"After reviewing the "screw" video, we are going to ban all P320's with a screw jammed into the trigger mechanism from our outdoor range."
LOL!!!
Banned Firearm
- Thread starter Kinman
- Start date
LOL!!!
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 398
The gun banners and anti-2A crowd are going to drone on no matter what. I disagree that gun enthusiasts criticizing the P320 helps their cause in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, it demonstrates that we are the reasonable ones who hold manufacturers on "our side" to a high standard of professionalism in producing mechanically sound products. It's a silly notion that we should remain silent when a manufacturer is potentially producing bad designs and then blaming its design flaws on the consumer. The thing that gives the gun grabbers the most ammo in this case is the simple fact these incidents keep happening. Sig should have recalled the pistol long ago or replaced it with a better design. Why they couldn't have used a slightly scaled up version of the P365's FCU for the P320 is puzzling. The P365 had initial issues with broken strikers and other quality issues, but it has never shown any evidence of being an unsafe design, despite being an extremely strong selling pistol.Your desire and determined push to promote the truth about the immorality of CEO, the use of cheap and possibly defective parts in a firearm, and the possible failed design, is a 2-edge sword.
YES… the positive impact…. the ongoing debacle and the outcome will likely make other firearm manufacturers take notice of the results and hopefully change their business practices, engineering designs, parts sourcing, testing, and customer service.
YES… the negative impact of this will, as history has clearly shown, give the anti-2A gun-haters ammunition to continue their moronic cause to destroy our right to defend ourselves.
I'm a big fan of the 1st Amendment, but I'm a bigger fan of the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.
Some of my best friends are engineers.
Perhaps you could be like a Roger Boisjoly.
The NASA engineer who discovered the fault in the Challenger space shuttle's rocket boosters and warned against the launch was Roger Boisjoly. Boisjoly was a Morton Thiokol engineer who, along with other engineers, warned NASA that cold temperatures would cause O-rings to fail, leading to the fatal launch on January 28, 1986.
I'm not anti-Sig overall. In addition to a P320, I own a P229, P239, and a P365X and love the latter 3 guns. I carry the P365X daily, I admire its design, and I completely trust it. I have a couple criticisms of the P365 as well, but the fact is, it doesn't have the design vulnerabilities of the P320. I am highly critical of Sig's corporate attitude and the very shady actions (of which there has been many) it has taken since the P320 was introduced and that starts from the top leadership in Ron Cohen.
Last edited:
For what it's worth, this is an excerpt from an open letter put out by Sig Sauer on July 24 of this year:
"The P320 cannot, under any circumstance, discharge without a trigger pull. Lawsuits with claims that the P320 is capable of firing without a trigger pull have been dismissed in twelve (12) separate federal district courts, including a decision by a unanimous eight (8) person jury. In addition, five (5) other lawsuits against SIG SAUER regarding the P320 with different liability theories have also been dismissed. Plaintiffs' own experts have abandoned their theories that the P320 can discharge without a trigger pull after not being able to replicate it. Further, plaintiffs' own experts have repeatedly admitted under oath the P320 cannot discharge without trigger actuation..."
The underlining is in the original document. I note the reliance of the company's position their having won court cases based at least partly on testifying experts' inability to replicate the uncommanded discharge.
"The P320 cannot, under any circumstance, discharge without a trigger pull. Lawsuits with claims that the P320 is capable of firing without a trigger pull have been dismissed in twelve (12) separate federal district courts, including a decision by a unanimous eight (8) person jury. In addition, five (5) other lawsuits against SIG SAUER regarding the P320 with different liability theories have also been dismissed. Plaintiffs' own experts have abandoned their theories that the P320 can discharge without a trigger pull after not being able to replicate it. Further, plaintiffs' own experts have repeatedly admitted under oath the P320 cannot discharge without trigger actuation..."
The underlining is in the original document. I note the reliance of the company's position their having won court cases based at least partly on testifying experts' inability to replicate the uncommanded discharge.
"On the contrary, it demonstrates that we are the reasonable ones who hold manufacturers on "our side" to a high standard of professionalism in producing mechanically sound products."
Unfortunately and pathetically, the anti-gun and 2A-haters don't give rat's arse about any moral accountability on our side!
The gun-haters would not recognize a high standard of professionalism if it smacked them in the face!
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 398
And thus, we shouldn't give a damn what they think because no matter what we do or don't do, say or don't say, it won't change their strategies or talking points one iota. The very last thing we should ever do is turn a blind eye towards potential product safety deficiencies for the sake of some imaginary scenario that somehow we are helping our enemies by being responsible and not putting our heads in the sand. The greater good is shedding light on poorly engineered products and insisting that gun companies act responsibly towards its loyal customers when lives are potentially at stake.
He's simulating take-up- it is only removing the "slack" so people won't say he is pulling it. Mimics a slightly engaged trigger, which is a real possibility because the 320 has no trigger safety and deactivates the striker safety at the **beginning** of the firing sequence.
Completely agree.
Got to challenge this: Sig explicitly cultivated the P320 not as a stand-alone pistol, but as an **ecosystem** of accessories and parts and vendors and modifications for the FCU to ride in- anything from a compact pistol to a literal SMG faux-SBR. This creates a dizzying array of permutations of what a 320 might be….and they themselves said it's safe and reasonable for the owners to "build" those. Can't tell Joe it's safe to do Whatever with and then complain it wasn't OEM when it was sold on the basis of accessorizing it with Sig's blessings
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 398
Please understand I don't wish to be contrarian at all. I bet you and I have lots of similar views and shared life experiences. I have read and appreciated lots of your posts and see you as a thoughtful, intelligent guy. I happen to be an analytical person, the kind of guy who likes to look into how things work and solve problems, so I approach topics like this with that mindset. I find this P320 fiasco to be both fascinating and tragic, and being a firearms fanatic and semi-gunsmith, I enjoy digging into the mechanics of guns and study the genius of the designs as well as their shortcomings.Completely agree.
It's a lot easier to be anti-gun when the gun community is arguing **in support of** both carrying a pistol capable of spontaneous in commanded firing ***and*** trying to deflect accountability for those discharges away from the company manufacturing and selling them on the pretense that they're **incapable** of what we've observed is possible.
Defending Sig isn't good for the 2A, it's literally burning our credibility to protect profit margins and poor choices.
I can't find any real saving graces to the 320; nothing it does is particularly innovative or different than its competitors and sometimes it's more dangerous to those carrying and around that person than anything else.
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 398
EXACTLY!!! Sig has really changed their tune on what they say today vs how they marketed the P320 at the beginning. Also, when they first responded to the unintended discharge claims and the holster firing videos, they first said in their press releases "the P320 cannot fire without the trigger being fully actuated." Then when the Wyoming guy video came out, the wording in their press releases suddenly morphed into "the P320 cannot fire without the trigger being moved to the rear."
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 398
Extremely well-said! Exactly what I was thinking but couldn't come up with such an eloquent way of expressing it!
LVSteve
Member
Also noted elsewhere. https://www.twz.com/land/sig-m18-pistol-returned-to-service-by-air-force-global-strike-command
I found this passage interesting, my emphasis added.
"The inspection process identified discrepancies with 191 weapons across the command's M18 inventory," the command explained. "The primary discrepancy was related to component wear. The most frequent issues centered on problems with the safety lever, striker assembly and sear. Weapons exhibiting these discrepancies were immediately tagged and are undergoing necessary repairs."
I found this sentence particularly interesting.
"A review of weapon discharges in AFGSC showed that none were attributed to weapons malfunction."
"A review of weapon discharges in AFGSC showed that none were attributed to weapons malfunction."
And these are **not** high-use, high-round-count, high-abuse pistols.
hdfinder47
Member
Just sayin': a screw jammed into the trigger is a bit of a weird "modification"!
It's not a modification, it's a field-expedient way of demonstrating he isn't pulling the trigger to the point of discharge on its own.
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 398
If it were intended as a "modification." It wasn't. It was intended to simulate what could happen according to the counter-claims Sig and others are making that something inside holsters "has" to be touching the trigger and that the gun cannot fire without completely pressing the trigger. He was showing how little movement of the trigger is required to put the gun in a very unsafe condition, and also how ineffective the P320's striker block safety is, given the fact that the trigger isn't close to being completely depressed. The striker block safety is already completely deactivated during initial trigger take up. Given this, when exactly does the striker block safety ever work as a failsafe? It allows him to demonstrate how touchy the trigger is while keeping his finger off the trigger (which critics would counter with "he obviously pulled the trigger") and establishes a consistent baseline for each repetition of the slide manipulation to show that the failure is repeatable.
Last edited:
Similar threads
