't trust the end user to handle the gun properly.

 

[1775usmc]

I could've sworn you were one of those "this is my safety" guys though?

Are you an advocate for manual safeties then? That's really the ultimate failsafe if we can't trust the end user to handle the gun properly.

Nope. I won't carry a gun with a manual safety. Pistol that is. Rifle needs a safety.

 

[mhayd93]

Nope. I won't carry a gun with a manual safety. Pistol that is. Rifle needs a safety.

Sounds like cognitive dissonance…

 

[lucusloc]

No sh!t Sherlock. Again. Not talking about fingers here. I'm talking about guns in holsters being activated by foreign objects and outside elements.

So am I. That is what FOD is. Foreign Object Debris. It gets in the holster, it interacts with the trigger (including the "trigger safety") gun goes off. This is not hard to figure out. trigger dongles (because "trigger safety" really is a misnomer) are not even designed to prevent FOD. Glock themselves consider them part of the drop safety group, and any edge-case FOD activation they might prevent is only incidental.

And in case you had not noticed, most incidents of FOD activation do not involve some small, hardened steel hook grabbing the very edge of a trigger. That does not usually offer enough friction to pull the trigger without slipping off first. To my knowledge no such incident has been detected in the wild before.

Most such incidents are things like a length of lanyard getting caught behind the trigger and pulling across the trigger's entire front face. Or a shirt getting bunched into the trigger guard. Or the holster itself getting fouled and pulling the trigger.


Oh hey look! A Glock!

This is what the vast majority of FOD incidents look like. A large bunch of stuff getting smooshed against the trigger face.

And this is why Glock does not consider the dongle an effective FOD safety. With a "pull" measured in grams it can be moved out of the way with a slight brush, let alone a solid smoosh against some FOD. Which is exactly what is was designed to do, because preventing something (anything) from pulling the trigger was not the design intent of the device. It is designed to prevent an inertial discharge because it is designed to move in the opposite direction of the trigger when under inertial load (and again, this is only for very specific orientations, typically straight back. I am skeptical if the inverted impact that set off the gen 1 P320s would have been prevented by this if the dongle was not explicitly designed for that orientation. This is why some people question their efficacy in real-world drop situations. See my prior comments above and marry them to other comments on industry standard drop testing).

It is explicitly designed to not be in the way when something is pulling on the trigger, which is what FOD does. Thinking it will, in general, prevent FOD discharges is bad and wrong. That is not what it was designed to do (and I will keep repeating that until it sticks). Such a safety has nothing to do with holster discharges at all.

 

[1775usmc]

Sounds like cognitive dissonance…

Sure…. Call it whatever you like. lol.

 

[DirectDrive]

Whats "FOD"?

Foreign Object, Debris

 

[1775usmc]

So am I. That is what FOD is. Foreign Object Debris. It gets in the holster, it interacts with the trigger (including the "trigger safety") gun goes off. This is not hard to figure out. trigger dongles (because "trigger safety" really is a misnomer) are not even designed to prevent FOD. Glock themselves consider them part of the drop safety group, and any edge-case FOD activation they might prevent is only incidental.

And in case you had not noticed, most incidents of FOD activation do not involve some small, hardened steel hook grabbing the very edge of a trigger. That does not usually offer enough friction to pull the trigger without slipping off first. To my knowledge no such incident has been detected in the wild before.

Most such incidents are things like a length of lanyard getting caught behind the trigger and pulling across the trigger's entire front face. Or a shirt getting bunched into the trigger guard. Or the holster itself getting fouled and pulling the trigger.

View attachment 2066856
Oh hey look! A Glock!

This is what the vast majority of FOD incidents look like. A large bunch of stuff getting smooshed against the trigger face.

And this is why Glock does not consider the dongle an effective FOD safety. With a "pull" measured in grams it can be moved out of the way with a slight brush, let alone a solid smoosh against some FOD. Which is exactly what is was designed to do, because preventing something (anything) from pulling the trigger was not the design intent of the device. It is designed to prevent an inertial discharge because it is designed to move in the opposite direction of the trigger when under inertial load (and again, this is only for very specific orientations, typically straight back. I am skeptical if the inverted impact that set off the gen 1 P320s would have been prevented by this if the dongle was not explicitly designed for that orientation. This is why some people question their efficacy in real-world drop situations. See my prior comments above and marry them to other comments on industry standard drop testing).

It is explicitly designed to not be in the way when something is pulling on the trigger, which is what FOD does. Thinking it will, in general, prevent FOD discharges is bad and wrong. That is not what it was designed to do (and I will keep repeating that until it sticks). Such a safety has nothing to do with holster discharges at all.

Congratulations you can write novels. I think I need to start drawing pictures with crayons to explain my position.

 

[mhayd93]

Congratulations you can write novels. I think I need to start drawing pictures with crayons to explain my position.

You are a living, breathing logical fallacy, a testament to all Greek Philosophers lol

 

[1775usmc]

You are a living, breathing logical fallacy, a testament to all Greek Philosophers lol

I was in the marines. I don't know what that means. Barney style please.

 

[lucusloc]

Congratulations you can write novels. I think I need to start drawing pictures with crayons to explain my position.

If your position is that trigger dongles will prevent holster discharges caused by FOD no amount of crayon drawings will make you correct. Even Glock will take issue with your position on that.

 

[1775usmc]

If your position is that trigger dongles will prevent holster discharges caused by FOD no amount of crayon drawings will make you correct. Even Glock will take issue with your position on that.

I can prove that it can. Whether it was intended for that purpose or not.

 

[Kruel J]

You have to pull from the center on all triggers.

That is absolutely not true for triggers with no blade safety. Side friction or other forces could be applied to the trigger off-angle to cause it to pull. Where in the world did you come up with that?

 

[lucusloc]

I can prove that it can. Whether it was intended for that purpose or not.

I am not disputing that there are edge cases where it will work. I am saying those edge cases are not relevant to the real world, should not be relied upon as an actual safety measure nor are they an argument for why Sig needs a trigger mounted inertial drop safety when they already have multiple internal drop safeties already. Really, what is another drop safety going to do, other than maybe get lucky and prevent one FOD discharge out of hundreds (and I am skeptical of even that)?

No holster discharge I am aware of (and seen photos of) would have been prevented by a trigger dongle. A huge number of them I am aware of happened with Glocks that do have a trigger dongle.

Incidentally I jut checked S&W's position on the device. Yep, inertial drop safety too, not to be confused with trigger safety meant to guard against unintentional trigger pulls. I can do more if we need to, but I am pretty confident I can predict other manufacturers positions on the topic.

At the end of the day triggers are designed to function when pulled. This is regardless of if they posses a trigger dongle or not. If FOD interacts with a trigger it is most probably going to defeat the trigger dongle, because that is how the trigger dongle is designed to function. It is not designed to prevent the trigger from being pulled by <some object>, it is designed to prevent the trigger from being moved by inertia alone, and from a very specific direction at that. Relying on it for anything else is bad and wrong. Get it out of your head.

 

[Kruel J]

I'm going to start by being kind of a bubblegum and say, if you are one of the Sig haters that can be bothered reading the fairly short article, please go to one of the other threads and barf all over it while making yourself look uninformed and closed minded. Let the adults talk for a while. You are of course welcome to stay if you read the information and disagree.


Guessing the hooked part once ratcheted out of the frame. With the current design of many duty holsters now, I could see this part of the cuffs getting to a trigger.

So let me rephrase:

We actually did some due diligence and found that the holster design allowed for another piece of equipment carried by the officer, to press the trigger and allow the gun to be fired as designed. So our answer is not to fix the holster, but replace the gun.​

Un-f'ing believeable. The stupid is beyond strong with topic.


And that would have solved this shooting or the recruit at the academy exactly how?????????????

ACADEMY ND:

From the article:

"Both the recruit and the instructor said the recruit's finger was not on the trigger."​

Really? I won't say the recruit is intentionally lying, but are we really going to believe him? This is not an uncommon occurrence, recruits' fingers on triggers while drawing and holstering. What really pisses me off, is that the instructor said this was the case too. Really? Look at the video and see where this instructor was standing. Behind the recruit and to his left (right handed shooter). X-ray vision on these instructors now? The other instructor to the right appears to be walking away from the area. The RSO was way back and to the left also.

They need to recreate these positions, and if it is found that the instructor who claims to KNOW the recruit's finger was not on the trigger at the time could not have seen this, they need to be FIRED immediately for lying. If I'm missing something with this, I'll gladly stand corrected.

Thanks for this thread @Old Dog

Let the adults talk for a while? Ok buddy.

 

[1775usmc]

I am not disputing that there are edge cases where it will work. I am saying those edge cases are not relevant to the real world, should not be relied upon as an actual safety measure nor are they an argument for why Sig needs a trigger mounted inertial drop safety when they already have multiple internal drop safeties already. Really, what is another drop safety going to do, other than maybe get lucky and prevent one FOD discharge out of hundreds (and I am skeptical of even that)?

No holster discharge I am aware of (and seen photos of) would have been prevented by a trigger dongle. A huge number of them I am aware of happened with Glocks that do have a trigger dongle.

Incidentally I jut checked S&W's position on the device. Yep, inertial drop safety too, not to be confused with trigger safety meant to guard against unintentional trigger pulls. I can do more if we need to, but I am pretty confident I can predict other manufacturers positions on the topic.

At the end of the day triggers are designed to function when pulled. This is regardless of if they posses a trigger dongle or not. If FOD interacts with a trigger it is most probably going to defeat the trigger dongle, because that is how the trigger dongle is designed to function. It is not designed to prevent the trigger from being pulled by <some object>, it is designed to prevent the trigger from being moved by inertia alone, and from a very specific direction at that. Relying on it for anything else is bad and wrong. Get it out of your head.

Ok cool. You know all.

I used the wrong terminology. Congrats. I shouldn't have said "safety" and I should have said Dongle… although it does prohibit certain contacts at certain angles from moving the trigger rearward. Even though that's not its intended purpose.

The same can't be said for the P320. In fact SIG probably should have done a little study on gravity and trigger weight. Oh wait…. They still say that was super "rare."

 

[mhayd93]

Glock fanbois have entered the chat…lol

 

[1775usmc]

Glock fanbois have entered the chat…lol

Not a Glock fan boy. Just hate SIG.

Love S&W, HK, Glock… you know quality. Hell I'd take a high point over a P320.

 

[Kruel J]

Glock fanbois have entered the chat…lol

Someone has to be the voice of reason.

 

[1775usmc]

Someone has to be the voice of reason.

 

[WillametteWill]

Let the adults talk for a while? Ok buddy.

Yea, unlike people who come to threads, who TL;DR (or watch) articles, posts, and videos and then just barf headlines, don't acknowledge information that runs contrary to their carved in stone opinions, and misrepresent facts, not opinions, that several of us have put forth. At least @1775usmc reads stuff, posts relevant information (usually contrary to my line of thinking...which is great), and acknowledges others viewpoints (while throwing in a Sigs suck comment every now and then )

So yea, adults.

Some members might be less willing to donate and support the forum when they are having to weed through an important topic that several of us have pointed out is one that is not as much about Sigs, but a long game to make it so all SF guns are deemed "dangerous" by the courts. Yet when this has been brought up several times in various forums, most eloquently by @lucusloc , all we here is "Sigs suck"

Sorry you are not seeing this.