>>64060306
ask the dead airman who set his p320 down and instantly died
oh wait, he's dead. maybe ask the p320 that shot him. sig really wanted that back and was strongly against independent review.

or maybe tell his family to hold tight while you defend the honor of a gun company on the internet

consider: sig has spotty qc and a design that might be safe when built to the correct tolerances ceases to be safe if a particular pistol is built like shit, or was built just badly enough to pass safety tests initially but would not pass after taking on some wear and tear. in such cases, since the striker is fully cocked, it has enough energy to ignite the primer.

that is why sig is seething so hard and sig fanboys are seething even harder. because correctly manufactured examples of the current iteration of the m18/p320 work fuckin fine. this case would require sig sauer admitting that they build guns like shit and are meeting a price point by dropping standards and widening tolerances.

here's a p365 that failed after racking the slide
that nub that broke off is every single safety mechanism in the pistol. it's rare but sometimes a part in a gun is just made like shit because the company producing the things is being cheap.

this p320 issue means sig as a whole can not be trusted. the guns undeniably went off on their own. the design is undeniably good (if manufactured correctly). the problem is therefore sig sauer themselves.

>>64059197
It will only get worse
>sear? more like saar