Banned Firearm

[Oldsalt66]

This is my last comment to you on this thread because obviously you never intended to participate in good faith. You entered the thread with snarky condescension, so I responded to you in kind, albeit with quite a bit more restraint. I tried to discuss the topic at hand with an objective, mechanical based analysis devoid of insults or brand loyalty. It's been my observation that those who have nothing to add tend to be the first to resort to rudeness and put-downs, because that's all they have. I did not start down this road, you did.

You know absolutely nothing about me and obviously don't know anything about how the firearm being discussed works. By your own admission, you don't own a P320 or any of its direct competitors, probably have never detail stripped one, have never studied how its design compares to competing pistols. I own one and have worked on them many times. I own many of the pistols it competes with. I used to manufacture custom pistol parts and do custom machining on pistol slides in a previous job when micro red dot sights on pistols first became a popular thing. In that time, I detail stripped many pistols, installed aftermarket parts, installed parts of my own design, and had parts nitrided after I machined them. I'm a PE, a degreed mechanical engineer, and have worked on multiples of firearms of many types as a part time gunsmith for about 35 years. I enjoy building precision bolt action rifles. I have made many firearms parts in my job, working in the CNC machining industry. My opinion about a given topic may not always be correct, but it is always based on first hand, hands-on experience with the subject I'm discussing or I refrain from discussing it. There are certain mechanical principles of firearms that are common knowledge, are immutable and not subject to opinion; they just are. By me citing some simple mechanical facts about a gun, I'm not creating anything out of thin air. Anyone who takes the guns apart will observe exactly the same things if they understand what they're looking at. Every design of everything involves making a series of calculated tradeoffs of pros and cons.

Instead of providing any useful insight to the discussion, you resort to insults, just as you did from the beginning and in the other thread on this topic. I don't care if you believe anything I say or not, but you can at least respectfully disagree and discuss in good faith without the insults. Disagreeing with someone is fine, but you can do so without being insufferable.

Projection, AKA accusing others of exactly what they, themselves, are doing; it's a real thing.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I wouldn't belong to a gun club that banned a handgun based upon hearsay and is in wide use. Have they banned Colt 1903 pistols or series 70 or pre-series 70 1911's. Have they banned Ruger Blackhawks that were made prior to the safety bar and not modified? Have they banned original Colt Peacemakers? I could go on and on. What next, ban evil black rifles?

I would imagine they might ban the use of those on their property if there were a bunch of documented cases of the same types of incidents involving P320s... but there isn't. Rest assured, no gun club, training academy, or range wants to prohibit any model of firearm on their property.

However, they are a business. Their liability insurance is very expensive. They are more exposed to potential lawsuits than other types of businesses. I would even bet many of these gun clubs don't even have a strong opinion either way about the P320. Whether the P320 has issues or not, it now has a stigma attached to it that isn't going away anytime soon. As a result of that stigma, the risks outweigh the rewards for many of these gun clubs, being a business who wishes to not be sued. In the event someone gets injured, or God forbid, killed while on their property involving a P320, this opens themselves up to potential lawsuits above and beyond those they are already exposed to by simply operating a business involving guns. A plaintiff attorney for an injured party can simply make the case that the business owner "had prior knowledge of the risks of a known defective gun," whether that argument is valid or not. In the legal sphere, things don't have to be logical or true, they only have to convince a jury of the validity of the case. To many business owners who wish to stay in business, it's simply not worth the risk for the few customers it might impact.

Something is apparently wrong with the P320 given that it is the one common factor in all these reported UD cases. Whether the UDs are directly related to a design flaw or not is currently undetermined and subject to debate. However, even if we assume that 100% of all these cases were the result of careless actions, then it is still fair to question why all of this negligence is seemingly confined to this one pistol and not others in the same class. Even if 100% of the P320s involved in these incidents are in perfect working order, perhaps some characteristic of the model makes it inherently less forgiving of handling mistakes. Or, maybe nothing is wrong at all and it is just a case of monumentally bad luck that defies statistical probability against this one gun.

It's not difficult to understand why a private business owner (who is already exposed to above normal liability by the very nature of the business) might decide it's simpler to restrict use of a questionable product, at least until more information is uncovered, than to take unnecessary risks.

 

[Equus]

This is my last comment to you on this thread because obviously you never intended to participate in good faith. You entered the thread with snarky condescension, so I responded to you in kind, albeit with quite a bit more restraint. I tried to discuss the topic at hand with an objective, mechanical based analysis devoid of insults or brand loyalty. It's been my observation that those who have nothing to add tend to be the first to resort to rudeness and put-downs, because that's all they have. I did not start down this road, you did.

You know absolutely nothing about me and obviously don't know anything about how the firearm being discussed works. By your own admission, you don't own a P320 or any of its direct competitors, probably have never detail stripped one, have never studied how its design compares to competing pistols. I own one and have worked on them many times. I own many of the pistols it competes with. I used to manufacture custom pistol parts and do custom machining on pistol slides in a previous job when micro red dot sights on pistols first became a popular thing. In that time, I detail stripped many pistols, installed aftermarket parts, installed parts of my own design, and had parts nitrided after I machined them. I'm a PE, a degreed mechanical engineer, and have worked on multiples of firearms of many types as a part time gunsmith for about 35 years. I enjoy building precision bolt action rifles. I have made many firearms parts in my job, working in the CNC machining industry. My opinion about a given topic may not always be correct, but it is always based on first hand, hands-on experience with the subject I'm discussing or I refrain from discussing it. There are certain mechanical principles of firearms that are common knowledge, are immutable and not subject to opinion; they just are. By me citing some simple mechanical facts about a gun, I'm not creating anything out of thin air. Anyone who takes the guns apart will observe exactly the same things if they understand what they're looking at. Every design of everything involves making a series of calculated tradeoffs of pros and cons.

Instead of providing any useful insight to the discussion, you resort to insults, just as you did from the beginning and in the other thread on this topic. I don't care if you believe anything I say or not, but you can at least respectfully disagree and discuss in good faith without the insults. Disagreeing with someone is fine, but you can do so without being insufferable.

I put him on ignore. He has never added anything to any discussion preferring to act like a 5 year old .

 

[eclayton]

Aahh, range officers, you gotta love 'em. Other jokes they tell are "Get that magazine out!" when you are shooting an FN-49 and "Dump the live rounds out the bottom" when you are shooting an 03A3 bolt gun with a blind magazine.

I think sometimes they get lonely and come stick their nose in someone's business just to make conversation. I knew one at the NRA range in Fairfax, VA who interrupted me three times to remind me that headshots on the target were not allowed. Third time I asked him to wait while I reeled my B27 target back in, then asked, where do you see headshots? The 9 and 10 rings were shot ragged, no holes outside the 9. He said "Oh, well, it looked like you were aiming kind of high."

I don't blame the OP for his range rules; can't do business without them. But it reminds me why I became so much happier after I bought a small ranch in the middle of Florida, where I can just walk out my back door and decide what I want to shoot at, after checking there are no cows in that direction. I could even shoot a P320 if I had a mind to, but I wouldn't touch one with a ten foot pole until ALL the dust settles with the holster discharge saga, and major agencies that grounded it put it back into service.

 

[RebCop]

It's time for all that unsubstantiated pearl clutching to finally come to an end:

https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4284351/afgsc-completes-m18-handgun-inspection-returns-to-service/

"A review of weapon discharges in AFGSC showed that none were attributed to weapons malfunction."

Then explain the weapons going off in holsters?

 

[eclayton]

I don't know, seems like internet hype is causing a lot of panic decisions. I recall similar overblown internet hysteria over .40 caliber Glock Kabooms. Don't own a Sig and only know what I've read about the problem, but the internet's primary purpose is this world is to make mountains out of mole hills so I think what is really happening is different than the hype.

I remember the Glock .40 kaboom hubbub as well, and it makes an interesting case study comparison. Glock generally blamed handloads for their problem, as I recall. Trouble was, over time evidence piled up that it was happening with factory loads as well, and it was NOT happening with contemporary .40 pistols from other brands. Now, as far as I know, SIG has not tried to blame the P320 issues on anything, instead insisting that they simply don't exist, but some of their fans, at least, blame various combinations of improper holster fit and user error.

In Glock's case, while I don't recall the company ever issuing any formal mea culpa, they did put some energy against the problem. They modified the feed ramp of their .40 pistols to improve the case support, and by amazing coincidence, the kabooms seemed to stop. What, if anything, SIG will do to make the P320 less inclined to go off inside a holster, remains to be seen.

I was an early fan of the .40 S&W Glock, and chose a G23 for carry and an early G22 for the house, both Gen 2. When the kaboom thing was raging on the internet, I found I didn't have time to solve the problem myself by jumping into the many debates and flame wars on the internet. Instead I dumped those .40 Glocks and moved on to something else (ironically, that was a SIG, but those were different times). Years later, when I was able to view photos of the new vs old chamber support provided by .40 Glock barrels, I was satisfied that Glock had solved the problem and I am once again the happy owner of a number of Gen 3 and 4 Glocks in .40. I hope SIG will someday get past pointing fingers at the users and offer some clear and incontrovertible mechanical solution that similarly puts the P320 issues to bed. They would first have to recognize that any pistol intended for service duty needs to be safe to carry in pretty much any holster that encloses the trigger guard.

 

[ladder13]

This is obviously going nowhere.

My 1000+ member outdoor range bans nothing, for the record.

Rifle Range | Frontline Defense | North Carolina

Frontline Defense Firearms Training Center and Range. North Carolina’s fastest growing outdoor shooting range.

www.frontlinedefenseusa.com

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I remember the Glock .40 kaboom hubbub as well, and it makes an interesting case study comparison. Glock generally blamed handloads for their problem, as I recall. Trouble was, over time evidence piled up that it was happening with factory loads as well, and it was NOT happening with contemporary .40 pistols from other brands. Now, as far as I know, SIG has not tried to blame the P320 issues on anything, instead insisting that they simply don't exist, but some of their fans, at least, blame various combinations of improper holster fit and user error.

In Glock's case, while I don't recall the company ever issuing any formal mea culpa, they did put some energy against the problem. They modified the feed ramp of their .40 pistols to improve the case support, and by amazing coincidence, the kabooms seemed to stop. What, if anything, SIG will do to make the P320 less inclined to go off inside a holster, remains to be seen.

I was an early fan of the .40 S&W Glock, and chose a G23 for carry and an early G22 for the house, both Gen 2. When the kaboom thing was raging on the internet, I found I didn't have time to solve the problem myself by jumping into the many debates and flame wars on the internet. Instead I dumped those .40 Glocks and moved on to something else (ironically, that was a SIG, but those were different times). Years later, when I was able to view photos of the new vs old chamber support provided by .40 Glock barrels, I was satisfied that Glock had solved the problem and I am once again the happy owner of a number of Gen 3 and 4 Glocks in .40. I hope SIG will someday get past pointing fingers at the users and offer some clear and incontrovertible mechanical solution that similarly puts the P320 issues to bed. They would first have to recognize that any pistol intended for service duty needs to be safe to carry in pretty much any holster that encloses the trigger guard.

The odd thing about it is, all Sig would have to do is redesign the FCU to function exactly like their own P365. In the P365, the trigger, trigger bar, and striker safety lever are decoupled from the sear unless the trigger is pressed. So, unlike the P320, if the sear gets depressed by debris or some other factor, the striker safety lever doesn't rise and deactivate the striker safety. Therefore, if the striker somehow slips off the sear in a P365, the striker safety actually works to stop the striker from impacting a primer. In the P320, if the sear doesn't fully reset or moves down and the gun gets jostled until the striker foot works its way over the sear, the striker block safety is getting deactivated along with it because it's coupled with the sear. It also helps that the P365 has a simpler, more positive coil spring and plunger striker safety design, like a Glock and pretty much every other striker pistol uses. Of course, the P365 was designed from the beginning to be a striker pistol, not a striker fired modification of a hammer fired pistol like the P320 was.

This guy quickly demonstrates the difference:


There are no recorded incidences of the P365 going off in holsters. It would be better if the P365 also had a mechanical stop under the sear that keeps it from being depressed unless the trigger bar releases it in the first place, but it is a much more mechanically sound, inherently safer design than the P320.

 

[BillinAlamo]

Let's see, quit using the county range 10 minutes from here because they rightly or wrongly banned some stinkin' SIG and be forced to drive an hour and a half to a large unsupervised range in another county. Naw.

 

[singleshotcajun]

My home club just put these signs up. I think it was the right call.

 

[GnarlsR2]

The odd thing about it is, all Sig would have to do is redesign the FCU to function exactly like their own P365. In the P365, the trigger, trigger bar, and striker safety lever are decoupled from the sear unless the trigger is pressed. So, unlike the P320, if the sear gets depressed by debris or some other factor, the striker safety lever doesn't rise and deactivate the striker safety. Therefore, if the striker somehow slips off the sear in a P365, the striker safety actually works to stop the striker from impacting a primer. In the P320, if the sear doesn't fully reset or moves down and the gun gets jostled until the striker foot works its way over the sear, the striker block safety is getting deactivated along with it because it's coupled with the sear. It also helps that the P365 has a simpler, more positive coil spring and plunger striker safety design, like a Glock and pretty much every other striker pistol uses. Of course, the P365 was designed from the beginning to be a striker pistol, not a striker fired modification of a hammer fired pistol like the P320 was.

This guy quickly demonstrates the difference:


There are no recorded incidences of the P365 going off in holsters. It would be better if the P365 also had a mechanical stop under the sear that keeps it from being depressed unless the trigger bar releases it in the first place, but it is a much more mechanically sound, inherently safer design than the P320.

There are no recorded incidences of the P365 going off in holsters. It would be better if the P365 also had a mechanical stop under the sear that keeps it from being depressed unless the trigger bar releases it in the first place, but it is a much more mechanically sound, inherently safer design than the P320.

In 47 years as a gun owner, strangely I have never felt 100% comfortable handling or carrying a device that contains little tiny bombs.
If TB says my 2 P365s are mechanically sound and a safe design, I appreciate his approval.
Now that I carry my S&W Body Guard 2.0 in my front pants pocket, it would be nice if he could say the same thing about it.

 

[Equus]

The odd thing about it is, all Sig would have to do is redesign the FCU to function exactly like their own P365. In the P365, the trigger, trigger bar, and striker safety lever are decoupled from the sear unless the trigger is pressed. So, unlike the P320, if the sear gets depressed by debris or some other factor, the striker safety lever doesn't rise and deactivate the striker safety. Therefore, if the striker somehow slips off the sear in a P365, the striker safety actually works to stop the striker from impacting a primer. In the P320, if the sear doesn't fully reset or moves down and the gun gets jostled until the striker foot works its way over the sear, the striker block safety is getting deactivated along with it because it's coupled with the sear. It also helps that the P365 has a simpler, more positive coil spring and plunger striker safety design, like a Glock and pretty much every other striker pistol uses. Of course, the P365 was designed from the beginning to be a striker pistol, not a striker fired modification of a hammer fired pistol like the P320 was.

This guy quickly demonstrates the difference:


There are no recorded incidences of the P365 going off in holsters. It would be better if the P365 also had a mechanical stop under the sear that keeps it from being depressed unless the trigger bar releases it in the first place, but it is a much more mechanically sound, inherently safer design than the P320.

They can do civilian 320s in that manner, but the M17/18 would take another trials to change the TDP. There is a reason why the M9 never got the new update block. Not TDP

 

[Taj]

I wouldn't belong to a gun club that banned a handgun based upon hearsay and is in wide use. Have they banned Colt 1903 pistols or series 70 or pre-series 70 1911's. Have they banned Ruger Blackhawks that were made prior to the safety bar and not modified? Have they banned original Colt Peacemakers? I could go on and on. What next, ban evil black rifles?

I get what you are saying but you might if you were paying the insurance premiums. Sometimes decisions are made by someone other than the folks running things. My friggin aircraft insurance went up because of Boeing and all of their troubles in the last couple of years. It's too bad that policies are often dictated by knee jerk reaction.

 

[Taj]

Sir

Having become a LE deadly force instructor in 1989 and still teaching LE instructor an international LE training organization, your comments are extremely ignorant. Most police agencies aren't too cheap to properly train employees or purchase correct and quality support gear, hammer-fired pistols are much more susceptible to unintentional discharge in the fight environment, qualification has NOTHING to do with the recent issue Sig 320 concern, and lastly, you know absolutely nothing about an individuals firearms maintenance by looking at YouTube videos. And "using holsters as a shelf" (I assume you mean an action creating pressure on the holstered pistol) should never cause discharge of a holstered handgun. What external pressures do you imagine occur during violent alterations, running, etc? Sig has a problem and have responded by blaming others while quietly trying to figure out a fix. The 320 is a line-extension that was hastily cobbled together for a trial where they had been pre-selected. During an instructor-level rifle course I was teaching in SC 6-7 years ago, officers from a local agency left their new Sig rifles lying at the rear of the range and were using older Bushmasters. When I asked about it, they said the Bushmasters worked and the Sig's did not. Sig has corrected those concerns and I'm confident they will do the same with the 320 line but they deserve the recent firestorm.

I started teaching in 1976 and taught at police academies for right at 40 years. I also taught LE advanced courses for two major firearms manufacturer's so I have more than a little experience as a trainer as well as having been in four real gunfights in my career. I have enough training and instructor certs to fill a 4 drawer filing cabinet and did my best to pass on that experience to new recruits as well as the in service training I conducted. I am also a formally trained gunsmith (not just an armorer) and I absolutely agree with you. There are too many YouTube warrior's talking crap who have never shot at anything but a paper target. I've always loved Sig pistols but they were never my first choice as a duty/off duty carry. Sig needs to get off of their high horse and figure this out. There is too much smoke for there not to be fire.

 

[RebCop]

I wouldn't belong to a gun club that banned a handgun based upon hearsay and is in wide use. Have they banned Colt 1903 pistols or series 70 or pre-series 70 1911's. Have they banned Ruger Blackhawks that were made prior to the safety bar and not modified? Have they banned original Colt Peacemakers? I could go on and on. What next, ban evil black rifles?

Seeing videos of guns going off in holsters is not hearsay!

 

[skipcress]

The odd thing about it is, all Sig would have to do is redesign the FCU to function exactly like their own P365. In the P365, the trigger, trigger bar, and striker safety lever are decoupled from the sear unless the trigger is pressed. So, unlike the P320, if the sear gets depressed by debris or some other factor, the striker safety lever doesn't rise and deactivate the striker safety. Therefore, if the striker somehow slips off the sear in a P365, the striker safety actually works to stop the striker from impacting a primer. In the P320, if the sear doesn't fully reset or moves down and the gun gets jostled until the striker foot works its way over the sear, the striker block safety is getting deactivated along with it because it's coupled with the sear. It also helps that the P365 has a simpler, more positive coil spring and plunger striker safety design, like a Glock and pretty much every other striker pistol uses. Of course, the P365 was designed from the beginning to be a striker pistol, not a striker fired modification of a hammer fired pistol like the P320 was.

This guy quickly demonstrates the difference:


There are no recorded incidences of the P365 going off in holsters. It would be better if the P365 also had a mechanical stop under the sear that keeps it from being depressed unless the trigger bar releases it in the first place, but it is a much more mechanically sound, inherently safer design than the P320.

I think they're afraid the moment they touch something it'll be tantamount to admitting there was a problem, opening them up to litigation.

 

[BE Mike]

Up to 80% of aircraft accidents are because of human error...just sayin'.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I think they're afraid the moment they touch something it'll be tantamount to admitting there was a problem, opening them up to litigation.

No doubt! Not only that, but they would also have to redo the military procurement trials since the design changed. So, with all they have to risk financially if they made design changes, apparently they chose the "nothing to see here" route.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Up to 80% of aircraft accidents are because of human error...just sayin'.

...Spread out over a lot of different makes and models of aircraft. But what if instead, all of those aircraft accidents were only happening in one make and model of aircraft? Statistically speaking, what then is the probability that human error is the most likely cause of 80% of them?

 

[BE Mike]

...Spread out over a lot of different makes and models of aircraft. But what if instead, all of those aircraft accidents were only happening in one make and model of aircraft? Statistically speaking, what then is the probability that human error is the most likely cause of 80% of them?

That's a far out theory. Human error is the factor in 60-80% of workplace accidents and that jumps to 94% of auto accidents. I will say that people in general don't want to admit fault and that goes double for cops and pilots. I'm still awaiting proof that the product was at fault or whether human error was a factor. I've seen people do some pretty stupid things, and some were cops and pilots.