>>63900654
I wouldn't consider myself knowledgeable enough to answer that definitively wrt the p320. Their choice of firing pin block(striker block if you want to nit pick) is a bit weird, that seems to be the critical piece of the puzzle. If you look at pictures of the thing you can see what I'm talking about. It's a skinny curved piece of metal that pivots upwards, the top of this piece of metal is bent and runs crosswise to a section of FP it interacts with to block its movement. This is as opposed to the typical plunger style you see in Glocks, M&Ps, etc etc. I can guess that why they may have done this was to try to get the trigger pull as light as possible, less surface area and more of an angled surface and all that. I'd consider it maybe less than an ideal choice but really shouldn't have been a problem even if the engagement area is less than ideal. Except the design is fully precocked. And sig designed it to be stamped but made it stamped, then MIM, then stamped again and slightly changed the design each time. Oh yea and they did similar stuff and changed dimensions/materials/processes slightly on tons of other parts. Oh, and sometimes the critically important spring keeping the firing pin block under tension comes either shit from the factory or doesn't play well with a particular grab bag of parts. This isn't even to get in to another related topic of how exactly they seem to be having sears slipping too or other parts of the FCU having enough slop that with the right combo of parts the FPB can get depressed even if it's fine on its own.
To add on to this further, you notice just how many of these ADs involve LE? Armorers by necessity are mixing and matching parts across guns that may or may not be backwards compatible with any individual firearm. Similar stories of mix & match guns straight from Sig have been confirmed as well.
Overall I think it's 75% sigs outright negligence and 25% the gun not being as redundantly safe as it could be.
