[FrankenGunBuilder]

But yes, there is. Automobiles are subject to design standards and regulations from a .gov agency. Firearms are NOT.

Guns are subject to product liability laws which design/engineering can and does get brought into the fold. Would explain why they have not lost any cases.

 

[walkinguf61]

Guns are subject to product liability laws which design/engineering can and does get brought into the fold. Would explain why they have not lost any cases.

They just lost one. Glock lost At least one that I know of . There are a few. Sometimes they deserve to lose .
If sig hadn’t settled some cases out of court, we would have seen more with the drop issue before the “voluntary upgrade”.
I remember the second chance body armor case because I was a victim of the bad product. I didn’t sue but got the out of court reimbursement that they offered me. I wouldn’t show up in the statistics.
If I had an ND where no one was hurt, would I sue. Probably not if Sig reimbursed me . I think there are a lot of people out there who aren’t known to anybody but Sig

 

[pag23]

Because it is not the same type at all. I've explained it before, but you have chosen to ignore that.

What's your opinion on the Agency Arms P320 trigger with safety tab? Would it prevent an ND?

 

[FrankenGunBuilder]

Lol

 

[ZGlock #427]

Another one. Ouch. Article is from just a few days ago. Forgive me if I missed this incident already being posted here.

SIG Sauer P320 controversy: A call for action following officer's near-fatal incident

The SIG Sauer P320 is one of the most popular handguns in the U.S. There are millions of P320s in circulation. Every branch of the U.S. military uses a version

cbsaustin.com

 

[M 7]

Another one. Ouch. Article is from just a few days ago. Forgive me if I missed this incident already being posted here.

SIG Sauer P320 controversy: A call for action following officer's near-fatal incident

The SIG Sauer P320 is one of the most popular handguns in the U.S. There are millions of P320s in circulation. Every branch of the U.S. military uses a version

cbsaustin.com

Where there's smoke....well....y'know.

Like it or not, SIG is going to have to do something about this issue with the P320 design.

 

[TCDave]

Just saw this video today...I would be really nervous with a P320 personally. (US military should have gone with glock)

P320 Leg

 

[italianstallion]

I've done it with a primed case, a vice and off axis force. I'm not the only one. Because no one showed what they did, you don't believe it. You'd make a poor juror. Have a great evening.

Didn't you mention to me you had an NDA relating to this ?

 

[italianstallion]

So again, if you can demonstrate an unmodified P320 discharging while the trigger isn't being depressed then we have a new dimension added to the equation. If that cannot be demonstrated then the preponderance of the currently available evidence points towards user error or a FOD depressing the trigger in some manner. That isn't assertion, it's the currently available evidence in these discharges.

They have had ever since Sig issued the VUP in 2017 to show a P320 firing without a trigger press under lab or forensic conditions. So from 2017 to 2024, they have had 7 years for a single lab or forensic guru or mechanical engineer to be able to make this happen and share findings. If @MarkCO is apparently the only one who can make a post-VUP 100% stock P320 fire without a trigger pull under controlled conditions, it would be extremely helpful for him to publish the findings, assuming he is not under an NDA. But then again if he was under an NDA, I do not know why he is alluding to the issue on a public forum, especially with some factors involved (vice, off axis, etc.) People with NDAs typically don't allude to things involved in the NDA. I think someone on this forum also mentioned 1 other person attempted to make his P320 fire without a trigger pull ?

Considering there are a few million P320s in circulation already, and with all the attorneys trying to get this issue before the courts, I really would have expected someone to release their findings by now if there is a true, repeatable mechanical issue with a post-2017 P320.

 

[walkinguf61]

They have had ever since Sig issued the VUP in 2017 to show a P320 firing without a trigger press under lab or forensic conditions. So from 2017 to 2024, they have had 7 years for a single lab or forensic guru or mechanical engineer to be able to make this happen and share findings. If @MarkCO is apparently the only one who can make a post-VUP 100% stock P320 fire without a trigger pull under controlled conditions, it would be extremely helpful for him to publish the findings, assuming he is not under an NDA. But then again if he was under an NDA, I do not know why he is alluding to the issue on a public forum, especially with some factors involved (vice, off axis, etc.) People with NDAs typically don't allude to things involved in the NDA. I think someone on this forum also mentioned 1 other person attempted to make his P320 fire without a trigger pull ?

Considering there are a few million P320s in circulation already, and with all the attorneys trying to get this issue before the courts, I really would have expected someone to release their findings by now if there is a true, repeatable mechanical issue with a post-2017 P320.

And if a lab did recreate it, do you think sig would announce it or do you think they would crunch the numbers, compare the odds of it happening, potential payouts to cost of a recall , then sign that lab to an NDA?
I think they would get that lab to sign an NDA.

 

[italianstallion]

And if a lab did recreate it, do you think sig would announce it or do you think they would crunch the numbers, compare the odds of it happening, potential payouts to cost of a recall , then sign that lab to an NDA?
I think they would get that lab to sign an NDA.

Why would that lab, mechanical engineer, or forensic test that makes a post-VUP P320 go boom w/o a trigger press automatically by default be at the behest of SIG and not be able to publish their findings?

In a country with 330+ million people, millions of P320s in circulation, millions of attorneys, and a time where SCOTUS papers leak before SCOTUS even publishes them, trust be we would have heard from that lab, mechanical engineer, or forensic test with their findings by now, they have had 7 years.

What a stupid comment.

 

[aberrant]

Why would that lab, mechanical engineer, or forensic test that makes a post-VUP P320 go boom w/o a trigger press automatically by default be at the behest of SIG and not be able to publish their findings?

Because there are quite a few people who will choose to stay silent when presented with a very large check from the organization that wants them not to talk. An NDA is a contract. Contracts must have consideration. Consideration frequently presents itself as money.

 

[Deputydave]

Because there are quite a few people who will choose to stay silent when presented with a very large check from the organization that wants them not to talk. An NDA is a contract. Contracts must have consideration. Consideration frequently presents itself as money.

I would assume that anyone conducting an actual forensic test would be doing so at the behest of an attorney or firm and not Sig. Thus in this hypothetical scenario, the person/people conducting the forensic examination would have to double-cross the attorney/firm and sign an NDA with Sig.

Markco was asked a couple of times to provide any and all information and he decided instead to leave the thread. Therefore, all the available information, or at least the preponderance is still on the side of Sig. If something to the contrary can be demonstrated, and repeated on an unmodified Sig P320 then we have a new dimension to the equation and more to the conversation.

 

[Jester@249]

I would assume that anyone conducting an actual forensic test would be doing so at the behest of an attorney or firm and not Sig. Thus in this hypothetical scenario, the person/people conducting the forensic examination would have to double-cross the attorney/firm and sign an NDA with Sig.

Markco was asked a couple of times to provide any and all information and he decided instead to leave the thread. Therefore, all the available information, or at least the preponderance is still on the side of Sig. If something to the contrary can be demonstrated, and repeated on an unmodified Sig P320 then we have a new dimension to the equation and more to the conversation.

So the P320 goes bang when the trigger gets pulled fully to the rear-what a shocker........

If there was ANY-yes ANY proof the gun was of a faulty design, Markco would have cheerfully provided said proof just to shut people up. If not him, then ALL others would do the identical thing they did when the drop issue was discovered. Since then every youtuber has tried in vain to make the gun go off without the trigger being pulled fully to the rear.

At this point, the P320 has to be the most tested, retested and abused handgun ever produced.

 

[MarkCO]

Markco was asked a couple of times to provide any and all information and he decided instead to leave the thread.

Since you are again slandering me, I left the thread under threat. I've provided all that I am legally able to provide. You discount everything since you didn't get what you wanted.

 

[Jester@249]

Since you are again slandering me, I left the thread under threat. I've provided all that I am legally able to provide. You discount everything since you didn't get what you wanted.

If there was ANY-yes ANY proof the gun was of a faulty design, you would have cheerfully provided said proof just to shut people up. If not you, then ALL others would do the identical thing they did when the drop issue was discovered. Since then every youtuber has tried in vain to make the gun go off without the trigger being pulled fully to the rear.

At this point, the P320 has to be the most tested, retested and abused handgun ever produced.

ETA: yeah ha ha is ALL you have to offer. You have just proven me to be 100% right-thank you for that.

 

[Deputydave]

Since you are again slandering me,

I think you mean libel. Slander is oral, libel is written. And I didn't do either. I asked you to provide proof of your opinion, twice, and instead you decided on your own to leave the thread. Those are the facts and I can list the exact post numbers and the immediate post afterwards where you said you were leaving the thread if that will help your recollection.

I left the thread under threat.

No one threatened you to leave the thread, that was your choice.

I've provided all that I am legally able to provide.

Which is nothing more than your opinion stated on a gun forum. And that's totally fine. You are more than welcome to state your opinion. But you seemed to get rather pissy when I and others stated our opinions. And last time I checked, we were able to state our opinions the same as you.

Furthermore, I have continually stated that my opinion is based on the available information. You then go on that you know 99%+ more than me (and others you don't agree with) on this topic...yet don't post any actual proof (no study you've conducted, no forensic examination that we can all look at, no court case you've been involved with etc). So maybe you do know 99% more than the rest of us...if you don't prove it then we don't have that available to us now do we? Therefore our opinions are based upon what we DO know.

You discount everything since you didn't get what you wanted.

Has nothing to do with what I want so you can stop your posturing. I'm not the one putting laughing emojis on others posts I don't agree with. At this moment you are just some guy on an internet forum posting your opinion and nothing more. And again, that's totally fine. But I'm not going to bow down to your self proclaimed awesomeness. If/when I see you prove your claim in a court of law or some other form of official study and it can be verified and repeated then I'll take a long look and see if my viewpoint needs to be reevaluated (and I have no issue with doing so if/when more information becomes available). Until that time I will stay with my viewpoint even if you don't like it.

 

[Jester@249]

Since you are again slandering me, I left the thread under threat. I've provided all that I am legally able to provide. You discount everything since you didn't get what you wanted.

I find it entertaining that you claim all this information and expertise about what a bad and dangerous design the P320 is and when you get called out on what you say, you are suddenly mute, claiming you can't talk about it. Well posting as you have has to be in direct violation of your "NDA" because, well you are talking about the gun going off. It is downright comical you claim slander.

Since you have talked about the bad design of the P320, and in light of the fact that if there really was a "NDA" you are in violation of it-please provide actual evidence to back up your claims. (If nothing else, you'd be able to prove all of us wrong.....)

 

[walkinguf61]

If there was ANY-yes ANY proof the gun was of a faulty design, you would have cheerfully provided said proof just to shut people up. If not you, then ALL others would do the identical thing they did when the drop issue was discovered. Since then every youtuber has tried in vain to make the gun go off without the trigger being pulled fully to the rear.

At this point, the P320 has to be the most tested, retested and abused handgun ever produced.

ETA: yeah ha ha is ALL you have to offer. You have just proven me to be 100% right-thank you for that.

I was told by the gunsmith at a rental place I go to that he has recreated it. I believe him. He said it’s the reliance on that one spring and if the spring is worn down or incorrect, it could go off with a bounce . In the trial, the dog expert said it was similar to a single action but without the manual safety.Sig definitely would have NDA’s on people who have demonstrated the issue to them as well as any out of court settlements.
Guys dismiss every YouTuber who says they had it happen as well as very incident on video . Now, we have a court case loss for sig and you guys still dismiss it . There is something wrong with the P320. Is it the combination of the gun and the holsters, maybe . But there is a problem.
And yes, it’s a design flaw if the trigger or the trigger guard is inadequate to prevent a trigger pull by a small amount holster friction .
If Mark CO can’t speak about something in detail because of an NDA issue then we should give him the benefit of the doubt

 

[Jester@249]

I was told by the gunsmith at a rental place I go to that he has recreated it. I believe him. He said it’s the reliance on that one spring and if the spring is worn down or incorrect, it could go off with a bounce . In the trial, the dog expert said it was similar to a single action but without the manual safety.Sig definitely would have NDA’s on people who have demonstrated the issue to them as well as any out of court settlements.
Guys dismiss every YouTuber who says they had it happen as well as very incident on video . Now, we have a court case loss for sig and you guys still dismiss it . There is something wrong with the P320. Is it the combination of the gun and the holsters, maybe . But there is a problem.
And yes, it’s a design flaw if the trigger or the trigger guard is inadequate to prevent a trigger pull by a small amount holster friction .
If Mark CO can’t speak about something in detail because of an NDA issue then we should give him the benefit of the doubt

So you can't prove anything either. Because if YOU COULD provide actual PROOF, you most certainly would have......just like I said you would have.

And no Sig cannot possible make people discovering issues suddenly sign nondisclosure agreements-that claim doesn't even rise to the level of being preposterous.