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

261–270 of 445 posts

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

#261

Post by nemanja »

ivraatiems wrote: post #213
spl757 wrote: post #133

There are really two separate claims being made about the P320 and unintentional discharges. One claim is that the gun can fire when dropped at a certain angle from a certain height. The voluntary "recall" lets you send it back to Sig and they replace some parts. I think the cause was because the trigger itself was bulky enough for a drop to give it enough inertia to fire, but I'm not 100% sure on that. The other cla…

It's a shame, because it is a super nice gun to actually shoot. But at this point, given how Sig has responded (the article has a nice summary), the cover-up is bigger than the crime, almost. The trust is broken at an organizational level. I don't feel like all manufacturers would respond like this, and it isn't the response I expect from somebody reputable.

Yeah, too bad. It’s actually quite an innovative and cool design. Shoots pretty good for a striker (still a far cry from CZs and 2011s). The ecosystem also started to develop around it (eg 1911 angle grips, high quality holsters, etc.) Sig optics and accessories also got quite good, too.

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

#263

Post by BeetleB »

mywittyname wrote: post #98
TheAmazingRace wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but having a round chambered can be advantageous in a self-defense scenario, where every second counts. Having to think to rack the slide before firing could be enough for your opponent to get to you first.

People take this "every second counts" idea as though it's axiomatic. I've been in my fair share of sus situations in my life and they've been either telegraphed (people starting with yelling, then intimidation, then getting into personal space) or ambiguous. I was recently at a block party with a loud DJ, and some guys fired several rounds and it took minutes to figure out what was going on. Even the first responder…

Pretty much everyone I know in the gun community would say that all the situations you mentioned are ones where you better not draw your gun.

As another commenter pointed out, drawing your gun in those situations is usually a pretty serious crime (supposedly even showing that you're carrying a concealed gun to ward people off is a crime in some jurisdictions - I haven't verified).

So not sure what the point of your comment is. You're describing scenarios that are irrelevant to the thread.

Oh, and just BTW, lots and lots of cases of people acting like you ending up dead. Acting appropriately in dangerous situations doesn't mean you will come out on the better end.

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

#264

Post by jibe »

zimpenfish wrote: post #252
efitz wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is a question of whether the product is defective. The various legislation passed to protect firearm manufacturers against nuisance “defective product” lawsuits in the specific case where the product functioned as intended and was used illegally by a violent criminal, do not apply. This is not a political issue. This is a discussion about whether a product is defective.

> The various legislation [...] do not apply. Well, except specifically for Sig Sauer on the topic of an external safety in New Hampshire[0]. Which, given that's the thing people have been filing lawsuits in New Hampshire about, is a bit of a political issue, no? [0] https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2025-05-28/sig-sauer-p320-pisto...

The lack of an external safety is not a defect. Many guns, probably a majority of new sales don’t. Anyone buying P320 knows there is no external safety. Sig should be liable for defects, and potentially negligent design, but seems reasonable not to be able to sue them for not including an external safety.

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

#265

Post by BeetleB »

gottorf wrote: post #170
Spooky23 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of the fantasy/thought process is you’re trained and vigilant, ready to respond in a split second to some threat in the Home Depot parking lot. The reality is… not that.

The reality is that the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners who carry concealed strongly hope that they never, ever have to draw their weapon.

You're both right :-)

The reality he mentions is very much a reality. Lots of concealed carry folks obsessed with always being vigilant. Good idea not to hang around them, because hypervigilant people are prone to see threats that aren't there.

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

#266

Post by BeetleB »

asa400 wrote: post #216
why_at wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm familiar with the idea of "brandishing" being illegal, but I looked it up anyway. I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing which says "Self-defense is often explicitly given as an exception." It seems like then it would be legal to draw a gun without firing if it was in self defense? I have a hard time believing that there are any cases where shooting someone in self defense would be legal, but scaring them…

This is not exactly what you’re referencing but I bring it up to show just how complicated things can be: Minnesota recently ruled that you do not have the right to use deadly force if you have the opportunity to escape. And this is the crucial bit, quoting the article: “The court decided the principle also applies to people who merely use the threat of force — meaning one cannot pull a weapon in self-defense if ther…

That's pretty standard in non-"stand your ground" states (with the possible exception of your own home).

The whole point of "stand your ground" is that you do not have the responsibility to escape.

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

#267

Post by BeetleB »

why_at wrote: post #147
esseph wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most states prevent you from drawing without firing, because it is considered brandishing / threatening. So you either draw and fire and call the police and tell them what happened, or you don't and just... deal with the consequences of whatever happened instead.

I know only an average amount about guns/gun laws (which is to say, not very much), but this seems pretty off to me. If someone is going to attack me with a knife, but then I draw a gun and they run away, surely that's not illegal because I didn't shoot them.

It'll all come down to:

1. Could you have reasonably escaped?

2. Could you have reasonably de-escalated (or were you the one who escalated to get here)?

3. Can you convince a jury (and the cops) that your life was in danger? If there are no witnesses, this is tough. Typically you're allowed to use deadly force only if you fear loss of life/limb. Yes, yes, plenty of cases where juries ruled in favor of the shooter when there was clearly no risk of loss of life/limb.

4. Do you have the relevant insurance to cover your legal defense costs? If not, you'll likely make a plea deal with the prosecutor even if you were clearly in the right.

I would say if the guy lunged at you with a knife and you drew your gun and he ran away, you'll be fine if there are witnesses.

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

#268

Post by kbelder »

8note wrote: post #193
esseph wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always carry chambered. 1. When you need it you won't remember to chamber due to stress 2. stress causes fine motor skill distortion 3. Only draw when you are prepared to fire (or you end up dealing with Brandishing laws)

a better alternative would be to not carry. if the stress is gonna mess with your fine motor control, youre probably gonna accidentally shoot a bystander anyways, because you happened to have been laid off earlier in the day. the stree messes with your memory, so the barista looks like a threat. the stress messes with your fine motor skill, so you hit the guy waiting for his coffee. and of course, you gotta shoot the…

Yeah, happens all the time.

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

#269

Post by ruined »

mNovak wrote: post #205
Khaine wrote: post #129

Ian from Forgotten Weapons posted an interesting video on this a while back: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QusWrho19zE And then a more recent follow up https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XY

Just watching this, and he's saying this model has no manual safety. That's an absolutely wild design choice in my mind!

modern consensus is that a manual safety is more of a liability than a feature - correct handling obviates it, and in the worst case a manual safety may prevent you from deliberately firing the weapon.

correct handling requires the use of a holster which completely covers the trigger. a properly-designed firearm is safe in a properly-designed holster.

the handgun that effectively established this concept (the glock) does not contain enough potential in the fire control at rest to discharge a round, but notably, the p320 does.

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

#270

Post by deelowe »

lokar wrote: post #244
ummonk wrote: post #219

There is a lot of accidental discharge happening when people holster their pistol improperly and the trigger snags on something or they inadvertently press the trigger while grabbing it. However, I’ve seen at least one footage of a Sig 320 discharging while properly holstered (Sig tried to claim the retention hood wasn’t properly closed but it clearly was): https://youtube.com/watch?v=OSAI_HUZDI0

Not knowing anything about guns I would assume you would engage the safety when putting the weapon in the holster. Is that not true?

Many modern guns for personal protection do not have manually actuated safeties and instead rely on other mechanisms to prevent accidental discharge. For example, glocks have a "trigger safety." Without getting into minutia, these sort of features do a fine job of ensuring the gun does not fire unless the trigger is intentionally actuated.

The reason manual safeties are going away is that for side arms, time matters A LOT. Gun fights are typically over within just a few seconds and the person who fires first has a huge advantage. A long time ago there were quite a few major incidents involving police and manual safeties which resulted in most departments changing their policies such that they carry with the safety off or, typically these days, glocks which have no manual safety.

Regarding the p320. For one, the 320 does not have a trigger safety. In fact, there are numerous "innovations" on this firearm which were made to cut costs, improve trigger feel, and various other things. This rose a lot of suspicion when the gun first came out actually - especially the lack of a trigger safety which many consider essential for striker fire guns intended for carrying on your person. On top of that, sig did end up making a p320 with a safety as this was a military requirement. The thing is, it is possible that the "innovative" sear mechanism within the p320 may allow the gun to fire even when the safety is engaged. In fact, there have been reports of just that happening.

The gun that was being carried in Air Force incident is the military version of the p320 which does in fact have a manual safety. Also, the leaked reports state the incident happened whenever the gun was in the holster and the holster was removed and placed on a desk facing the victim. This is when the gun misfired striking the victim in the chest. There is speculation that the gun may have in fact had the safety engaged whenever this happened. If so, this would explain the prompt response by the AirForce.

Regardless, the purpose of manual safeties are not to prevent guns from discharging on their own (aka. "uncommanded"). Manual safeties are intended to protect against "accidental" discharges where the trigger gets pulled "accidentally." That's not what happened in the above video or the AirForce incident.

One more thing to note. The officer in this video was using a Sig Sauer holster so there should be no risk of the holster itself being the problem.

Post reply on HN