SIG P-320, redux...

[mhayd93]

No sh!t. I knew I wasn't going crazy. lol. All these SIG guys are dumbing me down. Haha.

I refuse to get to that level. Haha.

Oh the irony…

 

[Lilhigbee]

Oh the irony…

How can you have irony when the guns are all plasticy??

 

[Dirty Cary]

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

The Goku and Frieza fight in DBZ was less drawn out than this thread

 

[DirectDrive]

Harry Sigzilla agrees

 

[1775usmc]

 

[TTSX]

The Goku and Frieza fight in DBZ was less drawn out than this thread

That had nothin on super Buu

 

[Mark K]

I finally have a use for this…

 

[mhayd93]

The Goku and Frieza fight in DBZ was less drawn out than this thread

Oh great, now the weebs have entered the chat! lol

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Oh great, now the weebs have entered the chat! lol

If your upset about the weebs I can't wait till you find out about the juggalos!!

 

[TTSX]

If your upset about the weebs I can't wait till you find out about the juggalos!!

Woop woooop! J-U-double G-A-L-O

 

[Old Dog]

Can we at least agree that it's called a Trigger Safety or the slang, Trigger Dingus ?

I believe the preferable term (at least among those of us who aren't Glock fanbois) is "trigger dingus."

And we all know that the educated trigger finger likes a smooth-faced trigger...

 

[Old Dog]

Oh boy...get the tissues out for those whinny prissy Sig owners. Never an issue with a Glock

Well now, you're certainly late to the party bub. Glock fanboi, eh? Also, too young to have been around in the '80s and early '90s during the "Glock leg" issues?

Let's catch you up: there has NEVER been one single documented instance of any firearms expert, gunsmith or forensic firearms examiner, through lo, all these silly civil trials (initiated by a single ambulance chasing attorney out for a big payday), that has been able to replicate one single instance of an "uncommanded discharge."

Are you with me so far?

 

[spookshack]

I believe the preferable term (at least among those of us who aren't Glock fanbois) is "trigger dingus."

And we all know that the educated trigger finger likes a smooth-faced trigger...

 

[1775usmc]

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/Xs3vIWkkm2A?si=xvVOrwoZ_bMXbIx3

 

[Hotdog 7]

Let's use this case as an example of how misinformation is massive regarding Sigs.

Yes, there was a video introduced into evidence. No, it was not of any testing to replicate the alleged issues with Sigs. It was of an officer exiting his vehicle when the gun went off. Subsequently, his department did the right thing and found that the seatbelt hung up on the gun and it fired because the trigger was pulled.

(The Roscommon incident was the one where the department found the discharge was from the seatbelt.)

That wasn't the department's stance. It was a statement by a sergeant who responded and investigated. From the court case I linked;

After the incident, a sergeant with the Roscommon County Sheriff's Department investigated. Contrary to Officer Richardson's statement in the video that the seatbelt could not have hit the trigger because it was completely covered, the sergeant found that, as Officer Richardson rose to exit his car, the driver's side seatbelt somehow dislodged the trigger. At trial, the Sheriff Department's findings were presented in the form of an affidavit. The court was not persuaded that the seatbelt somehow caused the accidental discharge; the court found the video itself (including Officer Richardson's statements at the scene) persuasive evidence that the P320 can misfire without someone pulling the trigger.
...
The strongest evidence introduced at trial that Sig Sauer knew or should have known that the P320 could potentially fire without an intentional trigger pull is the Roscommon incident. Even under Sig Sauer's theory of the Roscommon incident (i.e., the seatbelt caused the gun to fire), Officer Richardson did not "want" his P320 to fire and did not intentionally pull the trigger.

While Guay lost his case against Sig Sauer, the court did find the argument of the Roscommon incident persuasive that the P320 is capable of firing on its own, but found that fact not relevant to the reason Guay's P320 discharged because of the time between the two incidents.

 

[WillametteWill]

That wasn't the department's stance. It was a statement by a sergeant who responded and investigated. From the court case I linked;

After the incident, a sergeant with the Roscommon County Sheriff's Department investigated. Contrary to Officer Richardson's statement in the video that the seatbelt could not have hit the trigger because it was completely covered, the sergeant found that, as Officer Richardson rose to exit his car, the driver's side seatbelt somehow dislodged the trigger. At trial, the Sheriff Department's findings were presented in the form of an affidavit. The court was not persuaded that the seatbelt somehow caused the accidental discharge; the court found the video itself (including Officer Richardson's statements at the scene) persuasive evidence that the P320 can misfire without someone pulling the trigger.
...
The strongest evidence introduced at trial that Sig Sauer knew or should have known that the P320 could potentially fire without an intentional trigger pull is the Roscommon incident. Even under Sig Sauer's theory of the Roscommon incident (i.e., the seatbelt caused the gun to fire), Officer Richardson did not "want" his P320 to fire and did not intentionally pull the trigger.

While Guay lost his case against Sig Sauer, the court did find the argument of the Roscommon incident persuasive that the P320 is capable of firing on its own, but found that fact not relevant to the reason Guay's P320 discharged because of the time between the two incidents.

But what it seems that you and many others are missing is that an independent investigation, that either goes against the best interest of the department, or was conducted by an entity that is at the very least neutral, determined that an outside force caused the trigger to be pulled. That department conducted the investigation for their own purpose, not to sway a court case one way or the other. The fact that one judge was not satisfied by this is out of everyone's control (but it was investigated, just like the other investigation I quoted, where the keys were found to have pulled the trigger and the handcuffs were found in the OP for this thread).

Note the meaning of what you posted above:

The strongest evidence introduced at trial that Sig Sauer knew or should have known that the P320 could potentially fire without an intentional trigger pull is the Roscommon incident. Even under Sig Sauer's theory of the Roscommon incident (i.e., the seatbelt caused the gun to fire), Officer Richardson did not "want" his P320 to fire and did not intentionally pull the trigger. ​

What they are trying to say here is that because Sig says their guns don't fire unless you want them to, their guns are unsafe if another outside force makes them fire and you didn't want it to go off. This is how lawyers think and spin arguments into something a rational person would think is idiotic. I go back to this quote from the case you linked:
Other than Guay's testimony and the video of the Roscommon incident, Guay introduced no other evidence about specific P320s and alleged misfires.

Oh boy...get the tissues out for those whinny prissy Sig owners. Never an issue with a Glock

I get you are new here and likely have not seen posts on this before, but one department, over a 10-year period of time, had over 100 ND with their Glocks, resulting in numerous lawsuits and injuries. LAPD had the same issues when they swapped their Berettas for M&Ps (and I'm an M&P guy). I bring this up not because Glocks or M&Ps are bad, but because those of us who have been around have seen this movie before.

 

[WillametteWill]

Unfortunately we can't get rid of incompetence.

Correct. But if you are prudent, you design products understanding this. Hence, my broken record rant of why mechanical safeties are a valid consideration for SF guns. (And my disclaimer that everyone should carry what and how they please.) But I firmly believe we are currently, and have been since Gen 1 Glocks, seeing the results of SF guns without mechanical safeties.

 

[Koda]

The Guay trial evidence did not prove the gun went off on its own.

 

[1775usmc]

Correct. But if you are prudent, you design products understanding this. Hence, my broken record rant of why mechanical safeties are a valid consideration for SF guns. (And my disclaimer that everyone should carry what and how they please.) But I firmly believe we are currently, and have been since Gen 1 Glocks, seeing the results of SF guns without mechanical safeties.

It definitely is another level of safety that I think cops could benefit from and in all honesty due to the work conditions I could see it being mandatory as much as I would disagree with that. I understand your standing on the mechanical safety and I totally understand and respect it. I won't carry a gun for EDC that has a safety. With that said my EDC gun doesn't leave the holster and I don't have a light that allows a gap. Plus I carry a platform I trust and have years of experience behind.

If I was to go back into a duty role with how much disrespect there is to law and authority and how often things go hands on and to the ground I would probably go to a platform with a manual safety. Probably a M&P with a safety. But for EDC I don't see a mechanical safety being essential. But I'm also very diligent/aware every time I handle/holster/unholster my gun. Never in a rush.