SigP320

[marine6680]

Protrusion into the trigger guard during holstering, is problematic for any pistol without a manual safety.

An extra eighth of an inch of trigger travel is unlikely to save you from an ND in such a situation.

 

[TunnelRat]

An extra eighth of an inch of trigger travel is unlikely to save you from an ND in such a situation.

From what I've read, heard, and seen personally the majority of NDs occur when the user thought the gun was unloaded when it in fact was not. In that situation heavy trigger pulls or manual safeties are likely to be of little help if the user deliberately means to pull the trigger.

 

[marine6680]

I have only seen one ND personally... And that was caused by the person not properly and fully unloading a pump shotgun, then pulling the trigger.

This happened before I could voice a protest. Luckily the only a mattress, some sheets, and a window mounted AC unit fell victim to this escapade.

Oh... And my eardrums...


So no amount of trigger would have helped prevent it.

 

[JJNA]

So you all would be comfortable carrying SA-only guns with the safety off or with the DA/SA guns with hammer cocked. To each his own, I guess.

 

[TunnelRat]

So you all would be comfortable carrying SA-only guns with the safety off or with the DA/SA guns with hammer cocked. To each his own, I guess.

That's not what we're saying and isn't an accurate representation of how the P320 functions. You've obviously made up your made that you feel the P320 is unsafe. Okay. Then don't carry one.

Of course, I have NOT measured them, but the trigger travel on my Glocks seem considerably longer than that on a P320 I examined.

If you have no problem carrying a Glock but you do have a problem carrying a P320, then you don't understand how these firearms function.

 

[marine6680]

Well... As far as striker fired pistols go, I think the Glock action is inherently safer than many others. Maybe not by much, but to some degree.

Despite what the manufacture claim...

The 320, M&P, VP9, XD, PPQ... And others... Are not "partially tensioned". That is unless you count 98% partial tension. (ok yes technically it's 2% not tensioned)

As that amount is plenty to set off a primer should the striker manage to hit one.

The glock is unlikely to carry the force required, should the striker fall from rest.



But the biggest thing is... Is that hammer fired SA pistols operate in a completely different manner than striker pistols.

It is the difference in how they operate that makes the difference.


And as I said, modern SA hammer pistols are likely safe to carry with the safety off. Carry... Drawing and holstering would require much more due diligence.

Firing pin blocks are the big reason why they could be carried without a safety engaged.

Is it wise to do so?

No... For reasons other than the potential for ND caused by a sear slipping for some reason.

The 320 and other striker pistols have pulls of around 1/2 inch or more on average. (my 320s trigger pull measures in a bit over 1/2 in)

 

[marine6680]

I have heard it said... That the 1911 only has a thumb safety at the Army's insistence.

Not sure how true that is.


Some may even feel that manual safeties on certain designs, are really just vestiges of the past and old designs. (when it comes to some modern pistols)

Not saying the safety is not needed at all, anywhere, just that it is often times just added redundancy on many new pistols.

 

[JJNA]

That's not what we're saying and isn't an accurate representation of how the P320 functions.

Do please clarify what "we" (I am assuming you are speaking for a group here) are saying.

You've obviously made up your made that you feel the P320 is unsafe. Okay. Then don't carry one.

No, I have not made up my mind. If I had, I wouldn't be bantering here.

If you have no problem carrying a Glock but you do have a problem carrying a P320, then you don't understand how these firearms function.

I actually don't carry a Glock. Nonetheless, I bow to your superior gun knowledge. Sure, the mechanisms are somewhat different, sure the Glock has an extra safety on the trigger (and the XD has a grip safety, which comes in very handy if there is an accidental protrusion into the trigger guard, especially during re-holstering), but, you are right, it's exactly the same as a P320 with neither of those additional safety features, and with a possibly shorter trigger arc.

I don't mind people sharing their perspectives and arguing about their points vigorously, but perhaps the condescension can be toned down a bit, eh?

 

[Blackbook]

So you all would be comfortable carrying SA-only guns with the safety off or with the DA/SA guns with hammer cocked. To each his own, I guess.

The p320 isn't a single action. Please only compare like items.

 

[TunnelRat]

No, I have not made up my mind. If I had, I wouldn't be bantering here.

One doesn't necessarily mean the other. For a guy that hasn't made up his mind, you sure seem to be arguing one side.

Sure, the mechanisms are somewhat different, sure the Glock has an extra safety on the trigger (and the XD has a grip safety, which comes in very handy if there is an accidental protrusion into the trigger guard, especially during re-holstering), but, you are right, it's exactly the same as a P320 with neither of those additional safety features, and with a possibly shorter trigger arc.

The dingus on the Glock trigger isn't a safety. Its sole purpose is to prevent momentum from pulling the trigger were the pistol dropped muzzle up. Because of how light that dingus is it would require an extreme falling velocity for that dingus to travel fully rearward purely from momentum and without that happening the pistol won't discharge. Firing pin blocks are important, but they don't solve the problem of momentum entirely. It's part of the reason why I wouldn't suggest carrying a SAO pistol with the safety off or DA/SA pistol cocked, because they rely on other methods (a mechanical safety or a much heavier trigger pull) to defeat momentum. To my understanding the P320 has a device built into the trigger itself that accomplished the same task as a Glock, at least that's what I remember from the tech description. The Walther P99QA had the same. The P320 may have a shorter trigger arc (having owned both it and the Glock it didn't feel that much shorter) but the P320 trigger is also heavier in pull weight confirmed by multiple users here with trigger gauges. You talk as if the P320 has a match grade trigger, when from my experience (one self defense course and 1000 rds) it really doesn't.

Most of your concerns about safety seem centered around something protruding into the trigger guard while holstering. No design, absent a mechanical safety of some kind, is immune from that and certainly not the slight difference in pull length we're talking about here. My response, however, would be don't let that happen. It really isn't even one of those, "But it might happen", situations. When you're holstering a pistol, you're doing so under the determination that there is no threat around. If that's true, then take all the time in the world to holster that pistol, it's not a contest. Move your cover garment completely to the side. Look in the holster to check for an obstruction or debris (if it can actuate a trigger you should be able to see it). And lastly make sure your holster has a rigid enough opening that it maintains its shape and won't fold in on itself while holstering (that's typically the culprit for negligent discharges when holstering, soft holsters). Combine that with a holster that encapsulates the trigger guard and you're all set. If your holster doesn't accomplish what I just mentioned, I'd honestly consider a different holster regardless of the pistol's manual of arms.

I don't mind people sharing their perspectives and arguing about their points vigorously, but perhaps the condescension can be toned down a bit, eh?

Condescension? No not so much. Lack of patience? Yeah. Your comment below was something of your own construction that you put in the mouths of us (and this isn't me speaking for the "group", you used the term "you all") trying to explain the function to you. The comment is your own preconceived notions that make a convenient straw man for you. That isn't something I have patience for.

So you all would be comfortable carrying SA-only guns with the safety off or with the DA/SA guns with hammer cocked. To each his own, I guess.

 

[JohnKSa]

The dingus on the Glock trigger isn't a safety. Its sole purpose is to prevent momentum from pulling the trigger were the pistol dropped muzzle up.

Glock does point out that is one purpose for the "trigger safety" (their term for the device) but also notes that it reduces the chances of the trigger being operated by pressure to the sides of the trigger.

The exact quote from the Glock website is: "The trigger safety is designed to protect against firing if the pistol is dropped or the trigger is subjected to lateral pressure." The armorer's manual says: "The first safety is the Trigger Safety. This safety was designed to block any unwanted rearward movement of the trigger due to inertia or lateral pressure." and in another section it states: "The trigger safety is designed to prevent unintentional firing when the pistol is dropped, falls or is subjected to forces such as inertia or lateral pressures."

That said, from what I have been able to determine, trigger snags are one of the least likely causes of an unintentional discharge. The main concern is drop safety and a trigger safety isn't the only way to make the gun drop safe.

All that to say that it's not reasonable to assume that a similarly designed gun without a trigger safety is unsafe, but it is something a little different in the two designs to think about.

 

[JJNA]

For a guy that hasn't made up his mind, you sure seem to be arguing one side.

Vigorous and skeptical argument tends to draw out either a robust (and useful) counter-argument or, unfortunately, fallacies (such as argument from authority, ad hominem, etc.) from know-it-alls. But those who presume to read other people's minds certainly take the cake.

I am TELLING you, I haven't made up my mind about the P320. If I had, I'd either buy one or ignore it; I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time here drawing out opinions from others.

But I can tell you that among many comments here, yours is not the one that's convincing me of the P320's safety.

The dingus on the Glock trigger isn't a safety. Its sole purpose is to prevent momentum from pulling the trigger were the pistol dropped muzzle up... Most of your concerns about safety seem centered around something protruding into the trigger guard while holstering. No design, absent a mechanical safety of some kind, is immune from that

That's rather interesting. I just took out my Glock 42 to measure the trigger weight with my RCBS trigger weight gauge. I tried to pull the trigger as I do with other firearms, and it wouldn't click, because that "dingus" whose "sole purpose it to prevent momentum from pulling the trigger were the pistol dropped muzzle up" wouldn't engage. In order to pull the trigger to gauge the weight, I had to place the gauge hook to a very specific spot on the trigger (and make sure the hook didn't slide off this position).

Although I do not have a Sig P320 on hand, I'll borrow one and check. I'd guess that it requires no such contortion to make the trigger move.

The P320 may have a shorter trigger arc (having owned both it and the Glock it didn't feel that much shorter) but the P320 trigger is also heavier in pull weight confirmed by multiple users here with trigger gauges. You talk as if the P320 has a match grade trigger, when from my experience (one self defense course and 1000 rds) it really doesn't.

My Glock 42 measures on average 7.5 lbs on the trigger weight. I know of at least one Sig P320 compact with 5.5-6 lbs. trigger weight (web spec says 5.5-7.5). But, again, I'll borrow one to check for myself.

Your comment below was something of your own construction that you put in the mouths of us

Is that right?

You talk as if the P320 has a match grade trigger

Please locate a sentence of mine where I "talk as if the P320 has a match grade trigger." The following is what I originally wrote about the P320 trigger I checked out: "The P320 trigger I tried recently seemed to have lower pull weight and shorter travel distance than the trigger on one of my Browning Hi Powers (which has a lightly customized trigger with about 6 lbs. pull weight)! And the BHP is a single action-only pistol that is carried cocked-and-locked!"

I don't know anyone who calls a BHP trigger with 6 lbs. weight "match grade trigger." Putting words to another's mouth, eh?

Condescension? No not so much.

Yup this doesn't sound condescending AT ALL:

My response, however, would be don't let that happen. It really isn't even one of those, "But it might happen", situations. When you're holstering a pistol, you're doing so under the determination that there is no threat around. If that's true, then take all the time in the world to holster that pistol, it's not a contest. Move your cover garment completely to the side. Look in the holster to check for an obstruction or debris (if it can actuate a trigger you should be able to see it). And lastly make sure your holster has a rigid enough opening that it maintains its shape and won't fold in on itself while holstering (that's typically the culprit for negligent discharges when holstering, soft holsters). Combine that with a holster that encapsulates the trigger guard and you're all set. If your holster doesn't accomplish what I just mentioned, I'd honestly consider a different holster regardless of the pistol's manual of arms.

Thanks for the lecture. I didn't know you were my firearms trainer. You certainly put forth your opinion like you are the last word on what works and doesn't.

By the way, I used to carry a Glock 19 or a H&K USPc40 (and Kahr K9 in other instances), typically in a Mitch Rosen rig. Then an acquaintance of mine, a police officer, had an unintentional discharge with his Glock while re-holstering into his duty holster (he had a new jacket on and a tiny metal part of the jacket entered his holster unwittingly and boom). Since then I've been much more cautious about protrusions into the holster during re-holstering. And you know what? I know what exactly needs to be done for safe re-holstering under ideal conditions, but I also know that human beings are fallible and even the best and the most well-trained of us can make mistakes or otherwise perform functions less than 100% ideally, for a variety of unforeseen reasons. That's why there are safeties and redundancies with mechanical objects that are dangerous.

 

[JJNA]

All that to say that it's not reasonable to assume that a similarly designed gun without a trigger safety is unsafe, but it is something a little different in the two designs to think about.

That strikes me as a very reasonable, balanced assessment. Much more so than the dismissive (from TunnelRat): "If you have no problem carrying a Glock but you do have a problem carrying a P320, then you don't understand how these firearms function."

And, of course, the Springfield XD also has a grip safety, which adds another layer of redundancy.

 

[TunnelRat]

That's rather interesting. I just took out my Glock 42 to measure the trigger weight with my RCBS trigger weight gauge. I tried to pull the trigger as I do with other firearms, and it wouldn't click, because that "dingus" whose "sole purpose it to prevent momentum from pulling the trigger were the pistol dropped muzzle up" wouldn't engage. In order to pull the trigger to gauge the weight, I had to place the gauge hook to a very specific spot on the trigger (and make sure the hook didn't slide off this position).

Although I do not have a Sig P320 on hand, I'll borrow one and check. I'd guess that it requires no such contortion to make the trigger move.

You're talking about a series of incredible events where an object in a holster manages to pull on just the side of the trigger enough to discharge the pistol without slipping off to the side. I also believe SIG claims that this cannot happen with the P320. But I haven't tested that nor do I know anyone that has, so fair enough.

My Glock 42 measures on average 7.5 lbs on the trigger weight. I know of at least one Sig P320 compact with 5.5-6 lbs. trigger weight (web spec says 5.5-7.5). But, again, I'll borrow one to check for myself

My P320 measured 7 lb. The Glock 42/43, which are subcompact to micro pistols, have reported heavier triggers than the rest of the Glock line whose spec (G17, G19, G26) is 5.5 lb. and that's exactly at what they come in at on my gauge.

I don't know anyone who calls a BHP trigger with 6 lbs. weight "match grade trigger." Putting words to another's mouth, eh?

Saying "as if" is not the same as completely attributing a line of thinking like you did with: "So you all would be comfortable carrying SA-only guns with the safety off or with the DA/SA guns with hammer cocked. To each his own, I guess". My point was your remarks seem to regard the P320 as dramatically easier to actuate than say a Glock when I and others here have expressed that the difference doesn't seem as extreme.

Thanks for the lecture. I didn't know you were my firearms trainer. You certainly put forth your opinion like you are the last word on what works and doesn't.

Oh brother. All I did was give you common sense advice that any number of people would pass on in regards to safety while holstering.

Then an acquaintance of mine, a police officer, had an unintentional discharge with his Glock while re-holstering into his duty holster (he had a new jacket on and a tiny metal part of the jacket entered his holster unwittingly and boom)

Hence the instructions I listed that you called a "lecture". Thanks for proving the importance of such instructions.

I also know that human beings are fallible and even the best and the most well-trained of us can make mistakes or otherwise perform functions less than 100% ideally, for a variety of unforeseen reasons.

That's not an excuse for poor behavior. Like I said, reholstering is a common time for a negligent discharge. It's important to exercise caution.

That's why there are safeties and redundancies with mechanical objects that are dangerous.

As I said before, nothing you've stated indicates that any other striker fired pistol, absent a manual safety, would be notably less at risk than say a P320. To be fair your point about the trigger tab and lack thereof is something that would have to be tested with the P320, but again it would have to just catch the edge of the trigger, have enough force to pull said trigger without slipping off to the side, and at no point touch the center of the trigger. This is assuming the P320 trigger can be discharged in such a way which I believe is not true but I haven't tested it. Of course the example you brought up yourself was with a Glock where the tab obviously didn't stop the discharge.

That strikes me as a very reasonable, balanced assessment. Much more so than the dismissive (from TunnelRat): "If you have no problem carrying a Glock but you do have a problem carrying a P320, then you don't understand how these firearms function."

Lol, yes by all means ignore the further explanation I gave and your attempt at a straw man. You're taking this way too personally. This is just the internet and it's a Friday. Relax.

 

[marine6680]

Must we have a !#@$$!@ match?


Anyway...


Most NDs are cause by user carelessness. Due to this, no safety or several safeties is going to prevent all possible NDs.

An ND during holstering is user error, but some safeties, like manual safeties, can add a little prevention... But only if they are used. As a user can forget to engage the safety.

Passive methods of preventing an ND during holstering can only offer varying degrees of a margin for error. But that is all it is, just a margin.


Prevention of NDs from drops is another thing entirely. Which my posts before have not been concerned with.

When it comes to drop safety, there are various methods to create a firearm that is drop safe. Most modern striker pistols use various mechanical means to prevent NDs (often multiple layers of these methods)

So striker pistols are perfectly safe to carry, and can handle drops and tumbles without fear of a mechanical failure of the action that will cause an ND.


Any firearm capable of being made ready to fire... And that's the whole point of a firearm... Can and will have NDs during all phases of handling due to user error... Should the user induce an error.

No amount of passive or active safeties can prevent all cases of user error. All that can be accomplished is providing layers of prevention from the less active user error induced NDs. (for example reholstering)


It is up to the individual to determine how big of a margin for error that they are comfortable with.

 

[gc70]

Here is the thing I don't understand about the SIG P320. Yes, the trigger is great, but is it safe for carry?

The Glock 17 has a 5.5 pound trigger with 12.5mm of travel.
The Sig P320 has a 5.5-6.5 pound trigger with about 9.5mm of travel.
The Walther PPQ has a 5.5 pound trigger with 7mm of travel.
Revolvers often have trigger pulls of 10 pounds or more and twice as much trigger travel as striker-fired pistols.

People still succeed in having NDs with revolvers, so differences of a few millimeters in trigger travel or a pound or two in pull weight are not overwhelming factors in the safety of striker-fired pistols.

 

[JohnKSa]

I just took out my Glock 42 to measure the trigger weight with my RCBS trigger weight gauge. I tried to pull the trigger as I do with other firearms, and it wouldn't click, because that "dingus" whose "sole purpose it to prevent momentum from pulling the trigger were the pistol dropped muzzle up" wouldn't engage. In order to pull the trigger to gauge the weight, I had to place the gauge hook to a very specific spot on the trigger (and make sure the hook didn't slide off this position).

I did some experimentation with Glocks some years back trying to get the trigger (on an UNLOADED) Glock to operate from a trigger snag. The experimentation I did was based on the idea that a snagging object or the gun would have at least some play as opposed to a situation where both the snagging object and the gun were firmly restrained/positioned/held.

What I found was that under those circumstances, the snagging object tended to ride up the trigger to the portion that doesn't have the trigger safety--the area where no amount of force could operate the trigger without breaking the trigger safety.

I don't know if that is a design feature or a happy accident, but the result is that Glocks are pretty resistant to trigger snags of the type I described above.

At the time I was pretty concerned about trigger snags. Later, I did some informal research that showed trigger snags are actually a very rare cause of unintentional discharges.

Although I do not have a Sig P320 on hand, I'll borrow one and check. I'd guess that it requires no such contortion to make the trigger move.

In my opinion, this class of pistol (including Glocks) should be viewed as requiring a holster that covers the trigger to complete the safety system. It should go without saying that the holster needs to be regularly inspected to insure that it is still safe to use. An unsafe holster can set off a gun regardless of whether it has a trigger safety or not.

http://www.usacarry.com/mans-leather-holster-causes-accidental-discharge/

 

[JJNA]

I did some experimentation with Glocks some years back trying to get the trigger (on an UNLOADED) Glock to operate from a trigger snag. The experimentation I did was based on the idea that a snagging object or the gun would have at least some play as opposed to a situation where both the snagging object and the gun were firmly restrained/positioned/held.

What I found was that under those circumstances, the snagging object tended to ride up the trigger to the portion that doesn't have the trigger safety--the area where no amount of force could operate the trigger without breaking the trigger safety.

I don't know if that is a design feature or a happy accident, but the result is that Glocks are pretty resistant to trigger snags of the type I described above.

After going through this thread, I decided to dig out my Glock 19 (which I have not shot in 10-15 years probably) from the deep dark recesses of one of my safes, and experiment with it along with the more recently purchased Glock 42.

You are right about the trigger safety. When I tried to measure the trigger weight of both Glocks, the gauge hook kept sliding up and off the trigger safety and disabled the trigger. I had to hold the gauge "just so" to get it actuate the Glock triggers. So it's clear that Glock trigger safety offers some protection against protrusions inside the trigger guard that plain triggers do not.

By the way, while the official spec of the Glock trigger is 5.5 lbs., my Glock 19 measured 6.75 lbs. and the Glock 42 7.5 lbs. (average of around 20 pulls each). Of course, the Glock 19 has been shot thousands of times and is much more heavily worn (I used to shoot it A LOT before storing it away) while the Glock 42 only has a few hundred rounds through it.

I borrowed a used P320, and it measured 5.75 lbs. (again, average of 20 pulls). And the trigger arc was between 3-4 mm shorter than that on the Glocks. So my earlier impression was correct with at least these "samples": Compared to the Glock, the P320 trigger is lighter, has a shorter travel arc, and doesn't have a trigger safety that offers enhanced protection against snagging the trigger and creating an unintentional discharge.

I suppose one can make the case that both are "safe enough," but it is plainly untrue that they are "equally safe," that is, offer the same level of safety. They do not.

 

[JJNA]

People still succeed in having NDs with revolvers, so differences of a few millimeters in trigger travel or a pound or two in pull weight are not overwhelming factors in the safety of striker-fired pistols.

That, in my view, is faulty logic. It is impossible to have zero ND with any type of a gun, but that doesn't mean all guns have the same level of safety or, better yet, error-toleration.

Double action revolvers have much heavier double action trigger pull weights and travel distance, and, in my view, are much more error-tolerant (but not error-proof) than striker-fired pistols with substantially lower trigger pull weights and shorter arcs.

 

[JJNA]

By the way, I think I am going to buy a P320 Compact. I already have a P250 FCU with multiple caliber/size change kits, and I can use the P250 frames and magazines on the P320.

I don't think I'd ever carry a P320 series, but I want to familiarize myself with it, at least as a range gun. And the same with the H&K VP9 (aside from the Browning Hi Powers, of which I own several examples, H&K P30S is the best fitting handgun for me that I've ever touched - I bought it on the spot).