Many of you criticized Omaha Outdoors, TTAG and others for failing to immediately drop test every other handgun on the market following last week’s revelations about the SIG SAUER P320. That, however is an expensive and time consuming proposition, something we’re not set up to do. Not to mention . . .
that failure- and drop-testing firearms isn’t one of our core competencies. We only ran our P320 test last week to try to debunk Omaha’s results. And you saw how that went.
Omaha Outdoors and Andrew Tuohy, however, have now dropped a brace of other popular pistols to see if they could get them to go bang and have just released the above video.
Omaha had this to say about the results:
At the time that we released our first drop test video, we had conducted many other drop tests of common service handguns from other manufacturers, but we chose not to make the video a comparison between Sig and X manufacturer, simply a focus on that particular issue.
Needless to say, many folks were wondering if their chosen pistol platform was susceptible to this issue, so in this video we drop test, at many angles, a Glock 17 Gen 2, Glock 17 Gen 3 modified by Zev, Glock 22 Gen 4, Glock 43, Heckler & Koch VP9, HK VP9SK, Polymer80 PF940C Glock kit with all stock Glock parts, Smith & Wesson M&P9 M2.0, S&W M&P 45, and a Springfield TRP Operator 1911.
None of these firearms caused a primed case to discharge. It is not acceptable for a modern service handgun to fire a round when dropped and no excuse can be made for one that fires.
Omaha Outdoors will continue to test many of the firearms mentioned above at different angles and we will incorporate drop testing in all of our future reviews.
As we discover firearms that fire when dropped, we will attempt to confirm our results, contact the manufacturer for their comment, and then release the results of the failed tests in a timely manner to the public.
What about the ceramic Glock 7, did you test that? huh? why not? I wanna be sure my ceramic Glock-brand-GLOCK is safe for flight.
/seriously – good to know that the 1911 is drop safe. But you would think that if it wasn’t we’d have heard by now.
Some 1911s are drop safe. Certainly not all.
Not all 1911s have a firing pin block necessary to make them drop safe. In fact, if your gun was made pre-1970, it almost cerainly is NOT drop safe with more sensitive commercial primers.
Should firearms instructors ban all Series 70 1911s, all Pre-70 1911s, and all Series 80 1911s that have had their firing pin blocks removed as part of a trigger job???
Makes at least as much sense as kicking students out of class for showing up with a Sig.
The Springfield TRP Operator 1911 that was tested and considered by them to be drop safe does not have a firing pin block like you mention.
Do you disagree with their analysis?
The 1911 has a spring to prevent the firing pin from going too far forward. For the firing pin to overcome the spring resistance, it must accelerate faster than gravity can accelerate it and still have enough force to activate a primer.
The GLOCK 7 won’t fire, it is drop-safe. However the ceramic barrel can develop microcracks, so post-op firing is not recommended. 🙂
Could it be that the people who demanded drop-testing of EVERY handgun hadn’t passed being drop-tested on their heads?
No, it’s simply that we have to question our assumptions. Clearly, we got one pre-loaded striker type gun that PASSED the standardized drop tests that list results publicly, yet still had an issue. Sig either didn’t know about it, or avoided making it public until caught. Either way, because building to the test was good enough. There was this predilection that the assumption that turned out to not be safe for the 320 WAS safe for every other gun and manufacturer. That strikes many people as a dangerous sort of confirmation bias.
The other thing that might be good to do, since you can’t test infinite varieties of drop, is to determine what are the common drops. Because dangling from the trigger guard and dropped would be on my list, but clearly isn’t on the test. #1 from my experience would be straight down, front first, from slightly above waist height. It’s the “whoops, missed my holster” orientation.
“The other thing that might be good to do, since you can’t test infinite varieties of drop, is to determine what are the common drops.”
There is no “common drop.”
There are common reasons for the drops, but there is no common way guns drop, which is to say, the way they actually hit the ground/carpet/tile/concrete/whatever.
Saying that there are only so many ways a gun, for example, can fall out of a holster says absolutely nothing about just how said gun might or might not spin on the way down, said spin being imparted by the gun catching on or sliding along the holster or clothing.
This is complicated even more by the very common attempt to catch the gun on its way down.
Not all of our parents drop tested us when we were little Mike, we can’t all “be like Mike”.
I’m a pessimist and I’m skeptical by nature.
Thank you for doing this good work. The Fans boys are just butt hurt. Ignore them. Before I put down $800 for a firearm, I want to know its not going to kill me or put me in a wheel chair.
I think the Sig P320 is running around $500 retail, less if you shop around online. Unless of course you’re talking about the version with the built in red dot. Those can run closer to $800.
The rest of your point is valid. I always wanna know what I’m getting with a gun. I’ll one day inherit my father’s Colt 70 Gold Cup. That doesn’t have the drop safety of a model 80 and it won’t deter me from taking it to the range. But, you gotta know right?
Are you saying that a 1911, with a round in the chamber, with manual safety disengaged, grip safety not engaged, will still fire a round when dropped on a hard surface? That, I did not know.
Also, I don’t believe it. The whole idea of the grip safety, since 1911, is that the gun won’t fire if the grip safety is not depressed. Maybe they’re talking about dropped on the hammer while uncocked.
The answer is, ‘Yes.’ ‘Maybe.’
1911s, and many other guns, have ‘inertia’ firing pins, pins that are, in 1911s, shorter than the distance between the hammer face when down and the primer of a chambered cartridge. Many such pins don’t even have a return spring (although 1911s do), counting on the inertia of the reciprocating slide or bolt to return the firing pin to its resting position ready for the next hammer strike (a la AR-15).
With a 1911, the hammer striking the protruding ‘button’ on the end of the short firing pin ‘bounces’ it forward to close the gap and hit the primer, and the return spring brings it back. With a pre-80 Series gun, there is NOTHING to stop the firing pin from bouncing back-and-forth in the firing-pin channel except the (very) light-weight return spring.
For that reason, dropping the gun muzzle-down CAN give sufficient energy to the firing pin to make it overcome inertia and the minimal energy of the return spring, allowing the pin to snap forward in its channel and strike the primer, just as if the hammer had hit its rear end.
If that particular primer is at all sensitive, the firing pin MAY have just enough energy to fire it. It’s not guaranteed that it WILL fire it, but as the concentrated energy needed to fire a primer is in the realm of only 48 inch-ounces, it can happen. And that’s the point: it CAN happen. It’s not likely, but it IS a gamble.
Keep in mind that a ‘cocked and locked’ 1911 pre-80 Series only has a locked hammer, sear, and trigger drawbar; The thumb safety locks the sear to the hammer and the hammer thus in the full-cock position, while the grip safety blocks the trigger drawbar from moving to the rear. None of those parts can move unless something major breaks, but the firing pin still remains free to ‘float’ against nothing but weak spring tension.
Now you know.
Timothy
The cost is a very real concern for any gun buyer. But based on some comments on TTAG it seems some people are made out of money, and the skys the limit for them when it comes to spending on firearm purchases.
I just pulled the $800 figure out of the air.
If this was a Hi Point, the comments would be never ending. How is it possible the Sig Sauer company, which I’m sure has a much bigger budget than HI point, can make such a dangerous weapon to the user???
We’re are humans who make mistakes. But as many people have said, ” you pay more to get better quality”.
Perhaps not this time. This is going to cost taxpayers a lot more money. I’m old enough to remember the M16 fiasco when it was first deployed.
I would think that a firearm that won’t kill someone or put them in a wheelchair is as worthless as a firearm that’s carried without a round in the chamber…….
“It is not acceptable for a modern service handgun to fire a round when dropped”…
What about a service rifle? Because the issued M4 certainly will, when dropped muzzle down. Many, if not most of the ARs people carry today will.
So will the Colt Government 1911.
I’m happy to carry either one of those guns. I do and have. When my P320 gets back from Sig, with or without the “enhancements”, I’ll be happy to carry that one too.
A series 70 1911 will take a decent force to set it off dropped muzzle down.
ROing a match, I got a series one dropped on my foot by a newbie. Shiny chrome, lightened trigger and everything. No hole in my foot. The spring will resist a decent amount of force, with lightened firing pins, they’ll resist even more.
SA got a ton of them on the CA DOJ drop list, which tests muzzle down, and they did so with only mildly lightened steel firing pins, their profile is more or less normal for modern series 70 1911s.
I have heard about AR’s doing this and would like to see TTAG do some drop testing to prove/disprove the rumor. My guess is the results may be shocking.
That depends entirely on the protocols used.
Dropping from, say, four feet, probably no fire.
However, testing to failure will, by definition, produce a failure of one sort or another (see Youtube videos of wing testing to failure on airliners).
While I won’t say any gun can be made to fire when dropped, I dare say many more will than we think.
And still, I will say, doing an exhaustive testing regimen is not something any of us want to pay for.
Citations? Though my mind wanders through scenarios to justify your statements, Series 70 (1911) or free floating firing pin AR/SKS, I personally have no experience or have ever heard of these “certainly will” events. Could you please expound? I have very little experience with the AR platform, but quite a bit with the SKS. Both have free floating firing pins. However, I believe, (owning that one), that unless the weapon is poorly maintained, I just don’t see how dropping the rifle muzzle down, short of from the top of the Empire State Building, that would cause the weapon to discharge. And definitely not from carry height.
Mythbusters actually managed to set one off…
…By exploding a car they were sitting in.
With ARs and AKs, it’s not a statement of ‘certainly will,’ but a question of ‘possibly can.’ Both guns were designed with floating firing pins, without firing-pin return springs (well, SOME AKs use a little one), locks or blocks–but BOTH guns were also designed with military-grade primers in mind, primers that are rather insensitive.
You may have seen a live cartridge ejected from an AR or AK that has been chambered but not fired, with a shallow dimple in the primer. That mark was made by the firing pin hitting said primer–but without enough energy to fire it and thus the cartridge. Rare is the primer that WOULD be set off by such a light strike–but it is not an impossibility.
The same thing can happen if the gun is dropped muzzle-down from ‘just the right height’, with ‘just the right primer,’ and ‘just the right weight.’ As there is no device to block the firing pin, it is free to ‘float’ forward inside of the bolt carrier and bolt under inertia loading, just as it would if hit by the falling hammer (albeit with much less energy). Given the proper set of conditions, the gun COULD fire a sensitive primer–but it isn’t a given. With ‘hard’ military primers, it’s nearly an impossibility. But, it isn’t ‘impossible.’
Ruger’s Mini-30 has the opposite problem with a lot of surplus ammo – the hammer spring is the same one used in the Mini-14, which struggles sometimes with surplus ammo.
A simple replacement with the Wolf hammer spring will fire almost any surplus ammo.
The sear on the SKS can move forward if dropped on the muzzle
The SKS has another problem as well; the firing pin sometimes gets stuck from gunk in the bolt. Because so many SKSs were delivered in cosmolene, and because so few users go to the trouble to disassemble the bolt, the firing pin can become ‘trapped’ in the forward position, and slam-fire, resulting in automatic fire.
The solution is simple: clean the thing.
Firing muzzle down is much less likely to cause injury or death than firing muzzle up. But neither is exactly optimal.
I don’t see how dropping an AR muzzle down would cause a problem if charging doesn’t.
sweet, thats exactly what i was looking for.
then that settles it, sig really fucked this one up. plain and simple.
but i am a rational adult and know that anything made by man that is mass produced will have issues.
they need to just recall them all and do mandatory trigger upgrades. they can afford it.
so this would seem to suggest we need to update the drop test specifications. no? hard to say, the others passed those same tests with no issues. hmmm
“That’s exactly what I was looking for.”
That’s close to confirmation bias. You make your mind up then find facts to match.
Does the 320 have an issue when dropped a certain way? Yes. (You can stop reading now)
Was this specific drop test done as part of regular testing? Doesn’t seems to be. As was written “If they were to test every angle of every condition, there would be almost 50,000,000 permutations – an impossible number to complete.”
Can other handguns have drop issues? Likely.
I did see the odds of dropping a pistol. It was biased in that it counted many 320s as “safe queens” and only handled a few minutes a month. The result were extremely low odds of the gun firing when dropped. I bring this up to ask how many times you have dropped a pistol? Sig is making changes to the 320. The real danger is later on when pistols without the changes remain on the market. How will we check?
you’re a tool dude. you just read one line and made a comment off that? wow.
i was referring to the test. i wanted to see OTHER polymer framed guns tested. lighten the fuck up dude shit.
I like how you completely missed the point of his post so that you could latch onto one phrase and keep ignoring the fact that sig fucked up and that no, other striker fired guns are not doing this.
think i will test my Steyr S9 when i get home
Why? Have you ever actually dropped it in condition 1? Maybe if people stopped dropping loaded weapons we wouldn’t need to have conversations like this.
so you seem to think you have total control over every scenario you will ever encounter? interesting. so you don’t think anyone should have thier 320 upgraded? they should just keep a faulty piece of equipment and just make sure they never drop it?? thats like saying “dont but car insurance, just dont ever get in a wreck”. just like you dont know if someone else is going to hit you in a car, you dont know what kind of situation you may be in where the gun is possibly knocked from your hand or you lose control of your hand. but i forgot, you have all that stuff already figured out and planned for.
so you seem to think you have total control over every scenario you will ever encounter?
No. But I do have total control over dropping a loaded weapon and choose not to do it.
interesting. so you don’t think anyone should have thier 320 upgraded? they should just keep a faulty piece of equipment and just make sure they never drop it?
No. I never said that, you did. Yes, they should never drop it.
? thats like saying “dont but car insurance, just dont ever get in a wreck”. just like you dont know if someone else is going to hit you in a car,
No, it’s not like saying that at all.
you dont know what kind of situation you may be in where the gun is possibly knocked from your hand
That’s not dropping. And depending upon the orientation of the muzzle at the time of discharge it might actually work in your favor, at least 50% of the time.
or you lose control of your hand. but i forgot, you have all that stuff already figured out and planned for.
I really don’t know how to respond to “lose control of your hand”. Is that an Asperger’s thing? Planned for? Yep, I make sure I plan not to drop a loaded weapon, period.
…And if people stopped speeding and driving carelessly we wouldn’t need seat belts! It’s the real world, accidents happen. Pistols should not fire when dropped, I can’t believe this has to be argued.
Also, can we also stop with the “it was because the trigger moved. Simple physics!” comments this issue seems to attract. Again, it shouldn’t fire when dropped! Whether it’s because of a flawed striker design or a trigger that’s too light, a gun firing on a drop is NOT OK.
The guns should be dropped from a height of precisely 2.2 meters at an angle of 33.78 degrees on a stainless steel plate 3/8″ in thickness at high noon while singing Madonna songs a cappella. Otherwise, the test is invalid.
This shit is getting silly.
Nah, hitting it with Thor’s Hammer is a much more scientific and reliable method of testing.
I’m not sure which way you mean ‘silly,’ but to me, it got ‘silly’ when grown men who bought P320s, or who just like SIGs, started acting as if questioning the gun was questioning their manhood. It got sillier when those buyers and likers who were horrifically butt-hurt about the vile accusations aimed at their favorite. . .pistol started questioning everybody ELSE’s choice of gun (“Yeah? Well, Glocks’ll shoot yer leg off if you pull the trigger when there’s a round in the chamber and the muzzle is pointed at yer leg!” or “Yeah? Well, the 1880 Enfield Mk. I .476 would shoot you in the haid if you dropped IT, and nobody said anything!” or “Yeah? Well, AR-15s’ll maybe fire with an incredibly sensitive non-Government primer if you drop ’em just so onto steel or concrete from just the right height!”)
No matter how many OTHER guns MIGHT fire if dropped, the point of ALL of this was that the unmodified P320 WOULD fire. It doesn’t help SIG in the least that the Webley-Vickers .50-80, or the 1896 Maxim-Silverman, or even a Smith&Glock, might also fire if dropped; Right now, the safety question lies squarely on SIG’s shoulders, and nobody else’s. When and if somebody else’s gun fires when dropped, THEN we can move on and start whining about how OUR favorite pistol is being insulted, and OUR manhood challenged.
It’s too late for me, though. I carry a Glock. It’s black. It’s not ribbed in front for extra pleasure. Its grip has not been attacked by woodpeckers. It does not have a periscope. It does not have a colored aluminum trigger.
I clearly have no manhood to challenge.
Gather around everyone! We have devised an unscientific test to unscientifically test guns with an unscientific sample size of one in an unscientific manner to allow you to use unscientific data to forumlate your own unscientific opinion! Buy guns from us! We are keeping you drop safe! Well, unscientifically anyway.
Feel free to suggest improvements to the testing, other than dismissing it because you don’t like the result.
let’s drop test some meteorites.
You mean these?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/05/daniel-zimmerman/cabot-guns-unveils-meteorite-pistols/
yes, please. dem ones.
on to 63 year old portland cement.
“on to 63 year old portland cement.”
Cured, or still in the bag? 🙂
We need to know these things.
“let’s drop test some meteorites.”
Meteorites by definition have been pre-drop-tested by the time they are found……
I see what you did there!
But not according to any recognized protocol.
Good. I really wanted to see this happen. I’ll chill out now and can’t wait to see the full results.
It seemed as though at first Andrew was being defensive, but I like the fact that he was trying to clear up the inconsistencies. I also like the fact that other guns were tested and the comment that at some point, any firearm may fail if dropped at the correct angle and the correct orientation.
I think everyone can agree that the accidental and unintentional discharge of a firearm is unacceptable, even the people at SigArms, who I believe have been crapping their pants for the last week because of the public relations nightmare they are currently enduring.
Keep dropping those guns!
Sure we all want our firearms to be as well designed and safe as possible, but…
To coin a phrase from aviation design, maneuverability and stability are inversely proportional. An aircraft which is inherently stable is inherently un-maneuverable and vice versa. In gun terms, a gun which is inherently safe is inherently un-fireable. The more things between you and bang, the less reliable the firearm will be when you really need it. Maybe people should just stop dropping loaded weapons; there problem solved.
here it is guys!!! your complete and total fix for the problem LOL
cognitive dissonance much????
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person’s performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.
Perhaps you do not understand simple physics. Review Rube Goldberg. My point being, the more complicated (ergo drop safe) the less reliable. We all would, most likely, possibly, definitely for sure, come to some sort of agreement, or consensus thereof, that in general terms, a simple revolver, is likely to go bang more reliably than the average semi-automatic pistol. Mostly. Is that clear as Mudd?
Pffft yeah who cares that the gun fires without you pulling the trigger. THAT JUST MAKES IT BETTER!
You guys are insane.
(and this test shows why- other guns don’t do this! There is no benefit to having this defect. Even sig P320s do not do this once they have been fixed. Stop making excuses)
There is a big difference between a firearm that discharges in a manner inconsistent with it’s normal operation and handling and a firearm that discharges under extreme and highly unlikely duress. Like the hackers that found all the flaws in the Armatix IP1, I’m sure that every gun out there has vulnerabilities to inadvertent discharge if one wishes to seek hard enough to find them.
More like: A new platform has an unexpected failure, company is releasing a fix, new fix should fix the issue.
Just like the Glock 17M last year, Walther CCP this year, etc ad nauseum. New guns and new designs have teething problems.
http://www.waltherarms.com/ccp-recall-notice/
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/09/06/glock-17m-recall-update/
Just FYI, I own no SIG products.
“An aircraft which is inherently stable is inherently un-maneuverable and vice versa.”
Hawker, makers of the relatively famous Hurricane, would like to disagree with you.
The Hurricane was one of the most stable gun platforms of the entire galaxy of WWII fighter aircraft, yet was superbly maneuverable. An excellent wing design with lightweight construction helped a lot.
Just pointing out that sometimes what we take for granted isn’t necessarily so.
I think the problem here is the optics. After the Dallas Police non-troversy, somebody decides to do a non-standard test on a trio of guns hat had been previously abused. Yeah, you got it to fire. Ok, but what does that actually mean? The gunstore that did this test made a big production out of this without giving the manufacturer a chance to respond, making it look like they had an agenda. If you didn’t, that’s fine, but the argument that ‘we don’t have money to test every gun’ becomes moot after you make such a big stink about a non-standard test and cost a bunch of people millions of dollars and possibly the jobs of lots of ‘little people’ who work for Sig. If the originators of this test came forward and admitted up front that ‘we honestly don’t know how many other pistols have this problem, but there could be others’, it would have looked less like an agenda-driven thing. Kudos for doing the right thing and not singling out one business over another.
You do realize that while three of the guns had been torture tested, they tested a fourth gun that hadn’t been and it still had the problem. Also, the most abused gun of the three they had previously tested was the one that didn’t have any issues because it had a lighter trigger.
Maybe they can try my GP 100s.
I’m never opposed to testing but the safety mechanism of a ruger revolver doesn’t disengage until the DA trigger is pretty much all the way back.
(unless you were being sarcastic, in which case… oops)
Total sarcasm. Even with the hammer back, the trigger has to be pulled for the transfer bar to raise up so the hammer can contact the firing pin. Same with their single actions. Transfer bars make for about the most drop safe firea rms imaginable.
Until it’s dropped from a height sufficient to break the hammer.
“You dropped your gun from WHERE???”
More people with ND’s on a GLOCK just taking it down to clean, than have yet to be reported on a dropped 320. And a drop isn’t part of the normal function or standard of arms for the weapon like a break-down is.
Pulling the trigger on a loaded gun is user error. It’s nice to make guns less prone to human error. But:
The gun firing without someone pulling the trigger is MECHANICAL DEFECT. The two are not comparable.
+1.
And I own a Glock.
So far, I have avoided having it fire when I clean it.
So far.
Those Glocks were functioning correctly when they fired. The shooter failed to verify that the chamber was empty before pulling the trigger. The P320s were functioning incorrectly because of a design flaw. Sig deserves criticism for failure to think analytically about how the gun’s internal components would behave under impacts in various directions but so do the various authorities whose tests failed to reveal the P320’s flaw.
Ha Haaah ! That was a profiling comment. Thank you for playing.
Trust me, even the people who HATE GLOCKs are really just kinda like GLOCKs are ~ meh. But that’s a big deal. Like I said, the first time I ever shot a GLOCK it was a range-rent side by side with an XDm. I started with the XDm and put two mags thru it, switched to the GLOCK and didn’t want to waste the rest of the mags ammo before switching back. There’s a lot needed to make someone like a plastic gun and neither had it, but the GLOCK at least needed a Hogue grip sleeve, and what-ever-else I don’t know. And that last bit is where you lose most of the GLOCK non-fans.
Glad someone did it- it was the next logical step from finding the error to make sure it’s not present in other major manufacturers. Although given the amount of glocks etc out there I have little doubt that such a clear defect would have been found by users (i.e. BANG).
It would be nice if Sig fans snapped awake and realized that, no, there is no excuse for this bullshit no matter who made the gun. Make sig great again.
We WOKE. MSGA !
I support Sig. It ain’t a brand love thing, I was heartened to hear that they already had 500K out in the market, Their mfg processes seem strong, that’s the kind of mfg base we need for when we go to war against China.
The only chance that happens is when that moron ron cohen gets the boot. Otherwise sig will continue to its death spiral into irrelevance
Massachusetts conducts its own drop tests (outsourced to a lab), and only guns that are drop safe can be sold in the state. IIRC, a minimum of four guns are tested for each make and model submitted. If the manufacturer wants to sell a gun with a different color than a previously tested model, the new color must be drop tested as if it was a totally different gun. Each caliber is also treated as a completely different gun.
MA just loves to fail guns, because they’re icky and the politicians are insane.
The SIG P320 was tested, in 9mm, .40 cal., .357 SIG and the .45 compact.
All passed.
Massachusetts should get drop tested, or checked to see that it’s babysitter didn’t do it when it was a kid.
Actually drop testing other pistols and proving that the P320 pretty much stands alone as a top rated (or previously top rated), top selling duty/carry pistol that might kill or maim if dropped won’t stop the relentless whining and “but what about” excuses from the Glock haters and P320 apologist.
On a few occasions I got to watch one of the handguns during development. In the r&d department the Sr 9c was dropped so many times there was nothing to salvage except the internal parts. They conducted lots of drop tests to insure they were save. I don’t understand how sig did not follow through with such a basic safety test. Next to proof testing the barrel on every single pistol and function firing drop testing the design is a must before putting it into production.
A lot of firearms (most) have firing pin blocks that will keep the firing pin from striking the round’s primer unless the trigger mechanism MOVES back. “MOVES” is a critical choice word because it does not equate to “PRESSED”.
Unless there is another safety, a DROP safety, that keeps the trigger mechanism from moving back (therefore disengaging the firing pin block) until the trigger is PRESSED, the firearm does not have a POSITIVE drop safety and could fire when dropped if the G forces are strong enough to overcome the inertia of the trigger mechanism.
A perfect example is the very popular Sig P238. The P238 indeed has a firing pin block (part #17). However, on page 23 of the P238 manual there is a warning that the gun might fire if dropped. Although this cannot happen if the manual safety is engaged (does not allow the trigger to move) it could fire if it is dropped when the safety is off.
The P238 has a plastic trigger, which is very light. Persons that are replacing the plastic trigger with an aftermarket metal one should be aware that they are increasing the mass of the firing mechanism, and if the gun is dropped with the safety off it could fire more easily than with the plastic trigger.
Is the P238 unsafe? No. Just don’t drop it with the safety off!
Moral of the story: know your manual of arms.
Hey jebronis, the SIG 320 is a piece of garbage!!!!!!!!
Quit crying and behave like men!
what, no xd/m? no cz? no walther? inquiring minds want to know!
If this had been a Taurus? Fuggedaboutit. Let this be a lesson to the firearms elitists among us.
And may I also add – I doubt it’s pure chance it wasn’t a Glock. Nah, that’s by DESIGN.
These guys should win a Pulitzer for investigative journalism, if those who call themselves journalists weren’t so goddamn corrupt.
Sig isn’t the first or last to have this issue. Ask Taurus and CARACAL who recalled several different handguns for firing when dropped
Comments are closed.