It has been in the news for over a week and the issue won’t die. And that’s unfortunate because the P320 is, overall, an excellent gun. A new video has surfaced of a P320 discharging a primed-case when dropped. Not just once but, several times and purportedly, more than one gun. The difference is this video is far more credible in that it is specific about how they obtained their results and even goes so far as to suggest a potential fix.
So what does all this mean? Well, it may mean that SigSauer has some fixing to do for a lot of guns already sold and minor production changes going forward. That the gun passes all standard industry and government tests is expected. What Omaha Outdoors has done is demonstrate a very specific set of circumstances that can cause the gun to discharge on impact when dropped. We’d suggest waiting to hear more from Sig but, also wait for peers to independently verify what Omaha Outdoors says they’ve found.
So. Are Jeff and I going to dump the P320s we’ve recently purchased? Probably not. Interestingly enough, the P320 XFive, so far, does NOT appear to be affected by this problem according to Omaha’s video. What Omaha Outdoors did not mention is that not only is the trigger of the XFive different from other P320s, so is the striker itself. And there has been a production change among regular P320s at least once since it was initially released in 2014. We may be seeing a problem resulting from that change or another since that transition to the second generation of the gun. It may also be specific to a range of guns manufactured at a specific point in time. WE DON’T KNOW. There are simply too many variables to be sure. We will probably test our own guns to see if we can replicate the result. As is usually the case, we need more information before jumping to conclusions.
Craig Douglas’ post here is meant primarily for LE. Don’t take this as me trying to be the guy telling LEOs how to do their job. I’m simply passing information along from SME and noted instructor, Craig Douglass of Shivworks. Douglas’ main point here is to be precise in your instructions. He also suggests emphasizing what you don’t want your subject to do. Having said all this, I find Douglas’ points to be applicable outside of LE as well.
I work in IT in the finance industry as my primary job and I also do contract work in other fields. When interacting with people, I find that precise language makes all the difference in the world in helping me help them solve their problem. Precise wording of the description of a problem makes diagnosing that problem and finding the solution faster and simpler.
Yeah…Call me chicken. I’ve trained/shot with some truly excellent shooters over the years. And I even call some of them friends. Folks I would trust with my life…To a point. This is well beyond THAT point.
There’s no benefit to “training” like this. Not even stress inoculation. There is “bullshido” and then there is just plain stupid. This is the latter. One can argue, validly I might add, that what we do on a “square” range is nothing like being on a true “two-way” range. I don’t disagree. However, somewhere along the way, these guys have thrown good sense and necessary risk out the window.
We’ve never been shy about telling people to get training above and beyond their basic CHL/LTC class. And it is just that, basic. As instructors, we only have 4-6 hours to impart a limited amount of information mandated by law but, that’s not all there is to carrying a gun. Personally, I am also a big advocate of training that goes beyond a gun. We all have our limitations but, as much as possible, I advocate learning some sort of unarmed defense technique and getting into shape.
Having said all that, beware of the “McDojo” teaching what some folks call “bulllshido.” These are often flashy techniques or systems that look cool on camera but, have no basis in the real world. And sometimes, it’s labeled under a better known discipline of martial arts and you’ll see instructors exhibiting what seems like some sort of Star Wars like “Force” over their students. The video above is a great example.
If the technique involves trying to imitate an actual flying monkey who then slithers on the ground to gain his footing, it might be bullshido. If the instructor exhibits what looks like a Star Wars like “Force” that sends people flying across the room or causes them to fall at the lightest touch, it might be bullshido. If the firearm disarm techniques resemble someone having convulsions or possibly masturbating with a firearm in a most obscene manner, it might be bullshido. And if they promise you can earn a black-belt in just a year or two when you’ve never trained in their given discipline before, it might be bullshido. A good place to learn will welcome your questions and the instructors will be willing to have honest and open discussions about what does and does not work as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the techniques being taught.
So the results are in. Pat McNamara appeared on a recent Primary and Secondary Modcast in which he answered direct questions about what was and wasn’t said. Put down the pitch forks, put out the fires, and stop calling the man names. We’ve said before, we have no reason not to believe McNamara and every reason not to believe Comedy Central. McNamara says the video is indeed heavily edited. So let’s address those two inflammatory quotes. It’s all covered in the P&S video if you want to check it out. Warning, it’s the better part of 4 hours long. But we’ll give you the short summary after the jump.
McNamara said in no uncertain terms he does not support universal background checks or waiting periods. He is adamant about his support for the 2nd Amendment and the NRA. What happened, and we’re paraphrasing here, is McNamara was asked one question and then another. Klepper basically switches things up, asking the same question in different ways or asking nuanced but related questions. The editing takes McNamara’s answer to one question as his answer to another. For example. Klepper ask, “What do you think about universal background checks?” McNamara replied, “…what do you mean?” Klepper then rephrased the question to ,”What do you think about people who believe in universal background checks?” McNamara says, in response to that second question, “I don’t have a problem with them…,” Que the Comedy Central cut that suggests McNamara supports univeral background checks. So it appears the McNamara is, as many of us suspected, the victim of selective editing from a show by liberal media with a liberal agenda to “prove” that gun owners and liberals aren’t really in disagreement with each other.
One could argue McNamara should have known better. But McNamara, to his credit, went into this with his eyes open. What he tried to do was represent gun owners in the best possible light. To represent us as the professional that he, more than most, has been for over twenty years. He admits to making mistakes and at one point, being “lazy.” But, who among us is perfect? At the end of the day, one of the problems highlighted by this whole mess is the collective tendency of people to eat their own when we find the slightest hunt of disagreement/theological impurity among our perceived brethren. Fact is, we’re not all going to agree on every single pro-gun talking point. We’ve got to figure out how to live with each other on those issues if we’re going to have any chance or preserving the fundamental rights we all claim to want to protect.