4 ms·
There is a giant screw jammed in the trigger. That disengages the internal safeties. That's not showing the gun is not safe, that is intentionally making it uns
by jibe 1y ago
There is a giant screw jammed in the trigger. That disengages the internal safeties. That's not showing the gun is not safe, that is intentionally making it unsafe. That provides no insight as to whether the gun can fire uncommanded, without moving the trigger, which is the claim.
- jakogut 1y agoRight, a Glock will do this too. IvanPrintsGuns on YouTube demonstrated this. https://youtu.be/r1KoSBcn2bY https://youtu.be/r1KoSBcn2bY
- lenerdenator 1y agoIt sort of provides insight. The argument is that there exists a combination of states and tolerances when a P320 is loaded and cocked that could, theoretically, allow the striker to impact the primer forcefully without a complete and full trigger pull, one where you don't feel the break. This could either be while the finger is on the trigger (maybe a police officer pointing it at someone who has a weapon while commanding them to drop the weapon, for example) or not (in a holster). Inserting that screw is meant to simulate a tolerance stacking issue wherein the pistol's components don't line up together in such a way as to prevent the striker from slipping past the sear. Is it wonky? Of course. Could you probably do it with other pistols? Probably. Are there police officers and servicemen/women who need a convenient excuse for their negligent discharges? Yes. Should a real investigation occur? Also yes.
- sleepybrett 1y agono if the trigger pull is near the sear line. that screw is pushing back the trigger very lightly. Friend has a p320, we replicated this test. I'd sat that unintended discharge could occur any time you finger is resting on the trigger.