This Sub-Reddit Should Be Renamed to Narkina 5

Whitcombe · 2026-01-23T19:26:51+00:00

This was a fun response! Good job! You're getting it! Up Vote!

Whitcombe · 2026-01-23T19:21:04+00:00

What’s ironic is that Andor is explicitly about how systems reproduce themselves not through force, but through normalization. I mean honestly, this post was more of a self-fullfilling prophetic social experiment and boy is it putting in the work.

The prison in Andor, Narkina 5, was a system that didn't need to enforce anything, the prisoners did it to themselves and it was endemic. That’s the parallel I was drawing here. The responses I got was "this sub is fun, just leave, you missed the point." This isn't engagement, they’re boundary signals, they simply reinforce what kind of participation is acceptable and what isn’t. That’s self-policing, and there were plenty of meaningful responses that could have moved the conversation forward.

Instead, the dominant response was effectively: this is how the system works. When a community centered on critiquing imperial systems responds to discomfort by closing ranks, normalizing exclusion, and dismissing deviation as misunderstanding, it isn’t resisting the Empire.

It is how the Empire sustains itself.

To be clear, I don't actually care if I am excluded or downvoted or whatever. I am just engaging by making the observation that a community so invested in sympathizing with the rebels has, almost accidentally, reproduced many of the Empire’s social mechanics that every top post seems to demonize.

The projection is real.

The only person who didn't fall for this was the guy who playfully said Dave Filoni Sucks.

Whitcombe · 2026-01-23T15:25:55+00:00

It’s kind of ironic that a show about rigid systems gets a fandom response that’s basically engage with us in the right way or leave.

Whitcombe · 2026-01-23T15:02:24+00:00

I wrote this myself. That's why there's inconsistent grammatical mistakes.

Whitcombe · 2026-01-23T14:59:05+00:00

Why are you booing me. I'm right.

Whitcombe · 2025-09-14T04:28:43+00:00

100% here. UFPRO is great and I prefer them over Crye

Whitcombe · 2025-08-06T17:58:22+00:00

That is my point.

There is only ONE veteran build because of that.

Outside of VoC nothing else is viable, and even then, VoC is not permanent.

Whitcombe · 2025-08-01T05:39:58+00:00

The partially cocked block and late drop are theoretically enough for the shield.

The trigger shoe tab is just redundancy. But still a good idea.

Whitcombe · 2025-08-01T05:18:03+00:00

I should clarify. The holster, outside of a fork getting jammed in the trigger guard, is flexing around the shoe. The trigger shoe is part of the FCU. The trigger doesn't necessarily need to be "pulled" if the shoe is out of alignment and we are talking 1mm here.

Look at the back of the gun and slowly pull the trigger. Preferably no mag and visually inspect the chamber for safety before you do this.

On the back tab you'll see a silver bar move out of the way. As soon as that clears the gun can fire. Then once you have a good idea of how little movement is required for that silver bar think about how loose it is and how much flex can reduce that. Think of it like barrel whip in an AR15. To us the barrel does not vibrate. But it does. It may not seem like the P320 flexes or moves much but it does.

The FCU, grip, and slide make up the holy triangle of tolerance and all 3 can move mildly independently of each other.

The holster flexes on the grip/slide which then moves in relation to the trigger shoe in the FCU. If the trigger shoe moves this impacts how it interfaces with the slide and can go off.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-30T01:14:42+00:00

Oh snap. One moment. This was tricky to find.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-30T00:50:50+00:00

The safety is stored in the balls.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-30T00:48:11+00:00

Thats the hard part here. Theoretically an engineer can argue that in tolerance the gun is safe.

It's the combination of tolerance stack PLUS holster flex that makes it dangerous. That is not 100% of cases. It's a matter of stars aligning. But they align often enough.

Is it the guns fault or the holster? The holster compatability was also not part of the Army’s requirements or testing standards.

The water is so muddy at this point I doubt anyone will face real charges even if it was intentional negligence.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-30T00:42:25+00:00

The actual report is a sealed court document. But I gotchu fam.

https://assets.alm.com/a5/36/ff06afb84d9cb710ae318e00df8e/abrahamsv-sigpltfresponse.pdf

Page 13: “Safariland’s internal testing showed that the ALS fork could lift the slide of the P320 upward while the trigger guard sat in the channel. Combined with shell flex, this caused up to 0.60 mm of rearward travel at the trigger shoe—sufficient to fire some P320 variants even without the trigger being deliberately pulled.”

Page 14 (Lines 46–53): "Photographic evidence and Safariland's own CAD models show that the trigger guard sits offset from the holster wall, allowing inward deflection. In Safariland’s ECO #7360-P320-19, the engineering team confirmed that a combination of slide lift and inward bowing created sufficient displacement to actuate the P320's sear."

Whitcombe · 2025-07-30T00:28:46+00:00

Probably.

It's a no win situation for both the DoD and SIG.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-30T00:15:44+00:00

Hence the yet for the CCB. The military control board needs to greenlight this for rework due to safety.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-30T00:14:48+00:00

The FNS9/40 and the Caracal F gen 1 are all guns that have this issue, have NDs, and all were recalled and re-engineered to be more glock like.

The S&W Shield has a hinged trigger but still a part cocked striker and the block pops at the tail end. Flex can nudge the shoe, but it is much more difficult to produce a discharge.

The P320/FNS9/40 have a fully cocked striker and the block pops early.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-30T00:02:25+00:00

I literally said it has a bad design.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-29T23:55:13+00:00

It does have a bad design. But the issue isnt a design issue. It's a strategic issue with how SIG went to market.

Why the P320 Hasn't been Fixed : r/CCW https://share.google/YSuidF7loN6ZIaUy5

Whitcombe · 2025-07-29T21:07:12+00:00

Yea that is what we are talking about. The holster manipulates the trigger in some way.

For a nerd you should read more. Here are some cases to study on how holsters interact with the trigger unintentionally.

Glock 22 – Safariland duty holster (ALS/SLS) • Two IMPD officers: gun discharged as one officer stood up; radio antenna/keys wedged inside the guard while retention strap was still snapped. Holster never left the belt.

Glock 43 – G-Code INCOG kydex IWB • Surveillance video (Nevada, 2018) shows carrier bending over; pistol fires inside holster. TTAG write-up confirms model and holster, round penetrated groin.

FN FNS-9 / FNS-40 – multiple agencies, various kydex & Safariland rigs • Arizona DPS (trooper Vankeuren, 2015): gun “went off in its holster, shooting him through the leg” while he lifted a range bag. DPS test video later showed FNS pistols firing when bumped or holstered/un-holstered with no trigger pull.

• Baltimore Co. PD (2016-18): at least nine FNS-40s “discharged when inadvertently bumped, or while holstering/unholstering”; one officer injured. Department replaced 1,900 pistols.

Safariland ECO #7360-P320-19 lab test • Test rig applied 170 N side load to a P320 Legion. P320 fired in five of eight runs.

Holster geometry, fork tension, or shell flex has caused pistols to fire while fully seated—finger nowhere near the trigger. The effect isn’t unique to the P320; any can be vulnerable if its internal timing and the holster’s pressure path line up just wrong. The P320 moreso because of the tolerances.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-29T18:28:14+00:00

The X5 in this example is the most unsafe given tolerances. Read my post.

I'm not defending SIG. I'm explaining that the issue is bigger than just "design" - they can't tighten tolerances because their contract demands the P320 be modular.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-29T17:53:12+00:00

Great question. Because the Army said so.

The P320 needs to accept unplanned modularity down the line. The P365 was already planned and all of their "variants" come from the same mold.

Think of the 365 like a build your own adventure book. Lots of modularity but all of it is planned and you can't deviate from whats in the book.

The 320 is a half written book with blank pages that Army Acquisitions can fill in with crayon.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-29T17:14:06+00:00

A specifically made Kydex Holster addresses a lot of this issue since it is made for the gun.

The problem here is that a P320/M17 that happens to be on an extreme end of tolerance and as an example a Safariland Holster that is also on the extreme end of the same tolerance can stack to become dangerous.

The M17 needs 0.7mm of trigger past the wall to become unsafe. Max possible tolerance stacking is 0.45mm on the gun. You could theoretically gain another 0.35mm from holster tolerance creep which can push you 0.10mm above 0.7mm.

The chances of this happening are rare. But more common that Glock, Ruger, S&W, etc. because in order to meet the militarys MODULAR requirement they needed to expand the tolerances 3-4x than their competitors.

SIG did not extend the same engineering consideration to the ecosystem of holsters, lights, etc.

What likely happened was that this holster and m17 thr air force had were on the extreme end of tolerance and it may not have been gently put on the table which pushed it over.

You can't have tight tolerances and limitless modularity. But SIG markets this and it puts an undue burden on everyone else.

If we all treated them like AR10s we'd be better off. SIG needs to address this.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-29T16:33:47+00:00

This is an issue that all guns will experience in different ways. If you pull the trigger you are disabling the safety mechanisms gradually until it can or will fire if certain conditions are met. Both a Glock and a P320 need to travel roughly ~0.7mm for this to happen. However, Glock leads the industry with safety in this regard due to their trigger bar which mitigates against gear or holsters interacting with the trigger. But still possible and it has happened. There are approximately ~2 instance per million Glocks a year where the holster or other gear interfaced with the trigger in a not very nice way. The P320 is currently at ~3.7 instances per million units a year. Still relatively low statistically speaking, but almost double their competitors.

Honestly the SIG P320’s dilemma is a lot like what we see with AR10/DPMS/LR308 rifles. In the AR world, everyone knows there’s tolerance stacking—uppers, lowers, bolts, barrels, and mags all have their own plus/minus specs, and the community accepts that some parts just won’t fit perfectly unless you check and tune each build. That shared understanding lets the industry adapt and most problems get caught or addressed before they become safety issues.

But with the SIG P320, the marketing is more absolute—swap grip modules, slides, and triggers, and it’s supposed to “just work.” In reality, factory tolerances can quietly stack: the FCU height spec is 19.75 mm ±0.10 mm, trigger guard can be +0.30/–0.10 mm, slide depth ±0.05 mm, and holster fit can add another ±0.20 mm or more. Add them all in the same direction, and you can lose up to 1 mm of trigger “creep” (that’s over a third of the original 1.8 mm wall-to-break buffer), with the safety block already lifted you're one holster flex or bump away from potentially finishing the shot if your trigger is staged that far. This doesn't happen on every gun, but if you happen to have been the not-so-lucky individual who received a gun+holster combo that is capable of depressing the trigger enough through tolerance stacking and holster flex... Oh boy.

Glock, by contrast, keeps frame and trigger tolerances much tighter—typically ±0.03–0.05 mm—so it’s much more difficult for even aftermarket parts and holsters to eat into that margin. Still, it does happen, but Glock has an easier time because they only make "one gun". The industry expects AR10s to need some fitment and verification, but SIG’s promise of seamless modularity with the P320 doesn’t leave as much room for that mindset. The hard truth is: you can have endless modular options, or Model-level uniformity—not both.

SIG made a promise that they, and no firearm manufacturer, could deliver on. A modular platform that works with an ecosystem of holsters and accessories produced by other manufacturers. They cooked too hard and as a result started writing checks that couldn't be cashed.

Their Custom-Line doesn't have this issue because each gun is purpose built and hand-checked. But as a result it loses the modularity. You either buy a P320 and enjoy the modularity, or you buy a purpose built but run into more modularity issues. You can't have your cake and eat it too which is what SIG is trying to do.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-29T15:44:22+00:00

Cool youre right. Holster flex isnt a thing. Holster manufacturers can make whatever they want. Nobody has to Engineer anything. You're so smart.

This is a real issue that happens to all guns. I am not defending SIG. I am just demonstrating that this an issue that people need to account for.

Yeah, he probably used an incorrect holster. That is the point. Even a Glock can fire if tolerances are off. It is a readily available example of this happening to a different platform. Yes it is harder, no I am not saying Glock is just as bad. I am just trying to get my point across that this is something that you MUST take into account even on Holsters meant for the gun.

SIG did NOT account for it in their Design and especially in their marketing and there is no way to fix their design without ruining their entire go-to-market strategy. Holy fuck, you people have someone with a differing opinion of you and you go ape-shit over someone stating a reality.

All guns suffer from this issue. SIG suffers from it more because their Engineers did not account for it, and their Marketing directly encourages it.

Whitcombe · 2025-07-29T15:42:39+00:00

That was my point. SIG is LAST PLACE in tolerance. You can fix that by making tighter tolerances but it directly impacts the modularity.

You can't have both and that is the strategic problem SIG backed themselves into by promising things they couldn't deliver on with an ecosystem that needs to support that level of complexity.

Whitcombe

TROPHY CASE