Glock Talk banner
  • Notice image

    Glocktalk is a forum community dedicated to Glock enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Glock pistols and rifles, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, and more!

21 - 40 of 42 Posts
Let me find my source for that, I read it not that long ago.

Do you have a source for it being false?

My memory says the Glock striker is about 70% compressed after reset. Not 70% of the full spring length but 70% of the max compression it would see just before the striker lets go.
Take the slide off the frame.
Now get a caliper and measure the distance from where the back of the slide sits on the frame to the back of the cruciform with the trigger fully forward (at rest).
Place a primed, unloaded case in the chamber.
Transfer the measurement to the upside down, locked in a vise, slide. Cock the striker to that distance.
Depress the firing pin safety.
Let go of the striker.
No bang.
There, you just did your own test, no need to speculate, research or quote someone else's test.
Rest easy.
I do.
 
Back to the OP’s original question. Any concerns with the P365? My question - is the P365 with no manual safety safe to carry with a round in the chamber?
My EDC is also a P365. The way I look at it is there has been over a million sold since it's introduction. If there was a problem, I believe we would we would have heard about it by now. Think about how much we heard about the broken striker, or striker drag in the early days. This gun, as popular as it is, going off by itself would have been really big news.
 
Prepping the trigger.

I've always wondered if the issue with some designs is that the user can "prep the trigger", causing the sear to slide down the firing pin interface and there is insufficient return spring force to return the sear fully. A dry interface would make this worse.
Just thinking out loud. I've a lot of experience with Glocks, some with M&P 2.0, and none with the Sig 320.
I examined the sear interface* on an M&P 2.0. the firing pin side is marked "10°". The overall engagement surface length is about 1/10". The sear return spring is not strong enough to reset the sear if the sear is engaging the striker interface*, but the mechanical advantage is such that it is darned near impossible to "prep the trigger". And even if the trigger was "prepped", I don't how the firing pin plunger safety could be disengaged without pulling the trigger.
After playing with and examining the sear interface* I've decided that the M&P 2.0 is plenty safe for me.

* Too lazy to look up the correct terminology
 
Spooky = reports of drop firing.
Army special features = included to prevent drop firing.
Non- recall = add drop fire prevention to commercial guns.

As seen on the internet, doesn't make it right, but there are people not trusting of the P320.
 
Spring compression is not linear. 70% compressed by length is maybe 50% of max compressed force. 95% of length is pretty close to being at the linear end of the compressed force.
Doggone it, I'm gonna request a refund from the university! Robert Hooke was a fraud!

But in all seriousness, you are 100% correct. There are limits to the application of Hooke's law (and the linear relationship). But I'll bet if you asked 10 engineers, 9 of them will believe Hooke's law has no limits.
 
My EDC is also a P365. The way I look at it is there has been over a million sold since it's introduction. If there was a problem, I believe we would we would have heard about it by now. Think about how much we heard about the broken striker, or striker drag in the early days. This gun, as popular as it is, going off by itself would have been really big news.
My sample size of one has been good to go. I don’t have any concerns about the design.
I tend to agree. I did some research and brought one just last week. Fired all of 200 rounds. This is a major topic on all the gun boards. I’m thinking a lot of the failures might be people who won’t own up to an ND.
 
I tend to agree. I did some research and brought one just last week. Fired all of 200 rounds. This is a major topic on all the gun boards. I’m thinking a lot of the failures might be people who won’t own up to an ND.
365 failures? I guess I’ve not heard about those. I’ve seen the flailing and churning about the 320, but not anything reliable about the 365 having troubles. There are millions of them out there. Of course I tend to avoid the YouTube and this is the only gun board I look at.
 
Doggone it, I'm gonna request a refund from the university! Robert Hooke was a fraud!

But in all seriousness, you are 100% correct. There are limits to the application of Hooke's law (and the linear relationship). But I'll bet if you asked 10 engineers, 9 of them will believe Hooke's law has no limits.
I know. I'm a ME with a PE license. Lots of what they taught us in school is theory. The good engineer figures that out real quick.

Most coil springs start out pretty linear, but through use become progressive. Leaf springs are usually progressive. The SIG spring at issue is a very thin spring, a hybrid with two leaf and one coil sections. Both Glock springs related to the striker (block and actual striker) are equal equal coil length coil springs.
 
No, not sleeping one off. The media describes the sig 320 as “cocked at rest” meaning the striker is not half was cocked but ready to fire. Thus, people are claiming the basis for the discharges complained of. The glock, i think, is half cocked and pulling the trigger fully cocks and releases? Is that right? My question, though, pertains to the sig 365, which is my often carry. Is it fully cocked when a round is placed into the chamber by working the slide backwards. Anyone hear of similar claims with that gun.
The media as usual is wrong. The Sig is not totally cocked.
 
Assuming drop safeties are defeated, seems like the real issue is relationship between energy delivered to primer from half-cock vs. energy needed to ignite primer. And to learn that, you need to do something along the lines of Post 24.

My limited, unscientific experience with coil springs in actual use is that they become progressive pretty quickly toward the extremes. So measurements from in-service springs are as important as nominal/initial numbers.
 
365 failures? I guess I’ve not heard about those. I’ve seen the flailing and churning about the 320, but not anything reliable about the 365 having troubles. There are millions of them out there. Of course I tend to avoid the YouTube and this is the only gun board I look at.
I was agreeing to the two posts to my question. I don’t see an issue with the p365, if I had it to do over I would still buy one.
 
This discussion about whether it is full or partial cock, is missing the mark. The issue is the "event" when the sear falls off without intention. If that happens, and how that occurs.

Whether there's redundant or sufficient mechanism to stop impact on the primer,
 
I've never seen anything from Glock or any other source saying what percentage the striker is pretensioned or whether it could fire a round without the striker block safety. Seen estimates ranging up to 90 percent. I have always found it suspicious that Glock wouldn't say since they put so much emphasis on the gun being safer than SA or DA/SA.
Glocks have been considered double action only resulting in a slightly harder trigger press, but accepted by LE reqiring double action only. Some others prelode firing springs so have lighter trigger press. But at what cost? An old issue. Not new.
 
21 - 40 of 42 Posts