testtest

RIP Sig P320

Talyn said:
Dude, I'm not surprised.

I used to be a Fed and saw more than my share of screw-ups.

It's still a faulty policy to carry like that & ignore a specified safety requirement.mthe position of the M18 safety like the 1911 should probably be carried engaged how is it any different than a non safety 320?
Click to expand...

First, I am just the messenger.
2 respectively what does carrying on fire with the 320 or M&P matter? No different gor that matter than carrying the M9 on fire I remember several agencies had the G de cock only 92 models. Outside the Military

It’s not a big deal and is no more dangerous than a non safety gun.

The USAF went to 124 JHP 9mm for state side issue in 1999 but the other branches seem to be the only ones gasping about the safety and the JHP!

I remember when yhe USAF went from S&W Model 15 revolvers to the M9 and they told us we were to chamber a round and then flip to fire with the hammer down to holster there was some verbal mention of concern. It was no different than we carried our revikvers with all 6 chambers loads and 12 extra rounds on our belt no different
 
I'm not shooting the messenger (you) or that other Dude, just the Service "policy" that you had to follow considering the presence of a manual thumb safety on the M17/18s as per the US govt requirement.

All three of us may agree that we saw/experienced unsafe practices in our respective Federal service.

My .02
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top