Glock went through this nonsense too.
Here's a good YT link for mechanical information on SIGs, including the P320: https://www.youtube.com/@SIGMECHANICS
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Glock went through this nonsense too.
Here's a good YT link for mechanical information on SIGs, including the P320: https://www.youtube.com/@SIGMECHANICS
“Detached Reflection Cannot Be Demanded in the Presence of an Uplifted Knife” ~ Brown v. United States (1921)
“Unintentional firings” is a very specific wording that very carefully avoids claiming any mechanical failure, while still allowing that assumption by most who hear it. So we won’t get any attempt to show an actual mechanical failure, because nobody has ever reproduced one.
What specific safety designs have they identified? Because a closer reading makes it sound like they are saying the trigger is too light for a gun without a manual safety, but Sig makes manual safety models.
So it seems to me like whoever bought the non manual safety model gun should be the target of this lawsuit.
I have a 320 but replaced the stock trigger with an Agency Arms one. Similar to the Glock triggers.
Love you Pop. F*ck Cancer.
“Detached Reflection Cannot Be Demanded in the Presence of an Uplifted Knife” ~ Brown v. United States (1921)
Bookmarks