P320sc sub compact
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
SIG P320 "voluntary upgrade" program
- Thread starter cmshoot
- Start date
P320sc sub compact
A lightweight firing pin in a Series 70 1911 will lessen the chance of it discharging when dropped on the muzzle, and an increased power firing pin spring will as well (at the trade-off of increased locktime), but that is not a guarantee. It can still happen.
I'd still put my money on SAI for sheer volume. Ruger doesn't make even half as many variations as SAI does. That does not necessarily mean it's so, I'm aware. In addition, SAI has bern making 1911's non-stop since 1985.
Regardless of who makes the most, there are still prodigious numbers made by several manufacturers that lack any effective drop safety.
Agreed, the 1911 is inherently un-drop-safe unless you change the design, and then it's not really the same gun. But manufacturers who want to stay with that original design do what they can to limit the possibility of an AD, and make this older design as close to drop-safe as possible.
My argument is that people (and lawyers) probably expect any modern (say post-Glock) design to be drop safe.
My argument is that people (and lawyers) probably expect any modern (say post-Glock) design to be drop safe.
Ruger was sued because some retard loaded his Ruger SA with 6 rounds, and managed to shoot himself, despite 100 years of usage and "common knowledge" that that was not a safe practice.
Retard got a substantial money judgment, and Ruger choose to pay the judgment and not appeal. They then started to print the warning about reading the manual on the barrel, and came up the hammer block that they installed retroactively.
As
cmshoot
points out, there are several manufacturers around the world, including Colt itself, that continue to produce SA revolvers to the original Colt SAA design, with no warning on the barrel, and not one of them has been sued into oblivion yet. At the time, Ruger was roundly criticized for not following through on the lawsuit, but it was during a period when Ruger was curry favor with the control people.I guess "modern day" is in the eye of the beholder, as the Colt 1911 (updated) is still current issue in certain elite units of the armed forces, and some elite units of police depts. They still will AD if dropped on the hammer. So unless these purchasers are dumber than a brick, they must think it is an acceptable risk.
Speaking of modern designs, Glocks still seem to have a disproportionate number of AD's (which of course are never Glock's fault) even though they are up to something like Generation 16 on their trigger design. I'm simple minded and don't understand how you can improve perfection, but Glock claims to be doing it over and over, Go figure.
Also, all that said, the number of pistols subjected to rigorous drop testing is limited. We really don't know how many "modern" designs are dangerous because no one has rigorously tested them. Anecdotally, it seems that a very high number of Lorcins AD when they fall out of someone's purse in the Piggly Wiggly, but who really cares?
OK, so the Ruger one was going back in time pretty far then.... they haven't made a SA gun without a transfer bar since when, 1980 or so? Maybe the 70s?
And I would say 'elite' operator types are probably fully aware of exactly how drop-safe or not any of the pistols they carry are. If they are carrying a 1911 then they know the potential issues.
As for Glock ADs, or actually NDs, those are user induced. That's a whole different ball of wax.
I will agree that this shows how limited the drop-testing done on new designs is. The SIG rep on Gun Talk pointed out that there were 46 million possible orientations to drop test a gun. It wouldn't surprise me at all if other 'modern' guns out there also failed.
The only thing that bugs me about this is that SIG knew about this issue for at least 8 months (the LEO who got shot and the 2 that didn't) and never notified their customers. It sounds like they were simply going to slip-stream the new trigger into the production models with no explanation on why.
It also gets me that they have a known safety problem in their firearm, a defect that could cause death or serious injury not just to the firearms owner (who signed up for this risk) but to innocent people around them (who didn't).
And I would say 'elite' operator types are probably fully aware of exactly how drop-safe or not any of the pistols they carry are. If they are carrying a 1911 then they know the potential issues.
As for Glock ADs, or actually NDs, those are user induced. That's a whole different ball of wax.
I will agree that this shows how limited the drop-testing done on new designs is. The SIG rep on Gun Talk pointed out that there were 46 million possible orientations to drop test a gun. It wouldn't surprise me at all if other 'modern' guns out there also failed.
The only thing that bugs me about this is that SIG knew about this issue for at least 8 months (the LEO who got shot and the 2 that didn't) and never notified their customers. It sounds like they were simply going to slip-stream the new trigger into the production models with no explanation on why.
It also gets me that they have a known safety problem in their firearm, a defect that could cause death or serious injury not just to the firearms owner (who signed up for this risk) but to innocent people around them (who didn't).
Most gun companies have been guilty of similar at one point in time or another, although that doesn't excuse SIG's actions.
Glock has had numerous lawsuits over the years in regards to guns blowing up, especially barrels and especially in the Glock 22 model. One agency hired an outside, unbiased lab to test Glock barrels. IIRC, the lab stated that the metal used in the barrels was not of the proper material.
We had a few at my old PD, with factory ammo. We'd call Glock (they're 20 minutes away) and they would haul up to the PD, swap us a brand new gun for the destroyed one, give us a bunch of free swag, and leave. Good customer service, or getting rid of the evidence?
A local sheriff's office had a bunch of blown-up G22's in their armory. They would notify Glock of it, but refused to swap for new guns. Glock grew quite irate about this and threatened legal action at one point if the SO didn't give them the destroyed guns for new ones. That definitely does not sound like CS, sounds like getting rid of evidence to me.
Do I still recommend Glocks? Yep! I probably recommend the G19 to folks more than I recommend any other handgun.
The Sig 320 ADs are user induced. If you don't drop your gun, it will not discharge. Especially for LEO, sounds like there may be a holster security issue there. I'd like to see the lawsuit the LEO said, to see what his lawyer had to say about the the manufacturer of his holster.
Holster was a standard SafariLand ALS from what I remember, It and the link to the suit are in one of these threads. From the complaint the gun didn't leave the holster, but the holster didn't cover the back of the gun.
As for 'don't drop the gun' that's like saying that it's OK for your seatbelts to be defective, just 'don't hit anything'. Good advice but not always possible.
I'd heard about the 'unsupported chamber' problem in earlier Glocks, but never heard about it being that bad. Glock seems to have two modes of operation... "Let us take care of that for you' or 'Our lawyers want to talk with you'.
I'd always understood that the issue was a combination of non-SAMMI 40 "+P" (or reloads) and the infamous unsupported chamber. Kind of surprised you were seeing this kind of issue with regular duty ammo.
