[HN Gopher] Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol afte...
___________________________________________________________________
Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting
death of airman
Author : duxup
Score : 58 points
Date : 2025-07-24 18:16 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nhpr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nhpr.org)
| jleyank wrote:
| This seems to suggest carrying with a chambered round. Is this
| prudent without an external threat? They can drop the thing, or
| some kind of impact can yield a "design problem". Can't they just
| chamber when there's a need?
| colingauvin wrote:
| This is table stakes for a carry pistol. The goal is to deliver
| a pistol that can be safely carried while chambered. You do not
| want to have to chamber if you need the gun.
| nowandlater wrote:
| Firearms should never discharge unless the trigger has been
| pulled. It's an absolute bare minimum requirement. But you
| should always assume it will go off in the direction it's being
| pointed, even if you haven't pulled the trigger.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| First law of gun safety: never point a gun at anything you
| wouldn't want to destroy.
| hollywood_court wrote:
| That may be personal preference, but IMHO there's no reason to
| conceal carry if you're going to do it without a round
| chambered.
|
| I'm a huge Sig collector and I've been a fan of theirs since
| the 90s.
|
| I've carried a Sig daily for 20+ years. I only carried a P320
| for a few months until I finally downsized to the P365.
|
| But I've got to admit that their PR and response to these
| incidents is not a good look.
|
| But I am a bit confused as to what is causing these
| unintentional discharges. I know they had a problem that was
| addressed years ago so I'm not sure if the current problem guns
| are ones that were never sent back for modification or if there
| is some kind of unrelated problem.
|
| Regardless, I'll still carry a Sig until CZ makes something
| comparable to a P365. But it's unlikely that I'll ever buy a
| new Sig again.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > IMHO there's no reason to conceal carry if you're going to
| do it without a round chambered.
|
| Why is that your opinion? Surely there's a wide variety of
| plausible scenarios where carrying a concealed weapon without
| a round chambered is much better than not carrying a
| concealed weapon.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The use cases for civilian concealed carry are all totally
| imaginary, so it's sort of pointless to probe for the basis
| of this belief. You're just going to find out that the
| mental illness rate of Americans is way higher than you
| thought.
| rhcom2 wrote:
| There is definitely thinking among some who CC they're
| going to be John Wick but "good guy with a gun" is
| definitely not "totally imaginary". https://en.wikipedia.
| org/wiki/Active_shooter#/media/File:200...
| Filmatic wrote:
| 2.8% is even worse than I'd have guessed.
|
| 2.8% of an already rare event is technically non-
| imaginary, but also definitely rounds down to imaginary.
|
| [edit] on top of that, is it even a one-digit percentage
| of that 2.8% of a rare event in which having a round
| chambered made any difference? Yet there are people
| confidently posting as if it'd be _absurd_ to carry
| without a round chambered. That's plainly nuts.
| rascul wrote:
| That's only active shooter events. There are other cases
| where armed civilians have stopped a crime. I don't have
| such data readily available, though.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Estimate, if you can, the fraction of the "good guy"
| episodes that critically hinged on the 1s it takes to
| rack the slide.
|
| Personally I believe it's a good feature if a guy has to
| give it a think for 1-2 seconds before blowing away the
| guy in front of him in the line at Whataburger.
| sonofhans wrote:
| Yes, the only sensible reply in the thread. Everything
| else is theory-crafting.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Lots of live action roleplayers
| TheAmazingRace wrote:
| Not OP, but having a round chambered can be advantageous in
| a self-defense scenario, where every second counts. Having
| to think to rack the slide before firing could be enough
| for your opponent to get to you first.
| katmannthree wrote:
| Because if you're going to carry, you should choose
| something that's safe to carry with a round chambered (i.e.
| not a Sig P320). There are countless videos showing real-
| world examples of defensive handgun use. One common thread
| is that there's virtually no time between when you realize
| you're going to need your sidearm and when you need it. The
| extra second it takes to rack the slide and chamber a round
| can be the difference between surviving the encounter and
| not.
| arrowsmith wrote:
| > There are countless videos showing real-world examples
| of defensive handgun use.
|
| Tangential: if you enjoy watching that kind of content, I
| highly recommend the YouTube channel "Active Self
| Protection"
| tshaddox wrote:
| > One common thread is that there's virtually no time
| between when you realize you're going to need your
| sidearm and when you need it.
|
| I would be surprised if this is true for the majority of
| situations. I'm sure there are situations where you have
| very little time, but also many situations where the
| additional time it would take to chamber a round is
| negligible.
| eYrKEC2 wrote:
| In addition to the lost time, you'll have a hard time
| racking the slide from the adrenaline dump. Also, the bad
| guys always have first-movers advantage and you're always
| playing catch up.
|
| After watching thousands of violent encounters on John
| Correia's "Active Self Protection" channel, I agree that
| round-in-the-chamber is absolutely necessary if you're
| carrying for self protection.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/@ActiveSelfProtection
| nosignono wrote:
| When you draw from concealment, an experienced shooter
| needs only get their grip and an eye picture -- point gun
| at target and fire. You only need to train muscle memory to
| get into a firing position, which is also what you are
| regularly training every time you live fire or dry fire.
|
| If you don't have a round chambered, you need to draw, rack
| and release the slide, hope a round is properly chambered
| (in a panicked situation you might not rack the slide
| properly), _then_ get into a firing position. This is a
| much more complex movement and evaluation of state. You are
| pulling the gun up, manipulating it with two hands, then
| moving it forward and finding your grip. In an emergency,
| that time loss and complexity of motion is considerably
| more difficult to train.
|
| Even experienced shooters will draw from a holster and
| immediately present their gun and try to fire, and then
| realize they don't have a round chambered, have to bring
| the gun back to rack the slide, and then present the gun
| again.
|
| You conceal carry because you want to be prepared at an
| emergency to deal with an imminent threat. Adding complex
| manipulations to that erodes your ability to do that, and
| any modern pistol _should_ not fire unless you pull the
| trigger. They should be safe from drops, shakes, or
| manipulations.
|
| If your threat isn't "I need to have a firearm ready asap",
| then you should consider not conceal carrying, in which
| case you may want your pistol unloaded or unchambered.
| fmbb wrote:
| I'm a panicked position maybe you should not fire a gun.
|
| If you cannot even chamber a round who's to say you can
| hit what you want to hit?
| eYrKEC2 wrote:
| You're right, you should wait for the police, because
| when seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Well, at a range, sometimes can't properly rack the slide
| and still hit everything I wanted to hit. I got used to
| doing lock/release instead due to that skill issue.
| chasd00 wrote:
| I don't conceal carry but it's commonly known that you
| don't draw your weapon unless you're shooting to kill. In
| those situations, if there was time to chamber a round then
| there was time to escape. If you draw your weapon as a
| warning or, worse, fire warning shots you'll be arrested
| for brandishing at least.
| BeetleB wrote:
| I recently got into handguns and training.
|
| I recommend everyone who has access to it go into training
| where you take a real handgun that's been modified to shoot
| laser and has CO2 recoil. The setup is that you have a
| screen (perhaps all around you), playing out a scenario.
| You're in a convenience store, and something _may_ happen
| that requires you to defend yourself.
|
| Even with a fair amount of training, the adrenalin surge is
| significant, and the time you have to respond is very
| limited. Doing this eliminated any illusions I had
| regarding guns and safety. There's little time to rack the
| gun to put a round in the chamber. And if you haven't done
| it, it's not easy to rack a gun (you need the right grip,
| angle, etc). And racking can fail. Even I, with very
| limited experience, have experienced multiple failures
| while racking.
|
| People mentioned videos where people practice doing all
| this, and time themselves. I saw a video where someone 3
| yards away draws a machete and runs at the other person.
| The time he has to draw and defend is just not enough at 3
| yards. One needs to actively dodge the machete _while_
| drawing. Adding the complexity of racking is almost a
| guaranteed failure. The person drawing was very experienced
| (and a handgun trainer), knew the attack was going to come,
| and still had a low success rate.
|
| Other things I've had to unlearn:
|
| "Why didn't they just shoot at the legs?" At short notice,
| in an emergency scenario, aim is very poor. People train
| for these situations to get a reasonable likelihood of
| hitting a person without needing to spend time aiming. And
| the primary way to do it is to aim at the body - not
| arms/head/legs.
|
| "Why did they have to shoot the person 3 times?" See above.
| Aim is hard, and there's a good chance of missing. When
| your life is on the line, you are _not_ going to shoot once
| and check if it hit. You 'll shoot 3 rounds quickly. When I
| did the simulator, I often shot 4-6 rounds without even
| realizing it (and was told by the instructor to keep it
| down).
|
| This may be hard for some to believe/digest. As I said, I
| didn't believe it until I was put in those (simulated)
| situations.
|
| Another thing I thought was crazy: People sleeping with a
| _loaded_ gun by their bed. A guy did a video where an
| intruder was in the house and running towards their room.
| They timed different scenarios (unloaded with magazine on
| the side, different gun safes, etc). He succeeded only with
| one particular gun safe, and only with the gun fully
| loaded.
|
| Having said all that, if I carried a gun, I'd likely not
| have a round in the chamber. But that's really me saying
| I'm not going to carry a gun for safety purposes.
| OJFord wrote:
| And what's the reason for USAF personnel to conceal carry on
| a USAF base? Article doesn't even suggest it was.
| hollywood_court wrote:
| I should have been more clear: if you're going to carry a
| firearm on your person, regardless of concealed or open, it
| should always have a round in the chamber.
| OJFord wrote:
| That may be your rule, for all I know it's the USAF's
| rule, but it's not the British Army's, and it doesn't
| seem logical to me in a military context.
|
| (I probably agree with you in the context of 'out in
| public and have decided you need a firearm', just not 'on
| a friendly military base and carrying a firearm as a
| matter of course rather than any acute reason'.)
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| The Royal Marines of 43 Commando guarding the nukes at
| Faslane have loaded weapons.
|
| The Security Forces at the base in question guard
| strategic nuclear weapons. The other USAF command most
| concerned is USAFE, where the threat of terrorism against
| a USAF facility is greater than in the mainland US.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| They weren't concealed carrying.
|
| These are Security Forces personnel guarding strategic
| nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. To illustrate
| the priority of their mission, Global Strike Command
| ordered that the troops normally carrying pistols be issued
| assault rifles in their stead.
| Filmatic wrote:
| Military personnel generally can't carry _at all_ on post
| /base without a specific need. Nor keep private firearms at
| home, if on base/post housing.
|
| This policy should tell you something about the actual
| cost/benefit of private arms as far as overall safety goes.
| Cuts through the noise and hypotheticals rather nicely.
| int_19h wrote:
| That mostly tells you about the cost/benefit at a
| military base. Which is a place where you have to go
| through a checkpoint with armed people to even get in
| there in the first place.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "This policy should tell you something about the actual
| cost/benefit of private arms as far as overall safety
| goes. Cuts through the noise and hypotheticals rather
| nicely."
|
| Yes, most people will feel quite safe in a secured
| facility with controlled access, simialar to court
| houses. Imagine living in a place where everyone has been
| vetted and the perimeter is secured with armed guards.
| gmueckl wrote:
| There are tons of incidents with intruders on military
| bases where I am from. They are atrractive targets for
| criminals like thieves, too. Guards aren't a very
| effective deterrent.
|
| Also, everyone I talked to who found suspicious activity
| while on guard duty confessed to me that they were
| terrified in the moment even though they were trying to
| project authority on the outside.
| ImJamal wrote:
| Military police need them to prevent people from entering
| the base.
| wrp wrote:
| > _The gun has been at the center of dozens of civil lawsuits
| claiming it has a design flaw, though judges and juries have
| delivered mixed verdicts over the company's liability in
| these shootings._
|
| It does sound like there is a specific design issue to be
| discussed.
| ndrwdvvs wrote:
| a reasonably experienced competitive shooter can draw from a
| holster and put two shots on target in ~1.25-1.5sec. racking a
| round while drawing would probably put it around 2-2.5sec. that
| 0.5-1sec advantage could make a pretty big difference.
| evantbyrne wrote:
| Gun crimes tend to be ambushes rather than something that
| even remotely resembles a duel.
| 0x457 wrote:
| So every second counts?
| nosignono wrote:
| Yes, if you are conceal carrying, having a round chambered is
| typical. You don't want to have to draw _and_ rack the slide in
| an emergency.
|
| Most modern pistols have _multiple_ internal safeties to
| prevent firing without a trigger pull. There 's something
| extremely wrong with the Sig 320.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| It makes no difference if there is a round in the chamber
| unless there is a fundamental design flaw. The P320 is
| apparently a rare case of this.
|
| This is extremely mature technology. People have been churning
| out defect-free designs for many decades. It is surprising that
| a company with the engineering experience and pedigree of SIG
| Sauer would design something with this issue. It would be like
| if Airbus designed a plane where the wing sometimes fell off
| mid-flight.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "The P320 is apparently a rare case of this."
|
| Not that rare. Gen 1 and 2 Glocks had slam fires (that's
| right, "Safe Action" Glocks... the irony). The XDS had
| doubles or slam fires. I'm sure there were others, and now
| the P320.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| It's a personal taste kind of thing, where there's decent
| arguments either way.
|
| Proponents of having a loaded chamber value having the firearm
| immediately ready, because a situation where they actually need
| to draw on someone/something may not have time or space to use
| both hands to rack their pistol before someone/something is on
| them.
|
| Those who want an empty chamber consider the increased safety
| vs potential malfunctions/accidents to outweigh the risks of
| being less able to respond to a small subset of threats.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Tactical encounters often progress quickly enough that there's
| insufficient time to chamber a cartridge before the weapon may
| need to be fired.
|
| The context of who is carrying these pistols in this command
| may also help: they're issued to the Security Forces guarding
| strategic nuclear weapons (and their delivery systems). It is
| the highest priority security mission in the military.
| varjag wrote:
| One would rather hope those guarding the nukes have rifles...
| dardeaup wrote:
| It's not an either/or situation. I'm sure they would have
| BOTH pistols and rifles.
| chiph wrote:
| It depends on your job in the USAF. I was a security
| augmentee[0] and we did not chamber a round. But the Airman who
| died likely protected missile silos, which are "no-lone zones"
| and they would be carrying with a round in the chamber.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-person_rule
|
| The P320 is known to have accidental discharges for civilian
| owners (honestly - don't buy one). But Sig Sauer has stated
| that the M18 military version did not have those problems. We
| will need to wait on the results of the investigation to find
| out.
|
| [0] An extra duty typically assigned to junior enlisted - we
| only armed up during exercises. Which brings back a story - we
| were waiting on the trucks to take us to our posts, and the
| room was full of Airmen armed with M16s and M60 machine guns.
| And we were all watching Justin Wilson cooking up some
| delicious Cajun food on the TV.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "But Sig Sauer has stated that the M18 military version did
| not have those problems."
|
| More lies and misdirection on Sig's part. The only mechanical
| difference is really the manual safety (which works on the
| trigger and not on the striker), and if we're being generous
| the second would be the spanner screw. They should have the
| upgraded FCU, but in the civilian world there are still
| reports of the issue even after the upgrade.
| fossuser wrote:
| In most cases with CCW if you were to actually need to use the
| weapon you would not have time to chamber a round. Even if you
| did have time (maybe you should run away?), doing so would draw
| attention to yourself (and might be fatal). The standard advice
| is to have one chambered or work to getting yourself
| comfortable with that over time.
| smithkl42 wrote:
| This is not military, but it's widely advocated in the
| concealed carry community that you should carry with one in the
| chamber. The argument is that with modern pistol designs and
| the right precautions, it's generally safe; and that many
| scenarios where you might need to defend yourself need all the
| possible speed you can get. Having to stroke your firearm to
| load it can easily add 2 seconds to your draw.
|
| That said, given all the stories I've read, I can't imagine
| carrying a P320 with one in the chamber.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Since all services have adopted it, idiot proofing should be the
| main feature of the gun because it will be carried with idiots
| all the time and casualties accumulate.
| java-man wrote:
| Apparently not, when the profits are at stake.
| nosignono wrote:
| This wasn't a case of an idiot, except _perhaps_ placing the
| muzzle in a direction that a human would be present.
|
| The gun was in the holster, and the entire holster was removed
| from the belt and placed on a desk. There's nothing in that
| course of action that would allow a finger or anything to get
| into the trigger well. The gun should absolutely not have gone
| off.
| dcrazy wrote:
| I didn't read nabla's comment as accusing the deceased of
| being an idiot. Rather, it was a statement that the military
| is _full_ of idiots (aka teenage boys) and therefore any
| standard issue weapon should be designed appropriately.
|
| A gun that can go off on its own even when handled properly
| is the opposite of idiot-proof.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the military is full of idiots (aka teenage boys)_
|
| The Air Force is not.
| cityzen wrote:
| Lol
| bl4ckneon wrote:
| I know some people who went into the air force out of
| high school. They are idiots.
|
| Given a large enough group of people you will have
| examples of just about anything (including idiots)
|
| Another example, it's estimated that 1-2% of all military
| members are part of or connected to an illegal gang
| organization.
| smithkl42 wrote:
| Where did you get those details? I've read a couple stories
| on this incident and haven't seen that mentioned.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| I think there is a lot of coverage but this is where I
| heard the details:
| https://youtu.be/ssNFf_bMjf8?si=47rN4X7WArPbNckZ
| fossuser wrote:
| If it was in the holster, most people don't teach that the
| muzzle direction rule applies (since in the holster it's
| supposed to be inert). A lot of carry methods have the muzzle
| pointing at things you would not want it pointing at when
| unholstered.
| OneMorePerson wrote:
| Yeah agreed. If people taught this than thigh holsters
| would be out (muzzle direction when sitting down), so would
| shoulder holsters. Pretty reasonable to expect a gun to not
| go off randomly, especially when reliable drop safety
| mechanisms have been around for a long time.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| There's a joke about appendix carry of Sig pistols
| providing cheap bottom surgery for mtf trans people.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "The gun was in the holster, and the entire holster was
| removed from the belt and placed on a desk."
|
| If they can prove this in the investigation, this completely
| sinks Sig's defense that this can't happen with the upgraded
| FCU that they released to supposedly fix this issue since
| it's in all military variants.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| There is a good chance there is security video coverage.
| Sig is cooked along with whoever their fanboys are in
| senior command. Hopefully that means the P226 Legion comes
| down in price :D
| colingauvin wrote:
| I have a 320C that I purchased in 2018 and have shot less than
| 100 rounds out of. I tried to sell it recently and was offered by
| two gun stores, less than $200. MSRP was around $500. Very
| annoyed with Sig over this. Their statements have been no help
| either, talk about Streisand effect.
| giantg2 wrote:
| That's a normal price drop for most modern plastic guns when
| trying to sell them to a store. They will offer $200 and sell
| it for $350 next to the brand new ones at $475.
| nosignono wrote:
| Everyone I know has been saying, for _years_ , to not carry Sig
| 320s or their variants. Those things are dangerous. It's tragic
| it took the death of someone from what (at this point) was an
| entirely preventable outcome.
| TheAmazingRace wrote:
| It's crazy how the P320 has such a bad reputation, while the
| P365, a 9mm micro-pistol by Sig Sauer, is a phenomenal piece of
| kit by comparison. I purchased mine in 2018 and it's seen
| thousands of rounds put through it with zero issues encountered.
| hollywood_court wrote:
| Agreed. It seems that Sig really dropped the ball with the
| P320. My top 3 most used hand guns are the CZ P-10 F, the Sig
| P365, and the Sig P322.
|
| I honestly never thought I'd ever buy a modern handgun unless
| it was made by Sig. Until I tried the CZ. The P-10 F is my
| favorite full sized striker fired pistol. And that's coming
| from a guy that owns 30+ Sig pistols.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Yeah, just from a reputational standpoint I'm not sure I ever
| want to buy a Sig unless it's used. Too many other good
| brands to financially support. I've been eyeing a Canik or
| Walther, I want a premium trigger. The CZs are reliable
| weapons, but their trigger feels "gritty" to me. My Sig
| SP2022 is my favorite trigger of the guns I own.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Why would it be crazy when they're completely separate systems?
| kstrauser wrote:
| All I know about this situation is what I've read in these
| comments just now. I don't have a dog in this hunt.
|
| But I think the surprise is that a company who makes
| something considered highly reliable would make a similar
| item that the Air Force claims is killing their airmen. It'd
| be like Toyota making another pickup, the Bellevue, that
| likes to randomly explode. Sure, things happen, but _Toyota_?
| Huh, that would be unexpected.
| int_19h wrote:
| With SIG USA specifically there's a long track record of
| making firearms that can only be described as problematic.
| For example, their attempt to adapt SG 55x to the American
| market - all versions had some issues, but especially so
| the ones chambered in 7.62x39.
|
| The unusual thing here is that this is a problem in a
| product that managed to pass US DoD acceptance testing. But
| the drop safety issue was already known at the time, so one
| has to wonder just how much in soft bribes SIG had to spend
| to get it adopted regardless.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Ford made the Pinto. The Volt or Bolt from GM had battery
| fires. I believe Tesla has had multiple safety and quality
| issues come up.
| kgermino wrote:
| May be my age, but I wouldn't say any of those brands are
| a mark of quality. Rather the opposite in fact.
|
| They are all interesting in their own way (especially
| Tesla), but certainly not quality/reliability-first
| organizations.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Ford, GM, and Tesla are all bottom barrel automakers. All
| three of them relying on the government to prop them up,
| too. Otherwise, the Japanese market would have
| obliterated the American automotive industry ages ago.
| umeshunni wrote:
| > Otherwise, the Japanese market would have obliterated
| the American automotive industry ages ago
|
| Or the Chinese in the last 5 years like they have done in
| Europe and rest of the world.
| SilasX wrote:
| Not sure that's the best example, since Toyota did have the
| unintended acceleration issue, though I still don't get
| whether the consensus among smart people was that it was
| purely user error.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehi
| c...
| mycodendral wrote:
| I don't think this issue has been reported on the P365/x-macro
| platform, for those discourage by this unfortunate situation.
| Different striker system.
| sparrish wrote:
| Not only does Sig deny that a problem exists, it denies these
| incidents are happening.
|
| I'll never buy another Sig. They've burned bridges IMHO.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Add to that they have issued a voluntary trigger system, but
| not a recall. Meaning they won't admit the problem (required
| for a recall) but acknowledge a need for a change. Even with
| the upgraded FCU (which all the military guns should have)
| there are still reports of this issue occurring.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| Here's 15 Minutes of Right Wing Memes making fun of Sig and their
| Sig P320 Fuckup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHy8YOQexo
| darkteflon wrote:
| Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying
| with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting
| a shot off.
|
| I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a
| physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the
| firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety
| left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have
| I misunderstood the purpose of the safety?
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| The manual safety primarily stops the weapon from firing if the
| trigger is inadvertently pressed. In these cases, the trigger
| was allegedly not being pressed when the pistol discharged.
|
| Aside from the manual safety (which is optional on this
| specific model of pistol), there are a number of passive
| safeties that normally must be overcome for the weapon to fire.
| Something appears to be failing in such a manner that the
| pistols are firing without being commanded to -- the trigger is
| not being inadvertently pressed, so the manual safety does not
| seem to be involved.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Most newer handguns don't have manual safeties. The ones that
| do should be carried with it on. If you carry with it off, you
| won't have the muscle memory to switch it off in the event it
| is accidentally engaged. Basically, if it has the safety, you
| should be doing the motion for disengaging it regardless of
| it's starting position. Some people still choose to carry with
| it off. You get into all sorts of odd stuff the more you look
| into it, such as MARSOC rubber-banding their 1911 grip
| safeties.
|
| Some additional context here
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44675889
| giantg2 wrote:
| Interesting... I would have thought that maybe the military
| variant with the manual safety would be immune to this issue. It
| seems the manual safety is only a trigger block and not an
| additional or positive stiker block. It seems this offers no
| additional safety beyond keeping the trigger guard clear. So much
| for the military's insistence on a manual safety. Was there
| really any data showing the units using Glocks had issues related
| to a lack of manual safety? Sig added one, but clearly it was an
| afterthought.
| sklargh wrote:
| Beyond the tragedy here - the implication of this is that USAF
| security forces were carrying a widely understood to be
| mechanically unsafe handguns in the presence of nuclear weapons.
| I am not saying a stray round can cause a criticality but
| shooting a nuclear weapon or its associated delivery and
| logistics systems is suboptimal.
| int_19h wrote:
| For more on this saga:
|
| https://www.twz.com/land/army-making-no-changes-to-its-sig-p...
| more_corn wrote:
| The problems with the civilian version (the 320) are well
| documented (by law enforcement officers and the civilian
| community) and there appears to be a root cause and solution.
| (Not an expert but replaced trigger group?)
| giantg2 wrote:
| There are still reports of the issue occurring with the
| upgraded FCU. All the military ones should already have the
| upgraded FCU.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-24 23:00 UTC)