I've never heard that about the M9. I had one of the original M9s (think it was late 80s/early 90s) for years with probably 10k+ rounds through it and never had an issue. Anecdotal, I know, but given I've never heard of widespread issues with the gun I'm finding this claim hard to believe.
Do you have a link to a study/article about this? Curious if there's something I should be on the lookout for, as I am quite partial to that particular design.
100%. Sig's handling of this is, without a doubt, going to be a landmark case study in how not to handle public relations. People getting communications degrees 50 years from now are going to read about it.
Brother, what Lemmy instance do you think this community is on? You aren't going to get a good discussion with this topic here.
It's around 7:30, he measures from the at-rest position to the wall. The screw is later put in to "barely press" into the wall. Definitely not very scientific, but I get what condition he's trying to simulate. The take-up does nothing, but when you hit the wall you are starting to put pressure on the seer. The implication here is any pressure on the seer combined with impacts to the slide can cause a discharge.
I expect there to be a flurry of videos trying to reproduce this on various 320 models. Should be an interesting week, even if the end result is bad news for Sig and 320 owners.
It isn't at rest, the screw basically holds the trigger at the wall. I think he says that near the beginning of the video. All the take-up is out, so this is simulating what happens if your trigger has some pressure on it, but not enough to push it past the break.
Some pressure can be put on the trigger easily in some holsters, which is why I never felt comfortable carrying the thing. Even if I knew for sure my 320 didn't have this problem, it was still too much of a risk to me that if something snagged the trigger there'd be no external safety to make sure it couldn't discharge.
The M17/M18 does have such a safety, but my understanding is that the safety is just on the trigger itself. If this problem is real, it's possible that the same thing could happen anyway; the striker is always in tension and if the safety was a bit out of spec then the trigger could be put into the same position as shown in the video.
The video is not terribly scientific, but hopefully some of the other gun YouTubers will try to corroborate it as well and more data will come out. MoistCr1TiKaL made a video about it a few hours ago, so this is officially a mainstream issue that gets clicks. Just from the collections on the dozen or so gun channels I'm aware of, there's a sample size of many dozens of 320s to test with.
Employees have to pay for basically everything in the US, so salaries have to be a lot higher here. School, childcare, healthcare, retirement, you name it. Also, all those things are more expensive here because they're provided by companies that need to make a profit. It sucks.
Listed salaries are almost always what the employee pays, not what it costs the company. In the US, this includes the payroll tax, and cost of "benefits," like healthcare and unemployment insurance, and is referred to as the burdened rate. This is separate from the income tax the employee has to pay to the government, mind you.
The burdened rate for most employees at the companies I've worked for in the US is like 20-50% higher than the salary paid. Not sure exactly how it works in France, but I do know there's a pretty complex payroll tax companies have to pay. I think it's something like 40% at the salary you quoted.
I'll stop here because your position is incredibly privileged and you refuse to see that. The minimum wage is too low, that's not the point though. 70k a year is absolutely a comfortable wage for a single person to live on in almost every place in the US, except the biggest of the major cities.
You may not get everything you want but you should be able to cover everything you need, including an emergency fund, and still have enough to put aside a 5-10% for savings most years on 70k. If you really don't believe that, you live in a bubble.
You're not going to get any argument from me that shit is fucked. Everyone should have guaranteed access to housing, food, and healthcare, and we don't. A lot of kids were set up for failure by their parents insisting they take out college loans. But your standard for a minimum cost of living is basically the minimum to live like a boomer in the 70s.
The average white male boomer in the US lived like a king compared to everyone else around them, even at the time. The descendants of those people tend to think that the fact that their parents or grandparents had this means they should too. In reality, those boomers were incredibly lucky to be born into a privileged class during an economic golden age.
We don't get that, we get the world they fucked up. Rich dickheads hogging all the wealth and stealing wages is nothing new, it's been the standard for all of human history. What is new is that you can see clearly how well the privileged live compared to you. Maybe that will cause things to change, idk.
In the meantime, we need to make do. An emergency fund is intended to be used for emergencies, which are things that threaten your ability to acquire basic needs (food, housing, health). You keep it funded at 6 months of expenses (e.g., the minimum you need to meet your financial obligations plus food+rent). When it's full, you don't keep adding to it. When you use money from the fund, you replenish it as quickly as you can. Everyone should have one.
You shouldn't be having an emergency every single year though. If you are, it's not an emergency, it's an extra expense you need to plan for. If you are spending double-digit percentages of your income on debt (car loans, credit cards, etc), you need to stop spending money on anything else but basic needs until you pay it off. Or start a revolution, but we're arguing on the Internet so I don't think the odds of that happening are high.
The world sucks. It's not fair. You can still live a good life in it though, even if it's not as good as it used to be.
Thanks for sharing. That GAO report is pretty old, and seems to indicate potential issues with the first gen M9s. Not sure how much of that is still relevant today, I'm pretty sure my M9 was made after that report came out.
The CNA study is more interesting and relevant but kinda hard to interpret. There's a lot of externalities in there, apparently only 64% of soldiers were issued cleaning kits with their weapons, and 23% used nonstandard lubricant. The second one is interesting because later on the study found that those using nonstandard lube were 21x more likely to experience malfunctions. I honestly wonder if "nonstandard" lube was KY jelly for a lot of those guys; Army grunts are pretty famously stupid when it comes to gun maintenance.
Don't know that there's enough here to change my mind on reliability. Clearly the M9 was the least satisfactory part of their kit, but I'm not sure that it was due to a problem with the gun itself. Double-action is a legit downside, so I can't fault them for being unhappy with it; if they want to be able to draw and fire with a quick trigger pull, the M9 ain't it.