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

51–60 of 445 posts

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

#51

Post by int_19h »

kstrauser wrote: post #44
giantg2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

With SIG USA specifically there's a long track record of making firearms that can only be described as problematic. For example, their attempt to adapt SG 55x to the American market - all versions had some issues, but especially so the ones chambered in 7.62x39.

The unusual thing here is that this is a problem in a product that managed to pass US DoD acceptance testing. But the drop safety issue was already known at the time, so one has to wonder just how much in soft bribes SIG had to spend to get it adopted regardless.

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

#52

Post by arrowsmith »

katmannthree wrote: post #22
tshaddox wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO there’s no reason to conceal carry if you’re going to do it without a round chambered. Why is that your opinion? Surely there's a wide variety of plausible scenarios where carrying a concealed weapon without a round chambered is much better than not carrying a concealed weapon.

Because if you're going to carry, you should choose something that's safe to carry with a round chambered (i.e. not a Sig P320). There are countless videos showing real-world examples of defensive handgun use. One common thread is that there's virtually no time between when you realize you're going to need your sidearm and when you need it. The extra second it takes to rack the slide and chamber a round can be the di…

> There are countless videos showing real-world examples of defensive handgun use.

Tangential: if you enjoy watching that kind of content, I highly recommend the YouTube channel "Active Self Protection"

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

#53

Post by darkteflon »

Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off.

I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the safety?

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

#54

Post by giantg2 »

Interesting... I would have thought that maybe the military variant with the manual safety would be immune to this issue. It seems the manual safety is only a trigger block and not an additional or positive stiker block. It seems this offers no additional safety beyond keeping the trigger guard clear. So much for the military's insistence on a manual safety. Was there really any data showing the units using Glocks had issues related to a lack of manual safety? Sig added one, but clearly it was an afterthought.

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

#55

Post by sklargh »

Beyond the tragedy here - the implication of this is that USAF security forces were carrying a widely understood to be mechanically unsafe handguns in the presence of nuclear weapons. I am not saying a stray round can cause a criticality but shooting a nuclear weapon or its associated delivery and logistics systems is suboptimal.

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

#56

Post by ImJamal »

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 police need them to prevent people from entering the base.

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

#57

Post by int_19h »

Filmatic wrote: post #49
OJFord wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That mostly tells you about the cost/benefit at a military base. Which is a place where you have to go through a checkpoint with armed people to even get in there in the first place.

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

#59

Post by aerostable_slug »

darkteflon wrote: post #53

Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off. I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose…

The manual safety primarily stops the weapon from firing if the trigger is inadvertently pressed. In these cases, the trigger was allegedly not being pressed when the pistol discharged.

Aside from the manual safety (which is optional on this specific model of pistol), there are a number of passive safeties that normally must be overcome for the weapon to fire. Something appears to be failing in such a manner that the pistols are firing without being commanded to -- the trigger is not being inadvertently pressed, so the manual safety does not seem to be involved.

Post reply on HN