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

271–280 of 445 posts

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

#271

Post by Animats »

OJFord wrote: post #190
ImJamal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military police need them to prevent people from entering the base.

Ok, but not relevant.

If a vehicle fails to stop at a base entrance, the gate guard hits the button that raises a barrier some distance past the entrance. Then they go for a weapon, if necessary. Post 9/11, that will be something with more power than a pistol.[1]

The barrier solves an old problem - what action to take when a vehicle fails to stop at a checkpoint. Most of the time, it's drunks or minor crazies. Lethal force is excessive and car chases on base are dangerous. Barriers became standard for DoD installations around 2005.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW79PLFuUGw

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

#272

Post by burnt-resistor »

Tangentially related: here's a gunsmith going into detail on improper modifications leading to double firing and failed drop tests: https://youtu.be/ppuyoeoTLMA

Also: Glock-specific safety checks: https://youtu.be/LFk_nq0HcEc

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

#273

Post by esseph »

OneMorePerson wrote: post #233
esseph wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thigh holsters suck anyway, the only people that use them are people that have never had to run in them.

I've never used one, but I did see a police officer with one once. Maybe there's certain sitting positions or something where it's more comfortable to wear all day.

Can't draw in a car with a thigh holster.

(Is easier to sit in.)

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

#274

Post by deelowe »

gosub100 wrote: post #195
Alupis wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still very curious why the P320 beat out the venerable Glock 17 & 19 combo in the Army's recent selection. It would seem being able to change from duty to compact is more of a gimmick than practical. I'd wager most P320's will spend their service life in exactly one configuration. Sig does have a way of making every pistol feel like it was custom molded to your hand - but Glocks "Just Work".

Here is an entire video talking about it, by an attorney who works in the firearms industry: https://youtu.be/7NXDuKQF9kU?si=uRXnYvhMMKIN8BKa

I'd take this with a grain of salt. I generally like James' content, but he has always been a huge Sig supporter and throughout the p320 debacle, he's been more supportive of Sig than I think he should be.

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

#275

Post by [deleted] »

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!

[deleted]

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

#276

Post by deelowe »

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…

A rifle and a pistol serve different purposes. This would likely have both.

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

#277

Post by deelowe »

giantg2 wrote: post #71
jandrewrogers wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes no difference if there is a round in the chamber unless there is a fundamental design flaw. The P320 is apparently a rare case of this. This is extremely mature technology. People have been churning out defect-free designs for many decades. It is surprising that a company with the engineering experience and pedigree of SIG Sauer would design something with this issue. It would be like if Airbus designed a pl…

"The P320 is apparently a rare case of this." Not that rare. Gen 1 and 2 Glocks had slam fires (that's right, "Safe Action" Glocks... the irony). The XDS had doubles or slam fires. I'm sure there were others, and now the P320.

Then gen2 glock is old enough to be considered one the original striker fired pistols. The parent is right. There's no reason to be making these kinds of mistakes these days. They industry has been churning out millions of safe striker fire personal carry firearms for decades now.

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

#278

Post by deelowe »

mrbonner wrote: post #224

The Glock, on the other hand, doesn't have a safety lever. Instead, it uses a double trigger pull mechanism to help prevent accidental firing. I've often wondered if a safety lever gives people a false sense of security. With the Glock, you must always assume the gun is ready to fire, which requires careful handling. I thought most law enforcement and military agencies use the Glock as standard issue. Isn't it?

No. I don't think glock has ever gotten a US military contract.

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

#279

Post by dmoy »

snapetom wrote: post #260
lokar wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a hard question to answer, but I'll try to boil it down to this specific firearm. Many handguns, like all Glocks and many Sigs, these days are "striker fired," meaning there's an internal hammer that strikes the hammer versus an external hammer. Internal hammers are more complicated than external hammers, and that includes, in the case of Glocks, two built-in safeties internally that would prevent misfires. T…

> Glocks, two built-in safeties internally that would prevent misfires. The only way they would fire is if the trigger is pulled. Period.

Two built in safeties, plus a half-cocked striker instead of fully cocked like Sig. Another big difference is that one of the safeties is a physical thing sitting in between the striker and the primer. The equivalent on a sig 320 is a physical thing sitting in front of a lug attached to the striker, not actually in between the striker and the primer. That makes it a single point of failure, because if the lug shears off of the striker, the gun immediately discharges.

The big failure case for a Glock is something (drawstring, etc) getting into the holster and pulling the trigger. If you commit to never holstering without going really slow and shining a light down in there to verify nothing is getting at the trigger, it's safe. Which works if you just never take it out of the holster except at the range. Remove the holster and gun as a unit, stick holster and gun together in a safe, etc.

Post reply on HN