Mechanical trustworthiness

So that others may learn.

Moderators: Keith B, Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts: 2363
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

Postby G26ster » Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:24 am

twomillenium wrote:
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:


And I did not say you called anyone stupid. And no, I don't know how you think, just responding to what you "wrote." I was referring to your term "stupid" vs. "negligent." I'm not trying to get into a confrontation with you, as I was just stating my opinion and commenting that we all make mistakes due to preoccupation, distraction, or simply being human, and to me that does not equal stupidity. I specifically stated it was just my opinion. I just disagree with you where the "best safety" is, and find it hard to believe you've never been a victim of your own negligence, as you are human. That's all. My apologies if I misinterpreted you remarks. :cheers2:


Topic author
treadlightly
Senior Member
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

Postby treadlightly » Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:27 am

I'd say that safety is always a matter of managed risk.

After reading about that odd ND with a P320 brought about by wiggling the trigger, it occurred to me that a partially disengaged sear could be surprisingly easy to set off. Even if I muster perfect trigger finger discipline I want the gun to be predictable. If I drop my firearm - I'm not perfect - I'll reseat the sear, either by drawing the hammer back or by pulling the slide back to disengage and then reengage the striker sear. That will hopefully restore any lost predictability.

I don't fret specifically about it. It's just part of a general background paranoia I hope I never lose.

Safeties are worth trusting, as much as you trust anything else on a gun. I was raised not to trust them, but when following Cooper's rules safeties are a nice extra measure. I never flip a safety on or off without being cognizant of manipulating the trigger mechanism. My finger shouldn't be on the trigger, but engaging or disengaging the safety is doing something mechanical in there. Bad, noisy things could happen if the mechanism is unworthy.

But, hey, I'm just a realist. When I lay down at night, I rely on my bed and a few thousand miles of dirt to keep me from falling into the Earth's core, boiling at thousands of degrees Fahrenheit. I know that matter, including my bed and all that protective dirt, consists of mostly empty space populated by widely scattered isolated bits of subatomic stuff. Almost nothing saves me from falling to a fiery death in a pit of molten iron at the center of the Earth, but almost nothing is enough. I sleep fine.

I believe my P320 is not an undue threat, but I would not recommend the gun to a first-time shooter. It requires careful handling, but, of course, they all do.

Be safe.


twomillenium
Senior Member
Posts: 1162
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:42 pm
Location: houston area

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

Postby twomillenium » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:50 pm

G26ster wrote:
twomillenium wrote:
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:


And I did not say you called anyone stupid. And no, I don't know how you think, just responding to what you "wrote." I was referring to your term "stupid" vs. "negligent." I'm not trying to get into a confrontation with you, as I was just stating my opinion and commenting that we all make mistakes due to preoccupation, distraction, or simply being human, and to me that does not equal stupidity. I specifically stated it was just my opinion. I just disagree with you where the "best safety" is, and find it hard to believe you've never been a victim of your own negligence, as you are human. That's all. My apologies if I misinterpreted you remarks. :cheers2:


I guess I just read it wrong, my apologies, (maybe I was a victim of my own negligence :biggrinjester:) However, I really do believe as Col. Jeff Cooper said "Safety is something between your ears and not something held in your hands." When the safety between the ears fails, then all other safeties are in doubt.
You have a great weekend. :cheers2:
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

Scott B.
Senior Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:46 am
Location: Harris County

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

Postby Scott B. » Fri Mar 31, 2017 3:38 pm

I've read that SigTalk posting on the 320 ND. Members of this forum and this thread aside :mrgreen: , that particular shooter is a complete idiot.

Messing with the take-up on a loaded firearm in his house?

I'm sorry, he has zero credibility in reporting the so-called 'facts' of this negligent discharge or the safety/function of any firearm.


...and yes, I could be biased, as I've sold around 60 P320s this week and am a certified armorer for this platform :fire
LTC Instructor. NRA - Instructor, RSO, Life Member.
Sig armorer | FFL 07/02 SOT


Topic author
treadlightly
Senior Member
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

Postby treadlightly » Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:08 pm

Scott B. wrote:I've read that SigTalk posting on the 320 ND. Members of this forum and this thread aside :mrgreen: , that particular shooter is a complete idiot.

Messing with the take-up on a loaded firearm in his house?

I'm sorry, he has zero credibility in reporting the so-called 'facts' of this negligent discharge or the safety/function of any firearm.


...and yes, I could be biased, as I've sold around 60 P320s this week and am a certified armorer for this platform :fire


Clearly there was a brain burp of Darwinian proportion involved, and the ND seems unlikely to be related to the gun design or condition of the weapon.

I'm curious what you think of the P320. On general principle I'm not too keen on safetyless guns (mine is an early model without a thumb safety). On the other hand, the P320 feels reasonably good in my hand, hits what I point it at, and the subcompact is a nice balance between a small gun and something that feels bigger. I also like the 12 round capacity of the little P320. Reminds me I don't live in California. :biggrinjester:

My current thinking is that safe handling practices will work out fine on the P320. I still wouldn't recommend one to anyone who would take shooting casually or hasn't yet hardwired the four big rules. Holstering the gun, in my opinion, is a roll of the dice unless the fellow handling the gun takes care to make it not be a gamble.

Oh, and note to self - refrain from wiggling the trigger.

User avatar

Scott B.
Senior Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:46 am
Location: Harris County

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

Postby Scott B. » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:40 pm

treadlightly wrote:
Scott B. wrote:I've read that SigTalk posting on the 320 ND. Members of this forum and this thread aside :mrgreen: , that particular shooter is a complete idiot.

Messing with the take-up on a loaded firearm in his house?

I'm sorry, he has zero credibility in reporting the so-called 'facts' of this negligent discharge or the safety/function of any firearm.


...and yes, I could be biased, as I've sold around 60 P320s this week and am a certified armorer for this platform :fire


Clearly there was a brain burp of Darwinian proportion involved, and the ND seems unlikely to be related to the gun design or condition of the weapon.

I'm curious what you think of the P320. On general principle I'm not too keen on safetyless guns (mine is an early model without a thumb safety). On the other hand, the P320 feels reasonably good in my hand, hits what I point it at, and the subcompact is a nice balance between a small gun and something that feels bigger. I also like the 12 round capacity of the little P320. Reminds me I don't live in California. :biggrinjester:

My current thinking is that safe handling practices will work out fine on the P320. I still wouldn't recommend one to anyone who would take shooting casually or hasn't yet hardwired the four big rules. Holstering the gun, in my opinion, is a roll of the dice unless the fellow handling the gun takes care to make it not be a gamble.

Oh, and note to self - refrain from wiggling the trigger.



Mechanically - I'm impressed with the 320 from a technical standpoint. I think it's brilliant. Sig has truly made small arms modularity a reality. It may be the easiest modern semi-auto to maintain. It's also a platform that Sig continues to develop and improve. I appreciate that they continue its development.

Safety - In application, it's no different to me than a Glock. On the maintenance side, the 320 wins hands down on safety; mag must be out, slide locked to the rear, no trigger pull required for take down.

Performance - my customers are primarily LE. I get a lot of feedback about life-long Glock users converting over, officers shooting Expert for the first time, and so forth. It's clearly a winner with the high speed LE units, their firearms instructors, and the academy staff.


Personal observations - I agree that the the 320 and others that lack a physical external safety are for experienced shooters and not novices. It's all about user comfort. I never dismiss or treat lightly the concerns of any shooter who wants the comfort of a safety.

When I got out the service and purchased my first privately owned pistol, it had a safety/de-cocker setup (gen 3 S&W). I wasn't confident in my own skill level and ability. That was followed not long after by a Colt Commander. When I got more experience and got into IDPA for a while, I migrated to Glock. The Austrian wonder served me very well. My daily carry for the last 18 months has been a safety-less M&P 9 with over 7k through it now.

I will reluctantly retire the M&P and start carrying/shooting a P320 CA 9 very shortly. Not because I have any doubts about the Sig, but because I have such an extreme comfort level with the M&P. However, I need to put more rounds downrange with the 320 so I can better serve my customer base.

I consider myself a moderately experienced shooter/instructor. I teach classes 3 weekends out of 4. I'm confident in my gun handling, but work hard to never to be too comfortable or lax when it comes to safety. I think working with a lot of entry level shooters helps me maintain that focus.

...and I've rambled.
LTC Instructor. NRA - Instructor, RSO, Life Member.
Sig armorer | FFL 07/02 SOT


Topic author
treadlightly
Senior Member
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

Postby treadlightly » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:59 pm

Scott B. wrote:I teach classes 3 weekends out of 4. I'm confident in my gun handling, but work hard to never to be too comfortable or lax when it comes to safety. I think working with a lot of entry level shooters helps me maintain that focus.

...and I've rambled.


No, not a ramble at all - many thanks for your comments. I was four when my Dad first began exposing me to gun handling with his bolt action .22. I didn't shoot then, he supervised my inspection of the rifle in his den. In the late 70's I started hanging out with some IPSC types who were very serious about both the sport and personal defense. If I've learned anything in my exposure to guns, it's to be diligent in the manner of gun handling.

Better advice never given, in my opinion, "...work hard to never to be too comfortable or lax when it comes to safety."

Words to live by - literally.


Sport Coach
Senior Member
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Mechanical trustworthiness

Postby Sport Coach » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:56 am

There's a fine line between paranoia and thoroughness. It's usually that others less knowledgeable recognize your thoroughness only after something went wrong. I'd rather be thought of as slightly paranoid. BTW, thanks Scott B. for detailed info on P320 as I've looked at it plenty.
“Hope is an expensive commodity. It makes better sense to be prepared.” - Thucydides


Return to “Never Again!!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests