Banned Firearm

[GnarlsR2]

"Imagine this was an automotive forum."

Federal laws on firearm safety and quality

• No federal design safety standards: Unlike other consumer products, the Consumer Product Safety Act exempts firearms and ammunition from federal health and safety standards. The federal government does not have a mandate to require safety testing, implement design standards, or mandate recalls for defective firearms.

 

[willt]

Is my pistol defective? I do not think so, but someone might say it is. I have a new (last year) p320 Legion X5. It has a little play in the slide that I would think is probably normal. Let's just guess that the trigger is 4.00 lbs. (These are all guesses but you get it, right?) If I pull the trigger back with 3.95 lbs of pressure, hold it there, then mash down on the slide it fires. It does not fire if I ONLY put 3.90 or 3.80 lbs on the trigger and then mash on the slide.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

"Imagine this was an automotive forum."

Federal laws on firearm safety and quality

• No federal design safety standards: Unlike other consumer products, the Consumer Product Safety Act exempts firearms and ammunition from federal health and safety standards. The federal government does not have a mandate to require safety testing, implement design standards, or mandate recalls for defective firearms.

Which **should** make the public's decisions and opinions even more important. Absent federal requirements, it absolutely should be Sig's pleasure to rectify their mistake.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

Is my pistol defective? I do not think so, but someone might say it is. I have a new (last year) p320 Legion X5. It has a little play in the slide that I would think is probably normal. Let's just guess that the trigger is 4.00 lbs. (These are all guesses but you get it, right?) If I pull the trigger back with 3.95 lbs of pressure, hold it there, then mash down on the slide it fires. It does not fire if I ONLY put 3.90 or 3.80 lbs on the trigger and then mash on the slide.

A safe design won't fire regardless of slide movement

 

[Oldsalt66]

A safe design won't fire regardless of slide movement

That's incorrect.

Glock is a safe design.



The following video was created during the periods before the arrest of the suspect in the air man's shooting when the false narrative of the M18 firing spontaneously while holstered and simply lying on a table unmolested, was still in circulation, and before the release of the conclusion of the official air force report that found that the pistols were, in fact, not discharging spontaneously, to wit :"A review of weapon discharges in AFGSC showed that none were attributed to weapons malfunction." ; which accounts for the opening remarks since the facts were still unknown at the time.



And so are all of these "safe designs" ^^^^^^^.

 

[Oldsalt66]

Which **should** make the public's decisions and opinions even more important. Absent federal requirements, it absolutely should be Sig's pleasure to rectify their mistake.

Yup; it's time to bring back The Salem Witch Trials and drowning or burning those accused of being witches at the stake.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Glock is a safe design.



The following video was created during the periods before the arrest of the suspect in the air man's shooting when the false narrative of the M18 firing spontaneously while holstered was still in circulation, and before the release of the conclusion of the official air force report that found that the pistols were, in fact, not discharging spontaneously, to wit :"A review of weapon discharges in AFGSC showed that none were attributed to weapons malfunction." ; which accounts for the opening remarks since the facts were still unknown at the time.



And so are all of these "safe designs" ^^^^^^^.

Yes, and that Glock trigger (which is double action, by the way, which inherently adds another level of mechanical safety) was moved something like ¼ - ⅜" to get it to put it in the same condition as demonstrated by the P320 moving less than 0.050". In normal use, there is less than zero chance something is going to mysteriously shove the sear backwards along a fixed ramp, pushed down by a cam so there are load vectors on the sear in 2 directions... all the while further compressing the striker spring. This is exactly what is required to make a Glock sear drop below the striker foot. In a P320, the striker is fully cocked, and the sear (which is only held in full upward position against the striker foot by spring pressure alone, no mechanical hard stops) only has to be pressed downward or fail to fully reset because of debris, or the sear foot caught on a rough spot on the sear notch and... combined with slide movement, you run out of sear engagement. A Glock sear cannot be pressed down below the level of the striker without also moving backwards against striker spring compression because it is held into a fixed height by its cruciform shape riding inside a fixed slot. Any mechanically savvy person comparing the two designs can see they are not remotely comparable in terms of mechanical safety. And this is before you even take into account the inertial trigger block on the Glock that the P320 lacks. Double action vs single action. Something isn't going to press the trigger back that far when the gun is holstered. We're not talking about probability of human mishandling here, we are comparing the inherent mechanical failsafe conditions of both designs. Not even in the same universe!

You can make any striker pistol do the same if you pull the trigger far enough, but the key point is the P320 is less tolerant of it, has no other mechanical devices preventing it. The same person who made that second video even admitted as such in a more recent video.

 

[Oldsalt66]

It's the pedantic wall of text "it's true because I say so fallacy", to which the invocation of Brandolini's Law is the only effective response.

 

[bobsguns]

There's always a percentage of people that probably shouldn't be handling guns. Banning a model of gun, due to inept handling is just stupid

Don't disagree.

Have you not noticed the large billboard warnings on the side of slides in the last couple of years? Did you know Tide pods come with warnings telling idiots to NOT eat them? Lotsa stupids out there, sadly.

 

[Equus]

Yes, and that Glock trigger (which is double action, by the way, which inherently adds another level of mechanical safety) was moved something like ¼ - ⅜" to get it to put it in the same condition as demonstrated by the P320 moving less than 0.050". In normal use, there is less than zero chance something is going to mysteriously shove the sear backwards along a fixed ramp, pushed down by a cam so there are load vectors on the sear in 2 directions... all the while further compressing the striker spring. This is exactly what is required to make a Glock sear drop below the striker foot. In a P320, the striker is fully cocked, and the sear (which is only held in full upward position against the striker foot by spring pressure alone, no mechanical hard stops) only has to be pressed downward or fail to fully reset because of debris, or the sear foot caught on a rough spot on the sear notch and... combined with slide movement, you run out of sear engagement. A Glock sear cannot be pressed down below the level of the striker without also moving backwards against striker spring compression because it is held into a fixed height by its cruciform shape riding inside a fixed slot. Any mechanically savvy person comparing the two designs can see they are not remotely comparable in terms of mechanical safety. And this is before you even take into account the inertial trigger block on the Glock that the P320 lacks. Double action vs single action. Something isn't going to press the trigger back that far when the gun is holstered. We're not talking about probability of human mishandling here, we are comparing the inherent mechanical failsafe conditions of both designs. Not even in the same universe!

You can make any striker pistol do the same if you pull the trigger far enough, but the key point is the P320 is less tolerant of it, has no other mechanical devices preventing it. The same person who made that second video even admitted as such in a more recent video.

Thad, you can't discuss anything with a fanatic.

 

[bobsguns]

Is frequency of mechanical failure considered normal, common, or very uncommon?

Not in my world.

I learned to clean my guns after ANY firing session. This was politely & quietly explained to me by some super, super nice men with funny hats at Parris Island.

In the world of semis, the majority of malfunctions I personally saw at matches were 75% of the time the fault of the ammo. A lot of the guys reloaded their own & many/most of them had a bad rd somewhere along the match.

Buying gun show reloads is just as bad, if not worse, IMO.

A surprisingly number of shooters also don't use enough lube on their guns as well. Can't count the number of times a shooter had his gun die, we went off & I lubed the crap out of it & it ran perfectly. The gun will sling off any excess oil, so no such thing as too much oil, IMO.

So, either your folks don't know how to buy proper ammo, or fail to properly lube their guns or perhaps own crappy guns? I went through a bit of this when I first began shooting in matches. I quickly learned to avoid garbage in ammo & gun brands.

My .o2

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

It's the pedantic wall of text "it's true because I say so fallacy", to which the invocation of Brandolini's Law is the only effective response.

No, it's true because it's true. I gave a detailed mechanical description of why it's true. I'm sorry you did not understand it.

If I say a blowtorch will burn your hand if held in the flame is true, it doesn't take on any less "truthiness" because I said it; it's just common freakin sense. The same applies to mechanical devices. There is nothing in the world of firearms mechanics that is new. Some design elements are superior because time has proven them to be so. This doesn't entitle you to resort to pejoratives to compensate for your lack of understanding.

 

[bobsguns]

You can hardly compare the two guns. For starters, when a 1911/2011 is in a holster, the safety is on. The 1911/2011 safety locks the sear.

When I carry a 1911-type, my safety is NEVER engaged. I do carry hammer down though, so there's that.

 

[bobsguns]

I've watched a number of these guys pickup a handgun they have never touched before and shoot a bullseye at 7 yards on the first shot.

Ray Charles should be able to hit a 10X from only 7 yards..........................

 

[bobsguns]

"Imagine this was an automotive forum."

Federal laws on firearm safety and quality

• No federal design safety standards: Unlike other consumer products, the Consumer Product Safety Act exempts firearms and ammunition from federal health and safety standards. The federal government does not have a mandate to require safety testing, implement design standards, or mandate recalls for defective firearms.

A bit misleading, IMO.

SAAMI was founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government and tasked with creating and publishing industry standards for safety, interchangeability, reliability and quality, coordinating technical data and promoting safe and responsible firearms use.

https://saami.org/

 

[Rocketmedic40]

It's the pedantic wall of text "it's true because I say so fallacy", to which the invocation of Brandolini's Law is the only

Don't disagree.

Have you not noticed the large billboard warnings on the side of slides in the last couple of years? Did you know Tide pods come with warnings telling idiots to NOT eat them? Lotsa stupids out there, sadly.

 

[bobsguns]

 

[Rocketmedic40]

When I carry a 1911-type, my safety is NEVER engaged. I do carry hammer down though, so there's that.

And hypothetically, even if you carried it cocked, you **still** have a grip safety available, which at least disconnects the trigger. This, or a cocked high power, are still safer than the 320, because you still have no way to drop the hammer without pulling the trigger to disengage the seer, which happens at the end of the trigger pull, not the beginning.

You could even hypothetically take the slide off of the pistol, and it would not fire, because the potential energy is stored in the springs that power, the hammer, not in a pre-cocked striker that is nested in the slide and restrained by a seer and trigger bar. It is an inherently safer design.

With that being said, you'd be a braver man than I for carrying a 1911 cocked and unlocked lol.

 

[Oldsalt66]

No, it's true because it's true. I gave a detailed mechanical description of why it's true. I'm sorry you did not understand it.

If I say a blowtorch will burn your hand if held in the flame is true, it doesn't take on any less "truthiness" because I said it; it's just common freakin sense. The same applies to mechanical devices. There is nothing in the world of firearms mechanics that is new. Some design elements are superior because time has proven them to be so. This doesn't entitle you to resort to pejoratives to compensate for your lack of understanding.

Examples of the classic ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies delivered in a pedantic tone.

Thanks for that tautology based non sequitor lecture.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

I think the ultimate question for every 320 owner should be this: what if you're wrong?

What if, one day, your pistol has an un commanded discharge? What if you injure or kill someone else? What if you suffer an injury that changes your life?

What if your life is changed forever by a mechanical malfunction of a pistol that has a demonstrated pattern of concern?

Are you personally prepared to defend your choices if those choices result in the accidental injury or death of someone?

I'm not talking about a handling mishap or human error or a miss in an exceedingly rare CCW situation, I am talking about you doing everything right and still suffering an uncommanded discharge. I am certain that everyone of you with a 320 has an excellent Holster specifically designed in approved by Sig for the purpose of carrying your 320, that you've left it totally stock and have not used any parts of the vast approved ecosystem, and that you are dutiful And meticulous about properly cleaning and reassembling your weapon.

Will the knowledge that you did everything right be enough to justify your choice of carrying a 320 to yourself if a tragedy happens as a result of an uncommanded discharge? Will it be enough to keep you out of prison? Or will your choice of armament be the factor that makes a prosecutor's case for negligent homicide?

Is it worth your grandkids safety to carry a 320 around them? Or is that surprise hug ** just enough** to slide that sear face off of the striker foot?

It's not my place to tell you what to carry. It is ultimately your decision as to what to carry, but there is a consequence for that. You have to live with the potential consequences of that. Is it really worth it to choose a questionable pistol when there are so many other options available that do the same thing without safety concerns like those that cloud the 320?

In a perfect world, I don't think it's the law's place either - but the reason we end up with dumb things like gun rosters is because people insist on carrying firearms of inferior/unsafe designs in unsafe manners that hurt people. You wouldn't carry a World War II Nambu squeeze-firing pistol as a CCW…why would you take a 320?

I think that it is reasonable to CCW a 320 if you are willing to accept the potential consequences of your decision. But, if you were my parents, you would never see your grandchildren with a 320 in your Holster or on your person, because kids are worth more than Guns.