Many pistols don't. It does lead to a higher risk of accidental discharges (that's how we got the term "glock leg"). That's also the argument that Sig made - that every unintended discharge was due to user error. The evidence is increasingly clear cut that this isn't the case, and the pistol can go off on its own when jostled while properly holstered, but Sig persists in trying to claim the pistol is safe and blame the users.

▲

ivraatiems 2 days ago | parent [-]

"that every unintended discharge was due to user error" -- Sig is doing a fantastic job of making it clear that that's false (as you say).

The real statement is "every unintended discharge on a known-safe gun is due to user error." I would believe that all unintended discharges on, say, a Glock 17 are user error. I no longer can believe that of Sigs.

And it's like brakes on a car. If it fails for even one person one time and causes one accident, that's too much. The stakes are way too high when you're dealing with something that can take lives if it malfunctions.

	▲	sokoloff 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I’d wager that poorly maintained brakes fail and lead to a collision many hundreds of times per year. I think “unmodified and properly maintained”, neither firing mechanisms nor brakes should fail (and I think that’s what’s in question here).