Still like the Sig 320? 20 Federal agents, police, private citizens file lawsuit

[Koda]

Lets recap the debate:

against sig: the guns are going off uncommanded
for sig: no one has replicated them going off
against sig: shows meme of sig firing when dropped
for sig: they fixed that problem years ago, thats not the subject
against sig: but 80 incidents of them going off uncommanded
for sig: no one has replicated them going off
against sig: shows meme of sig firing when dropped.........

 

[1775usmc]

Lets recap the debate:

against sig: the guns are going off uncommanded
for sig: no one has replicated them going off
against sig: shows meme of sig firing when dropped
for sig: they fixed that problem years ago, thats not the subject
against sig: but 80 incidents of them going off uncommanded
for sig: no one has replicated them going off
against sig: shows meme of sig firing when dropped.........

 

[TTSX]

 

[Koda]

 

[1775usmc]

.

 

[lucusloc]

Nothing to see here.

View: https://youtu.be/7P14w4jTsHI?si=u5B3oWDsTqRk6lf9

View attachment 2059361

So manually defeating all the safety devices by dissembling the gun and pressing on the sear with an external FOD (for lack of a better term) cases the firing pin to strike? Who would have guessed

And his assertion at 2:40 is false, because his little test is also defeating the the sear safety catch. You can see details about this safety feature at 11:05 in this video (already linked in this thread):

View: https://youtu.be/VmwpkJuIR00?si=1eT3Jg7a_g6obhHq


By pressing down on the sear he is preventing the safety catch from functioning, even if the sear slips off due to a "really hard jolt." Those times that his tests failed were probably because he was not pressing down hard enough to defeat the safety catch while messing with the sear. Even if his theory about the laggy disconnector were true (I will reserve judgement on that) the fact that he is depressing the sear in the same manner that the trigger would and not in a manner that wouldn't hold the sear mechanism depressed (like a jolt) means that he has explicitly defeated the safety device that is the fallback to the disconnector. Yes, this is a multi-layer safety mechanism, such that the gun will fail safe even if the disconnector is inoperable.

I find it hilarious that people will watch a 15 minute video of a guy defeating every safety device in the gun and declaring that a "failure," but will not watch a video explaining how these mechanisms work in the first place so they can understand why this "test" is bunk. If this test were valid you could reproduce the error with a fully assembled gun, "sticky disconnector" included, and cause a discharge by "very firmly" striking the gun downward on the mag well (in the direction that would dislodge the sear, assuming that is even possible in a fully assembled configuration). I don't see such a test even attempted in this video.

Finally, this still does not explain any of the prior videos purporting to show these guns going off in their holsters without any kind of serious jolt. How does one get from this test scenario, where you effectively have to get the weight of the sear alone to overcome the sear interface friction (how many Gs does that take?) to a scenario where just pressing against the holster fires the gun?

We know how pressing against a holster causes other guns to fire; something inside pinches against the trigger, depressing it and causing the gun to operate as intended. Indeed, this is why, for example certain Glock/holster combinations are considered unsafe, as those holsters can pinch in a way that they operate the trigger. This is also a know weakness of many L3 retention holsters with trigger guard interlocks, or holsters with large gaps that can let in significant sized FOD to the trigger area.

Which seems more likely, that some magical series of events that shake the gun like a maraca in just the right way to defeat multiple safety mechanisms, which culminates in a slight bump defeating the sear friction and the sear safety catch and thus setting of the gun, or that there was something in the holster that operated the trigger when the whole assembly was twisted/pressed in the right way?

The claims being made here are not even consistent. Either it takes a large jolt to trip the sear (like what happened with the original drop safety failure), in which case this issue does not explain most of the videos presented so far, or you have to somehow get the sear to such a state that a minor tap to the slide not only trips the sear, but also somehow bypasses the sear catch with zero inertia on any of the mechanisms to hold it out of the way. This is not some "gotcha!" game where were just getting the gun to "go off" in some highly contrived configuration counts as a point. The standard is "can you get a fully functional firearm, as it is configured from the factory (correctly, defective or otherwise) to go off without a trigger pull?" If you cannot do that then you have not actually demonstrated anything at all (other than the obvious "if you purposefully defeat all the safety devices the gun will operate in ways that are not intended" which I do not think is exactly groundbreaking news).

The mind boggles.

 

[1775usmc]

So manually defeating all the safety devices by dissembling the gun and pressing on the sear with an external FOD (for lack of a better term) cases the firing pin to strike? Who would have guessed

And his assertion at 2:40 is false, because his little test is also defeating the the sear safety catch. You can see details about this safety feature at 11:05 in this video (already linked in this thread):

View: https://youtu.be/VmwpkJuIR00?si=1eT3Jg7a_g6obhHq


By pressing down on the sear he is preventing the safety catch from functioning, even if the sear slips off due to a "really hard jolt." Those times that his tests failed were probably because he was not pressing down hard enough to defeat the safety catch while messing with the sear. Even if his theory about the laggy disconnector were true (I will reserve judgement on that) the fact that he is depressing the sear in the same manner that the trigger would and not in a manner that wouldn't hold the sear mechanism depressed (like a jolt) means that he has explicitly defeated the safety device that is the fallback to the disconnector. Yes, this is a multi-layer safety mechanism, such that the gun will fail safe even if the disconnector is inoperable.

I find it hilarious that people will watch a 15 minute video of a guy defeating every safety device in the gun and declaring that a "failure," but will not watch a video explaining how these mechanisms work in the first place so they can understand why this "test" is bunk. If this test were valid you could reproduce the error with a fully assembled gun, "sticky disconnector" included, and cause a discharge by "very firmly" striking the gun downward on the mag well (in the direction that would dislodge the sear, assuming that is even possible in a fully assembled configuration). I don't see such a test even attempted in this video.

Finally, this still does not explain any of the prior videos purporting to show these guns going off in their holsters without any kind of serious jolt. How does one get from this test scenario, where you effectively have to get the weight of the sear alone to overcome the sear interface friction (how many Gs does that take?) to a scenario where just pressing against the holster fires the gun?

We know how pressing against a holster causes other guns to fire; something inside pinches against the trigger, depressing it and causing the gun to operate as intended. Indeed, this is why, for example certain Glock/holster combinations are considered unsafe, as those holsters can pinch in a way that they operate the trigger. This is also a know weakness of many L3 retention holsters with trigger guard interlocks, or holsters with large gaps that can let in significant sized FOD to the trigger area.

Which seems more likely, that some magical series of events that shake the gun like a maraca in just the right way to defeat multiple safety mechanisms, which culminates in a slight bump defeating the sear friction and the sear safety catch and thus setting of the gun, or that there was something in the holster that operated the trigger when the whole assembly was twisted/pressed in the right way?

The claims being made here are not even consistent. Either it takes a large jolt to trip the sear (like what happened with the original drop safety failure), in which case this issue does not explain most of the videos presented so far, or you have to somehow get the sear to such a state that a minor tap to the slide not only trips the sear, but also somehow bypasses the sear catch with zero inertia on any of the mechanisms to hold it out of the way. This is not some "gotcha!" game where were just getting the gun to "go off" in some highly contrived configuration counts as a point. The standard is "can you get a fully functional firearm, as it is configured from the factory (correctly, defective or otherwise) to go off without a trigger pull?" If you cannot do that then you have not actually demonstrated anything at all (other than the obvious "if you purposefully defeat all the safety devices the gun will operate in ways that are not intended" which I do not think is exactly groundbreaking news).

The mind boggles.

 

[lucusloc]

View attachment 2059425

And therein lies the difference between us. Some of us like to actually understand the issue, some people want the meme synopsis. But a meme will never tell you if/why a certain nuance/technical argument is bunk. I actually had my P320 disassembled and in front of me for both videos, and I am telling you one of those videos has come to some rather incorrect conclusions.

 

[1775usmc]

And therein lies the difference between us. Some of us like to actually understand the issue, some people want the meme synopsis. But a meme will never tell you if/why a certain nuance/technical argument is bunk. I actually had my P320 disassembled and in front of me for both videos, and I am telling you one of those videos has come to some rather incorrect conclusions.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

TLDR

 

[TTSX]

You know who isn't in a nationally publicized legal battle over a questionably safe pistol? Glock, CZ, HK, Ruger, S&W ... Hi point...

 

[lucusloc]

Ok, so I managed to replicate this guys results by intentionally "sticking" the striker safety (I removed the spring).

I can also confirm that

a. manually depressing the sear is functionally equivalent to pulling the trigger, in that you cannot release the sear fast enough to give the sear safety a chance to engage. Whatever you use to physically depress the sear (trigger of FOD) will prevent the sear assembly from snapping the safety into place as soon as the sear trips.

b. I cannot get the sear to "walk" at all, as the sear spring pressure is too great. I tried prying it slowly, I tried smacking the bottom of the gun, I tried jamming ever more FOD into the gap to creep the striker up the sear. . . nothing worked to set the sear to a hair trigger. It would always reset itself to default as soon as pressure was released.

If we are operating under the assumption that there are two failures here (the striker safety is inoperable and the sear is creeping up to a hair trigger) we still need to figure out a mechanism to defeat the sear safety. But since I cannot replicate one of those failures I have no way to then start testing the parameters needed to fail the sear safety. You would probably need a sear spring so weak the gun would not properly reset after the first firing. I simply do not see a way that you get a gun that can drop the striker due to a mechanical failure and remain functional enough to not detect the multiple failures needed to do that. Even granting this guy a busted striker safety that gun is still not going off without a trigger pull (or if it does go off like that, will not properly reset due to the sear failing to re-engage fast enough).

If we are operating on the assumption that there is a jolt big enough to overcome the standard sear engagement, that is probably enough force to physically damage or destroy the frame of the gun. And that is just to get the striker to hop the sear, we have not even considered giving the whole sear assembly enough inertia to overcome the sear and the sear safety. Might have to stick your gun in another gun and fire it at the wall to get that kind of energy into the system. The sear is pretty small and light, and it has a pretty stout little spring. It is not going anywhere unless something else moves it.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

You are using a properly functioning spring. The self firing gun in w Richland sig said the spring was defective and replaced it. As I said before likely a large batch of crap springs from India. It's not just sig that had problems. Even suppressor makers had crap India springs that fail.

 

[1775usmc]

Ok, so I managed to replicate this guys results by intentionally "sticking" the striker safety (I removed the spring).

I can also confirm that

a. manually depressing the sear is functionally equivalent to pulling the trigger, in that you cannot release the sear fast enough to give the sear safety a chance to engage. Whatever you use to physically depress the sear (trigger of FOD) will prevent the sear assembly from snapping the safety into place as soon as the sear trips.

b. I cannot get the sear to "walk" at all, as the sear spring pressure is too great. I tried prying it slowly, I tried smacking the bottom of the gun, I tried jamming ever more FOD into the gap to creep the striker up the sear. . . nothing worked to set the sear to a hair trigger. It would always reset itself to default as soon as pressure was released.

If we are operating under the assumption that there are two failures here (the striker safety is inoperable and the sear is creeping up to a hair trigger) we still need to figure out a mechanism to defeat the sear safety. But since I cannot replicate one of those failures I have no way to then start testing the parameters needed to fail the sear safety. You would probably need a sear spring so weak the gun would not properly reset after the first firing. I simply do not see a way that you get a gun that can drop the striker due to a mechanical failure and remain functional enough to not detect the multiple failures needed to do that. Even granting this guy a busted striker safety that gun is still not going off without a trigger pull (or if it does go off like that, will not properly reset due to the sear failing to re-engage fast enough).

If we are operating on the assumption that there is a jolt big enough to overcome the standard sear engagement, that is probably enough force to physically damage or destroy the frame of the gun. And that is just to get the striker to hop the sear, we have not even considered giving the whole sear assembly enough inertia to overcome the sear and the sear safety. Might have to stick your gun in another gun and fire it at the wall to get that kind of energy into the system. The sear is pretty small and light, and it has a pretty stout little spring. It is not going anywhere unless something else moves it.

Thanks for all your hard work and research. I now have full confidence in the P320.

 

[peteNW503]

Thanks for all your hard work and research. I now have e full confidence in the P320.

View attachment 2059587

While I completely respect his decision to do research. The fact that you have do that much research to justify owning one only proves our point.

 

[Bobbygun]

I know why the anti-Sig meme guys are so successful with their arguments. I actually read the memes. I've got the attention span of a, yeah my favorite primer brand is CCI.

 

[lucusloc]

While I completely respect his decision to do research. The fact that you have do that much research to justify owning one only proves our point.

Refuting false/misleading claims often takes more effort than generating the claims in the first place. This isn't about justifying anything, this is about trying for sort out truth from fiction. The original drop-safe issue was reproducible, and the mechanisms for the failure were easy to identify and understand. Some people made claims about failures, others reproduced those errors, still others sorted out the "why" of those failures. That is all I am working out here, but unlike the first time when a real failure was identified I (and a lot of other people) am not finding an actual issue.

Furthermore the claims seem to be inconsistent, as the cited incidents do not match the failure modes that are claimed to be demonstrated. The videos show guns in holsters going off with some kind of pressure being applied to the system. But the only plausible failure that has been presented so far is another drop-safe issue that requires a "strong jolt" to initiate (and did not even demonstrate such a failure as the demo required physical manipulation of the sear in a manner identical to how the trigger would function it).

But the video of the failure did do some good, as it demonstrated a plausible issue with one of the safety mechanisms in the gun. It is still not enough to generate an "uncommanded discharge" as there is another safety mechanism present that has not been demonstrated to be failure prone, but I think it would still be worth checking on in any gun you are planning to trust. If a defect is found raise the issue with Sig and get it remediated.

However, despite all that, we still do not have a theoretical, let alone plausible, failure mode for a discharge under simple pressure. . . unless we consider a failure of the holster and not the gun. If we consider holster failures we have all kinds of plausible mechanisms, as such failures are decently well known and understood.

If an "uncommanded discharge" failure can be identified and reproduced that would be something worth discovering and discussing, as there would be a genuine risk to people who own and use those firearms. But it is also important to note the failure to identify and reproduce results, as that has similar bearing on people's trust in the platform, not to mention could have potential impacts on cases brought against the manufacturer.

But of course all of this takes longer to investigate than it takes to generate a meme, and the explanation of that investigation is also longer than it takes to write/read a meme. The amount of effort needed to refute a claim is significantly disproportionate than the effort needed to make that claim in the first place.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

TLDR

 

[lucusloc]

You are using a properly functioning spring. The self firing gun in w Richland sig said the spring was defective and replaced it. As I said before likely a large batch of crap springs from India. It's not just sig that had problems. Even suppressor makers had crap India springs that fail.

Yeah, but even a failed spring in the striker safety does not get the gun to fire on its own. You would still have to overcome the sear safety, and I do not see how you do that and maintain the gun's over-all functionality even if you presume another bad spring in the sear mechanism. I am sure I could get the sear to walk to a hair trigger if I remove that spring as well, but it would be easy to identify that issue as the gun would no longer be functional and could not be put into a state where it could fire in the first place. I am not even convinced there is a balance point with a weak spring such that the sear can walk, trip and not engage the safety sear and there is enough pressure there that the sear will re-engage after a normal shot. It seams to get the first part would require a spring so weak as to be nonfunctional anyway.

The only way to reproduce the error he demonstrated is to actuate the sear exactly as he did, and as I explained that is functionally equivalent to actuating the sear with the trigger as it defeats the sear safety mechanism.

 

[Koda]

Yeah, but even a failed spring in the striker safety does not get the gun to fire on its own. You would still have to overcome the sear safety, and I do not see how you do that and maintain the gun's over-all functionality even if you presume another bad spring in the sear mechanism. I am sure I could get the sear to walk to a hair trigger if I remove that spring as well, but it would be easy to identify that issue as the gun would no longer be functional and could not be put into a state where it could fire in the first place. I am not even convinced there is a balance point with a weak spring such that the sear can walk, trip and not engage the safety sear and there is enough pressure there that the sear will re-engage after a normal shot. It seams to get the first part would require a spring so weak as to be nonfunctional anyway.

The only way to reproduce the error he demonstrated is to actuate the sear exactly as he did, and as I explained that is functionally equivalent to actuating the sear with the trigger as it defeats the sear safety mechanism.

What if both springs were defective ( weak?)?
Hypothetically if bi5h springs were weak could, over time carried all day in a holster (vibrations, bumps, etc.) the two weak springs allow the sear to walk until it discharges as if the trigger was pulled?.
And then, under the same Hypothetical, would it be difficult if virtually impossible to artificially release the striker manually in an attempt to replicate the issue of weak springs allowing the walk (since the sear starts out fully engaged)?