By now I guess everyone has seen the Dallas PD SIG 320 controversy (as opposed to the DoD controversy after selecting that weapon):

BREAKING: P320 Recall Issued By Dallas Police | Prohibited From Duty Till Repaired - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog

(c) The Firearms Blog 2017

I think, however, it has been resolved:

Why the Sig 320 is going to rule the world: Open design architecture and modularity | SOFREP

© Copyright 2017 Hurricane Group, Inc.

Actually, I think the whole thing was an error but I cannot seem to locate proof of that so I will just post these sites for discussion - maybe someone around this campfire has a definitive answer.

Unfounded?

Official Statement :SIG Sauer Reaffirms Safety of the P-320 pistol./ DPD Is In The Process Of Giving The Ok To Again Allow Officers To Carry The P-320. - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog

Sig is saying all's well, but there might just be a trigger-safety in the P320's future. Stay Tuned.

It was resolved in the statement linked above.

Then it maybe wasn't: Omaha Outdoors P-320 Drop Test Video / It failed when dropped on the butt of the gun - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog

In my opinion, it is being overblown.

The Omaha Outdoors procedure is different than any official drop test in the world, which raises questions:
1. How many other designs of handguns would fail this new, non-official drop procedure? I have my doubts about some old standards.
2. Since the Sig P320 comes with different trigger designs, and one type trigger NEVER fired when dropped, is the "solution" as simple as using this ONE trigger on all production items?
3. Should this new drop procedure become standard for all firearms, including each specific factory and aftermarket trigger? Talk about opening a bucket of worms......

__________________
Science plus Art

Per the Omaha Outdoors video above, you notice the industry drop tests test for the dropped gun going off when it hits muzzle down or on its side or back -- when the bullet is less likely to hit something vital, but they don't test when the discharged round would be going up. I am confused as to how they designed their testing protocols.

I view these reports as "fake news", each one building on previous reports which are vague or not credible. Sig cannot deny what is stated, it's akin to the question "when did you stop beating your wife?"

__________________
Made it, Ma! Top of the world!

Based upon the Omaha Outdoors video it looks like the old testing is flawed. I always believed the muzzle down drop test was to ensure the firing pin didn't gain enough momentum to hit the primer and fire off a round when it hit the ground.

A muzzle down drop isn't terribly dangerous unless the gun is dropped from a height where it could land on someones head. Dropped 4' onto the ground and a round goes off most likely it's no big deal. Dropped from a building and landing on a person could be a problem.

I always assumed they did a variety of drop tests at a variety of angles but I guess that was an incorrect assumption.

There is a school of thought that says dropping a gun onto the butt can provoke the trigger into moving under its own inertia and fire the gun. The thinking is also that a trigger with a blade safety won't fire because of the way they are sprung and pivot. Does the 320 have some form of trigger safety?

__________________
Release the Kraken

SIG does NOT have a trigger safety as the pistol is currently sold. They did, apparently, design a tabbed trigger like the Glock and it is shown in the original catalogs as being an "option."

Why anyone would think that it is OK or acceptable for the pistol to fire when it falls from any angle is a mystery to me. Pistols should be drop safe. Period.

The technology exists, and Glock understood this, and that is why every other maker of a striker fired pistol has a similar device on its trigger.

I carry a Colt 1903 Pocket Hammerless and a 1970s-era Colt LW Commander (not at the same time). Neither is drop safe. It doesn't bother me a bit. Guns are dangerous.

I also run with scissors and swim immediately after eating.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

This is really right for most of us. I can understand an agency being more nervous with non-gun people that constitute a significant part of large agency hires these days.

And, by the way - it is hard to beat a Colt LW Commander, pre-Series 80.

Good point!!

No controversy at all, except for one whipped up by a tabloid gun blog. Nothing to see here. It's like watching CNN, mostly fiction.

__________________
America First

I dunno, I feel like it is for sure being overblown but also that it should be looked at just to make sure.

Also, i find it hard to believe that the military would accept it without their own intensive testing.

__________________
Smith all the things

More gun blog nonsense. I thought this had already been hashed to death here.

You deciding to go running with scissors and swimming after eating poses no risk to me or my family in the shopping mall. You carrying a pistol known to discharge if dropped *DOES* pose a risk to me and my family at the shopping mall.

It may not bother you that you carry chambered pistols known to discharge when dropped (with at least one confirmed death that I know of)---but others may be bothered by this disregard to the safety of others around you.

No NO NOOooooooooooo...... I don't think you're even in the same State!!!!!

And I bet he shops Amazon Prime...... and hasn't been in a Mall in years!!
I know I haven't ......................................

Yes...it has been debated and decided here is the test..........

__________________
Hipcocked45

Thanks for posting that. This is NOT GOOD for SIG.

The end user customer should not be the ones who find out that a firearm is unsafe to carry---reckless if you ask me.

I think it is time to reference the post that included Shawn's original explanation of trigger safeties. See post #3 in this thread. Is the trigger really a safety?

__________________
Release the Kraken

Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but everyone (including me) isn't going to carry a pistol that satisfies your requirements.

Your disapproval of certain pistols, or a certain type of pistol, and your chastising of a gun owner/forum member who chooses to carry a gun you don't like borders on infringement of that person's Second Amendment rights. Your argument is the same as some anti-gun groups who want to limit which guns can be sold, used, and/or carried. And your argument does not hold water.

I carry whatever handgun I choose, in keeping with my rights...not some random handgun that you or anyone else approves of.



Oh, and I don't always go to malls, but when I do, I carry a pistol of my choosing.

My disapproval of the carriage of certain types of pistols is not an infringement on anyone else's rights. I am bothered by, and disprove of all sorts of things: like ketchup on hotdogs, smoking weed, cheating on one's spouse, violent porn, and riding a motorcycle without a helmet. This doesn't entail that I want any of that, including the carrying of certain types of pistols, illegal. I'd just prefer otherwise. Notice that my argument *is not* the same as an anti-argument; no where did I say I wanted the law or government to step in.

Go ahead and carry pistols that can inertia-fire (and have done so in the past) when dropped. Go ahead and carry a 1911 cocked and unlocked without a holster. Go ahead and cheat on your spouse and look at lecherous images---I'm not asking that the government prevent you in doing these things, but I am saying I'd prefer to keep different company.

The 70 series 1911 hasn't changed in a 100 years. One from 1929, 1955, 1970 and 2017 are the same.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I saw light sabers, and blasters on Star Wars, they must exist, they were in video.

^^^Bravo! Could not have said it better myself.

I am giving this a single face palm, but it could easily qualify for a double...

Attached Images

imsdddfsages.jpg (4.7 KB, 7 views)

Not an argument

Thanks for your permission. I would have a better reply, but I have not been able to stop laughing.

Also not an argument.

Go back and read carefully what I wrote. It has nothing to do with permission. You've confused two distinct concepts as if they were one:
1) giving permission, where absent it, x would be forbidden. VS:

2) We are all free to do what we want; including disapproving of some actions, and approving of others.

I have advocated for number (2), and reject number (1).

This is pretty elementary.

There is nothing to argue about, most of us will carry what we feel like. It does not matter whether you like it, or not. Or give your approval, that is the way personal choices work.

I do get amused though when someone thinks they have the force like Obi Wan to use mind control. "Sorry but this IS the droid I am looking for."

Fair enough. It matters not to you what others think about the dangers of your choices, and that's fine. I never asked you to care about what I think. All I said in my original post is that some people *do* care about the choices that others make, while recognizing that they are free to make those choices.

The guy who cheats on his spouse probably doesn't care what others think of him, just as someone who carries a pistol that *will* inertia fire probably doesn't care what others think.

You are free to dismiss my disapproval of your choices in life, and I'm free to disapprove of your choices. That's how freedom works.

All righy then...

Attached Images

jiFfM.jpg (66.6 KB, 10 views)

You've made no bones about your disapproval of certain types of pistols and the people who carry them. The only reason you aren't infringing on others' rights is because you can't.

We aren't talking about all sorts of things in this thread. Try to stay on topic.

Your personal preferences are totally irrelevant when it comes to others' choice of carry handguns. Your preferences are no different that those of anti-gun folks who would have us eschew magazines holding more than ten rounds or who would disallow our use of just about any semi-automatic weapon.

Your argument differs only in context. You make it clear you don't like/don't want people carrying handguns you disapprove of, and if you had your way, they wouldn't.

That makes absolutely no sense. At all. I've been a gun owner and shooter for over fifty years. I've never known anyone who walks around with a cocked and unlocked 1911 in their hand while out shopping or doing other business.

What? That's so disturbingly off topic, I won't even try to comment on it.

You've conflated two different positions:

1) I don't want you to do x, and I want the government to restrict you (even if I can't get my way)
VS.
2) I don't like that you do x, but I don't want the government to restrict you from doing x.

I've argued for 2, and I reject 1. Don't confuse these two normatively distinct positions.

If you think the use of analogies are to veer off topic, then we aren't even talking the same language.

They do exist. I know because I bought one shortly after the first Star Wars film was released. It was powered by 4 D-batteries, and had a button on it that would cause it to make a whooshing sound when you swung it round and round.

I wish I still had it.

Did they pass youtube drop tests?

Enough....