DocHawk

Can you imagine? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you cannot find Ford liable for this accident and injury. The Kentucky-fried plaintiff owned and operated his Pinto knowing full well that they blow up in rear end collisions."

Yes but will he be wearing UDT diving shorts around town? That's what the women want to know.

Not even half as many POST UPGRADE as I've seen of Glocks "just going off" - almost all of which turned out to be NDs. There are a few "hmm, curious, not proven" issues with Glocks (the appendix carry at the gun range store comes to mind), but I still own and recommend Glocks, because I understand the mechanism and have confidence in it.

There aren't one million 365's issued to government personnel. Everyone conveniently forgets the same exact anecdotal data set was alleged against the "inherently unsafe" Glock in the 90's.

Alleycat72, you exist without equal in this thread as the least objective, least factual, most emotionally inflammatory poster. Amusingly, you point the finger at others and accuse them of being irrational. Case in point right here: when asked to objectively explain your concerns, you sidestep informed debate and flame on about brand loyalty, personal liability, and those who disagree with you being in denial. You even flat out admit you're just influenced by emotion: Q: "Please detail the 4 or 5 ways you allege the current P320 can fail" Alleycat: "The biggest issue is the cover up." Thank you, that's everything I need to know about your opinion. Parroting the viral videos that are significantly lacking in critical thinking and metacognition is way past logical fallacy; it's simply invalid reasoning. (PS: I think Sig is inexcusably terrible for the way they handled the coverup, as I've previously stated in my post at the bottom of page 5. I'm no Sig apologist. I'm talking objective engineering about a soulless product.)

That's the bandwagon line, yes - it's cool to be anti-Sig now, and advertising the opinion above is the latest form of virtue signalling in the gun community. No proof is required to be deemed cool, just having the right opinion. Please detail the 4 or 5 ways you allege the current P320 can fail under real-world conditions, objectively and with evidence, so we can debate their merits for the benefit of us all.

So are you dismissing my position by saying it was only at the slack takeup point? By this qualification, are you now saying that you advocate shooters taking up the slack in their triggers, and then if the gun goes off while they run/jump/summersault/grapple, it's the gun's fault? My position stands. Edit: Good debate, deerslayer. I think what's important is that we are all committed to gun safety, and staying on top of the latest information available in our hobby/profession/passion. I'm glad people are paying attention; apathy is the real killer of all things.

The design of the P320 separates the sear leg of the striker in the slide from the sear housed in the FCU ("frame"). The dog ears that function as frame rails hold the two components together, and due to the modularity of the design, significant tolerance exists between the two. Manipulating that gap, within mechanical tolerance, can change the break point, but nothing will happen unless the mechanical safeties have been disengaged by pressing the trigger, first. Have you ever held a P320 and dry fired or done a reset drill/test? Some are quite solid, while others exhibit a 3-4 degree shift in POA as the slide tips upwards from the positive (safe) sear angle acting on the striker leg. Not exactly 1911-grade tolerance! That is the slop you're leaning into when you depress the trigger and then manipulate the gap. If you are looking to be a match shooter and find that POA shift / point of break tolerance unacceptable, that's a valid decision. But it isn't going off without first disengaging the safeties, and it isn't coming off the sear without first taking up the slack.

Good, at least in this part, you're getting my point. We don't point guns at our head, because we expect the unexpected might happen. We also don't depress triggers to the break point, then induce multiple mechanical stresses, and blame the gun when it discharges. Two basic tenets of firearms safety, yes? Regarding the second half of your response, I am not confident that I could trust a pre-loaded, at-the-trigger-break handgun of any type not to go off under rattle/shear/shock/torque and other stresses. I have experience with the design and function of many hundreds of different handguns, and unlike you, I wouldn't trust a single one of them to be "safe" in that condition.

And to me, a professional gunsmith and firearms engineer who has contributed to or conducted the design and manufacture of several firearms (and repaired countless more through manufacturing new parts to unpublished specs), I draw the exact opposite conclusion. Discharge through intentional (screw) movement of the trigger to (or past) the break point, which is exactly the point at which all mechanical safeties have been disengaged, is exactly the design intent and function of a trigger. That's what triggers do. Every single one of these videos that I've reviewed (and I review every one I come across, as asinine as they are, because I want someone to prove it) ends up playing out exactly like this, to my professional eyes and ears: "Look, by intentionally defeating the safeties through trigger travel exactly as the design is intended, then while at the break point using mechanical stresses and shocks to wiggle over the edge of the break, I can get the depressed trigger to do exactly what it is designed to do! FREAKING UNBELIEVABLE, I'M AN INTERNET STAR!" I do like a good P320 bashing meme, though.

Would you be willing to back up your statement by replicating the video you're basing it on with your own gun? Please drive a screw into the frame gap in front of the trigger on your gun of choice, drive the screw into the trigger to press it backwards to the break point, point the gun at your brain, and then rattle/knock/pull/press the crap out of that gun, to prove your point. Please don't. That's not how "safe" shooters work.

I have not seen evidence confirming this on the current design in any testing, and I've been looking - very actively. This was absolutely true of the original commercial design with the "adverse trigger." There have been multiple reports, now, claiming to damningly confirm "it goes off on its own!" I carefully review every one I find with an open mind. In every case, they seem to be conducted and consumed by people lacking critical thinking skills - including the flawed initial FBI report (the FBI admitted to flawed testing and released a subsequent report). Every single test resulting in "repeatable" uncommanded discharges involved sticking something in front of the trigger, to move the trigger rearward, prior do doing some manipulation or other to the weapon to induce a discharge. Please, fellow gunners and instructors, who will be the first to raise their hand and die on the hill of, "Yes, I tell my shooters that if they press the trigger to the rear and the gun goes off, well, that's the gun's fault."

Factually incorrect: DHS/ICE just extended the P320 contract for another two years. Also, the report linked above does not tell the whole story, here. Any inclusion of this report should also mention that the testing informing this report was done with three critical problems in its methodology: 1) using a screw to pre-load the trigger, pressing it to the rear 2) cutting a window in the backplate of the FCM, destabilizing the sear springs and allowing them to become unseated under recoil. 3) using a punch to press the sear down, defeating not only the primary sear but also the secondary sear, while simultaneously pulling the trigger bar (thus, trigger) past the break point, essentially resulting in a commanded discharge through a trigger press (via the sear). The FBI admits to these shortcomings, and immediately re-tested correcting these flawed conditions. The subsequent report, just released, resulted in ZERO uncommanded discharges. Last point: Even the case in point is in question. The holstered pistol in this report arrived with a specific recent scratch inside the trigger guard. The officer was holding keys in his right hand at the time of the AD. The FBI lab used a key to reach into his holster and successfully pulled the trigger, discharging the firearm. Afterwards, they found a new scratch matching the preexisting scratch, in the same location within the trigger guard. While not a definitive conclusion, it certainly takes away from the notion that this report proved P320's go off on their own. Postscript point: Sig's corporate response to their initial trigger flaws, denial and obfuscation to the initial (and ongoing) real ADs resulting from their "adverse trigger," failure to issue a recall in favor of a "voluntary upgrade," ongoing marketing and customer service arrogance, and general asshattery are legend. I think these factors give anyone inclined an absolutely legitimate reason to swear off their products just on principle. However, I think it is misguided to confuse a choice based on principle with the idea that there is damning proof that the current design is flawed. By the numbers, many more people have been shot with their own Glock that "went off by itself" - but didn't.

*sigh*... back in town bump

Yes, the whole point of a comp is not first shot accuracy, but successive shots on target. From IWB deep concealment, I'm between 1.1 and 1.5 seconds to first shot depending on the outfit and handgun/holster. Follow on shots are wildly variable depending on my target and range, but for a basic frame of reference my pace of fire is a little over four rounds per second on a 10" target at 10 yards. If I get my splits down under .20 seconds, I start dropping accuracy into the 80% range. I like putting rounds on target and I don't drill every week, so I'm a bit more methodical than some flat-out competition shooters.

Bump

Whisper, as you know I manufacture my own custom LR308's. Some of them $3000+ guns, plus optics. Even still, my SFAR's are a joy - you owe yourself an excuse to gun up with one of these.

Welcome! Where in Utah? I grew up in Salt Lake City. Long time ago now, but I was there through high school. Beautiful country. I used to haunt all those Wasatch Front canyons in the winter and summer, and color country down south in the spring and fall.

Dagnabbit! I missed it by an hour!

I have other things I like to belt feed 7.62x51, but I do hope to get a Michael's Machine HK23 some day. My OEM HK91 is glorious, though!

I just completed manufacturing of a "dealer sample" full auto MP5 for Shooter's Supply in Hixon (a Class 2 FFL). Based on an LSC receiver flat, which is the best I have encountered in 15 years of working on HK's. Authentic A3 version F recoil-reducing stock and imported HK Navy lower. I was pleasantly surprised by how effective the F-stock is in recoil reduction; it is much more controllable than the classic A3 style stocks I'm most familiar with. I did a 10-mag break-in, both suppressed with 147 and and unsuppressed with 124 and 115. All ran flawlessly. They have it available for range rentals if you ever find yourself in Hixon. It's worth checking off the bucket list, if you've never run an MP5 before. MP5-SSRange02.mp4

I'm a full service gunsmith here in Chattanooga (mill, lathe, restorations and repair, full custom match rifles and handguns, etc). I just finished manufacturing a select fire (full auto) MP5 for your rental gun arsenal over there at Shooter's Supply - I hope your customers enjoy it! MP5-SSRange02.mp4

I wish I got out your way more often.

Bump

Still for sale