Hacker News Reader

Comment by A_D_E_P_T | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. The comment below the video actually gets it right, emphasis added:

> "The shear amount of movement in the trigger it takes on the Glock PLUS the fact the trigger safety has to depressed lends it self to make this scenario extremely extremely unlikely to happen from jostling. Which is the exact opposite for the 320. Tiny amount of movement needed, way more slop in the gun as a whole and no trigger safety all lends itself to be way more likely to happen from jostling. Thats the argument."

View on HN

way more likely to happen from jostling. Thats the argument.

The above claim is most likely true: it is easy to pull the trigger accidentally on the Sig. But that isn't the argument. People are claiming it will fire uncommanded.

The video is misleading because he is partially pulling the trigger, which deactivates the internal safety mechanisms.

It is the clickbait equivalent of a video claiming Rust is not memory safe, that starts by showing a Rust program running and causing a BSOD. Then deep in the video, what they show is he wrote a bunch of explicit unsafe code.

The Sig P320 also has another major issue with the trigger failing to properly reset or pull correctly, requiring all sorts of weird (official) modifications.

What do you want to bet this is a variant of some sort of light pressure against the trigger at some point in the past (including even just heavy movement!) causing a stuck trigger, plus these other issues, resulting in an uncommanded discharge ‘randomly’?

The FBI analysis showed truly terrible wear characteristics and quality control for the fire control parts which can’t be helping.

> The video is misleading because he is partially pulling the trigger, which deactivates the internal safety mechanisms.

While true that it is misleading, i still think it's fundamentally correct. You do not expect your firearm to discharge if someone bumps you while the trigger has the slack taken out.

Pulling the trigger deactivates the firing-pin safety and drop-safety on a Glock as well. And by the time you have pulled the trigger to the wall you've already disabled the trigger-blade safety.

This holds true on basically every modern handgun that has such a mechanism (striker or hammer-fired).

The Sig P320 probably has more issues than the originally discovered drop-safety deficiencies, and Sig US has been very quick to deny-deny-deny. But firing when you pull the trigger is not an issue.

Glocks require such an astronomically large trigger pull to disable the safety that there cannot be any doubt that the trigger was intentionally pulled with the intention of making it fire.

The glock that I used to compete regularly with basically felt like a double action revolver.

OEM trigger pull weight on most all Glocks is about 5.5lbs (the G34 has a different connector and gets down to about 4.5lbs)

That is fairly average across the market for other handguns.

Unless you were shooting a Glock with one of the infamous NYPD 12lb triggers…

Pull weight does not tell the full picture.

The trigger needs to be pulled a certain (very large) distance before disengaging the safety.

Pull weight might be comparable to peer weapons, but the amount of work required to disengage the safety cannot compare.

> But firing when you pull the trigger is not an issue.

This is not a fair and accurate phrasing of the problem. Triggers have a breakpoint in the pull at which you expect them to fire. Discharging by touching the slide, even while the trigger is depressed, is not expected or acceptable.

If you pull the trigger far enough to disengage the drop safety and firing pin safety block, then it is entirely possible to discharge the weapon by applying force to the slide, shaking the weapon, or the like. Pulling the trigger disables the internal safeties that would prevent this.

This is not unique to the P320, Sig, or even striker-fired handguns in general. This could just as easily apply to a CZ-75B. There is no magic that keeps the striker from dropping until the shooter has their heart set on discharging a round.

There is a reason that rule #3 of firearm safety is to not put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot

I think you are being insufficiently charitable / analytical in the face of the demonstration by Wyoming Gun Project. I'm sure everyone agrees with your basic assessment that _any_ input on the trigger is a violation of one of the most fundamental rules of gun safety.

But there's nuance here.

They showed that with <=1mm of trigger pull (far less than the distance of the firing sequence), the weapon can be put into a state where miniscule input on the slide (consistent with typical holster carry) causes a discharge.

I'm not a firearms expert, but I very much doubt that any hammer-fired (and indeed, even the vast majority of striker-fired) weapons can be put into such a state.

Are you aware of any demonstration that shows another modern handgun being put into a state where this same amount of input on the slide can cause an actual discharge, let alone with <=1mm input on the trigger?

> Are you aware of any demonstration that shows another modern handgun being put into a state where this same amount of input on the slide can cause an actual discharge

Yes actually. see the video I linked above: https://youtu.be/r1KoSBcn2bY?feature=shared

Jeez, that's a great video. Thank you. I stand corrected. I wish he measured the movement on the trigger though; it looked like much more than 1mm.

I wonder: do you know if there's a hammer-fired pistol which can be put into a similar state?

I can't imagine a realistic scenario where I've taken the slack out of a trigger and don't have the intent to continue pulling through to the break.

Modern military doctrine says that you shouldn't even pull the weapon from the holster if you don't have the intent to fire. Even if you're not quite willing to implement that (eg for LE), you shouldn't be touching/pulling the trigger without an extremely firm intent to fire.

Did we watch the same video? He's not taking the slack out he's also pressing though "the wall" lowering sear engagement.

So, is your claim that an object in the holster is pulling the trigger causing the discharge? Congratulations, that's SIG's argument and if it was true it would exonerate them.

That’s not my claim. I don’t really trust Sig’s ass-covering on the numerous reported issues.

But in the case of the demonstration in the Wyoming Gun Project video, it is literally the case that an object is being jammed into the trigger until all internal safeties are disabled, then flex and sympathetic movement is applied until the gun goes off.

There may exist a more damning explanation of what has caused the reported uncommanded discharges but that video isn’t it

Having owned both a P320 and a Glock and handled multiple, "slop" in the guns out of the box are comparable. They're both mass-produced, polymer frame, striker-fired hand guns, not hand-finished 1911's.

If you put a few thousand rounds through either it will generate slide and frame rail wear. After this, either would have slightly more "slop" between the frame and the slide.

The glock trigger-dingus can make unintended discharges less likely because it requires an object to go into the trigger guard. But the WyomingGunProject video shows someone putting something in the trigger guard, pulling the trigger past the wall with sympathetic movement, then firing the gun. Not the result of "jostling".

This isn't to say there aren't P320's that couldn't fire uncommanded but the WyomingGunProject video is not the proverbial "smoking gun". The exact cause is, at this time, not publicly known.

I will admit that I am somewhat uncomfortable in how striker-type has become defacto standard pushed in most conversations I had around these. I understand the argument for it, but when it comes to firearms, convenience should not be a priority. A person handling it must be certain that it will perform as expected ( heavens know there is enough variation with plain 1911 ).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com