• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Special Forces pulls new pistols from service after soldier injured in misfire

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
420
Points
980
It's funny, but having fired a grand total of 5 handguns in my life, all of which within the past few months, the Sig 320 was one of my faves. I did better shooting with it because the trigger was not quite as heavy to pull. If one were to holster the weapon with finger on trigger as suggested above, it would most assuredly fire. Whether that was the issue or not remains to be seen, and I look forward to hearing about it.
I have only shot a few mags through a friends 320, but it had very nice take up, no stacking and a nice clean consistent break. Only pistol nicer than that I’ve fired is an H&K VP9...beautiful work of German art.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
184
Points
680
Using what metrics? Incidents vs rounds fired? Incidents vs population of Cat 1 Assaulters? Incidents vs population of other types of JTF 2 personnel?

would you be so quick to intimate an equipment cause if there was an accident with a CF-18? I mean, fighter pilots are professed to be awesome, best of the best, so incidents must be assumed to be materiel failure initially umtil proven otherwise?

Have you actually shot a P320? P226? P225? etc. and know the nuances of a striker-fire vs hammer-fire pistol? Just wondering, because you seem very quick to make assumptions...

G2G,

So, a pistol model that has a history of misfires, misfires when handled by highly-trained and competent SOF operator and material failure is not a fair assumption? Not all accidents and incidents are created equal...

For some incidents, in any community, it is fair to assume material failure and pull that thread before any others. Just like for other incidents, it is fair to assume human error.

Of course, assumptions can be proven wrong in the course of an investigation...
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
174
Points
680
If one were to holster the weapon with finger on trigger as suggested above, it would most assuredly fire.
I have seen exactly this happen using a pistol with a 10 lb double action trigger. Luckily the round went out the open bottom of the holster, missed the officer and went into the floor.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
174
Points
680
G2G,

So, a pistol model that has a history of misfires, misfires when handled by highly-trained and competent SOF operator and material failure is not a fair assumption?
It "inexplicably went off". Having witnessed my fair share of ND/AD, some went like this:

BOOM!

Sgt: "Why did your pistol go off, trooper?"

Tpr: "Dunno, Sgt, it just went off!" Inexplicable.

We don't know - and probably never will - if it was being holstered, was dropped, or as Liberals would have you believe, was lying on a table waiting to attack it's next victim.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
184
Points
680
Good point, Haggis, I didn't use the proper word. I should have said "... has a history of malfunctioning, malfunctions when ...." The point remains the same.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
447
Points
980
It "inexplicably went off". Having witnessed my fair share of ND/AD, some went like this:

BOOM!

Sgt: "Why did your pistol go off, trooper?"

Tpr: "Dunno, Sgt, it just went off!" Inexplicable.

We don't know - and probably never will - if it was being holstered, was dropped, or as Liberals would have you believe, was lying on a table waiting to attack it's next victim.
Bwahahahhahaha.......oh wait a minute, on second thought now I want to cry, because, sadly, that last part is truer than it should be.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
184
Points
680
It "inexplicably went off". Having witnessed my fair share of ND/AD, some went like this:

BOOM!

Sgt: "Why did your pistol go off, trooper?"

Tpr: "Dunno, Sgt, it just went off!" Inexplicable.

We don't know - and probably never will - if it was being holstered, was dropped, or as Liberals would have you believe, was lying on a table waiting to attack it's next victim.
That why we investigate incidents.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
184
Points
680
...and don't jump to conclusions or make assumptions prior to the investigation.
You have to make some assumptions at the onset of an investigation in order to have a starting point. Then validate or disprove your assumptions. Making conclusions based on assumptions should not be done but at the onset of an investigation, it is perfectly appropriate.

Edit: Plus, I am sure this forum is not part of an investigation.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
420
Points
980
You have to make some assumptions at the onset of an investigation in order to have a starting point. Then validate or disprove your assumptions.
Investigations are not based on the Scientific Method. They investigate the facts. Only if there are missing facts, are assumptions then considered.

Keep digging. Your 'assumption' that it was a material or design failure prejudges the outcome of the investigation.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
184
Points
680
Investigations are not based on the Scientific Method. They investigate the facts. Only if there are missing facts, are assumptions then considered.

Keep digging. Your 'assumption' that it was a material or design failure prejudges the outcome of the investigation.
If an assumption is proven to be true, with facts, how does it prejudges the outcome when the conclusion is based on facts?

Plus, AFAIK, I am not part of any investigation so I am not sure how my assumptions here will affect anything...
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
420
Points
980
If an assumption is proven to be true, with facts, how does it prejudges the outcome when the conclusion is based on facts?
It injects expectation bias, amongst other things, that can affect the investigation outcome.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
240
Points
680
It injects expectation bias, amongst other things, that can affect the investigation outcome.
Part of a good scientific method is tracking all assumptions and proving/disproving them as much as practicable, or at least providing some evidence that something is feasible.

Normally technical investigations use techniques like probabilistic event trees to figure out what could have happened. For example, a possible misfire due to mechanical malfunction may be more probable if there was a previous history, but you would then gather as much facts on what the history was etc. But all that starts out with a theory (ie. it was a misfire) which you then prove/disprove/assess probability, with other theories on other possibilities, all with their own assumptions. All of that is pretty much the definition of using the scientific theory to build possible causes. That approach doesn't preclude other possible causes, just gives you different things to look into.

Nothing inherently wrong with assumptions, and you are going to have to make some somewhere, it's just a matter of keeping track of them and not lumping them in with facts/data. Usually when you poke at things, there are always assumptions built into the data gathering, which is why things like confidence interval and accuracy are key to track and include in the data analysis and reports.

Working on some fire investigation case study right now where a lot of the facts were destroyed or not available, and the analysis is full of assumptions, because otherwise it's just massive unknowns. When it's an assumption that could possibly have a big impact, you can just do some sensitivity analysis to see how much that impacts the outcome.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
219
Points
780
I think considering Comd CANSOFCOM Gen Rouleau was raised in the same culture of JTF2 which caused him to self-report a ND to the CDS, plead guilty and pen an apology letter directly to his troops so he was held accountable, its a safe assumption that if this was a case of "Assaulter error" that the individual would have been counselled and the P320 would have been returned to service in very short order. JTF2 or even CANSOF doesn't seem like an organization that would take its brand new pistol out of service for multiple months and then drag its feet on an investigation unless there was an actual mechanical issue with that pistol that couldn't be resolved quickly...
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
174
Points
680
JTF2 or even CANSOF doesn't seem like an organization that would take its brand new pistol out of service for multiple months and then drag its feet on an investigation unless there was an actual mechanical issue with that pistol that couldn't be resolved quickly...
Which raises the question of what version of the P320 was in use at this instant. It would not surprise me if we received unmodified, regardless of what was ordered. A user wouldn't know the difference unless they knew what to look for in the fire control unit.

A couple of years ago my agency received a shipment of new mags for our pistols. They were all pinned to 10 rounds for use in Canada. Externally, they were almost identical. The error wasn't noticed until we put them into use and tried to fire a practice requiring 12 rounds before a magazine change.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
370
Points
880
There's a chance, albeit pretty small, that DHTC was cohearsed to use the P320s an
JTF2 or even CANSOF doesn't seem like an organization that would take its brand new pistol out of service for multiple months and then drag its feet on an investigation unless there was an actual mechanical issue with that pistol that couldn't be resolved quickly...
It's possibly, albeit probably unlikely, that they were forced to adopt the P320 and jumped at the first chance to condemn the pistol and pull them out of service.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
447
Points
980
There's a chance, albeit pretty small, that DHTC was cohearsed to use the P320s an

It's possibly, albeit probably unlikely, that they were forced to adopt the P320 and jumped at the first chance to condemn the pistol and pull them out of service.
Wow, That is a pretty out there assertion.

There are a small number of folks on here who have served with CANSOF and predecessor orgs. My gut on this is that they were never coerced, more likely, the P320 represented the next gen pistol and the org has a track record of having the foresight, budget, and leeway to trial/purchase operational eqpt that sometimes take Reg F units years (and in most cases a war zone aka Afghanistan) to trial and purchase.

Ford Pinto's had a fatal flaw, but they sold like hotcakes, until they started blowing up.
 

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
219
Points
780
TB wouldn't get to pick the pistol. CANSOF would write the Statement of Requirement and bidders would put their bids in. With JTF2 being around for close to 30 years, I think they've figured out how to get what they want based by writing a SOR a certain way to get through the red tape. At the end of the day, even replacing every pistol in CANSOF is probably under $5M CAD. That's a 10th of the CA's pistol replacement program cost and wouldn't get the same scrutiny.

Some smarter folks than me might know if it's below the threshold between Major and Minor Capital projects, which has a big impact on processes.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
663
Points
860
Major vs minor is less a concern than the Project Complexity and Risk Assessment (PCRA) - that's what decides what goes to TB for approval, or what lower approval level is permitted.

Acquiring mature, proven technology at a relatively low price point is generally a low PCRA, and delegated to MND or below.
 
Top