Banned Firearm

[Equus]

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.

No more far out than blaming human error when visible evidence points in a completely different direction.

It blows my mind that people would choose to take the side of a multibillion dollar, globalist corporation, especially when they actually used the tactics of the anti-gun lobby on this issue.

 

[Rodan]

Quoting statistics is a great way to obfuscate finding the root cause of a problem....

 

[WCCPHD]

Quoting statistics is a great way to obfuscate finding the root cause of a problem....

Ronald H. Coase, a renowned British Economist is famous for saying: "if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything".

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

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.

Understood. Human error is usually the factor in most accidents, but as your analogy pertains to the subject at hand, my point is, if all the UD incidents were caused by human error, wouldn't it stand to reason we would be seeing a somewhat even distribution of these incidents across various other brands and models of pistols? Why is all the human error only confined to carrying the P320? Even if we stay within Sig pistols only, why are there no incidents of P365s firing inside holsters? Why are holsters only faulty or misapplied or poorly designed when used with a P320, but there are no holster issues with other striker fired pistols? The common denominator in all of these cases is the P320. Doesn't that raise red flags? Granted people do stupid things all the time, but again, why are all of the reported cases of pistols allegedly firing inside holsters only confined to the P320 and no other pistols?

Which of these FCU designs do you think is superior based on what you see here? Again, keep in mind that there are no reported cases of a P365 firing inside holsters. Wouldn't you prefer that sear movement not be able to disable the striker safety unless the trigger is pulled? It can in the P320 as shown.



I own both guns and can verify what is shown in this video is valid. I have also compared it to many other striker pistols, and they all have provisions preventing the sear from being compressed in the first place. Grit ingress in conjunction with slide movement can push the sear down. Whether its enough to cause it to fire in a holster or not... who knows? But it's a design vulnerability that shouldn't be there.

Also, the sear notch is deeper on the P365, so there is more sear engagement with the striker foot to begin with.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

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

**stares in Boeing 737-MAX8, where the computer is coded to put the nose down to mimick older models without the cost of a new type certificate.**

 

[GnarlsR2]

Quoting statistics is a great way to obfuscate finding the root cause of a problem....

I had to Google "obfuscate".

 

[BE Mike]

There's "Glock leg" since the 80's and this:

 

[BE Mike]

As I said, banning a firearm from a range, because it is the latest target, isn't an exercise in rational thinking. There have been plenty of designs over the years that have no safety system. If you are going to ban one, you have to ban them all. The Cowboy Action Shooters would be unhappy.

 

[Equus]

As I said, banning a firearm from a range, because it is the latest target, isn't an exercise in rational thinking. There have been plenty of designs over the years that have no safety system. If you are going to ban one, you have to ban them all. The Cowboy Action Shooters would be unhappy.

How many of those single action pistols are going off inexplicably in holsters?

Yours is not a good example of rational thinking. It actually tinges to the emotional side.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

There's "Glock leg" since the 80's and this:

You…you do know that this is A) an old-timey comedy show and b) plenty of idiot old-timers shot themselves carrying cocked revolvers too…

 

[Rocketmedic40]

As I said, banning a firearm from a range, because it is the latest target, isn't an exercise in rational thinking. There have been plenty of designs over the years that have no safety system. If you are going to ban one, you have to ban them all. The Cowboy Action Shooters would be unhappy.

Alternatively: you're an open-minded, risk-tolerant range owner. You allow drawing from holsters, etc. No range master in a low-ratio relationship. You even allow classes to be taught, an la Gunsite. You allow a pistol with an objectively-questionable design on your range. While on the gun line with a loaded pistol in between sets, a students holstered pistol in a high-end service pistol high-retention holster goes off without human intervention and strikes the leg of one of your instructors, causing a debilitating injury.

Who is liable?

How liable are you, especially if you knew of the potential for injury and the controversy around that particular design?

And if it is an equal risk, why didn't the dudes with identical well-fitted holsters carrying other designs of pistols shoot their range neighbors?

Here's Gunsite's take on it

They know far more about it than I do