[familyman357]

The problem is - neither can anyone else. Regardless of popular opinion, the lack of definition of a design flaw may very well be because there isn't one.

There seems to be mounting anecdotal evidence that suggests otherwise and Sig has a major motive to suppress anything damning if the financial numbers don’t work in their favor (echoes of the Ford Pinto). I don’t much care as regards to myself - I don’t have to use one - but my favorite nephew is a Marine and he’s not able to make that choice for himself. This may be an interesting academic issue for some, but it’s a little close to home for me.

 

[n2g]

"Redesign" with new parts, same platform. So you have a 320 frame/slide with a new FCG that does not have issues.

If they truly do not know what is causing the issue, replace the whole FCU with a different design, preferably one from Glock.

These and the other similar posts. ^
I just didn't know what the parts were called when I suggested it in my post.

Whether there's an identified "flaw" or not, have the engineers look at traditional, non-controversial designs and then redesign everything in the 320 that goes from the trigger to whatever releases the striker, and everything that is supposed to block it or be an internal safety. Make them so they fit inside the 320 frame so you can still call it a 320 if you want.

The inner "guts" that fire the round and block it from being fired. All of them, sooner rather than later. Many posts have already suggested this.

Something tried and true, not innovative. If so many other manufacturers have been doing it for decades it must not be that difficult to do.

 

[QNman]

You don't get sued for things that function as normal in most cases.

The writing is literally on the wall.... and in memos from federal agencies, local agencies, the USAF and many training agency.

Sig is cooked.

So you've said.

Actually, especially in a death or dismemberment case, it is pretty normal for a plaintiffs attorney to take a "shotgun" approach, especially if the one injured was not the one holding the firearm.

 

[QNman]

These and the other similar posts. ^
I just didn't know what the parts were called when I suggested it in my post.

Whether there's an identified "flaw" or not, have the engineers look at traditional, non-controversial designs and then redesign everything in the 320 that goes from the trigger to whatever releases the striker, and everything that is supposed to block it or be an internal safety. Make them so they fit inside the 320 frame so you can still call it a 320 if you want.

The inner "guts" that fire the round and block it from being fired. All of them, sooner rather than later. Many posts have already suggested this.

Something tried and true, not innovative. If so many other manufacturers have been doing it for decades it must not be that difficult to do.

Then it wouldn't be a 320. It'd be something else. I'm not saying that wouldn't be prudent, I'm just saying it would no longer be a 320.

Until their sales dry up (or they lose a lawsuit and subsequent appeal), my prediction is they'll keep churning them out.

 

[Bosch]

So you've said.

Actually, especially in a death or dismemberment case, it is pretty normal for a plaintiffs attorney to take a "shotgun" approach, especially if the one injured was not the one holding the firearm.

Too many people, agencies, training groups and a military branch say the games up.

I'd love a mechanical answer as much as you but that's not nearly as important when no one trusts your gear anymore.

 

[QNman]

Too many people, agencies, training groups and a military branch say the games up.

I'd love a mechanical answer as much as you but that's not nearly as important when no one trusts your gear anymore.

Well I can't argue with that. Unfortunately, this is the society we now live in.

 

[Bosch]

Well I can't argue with that. Unfortunately, this is the society we now live in.

It's always been that way. There are far more people that rely on reputation and trust than most anything else.

Reputation is hard to beat until it proves otherwise.

...then it's really hard to get back.

 

[Ebb27]

I would strongly disagree that shows any kinds of design flaw. Manipulation in an unintended way only shows that it might fail if you stick things in its innards.

Well then would you go so far as to say the P320 striker block is a better design than the traditional peg style most other pistols....including the P365...use?

I have a hunch that striker safety is gonna prove unreliable using any test you could devise.

 

[n2g]

Then it wouldn't be a 320. It'd be something else. I'm not saying that wouldn't be prudent, I'm just saying it would no longer be a 320.

Until their sales dry up (or they lose a lawsuit and subsequent appeal), my prediction is they'll keep churning them out.

At this point it does seem it would be prudent for Sig to do something differently.

I don't want Sig to fail. Sometimes it's just time to stop fighting and change.

Unless it's found that the airman for certain did something to somehow cause the holstered pistol to fire after it was placed on the desk, I think the Air Force fatality may be the game changer.

 

[cunroe]

Received a club membership broadcast email this morning.

quote-

"...SIG Sauer P320 pistol (all variants) will be temporarily banned from use on [redacted] Club property. The Board of Directors will be discussing...at our upcoming monthly board meeting...Tuesday, August 12th at 6:00 PM..."

 

[JROC734]

Unless someone's standing there with a fully loaded P320 magazine, and inserts it into the magwell of his/her P320, chambers a round, does a mag dump emptying the magazine, then reholsters the P320 into a holster that's specifically made for a P320, and if it doesn't, "BOOM" go off, and ricochet off a rock, or something on the ground, then hit, and kill 4 people in the process, I don't want to hear it!!!

 

[1cm]

Ok, but WHAT DO YOU CHANGE?? Without knowing the issue, it's impossible to design the flaw out of it.

dont need to know the issue to build out a new FCG (that works on other platforms) with nothing in common with the old FCG.

 

[1cm]

Unless it's found that the airman for certain did something to somehow cause the holstered pistol to fire after it was placed on the desk, I think the Air Force fatality may be the game changer.

If the Okinawa fatality actually has video like the link claimed (and been released), we would not be here today.

 

[Maccabeus]

Unless someone's standing there with a fully loaded P320 magazine, and inserts it into the magwell of his/her P320, chambers a round, does a mag dump emptying the magazine, then reholsters the P320 into a holster that's specifically made for a P320, and if it doesn't, "BOOM" go off, and ricochet off a rock, or something on the ground, then hit, and kill 4 people in the process, I don't want to hear it!!!

And do it all with his arms folded crisscross applesauce!

 

[Mk23Bill]

I understand that there are those who wish to defend the P320 in this debate. That is certainly their prerogative and by no means an unreasonable position to start from. They claim repeatedly - some more vigorously than others - that nothing has yet been definitively proven linking these incidents to any repeatable mechanical defect on the part of the pistol.

To that point, I think we would have to admit that they are not wrong.

Despite this, their argument leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many, myself included. In trying to understand why, I keep coming back to their seeming insistence that, in the absence of any proven mechanical defect, the incidents are therefore the result of negligence on the part of the gunshot victim - as if “negligence” per se exists only in a strictly binary ‘yes, you were negligent’, or ‘no, you were not negligent’ form.

To my mind, there seems to be a not insignificant degree of callousness inherent in this viewpoint, particularly as it pertains to the recent loss of life.

But their position seems to be clear:

“User X wouldn’t have shot himself if he hadn’t pulled the trigger all the way to the rear while pointing the pistol at himself.”

This attitude seems to ignore the fact that negligence exists on a broad spectrum, ranging from those who exhibit extreme, gross negligence, all the way down to someone who is barely negligent at all. With that in mind - even if we go so far as to assume that no clearly identifiable, definitive mechanical defect will ever be found in the fire control module of the P320 - I would still contend that this doesn’t negate the possibility that the overall design of the pistol is such that very bad things can happen to users who are likely guilty of negligence at a level far, far below that which should invite such an outcome.

• A number of pistols have polymer frames.
• A number of pistols are striker fired.
• A number of pistols have fire control modules.
• A number of pistols have relatively light trigger pulls.
• A number of pistols have triggers with a relatively short take up.
• A number of pistols have no trigger safety dingus.
• A number of pistols have no proper firing pin block.

Is it possible that the P320 is simply somewhat unique in that it’s a full size combat/duty pistol that shares all of these traits? And is it further possible that when all of these features appear together simultaneously, the threshold for just how much “negligence” is required to precipitate an unintended discharge is lowered significantly - perhaps even to the point where holding the gunshot victim primarily responsible approaches the unreasonable?

 

[Sherlock913]

Essentially you turn the 365 into a full sized gun and get rid of the tranny pistol.

Isn't that what the P365 Macro is already? 17rds, kind of a Glock 45.

 

[shoresroad]

I understand that there are those who wish to defend the P320 in this debate. That is certainly their prerogative and by no means an unreasonable position to start from. They claim repeatedly - some more vigorously than others - that nothing has yet been definitively proven linking these incidents to any repeatable mechanical defect on the part of the pistol.

What I don't understand is the passion of the Sig P320 defenders. The Sig P320 is an inanimate object. It is a tool. I own one. But my only interest is, is it safe? This whole "Team Sig" vs "insert another gun manufacturer here" is ridiculous. Gun manufacturers are companies that exist to make a profit. And that's all they are. To instill some other trait in them is silly. If they make guns that are popular, they make money. If they make too many guns that are not popular, they go out of business.

But...
I'm rooting for Ron Cohen (Sig Sauer CEO)!
I'm rooting for Javier Diossa Arango (Glock CEO)!

Seriously?

 

[Para-bellum]

Isn't that what the P365 Macro is already? 17rds, kind of a Glock 45.

Glocks don’t have that fancy new shake awake feature some 365s have

 

[shoresroad]

Isn't that what the P365 Macro is already? 17rds, kind of a Glock 45.

Yep. The 17+1 P365 XMacro barrel is 3.7 inches (only 0.32 inches shorter than the Glock 45 barrel). So, I'm guessing most potential buyers would likely view them in the same category.

 

[CAcop]

Isn't that what the P365 Macro is already? 17rds, kind of a Glock 45.

SIG my be hedging their bets with it.