Mechanical trustworthiness

So that others may learn.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
treadlightly
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1279
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm

Mechanical trustworthiness

#1

Post by treadlightly » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:09 am

I sometimes have second thoughts about carrying my P320. No safety. Anything that engages the trigger fires the gun, and I don't believe in empty chambers.

My holster isn't the fanciest (Alien Gear), but I've carefully confirmed nothing can touch the trigger. It's also important to make sure that nothing can drag against the edge of the trigger, even if it could never apply enough force through friction to discharge the firearm. That safety check led me to acknowledge something I've always thought but never really expressed.

Witness the sheetrock oopsies brought about by a negligent discharge from a P320, documented on sigtalk.com. I don't think anyone on that forum nailed the root cause of the sheetrock and hearing damage.

The poster said he had played with the free wiggle in his trigger the day before. The morning of his ND he wiggled the trigger 4 or 5 times, and, golly, it went off.

Therein lies what I've begun to think of as a corollary to Cooper's Rule about keeping one's idiot finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

On single action guns, once any weight has rested on the trigger it can't be trusted.

The P320 is a single action pistol. For a long time, Sig's web site said the P320 didn't fully cock its striker on return to battery but that's not true. The striker is at full cock unless it's been dry fired. That nice trigger feel is because you're not hauling back a spring, just clearing a firing pin block and releasing the sear.

If the sear is partially disengaged I don't think it will reset itself. Pull the trigger a little bit less than what makes a bang and now the sear stays partially released. If a gun is dropped, its sear may well bounce into an insecure state, ready to fire at the point the trigger moves enough to unblock the firing pin, long before the shooter expects a really loud noise, and without regard to whether the gun is considered drop safe.

Pull the trigger on a cocked and locked 1911 and the safety will keep it from discharging - but did the sear move a thousandth of an inch?

There's no way a Monday morning quarterback can know about the P320 ND. The information in the Sigtalk forum is limited. My best guess is the trigger wiggling the day before partially unseated the sear, leaving it ready to release with the slightest jiggle. Unfortunately, that last jiggle must have coincided with the firing pin block being clear from some rearward movement of the trigger.

So, my advice, if a single action gun is mishandled - dropped, or something or somebody stupidly moves the trigger - don't trust the gun. Do what you need to restore the gun to full cock. In the case of the P320, I think drawing the slide back enough to let the striker run full forward and lift off of the sear is probably sufficient. For a cocked and locked 1911, the safety can stay on while you pull the hammer back and then gently let it come forward to rest on the sear.

Probably not a bad idea to holster a firearm the same way you'd give a rattlesnake an enema, too. Smoothly, gently, and with the realization a little ham-handedness might make it strike.

Stay safe.


bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#2

Post by bblhd672 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:44 am

The poster "played" with the trigger
If you have a ND and admit to playing with the trigger it's kind of evident the problem isn't the gun.


george
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#3

Post by george » Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:44 am

I see what you are getting at, but even if the sear has come to minimal engagement, it should not fire if it is equipped with a drop safety (firing pin is blocked until the trigger is pressed).
... holding His hand.
NRA endowment member
TSRA life member

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 23577
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#4

Post by The Annoyed Man » Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:32 pm

Moral of the story: triggers are not playthings, and you're supposed to keep your booger hook off the bang switch until the weapon is pointed either downrange or in a "safe direction", and you are sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

By fooling with the trigger on a loaded gun, he violated one of the most basic rules of gun safety......which literally has nothing to do with whether or not the trigger was defective, and everything to do with defective intelligence. It is because none of us is perfect in our intelligence that we have safety rules that come first, foremost, and always, and ought to be treated as inviolable. Period. What happened with the man's negligent discharge - and it WAS negligent, trigger malfunction or not - was utterly avoidable.

Many, myself included, have had an ND with a gun we either thought was unloaded (my case), or which we knew was loaded but still failed to follow the rules.

I actually like the P320 trigger, although I don't own one. But I did carry a couple of different Kahr pistols for 2-3 years, which have a similar feeling trigger, and I had faith in it because (A) I was always cautious with holstering, and (B) I didn't fiddle-faddle with the trigger unless I was deliberately live-firing or dry-firing the gun in a controlled and safe manner. I was that careful before I bought a Kahr when carrying a revolver, a 1911, a USP compact, and an M&P45; and I've been that careful since then when carrying Glocks. Good quality guns - and the Sig qualifies under that description - are generally very safe, and will not "just go off" unless some mullet-head has been fooling with them. I trust my Glocks implicitly, as I have ALL of the guns I ever purchased for carry.



{EDITED TO CORRECT A COUPLE OF TYPOS.}
Last edited by The Annoyed Man on Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#5

Post by bblhd672 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:41 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:Moral of the story: triggers are not playthings, and you're supposed to keep your booger hook off the bang switch until the weapon is pointed either downrange or in a "safe direction", and you are sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

By fooling with the trigger on a loaded gun, he violated one of the most basic rules of gun safety......which literally has nothing to do with whether or not the trigger was defective, and everything to do with defective intelligence. It is because none of us is perfect in our intelligence that we have safety rules that come first, foremost, and always, and ought to be treated as inviolable. Period. What happened with the man's negligent discharge - and it WAS negligent, trigger malfunction or not - was utterly avoidable.

Many, myself included, have had an ND with a gun we either thought was unloaded (my case), or which we new was loaded but still failed to follow the rules.

I actually like the P320 trigger, although I don't own one. But I did carry a couple of different Kahr pistols for 2-3 years, which have a similar feeling trigger, and I had faith in it because (A) I was always cautious with holstering, and (B) I didn't fiddle-faddle with the trigger unless I was deliberately live-firing or dry-firing the gun in a controlled and safe manner. I was that careful before I bought a Kahr when carrying a revolver, a 1911, a USP compact, and an M&P45; and I've been that careful since then when carrying Glocks. Good quality guns - and the Sig qualifies under that description - are generally very safe, and will not "just go off" unless some mullet-head has been fooling with them. I trust my Glocks implicitly, as I have ALL of the guns I ever purchased for carry.

All of the above is what I meant in my short post! :biggrinjester:


WTR
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#6

Post by WTR » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:16 pm

bblhd672 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Moral of the story: triggers are not playthings, and you're supposed to keep your booger hook off the bang switch until the weapon is pointed either downrange or in a "safe direction", and you are sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

By fooling with the trigger on a loaded gun, he violated one of the most basic rules of gun safety......which literally has nothing to do with whether or not the trigger was defective, and everything to do with defective intelligence. It is because none of us is perfect in our intelligence that we have safety rules that come first, foremost, and always, and ought to be treated as inviolable. Period. What happened with the man's negligent discharge - and it WAS negligent, trigger malfunction or not - was utterly avoidable.

Many, myself included, have had an ND with a gun we either thought was unloaded (my case), or which we new was loaded but still failed to follow the rules.

I actually like the P320 trigger, although I don't own one. But I did carry a couple of different Kahr pistols for 2-3 years, which have a similar feeling trigger, and I had faith in it because (A) I was always cautious with holstering, and (B) I didn't fiddle-faddle with the trigger unless I was deliberately live-firing or dry-firing the gun in a controlled and safe manner. I was that careful before I bought a Kahr when carrying a revolver, a 1911, a USP compact, and an M&P45; and I've been that careful since then when carrying Glocks. Good quality guns - and the Sig qualifies under that description - are generally very safe, and will not "just go off" unless some mullet-head has been fooling with them. I trust my Glocks implicitly, as I have ALL of the guns I ever purchased for carry.

All of the above is what I meant in my short post! :biggrinjester:

Cute movie reply. However, if a Superior Officer was given that response, someone may have been busted down a notch.


MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#7

Post by MeMelYup » Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:58 pm

Many many years ago my father told me, never trust the mechanical safety on a firearm. They can break, they can jam, just like the bolt can become jammed. You can be ready to take a shot at an animal, be all sighted in and ready to flip the safety off and it's jammed for some reason. By the time you get the safety off you have lost your concentration and you no longer have a good shot. They can wear enough that they won't hold when the trigger is pulled or if you drop the firearm it can still fire. Object of the story is, "the only real safety on a firearm is the one between your ears."

User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#8

Post by E.Marquez » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:09 pm

WTR wrote: Cute movie reply. However, if a Superior Officer was given that response, someone may have been busted down a notch.
Not really how it works... But I understand TV and the movies would have you think so.
No words or opinions I post in this forum are intended to be offensive to any member here.

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2422
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#9

Post by G26ster » Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:03 pm

MeMelYup wrote:Many many years ago my father told me, never trust the mechanical safety on a firearm. They can break, they can jam, just like the bolt can become jammed. You can be ready to take a shot at an animal, be all sighted in and ready to flip the safety off and it's jammed for some reason. By the time you get the safety off you have lost your concentration and you no longer have a good shot. They can wear enough that they won't hold when the trigger is pulled or if you drop the firearm it can still fire. Object of the story is, "the only real safety on a firearm is the one between your ears."
So "the one between your ears" can't fail? If so, you have never: tripped over an object, missed a step on a ladder, cut yourself with a knife or razor, burned yourself, or any other negligent minor or even major mishap you caused yourself. I don't buy the quote. Sure, safeties can fail, but they are there to protect us from ourselves. It's just human nature to screw up on occasion.


MeMelYup
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#10

Post by MeMelYup » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:24 pm

G26ster wrote:
MeMelYup wrote:Many many years ago my father told me, never trust the mechanical safety on a firearm. They can break, they can jam, just like the bolt can become jammed. You can be ready to take a shot at an animal, be all sighted in and ready to flip the safety off and it's jammed for some reason. By the time you get the safety off you have lost your concentration and you no longer have a good shot. They can wear enough that they won't hold when the trigger is pulled or if you drop the firearm it can still fire. Object of the story is, "the only real safety on a firearm is the one between your ears."
So "the one between your ears" can't fail? If so, you have never: tripped over an object, missed a step on a ladder, cut yourself with a knife or razor, burned yourself, or any other negligent minor or even major mishap you caused yourself. I don't buy the quote. Sure, safeties can fail, but they are there to protect us from ourselves. It's just human nature to screw up on occasion.
Never said that. If you were trained properly and think about what you're doing when you are doing it, you shouldn't have a problem. Just like if you strip your firearm down completely and inspect all the pieces for wear, paying particular attention to your sear and safety components, once a year you should not have a malfunction in that area. There is still a chance that lint or dirt can effect it.

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 11930
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#11

Post by C-dub » Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:15 pm

WTR wrote:Cute movie reply. However, if a Superior Officer was given that response, someone may have been busted down a notch.
Sometimes it depends on what your job was. Certain MOS' were given different amounts of leeway. I was never insubordinate or disrespectful, but when the circumstances got to a certain point and someone tried to tell me how to do my job that didn't have a clue what they were talking about I was pretty straightforward with them about how things really worked. I never once got in trouble for it and even had a Commander tell a Master Chief that he shouldn't push the issue since I was correct and to let it go. I also had a Senior Chief tell a PO2 the same thing once when he tried pushing me around with his rank when the PO2 was wrong.

I was an AT in an F-14 squadron. Fighter squadron guys got a little more leeway than other aircraft types for some reason. I'm sure other MOS' got even more leeway than we did.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member


twomillenium
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:42 pm
Location: houston area

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#12

Post by twomillenium » Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:44 pm

G26ster wrote:
MeMelYup wrote:Many many years ago my father told me, never trust the mechanical safety on a firearm. They can break, they can jam, just like the bolt can become jammed. You can be ready to take a shot at an animal, be all sighted in and ready to flip the safety off and it's jammed for some reason. By the time you get the safety off you have lost your concentration and you no longer have a good shot. They can wear enough that they won't hold when the trigger is pulled or if you drop the firearm it can still fire. Object of the story is, "the only real safety on a firearm is the one between your ears."
So "the one between your ears" can't fail? If so, you have never: tripped over an object, missed a step on a ladder, cut yourself with a knife or razor, burned yourself, or any other negligent minor or even major mishap you caused yourself. I don't buy the quote. Sure, safeties can fail, but they are there to protect us from ourselves. It's just human nature to screw up on occasion.
I totally agree with "the only real safety is the one between your ears". If the one between the ears ain't working then the one on the firearm is at a disadvantage as well. Life is hard, it is harder when your stupid.
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2422
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#13

Post by G26ster » Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:43 pm

twomillenium wrote:
G26ster wrote:
MeMelYup wrote:Many many years ago my father told me, never trust the mechanical safety on a firearm. They can break, they can jam, just like the bolt can become jammed. You can be ready to take a shot at an animal, be all sighted in and ready to flip the safety off and it's jammed for some reason. By the time you get the safety off you have lost your concentration and you no longer have a good shot. They can wear enough that they won't hold when the trigger is pulled or if you drop the firearm it can still fire. Object of the story is, "the only real safety on a firearm is the one between your ears."
So "the one between your ears" can't fail? If so, you have never: tripped over an object, missed a step on a ladder, cut yourself with a knife or razor, burned yourself, or any other negligent minor or even major mishap you caused yourself. I don't buy the quote. Sure, safeties can fail, but they are there to protect us from ourselves. It's just human nature to screw up on occasion.
I totally agree with "the only real safety is the one between your ears". If the one between the ears ain't working then the one on the firearm is at a disadvantage as well. Life is hard, it is harder when your stupid.
Well I won't be the one that calls ANY member of this forum stupid. But, as you apparently believe that all mishaps are the result of stupidity, and I know you are not stupid, you would be the only person I have ever met in 75 years on this earth that has never had a mishap due to their own negligence. Reasonable safeties are put on mechanical devices to help protect us from being human, not from being stupid. Just MHO.


twomillenium
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:42 pm
Location: houston area

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#14

Post by twomillenium » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:05 am

G26ster wrote:
twomillenium wrote:
G26ster wrote:
MeMelYup wrote:Many many years ago my father told me, never trust the mechanical safety on a firearm. They can break, they can jam, just like the bolt can become jammed. You can be ready to take a shot at an animal, be all sighted in and ready to flip the safety off and it's jammed for some reason. By the time you get the safety off you have lost your concentration and you no longer have a good shot. They can wear enough that they won't hold when the trigger is pulled or if you drop the firearm it can still fire. Object of the story is, "the only real safety on a firearm is the one between your ears."
So "the one between your ears" can't fail? If so, you have never: tripped over an object, missed a step on a ladder, cut yourself with a knife or razor, burned yourself, or any other negligent minor or even major mishap you caused yourself. I don't buy the quote. Sure, safeties can fail, but they are there to protect us from ourselves. It's just human nature to screw up on occasion.
I totally agree with "the only real safety is the one between your ears". If the one between the ears ain't working then the one on the firearm is at a disadvantage as well. Life is hard, it is harder when your stupid.
Well I won't be the one that calls ANY member of this forum stupid. But, as you apparently believe that all mishaps are the result of stupidity, and I know you are not stupid, you would be the only person I have ever met in 75 years on this earth that has never had a mishap due to their own negligence. Reasonable safeties are put on mechanical devices to help protect us from being human, not from being stupid. Just MHO.
I did not call anyone stupid on this forum! I merely stated a fact you can twist it however you want. Thinking that you know how I think does show signs of ------- you can fill in the blank since you know what I think. :biggrinjester:
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.

You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.


hovercat
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:36 am
Location: Pantego, TX

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

#15

Post by hovercat » Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:36 am

OP, if you have any second thoughts about your firearm, get another. A life threatening crisis will have enough second thoughts and doubts without adding doubts about your tools.

Post Reply

Return to “Never Again!!”