Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

nhpr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 445 posts

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#41

Post by homefree »

nosignono wrote: post #15
nabla9 wrote: post #4

Since all services have adopted it, idiot proofing should be the main feature of the gun because it will be carried with idiots all the time and casualties accumulate.

This wasn't a case of an idiot, except perhaps placing the muzzle in a direction that a human would be present. The gun was in the holster, and the entire holster was removed from the belt and placed on a desk. There's nothing in that course of action that would allow a finger or anything to get into the trigger well. The gun should absolutely not have gone off.

If it was in the holster, most people don't teach that the muzzle direction rule applies (since in the holster it's supposed to be inert). A lot of carry methods have the muzzle pointing at things you would not want it pointing at when unholstered.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#42

Post by homefree »

jleyank wrote: post #2

This seems to suggest carrying with a chambered round. Is this prudent without an external threat? They can drop the thing, or some kind of impact can yield a “design problem”. Can’t they just chamber when there’s a need?

In most cases with CCW if you were to actually need to use the weapon you would not have time to chamber a round. Even if you did have time (maybe you should run away?), doing so would draw attention to yourself (and might be fatal). The standard advice is to have one chambered or work to getting yourself comfortable with that over time.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#43

Post by varjag »

aerostable_slug wrote: post #33
jleyank wrote: post #2

This seems to suggest carrying with a chambered round. Is this prudent without an external threat? They can drop the thing, or some kind of impact can yield a “design problem”. Can’t they just chamber when there’s a need?

Tactical encounters often progress quickly enough that there's insufficient time to chamber a cartridge before the weapon may need to be fired. The context of who is carrying these pistols in this command may also help: they're issued to the Security Forces guarding strategic nuclear weapons (and their delivery systems). It is the highest priority security mission in the military.

One would rather hope those guarding the nukes have rifles…

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#44

Post by kstrauser »

giantg2 wrote: post #36
TheAmazingRace wrote: post #17

It's crazy how the P320 has such a bad reputation, while the P365, a 9mm micro-pistol by Sig Sauer, is a phenomenal piece of kit by comparison. I purchased mine in 2018 and it's seen thousands of rounds put through it with zero issues encountered.

Why would it be crazy when they're completely separate systems?

All I know about this situation is what I've read in these comments just now. I don't have a dog in this hunt.

But I think the surprise is that a company who makes something considered highly reliable would make a similar item that the Air Force claims is killing their airmen. It'd be like Toyota making another pickup, the Bellevue, that likes to randomly explode. Sure, things happen, but Toyota? Huh, that would be unexpected.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#45

Post by [deleted] »

OJFord wrote: post #28
hollywood_court wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have been more clear: if you're going to carry a firearm on your person, regardless of concealed or open, it should always have a round in the chamber.

That may be your rule, for all I know it's the USAF's rule, but it's not the British Army's, and it doesn't seem logical to me in a military context. (I probably agree with you in the context of 'out in public and have decided you need a firearm', just not 'on a friendly military base and carrying a firearm as a matter of course rather than any acute reason'.)

[deleted]

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#46

Post by aerostable_slug »

OJFord wrote: post #28
hollywood_court wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have been more clear: if you're going to carry a firearm on your person, regardless of concealed or open, it should always have a round in the chamber.

That may be your rule, for all I know it's the USAF's rule, but it's not the British Army's, and it doesn't seem logical to me in a military context. (I probably agree with you in the context of 'out in public and have decided you need a firearm', just not 'on a friendly military base and carrying a firearm as a matter of course rather than any acute reason'.)

The Royal Marines of 43 Commando guarding the nukes at Faslane have loaded weapons.

The Security Forces at the base in question guard strategic nuclear weapons. The other USAF command most concerned is USAFE, where the threat of terrorism against a USAF facility is greater than in the mainland US.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#48

Post by smithkl42 »

jleyank wrote: post #2

This seems to suggest carrying with a chambered round. Is this prudent without an external threat? They can drop the thing, or some kind of impact can yield a “design problem”. Can’t they just chamber when there’s a need?

This is not military, but it's widely advocated in the concealed carry community that you should carry with one in the chamber. The argument is that with modern pistol designs and the right precautions, it's generally safe; and that many scenarios where you might need to defend yourself need all the possible speed you can get. Having to stroke your firearm to load it can easily add 2 seconds to your draw.

That said, given all the stories I've read, I can't imagine carrying a P320 with one in the chamber.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#49

Post by Filmatic »

OJFord wrote: post #19
hollywood_court wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be personal preference, but IMHO there’s no reason to conceal carry if you’re going to do it without a round chambered. I’m a huge Sig collector and I’ve been a fan of theirs since the 90s. I’ve carried a Sig daily for 20+ years. I only carried a P320 for a few months until I finally downsized to the P365. But I’ve got to admit that their PR and response to these incidents is not a good look. But I am a bit…

And what's the reason for USAF personnel to conceal carry on a USAF base? Article doesn't even suggest it was.

Military personnel generally can’t carry at all on post/base without a specific need. Nor keep private firearms at home, if on base/post housing.

This policy should tell you something about the actual cost/benefit of private arms as far as overall safety goes. Cuts through the noise and hypotheticals rather nicely.

Re: Air Force unit suspends use of Sig Sauer pistol after shooting death of airman

#50

Post by dardeaup »

varjag wrote: post #43
aerostable_slug wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tactical encounters often progress quickly enough that there's insufficient time to chamber a cartridge before the weapon may need to be fired. The context of who is carrying these pistols in this command may also help: they're issued to the Security Forces guarding strategic nuclear weapons (and their delivery systems). It is the highest priority security mission in the military.

One would rather hope those guarding the nukes have rifles…

It's not an either/or situation. I'm sure they would have BOTH pistols and rifles.
Post reply on HN