The flexing of the frame vs. the slide vs. the fire control module can cause the striker to slip off the sear and fire a round. Loose tolerances of parts combined with the regular motion a holstered gun receives while being carried. The manual safety, if equipped, only blocks the trigger.

There’s an issue with the Fire Control mechinism working its way loose from the frame as well as the trigger “stacking” while holstered over the course of the duty day. It’s not a mystery, Sig just refuses to admit they’re defective.

We advised the Veteran’s Affairs Police service of the issue as well, before they purchased 320s for thier entire police service but they ignored us and bought them anyway.

The Govt is full of ego mainiacs that refuse to ever admit being wrong so they get what they deserve.

Having been a former USAF Security Forces member, I know from experience, you’re not far off…

Could you enumerate what concerns you have about the safety of their firearms? Because despite piles of passively constructed stories that all end up being operator error, I have yet to see a competent explanation for a repeatable way of making the P320 discharge without touching the trigger.

– “A review of weapon discharges in AFGSC showed that none were attributed to weapons malfunction.”

– “. . . reinforcing muzzle discipline . . .”

That lets SIG off the hook–this time, and explains a bit more what happened last month.

Those of us who have flown airplanes, understand having a high speed approach on landing is very dangerous. The B-26 manufacturer refused to address a growing concern, as the number of dead pilot bodies began to pile up.

Before he became president Harry Truman was the head of a commission. That was established to investigate the defense industry for corruption and poor practices. He told the aircraft builder that if they didn’t address the safety concerns the military had with the B-26. He would order the contract to be canceled.

The Army Air Corp already had the B-25 Mitchell Bomber. As well as the A-26 Havoc attack aircraft. So canceling the B-26 would not have hurt the nation’s defense ability.

Sig Saur is part of the military industrial complex. And they don’t want to lose that government contract.

And whoever the group was who approved the Sig gun, doesn’t want to lose their reputation within the government.

The wing sections on the B-26 wing sections were redesigned in order to reduce the landing speeds. The Martin aircraft company wanted to keep that government contract.

Unfortunately the gun maker Sig Saur
has not addressed the concerns about the safety of their firearm.