Bullet Setback in Sig P365/X/XL/SAS

[Alllen Bundy]

You should think about doing consulting work for all the manufacturers as it pays very very well........ Just but on your resume that you have 276 rounds through your very 1st pistol.

FYI, most of my career has been spent as an engineering technician where I performed extensive testing and troubleshot defective designs and corrected design defects, as well as developed soldering processes for difficult to solder materials. I discovered and found solutions to problems for a living. As in companies paid me money to do it for them.

A semi-automatic pistol is just not a very complex piece of machinery and it's just not that difficult to understand. It's far less complicated than an automobile engine.

But what you should be taking note of is that I am actually doing testing to back up my claims.

1014 directly chambered rounds and counting and still no extractor breakage. Is anyone beginning to notice a pattern here?

To put it into perspective, I could have directly chambered the 1st round, inserted a 12 rd magazine and fired all 13 rounds for a total of 13,182 rounds.

For those that still believe that a stress fatigue failure of the extractor could occur at any moment now, consider that extractor must actually flex a little before a stress crack can even occur. Lockback the slide and move the extractor outward far enough that it could clear the rim of a cartridge. Now do you really believe that a steel extractor is going to flex much with that kind of force applied to it?

 

[danez71]

But what you should be taking note of is that I am actually doing testing to back up my claims.

You could take note of the 365 extractor/extracting issues on the sig forums.

Or not, and just continue not believing & not trusting the manufacturer of your self defense gun in which you're trusting you're life with.


You're doing a test of 1.

As an engineer, you should know that isn't a meaningful sample size to validate anything other than the 1 being tested.

To imply that it does more than that, would be a misrepresentation or lack of understanding.

'nuff said.

 

[JohnKSa]

Is anyone beginning to notice a pattern here?

Nope. You were told up front that it was possible for some to go for quite a long time with no problems while other apparently identical guns had issues very quickly. Establishing that your gun is one of the ones that will go quite a long time before it has issues doesn't prove anything at all. It's never going to prove anything because a sample of one gun is meaningless.

Of course, if it brings you pleasure to continue, by all means keep at it. I know it brings a smile to my face when I think about it.

Actually I do understand that there will be more than 3 lbs of force straight onto the approximately 45° angled face of the extractor.

Maybe you do understand it now, maybe you still don’t really have a grasp on it, but it’s pretty clear that if you had understood it at the time you made the post I quoted the two paragraphs from, you either wouldn’t have made the post, or you would have added the very important caveat that the 3lbs it takes to move the extractor claw out of the way of the rim when the force is applied in the direction the extractor pivots is NOT the same as the force required to cam it out of the way by applying a force directly against the front face of the extractor—parallel to the direction of slide travel.

Furthermore, you’re still not getting that the force it takes to cam the extractor out of the way by applying a non-impact force against the angled front face of the extractor is also not the same as the amount of force that will be applied to the extractor claw by an impact to its face.

The bottom line is that the whole 3lb argument is laughable. It’s completely bankrupt from the standpoint of physics. It’s like measuring the amount of force required to turn a fan blade with force applied in the direction of rotation and then claiming that provides useful insight into how much force is applied to the blade if someone starts it spinning by throwing rocks at it from the front and hitting the blade.

You’ve spent a lot of time on this topic—clearly it interests you. But you’ve hamstrung your ability to learn about the topic by making unjustified assumptions about your own level of relevant competence & knowledge and fortifying those assumptions with the conviction that no one else’s information can possibly be useful if it conflicts with your opinions & conclusions. You need to accept the possibility that there is useful and important information on this topic that comes from sources other than yourself. That’s pretty much the universal prerequisite for learning.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

You could take note of the 365 extractor/extracting issues on the sig forums.

I have. I found one person in a forum with a broken P365 extractor, but no other information such as how old the extractor was, etc. They did not report whether the break was a stress fatigue failure or a clear break. The point that the extractor contacts the shell case rim was still intact.

Broken P365 extractors appear to be unicorns.

Or not, and just continue not believing & not trusting the manufacturer of your self defense gun in which you're trusting you're life with.

My work experience has taught me not to trust ANY manufacturer. That is why I have been doing the testing and measurement of my P365X. I've corrected the issues that I have discovered.

You're doing a test of 1. As an engineer, you should know that isn't a meaningful sample size to validate anything other than the 1 being tested.

A single part can tell me a lot, such as the minimum that a part is capable of. If one extractor lives another extractor breaks under the same conditions it's an indictment of a poor manufacturing and inspection process.

 

[danez71]

I found one person in a forum with a broken P365 extractor,

You must not of looked much. Google images has several. The forums have noted several damaged including peening the face of the extractor claw on more than that model (not unique to Sig, either).

A single part can tell me a lot, such as the minimum that a part is capable of.

No. That's a false premise.


It only reveals what that one single specific example part can take. It does nothing to reveal what a specific lot/batch can take or various lots/batches can take.

If one extractor lives another extractor breaks under the same conditions it's an indictment of a poor manufacturing and inspection process.

Or material could be the issue or several other reasons.


But be that as it may,,,

You just articulated why your 1st sentence is a false premise and thus undermines your entire premise that your testing means much at all in regards to anything other than your one single example part.


But lets assume for a moment that mfg'ing/QC is poor.... you're still in a position of claiming to not trust the word of the mfgr of your self defense weapon and have departed on a mission to convince yourself that going against thier protocols and use a method that you've drummed up as better via a completely inadequate method to prove anything about a part thats been made in the multiple 1000 in mutiple batches on multiple days and has been revised at least once.


You may benefit by studying Six Sigma or any number of other similar. Study the science of mfg process controls and related QC/QA then maybe you'll realize your assumptions are just that, and inherently fallible.


Either way, your testing of a single peice using uncontrolled methodology is interesting when kept in proper context

 

[Alllen Bundy]

On 09/09/2021 I sent the following e-mail to Sig.:

===============

Someone in a gun forum allegedly asked you: "Is direct chamber loading acceptable in the P365X? Can I lock the slide open, drop a round directly into the chamber and then let the slide drop closed using the slide release? I have heard that it is not acceptable in some pistols but could not find anything in the manual that addressed the issue."

Allegedly, this was your response: Sig Sauer: "This is not acceptable for any Sig Sauer semi automatic firearm. You are bypassing the extractor and therefore the extractor is on the wrong side of the casing rim, which can break the extractor. The firearms are designed for feeding the top round off the magazine only."

As of this writing, I have manually chambered my P365 1,830 times with no apparent damage, stress cracks, bending, or noticeable wear to the extractor.

Have you folks actually performed ANY testing whatsoever to prove that manually chambering the P365 can cause damage to the extractor before it wears out or fractures from normal use? If so, how many chamberings did it take before the extractor claw broke? If you have any test data I'd love to see it.

===============

I will be very surprised, and even shocked, if Sig responds to this e-mail. I'm not holding my breath.

I'm stopping the manual chambering test at 1,830 rounds chambered WITHOUT any sign of apparent damage, stress cracks, bending, or noticeable wear to the extractor.

That is enough to manually chamber a round once every day for 5 years. Or you could manually chamber a round, insert a 10 round magazine loaded to capacity and fire all rounds 1,830 times for a total of 20,130 rounds.

I've replaced the extractor in my P365. My next test to the original extractor will be to determine how many pounds of force it takes to break the extractor tip. But I'll first need to figure out how to make a test fixture to hold the extractor at the correct angle.

You must not of looked much. Google images has several.

I have only found one photo of a cracked early version P365 extractor using Google image search. If you have found more, please post the URLs.

 

[JohnKSa]

On 09/09/2021 I sent the following e-mail to Sig.:

One wonders why you would bother...

My work experience has taught me not to trust ANY manufacturer.

Sig can say or not say whatever they want. You can take Sig's word if you like.

I don't believe that Sig's answer was a truthful one.

I just don't believe that Sig's response was truthful. It doesn't agree with my observations.

The manufacturer can say anything that they want, but it doesn't make it true.

The manufacturer may simply be overcautious and recommend that you NOT do something that is perfectly acceptable.

Or have you suddenly changed your mind about the value of a manufacturer's recommendation?

My next test to the original extractor will be to determine how many pounds of force it takes to break the extractor tip. But I'll first need to figure out how to make a test fixture to hold the extractor at the correct angle.

The force applied by direct chamber loading is an impact force applied directly to the face of the extractor claw.

How are you planning to measure/calculate/estimate the force?

 

[Alllen Bundy]

One wonders why you would bother...
Or have you suddenly changed your mind about the value of a manufacturer's recommendation?

Because I wanted to see if Sig would even reply and what that reply might be. It can tell you a lot about the manufacturer. Even if Sig actually did any manual chambering testing, I doubt that they would share the results.

You threw Sig a softball question. I threw Sig a hardball.

Sig didn't answer my previous question and I highly doubt that they will answer this one. Time will tell.

 

[JohnKSa]

I will be very surprised, and even shocked, if Sig responds to this e-mail. I'm not holding my breath.
...
...I highly doubt that they will answer this one.

Given that your email all but accuses them of incompetence and making stuff up, I have a hard time disagreeing with your assessment.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

Given that your email all but accuses them of incompetence and making stuff up, I have a hard time disagreeing with your assessment.

It wouldn't likely matter much how I put it. It's unlikely that they actually performed any manual chambering testing. Sig's response sounded like liability lawyer speak to me.

I threw down the gauntlet. If Sig doesn't respond they will look guilty of making stuff up. If Sig actually does respond, I hope they provide some believable data, such as: they tested 5 extractors and the earliest failure occurred at 2,756 rounds chambered with an average failure occurring at 3,325.7 rounds chambered, or something similar.

During my search for broken extractor photos, I saw that there were quite a few failures to extract with the early P365s. SIg redesigned the extractor in a much beefier form with an oval shaped pivot hole which would allow considerably more movement of the extractor in multiple planes. Maybe Sig did experience failures with the early version of the extractor. But I'm just not finding many online complaints of extractor breakage of any kind with the later version of the P365 extractor.

 

[JohnKSa]

If Sig doesn't respond they will look guilty of making stuff up.

There's no incentive for them to respond to insulting and accusatory emails which means that a lack of a response won't mean anything at all. Thanks for posting the entire text of it, by the way so people can put their response, or rather, their lack of response in context.

If they are magnanimous enough to respond that also won't mean anything because you've multiply reiterated that you won't believe anything they say unless they agree with what you've already made your mind up to believe and we already know that's not what their response would be.

Either way, you're left exactly where you were before you sent them the email.

So, back to your testing. How are you going to measure/calculate/estimate the impact force required to break the extractor claw and how are you going to apply it so it's analogous to the way an impact force is applied by the process of direct chamber loading?

 

[danez71]

But I'm just not finding many online complaints of extractor breakage of any kind with the later

I see you found some.

How does your uncontrolled testing of one example piece compare to those?

If they are magnanimous enough to respond that also won't mean anything because you've multiply reiterated that you won't believe anything they say unless they agree with what you've already made your mind up to believe and we already know that's not what their response would be.

Either way, you're left exactly where you were

That's basically what I said earlier.

Quite the pickle to only be explained as either 1) Sigs non-reply is proof of guilt/lack of testing or 2) Sigs answer isn't sufficient, dodgy/lawyer talk or 3) not believing Sig or 4) claiming his uncontolled testing is somehow better or 5) some combination of 1-4.

 

[SwampWolf]

One thing I think I learned from all of this is to give SIG "Elite Performance V-Crown" jhp, 115 grain bullets some real consideration and testing when it comes to the degree of bullet setbacks occurring over time and use.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

I'm shocked and surprised that Sig actually responded to my e-mail. However, I am neither shocked or surprised by their response, which is exactly what I was expecting if they did respond.

Sig: This is contrary to the design intent and is very dangerous. We have advised clearly and distinctly against this practice. We hope you accept our advice as we would hate to see your pistol fail to extract and/or the extractor break during a self defense scenario. We do not share all testing data, nor do we have access to that information in this department. However, as a certified armorer in the platform, you’re taking a totally unnecessary risk in operating the pistol in this manner.

This is a pathetic response. I sent a response to their e-mail and we will see if they respond back. I phrased it more nicely, but I basically challenged Sig to put up or shut up.

As I said before in an earlier post, Sig has less liability if they simply tell customers NOT to do something. However...........

Sig advertises the P365/X/XL/SAS as having a 10+1, 12+1, and 15+1 capacity. Yet nowhere in the P365 manual does Sig instruct how to put that extra round into the firing chamber. A lawyer could successfully argue that because the P365 physically allows you to manually chamber a cartridge, and Sig has NOT issued a warning in the P365 manual OR put a warning notice on the pistol itself, that it is a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that the P365 should be able to accommodate manual chambering. If manual chambering can actually break the extractor BEFORE it wears out, and it resulted in injury or death, Sig could be looking at the potential for a lawsuit that it would likely lose. But don't take my word for it. Talk with an attorney specializing in manufacturer's liability.

I measured the lateral force, required to move the extractor claw outward far enough to clear the shell case rim, at about 2.9 lbs. The force applied to the slide required to move the extractor over a Sig Elite Performance nickel plated brass shell case rim was measured at about 8.5 lbs. This was measured with the recoil spring removed, the striker removed, and the disconnector removed, so I that was only measuring the ACTUAL force required to move the extractor claw over the shell case rim. I can push the slide forward over a shell case rim and into battery WITH MY LITTLE FINGER!

The dynamic force applied to extractor will of course be higher than 8.5 lbs because the slide is moving. Force = Mass x Acceleration. However, the recoil spring just isn't capable of pulling the slide closed that fast, so there is not going to be an outrageous amount of force applied to the extractor. Furthermore, the very low mass spring loaded pivoting extractor is not in a fixed position and most of the energy applied to the extractor will be transferred through it into the extractor spring and dissipated by the spring when it flexes, and very little energy will actually be absorbed by the extractor.

Consider that the location where the soft brass shell case rim contacts the beveled edge of the steel extractor during manual chambering is NOT at the thinner and weaker extractor claw tip, but instead the soft brass rim contacts the extractor further inward from the edge where it is thicker and stronger. The soft brass shell case rim is also going to absorb some of the impact energy.

Contrast that to the very thin and weaker outer edge of the extractor claw being stressed by the shell case rim during normal extraction. When the cartridge has been fired, the rearward accelerating force on the slide is even greater than the recoil spring force to return the slide into battery. You would need to measure to be sure, but I suspect that the stress on the extractor isn't going to be that much different between normal extraction or manual chambering. It's just that the stress will be applied to extractor in different places. If a spring loaded pivoting extractor is not strong enough to withstand manual chambering, it is also NOT likely to withstand the force of extracting a spent shell case either, and NOT likely to be reliable enough to carry.

A competent engineer designs a product for worst case conditions to handle whatever abuse that it is likely to encounter. Manually chambering a round is not that obscure and should be EXPECTED by a design engineer, whether they approve of it or not. It's difficult to believe that Sig's engineers would NOT design the extractor to be able to handle manual chambering.

For those of you that don't believe that a sample size of one is adequate for the manual chambering testing, keep in mind that Sig's extractors SHOULD be uniform in quality. Sig is ISO-9001 certified, so they should have good process control. If the extractor quality is NOT uniform, then their extractor is NOT reliable enough to use in a carry pistol.

You all all free to perform your own testing and increase the test sample size.

As I stated before, I do NOT recommend allowing the slide to slam closed while manually chambering. But on the chance that while trying to ease the slide closed it slips out of your fingers and slams closed, I believe it to be extremely unlikely that the extractor will be damaged, unless the extractor is already defective.

It's far safer to point the P365 downward, lock back the slide, insert a cartridge into the firing chamber, ease the slide onto the cartridge, and then press the rear of the extractor inward so that it pivots the extractor claw outward far enough for the shell case rim to pass by, while the recoil spring pulls the slide into battery, without causing any damage to the extractor claw. This completely eliminates ANY bullet setback that would normally occur while chambering a cartridge from the magazine, and eliminates the need to keep track of how many times a cartridge has been chambered from the magazine, because you are not actually chambering from the magazine.

 

[Col. Cornelius]

Wow! A certified Sig Sauer armorer actually responded to your e-mail to the company with a direct response to your questions and you call it a "pathetic response" and then challenge them to "put up or shut up"????

Just wow!

Totally unrelated, but I am curiously reminded of an old Clint Eastwood saying that went something like "He's a legend in his own mind"

 

[Alllen Bundy]

Wow! A certified Sig Sauer armorer actually responded to your e-mail to the company with a direct response to your questions and you call it a "pathetic response" and then challenge them to "put up or shut up"???? Just wow!"

The armorer REFUSED to answer my two very simple questions that only required a yes or no answer! At this point we have NO idea whether or not Sig has EVER tested the P365 for manual chambering. Their claim that manual chambering can break the extractor is UNSUBSTANTIATED! So YES, Sig's response IS both PATHETIC and INSULTING!

Whereas, I have actually manually chambered my P365X 1,830 times without ANY visible damage viewed under 30X magnification.

So at this point who is more credible, Sig who REFUSES to say whether or not they have EVER performed ANY manual chambering testing on the P365, or me, who HAS actually performed manual chambering testing and has posted his test results?

I hear lots of people claiming that manual chambering can break the extractor, but I still haven't found ANYONE posting on the internet that has claimed that manual chambering has broken the extractor in their P365, let alone posted any photo proof.

I've only found one person that posted a photo of a current version broken P365 extractor, and the break was beyond the point where the rim would contact the extractor during manual chambering. Only one person posted a photo of a broken early style P365 extractor. And neither claimed the break was due to manual chambering.

This is looking a lot like MYTH BUSTED! Does ANYONE have any proof to the contrary?

 

[DT Guy]

On a related note, I just put the new 365 through about 150 rounds today, just checking for functioning and zero. Function (with ball, now, not SD ammo) was 100%, zero is perhaps a bit low at 30'.

I was going to put a couple hundred rounds of ball through it, then a box of SD ammo before carrying it, but after reading this thread I think I might just sit and repeatedly chamber the same cartridge over and over until the extractor breaks-just for science, you know?

Larry

 

[JohnKSa]

Sig advertises the P365/X/XL/SAS as having a 10+1, 12+1, and 15+1 capacity. Yet nowhere in the P365 manual does Sig instruct how to put that extra round into the firing chamber.

There's a detailed procedure in the manual for loading the pistol--which, of course, includes how to put a round into the firing chamber. Your contention has no merit whatsoever.

I measured the lateral force, required to move the extractor claw outward far enough to clear the shell case rim, at about 2.9 lbs.

1. That has little bearing on the amount of force required to cam the extractor out of the way when the force is applied in the direction of slide travel. You've already been told this and you said you understood it.

2. It has almost no relevance to the amount of impact force applied to the extractor to bounce it out of the way by slamming the forward face of the extractor against the rim of a cartridge. You've already been told this too.

The dynamic force applied to extractor will of course be higher than 8.5 lbs because the slide is moving. Force = Mass x Acceleration. However, the recoil spring just isn't capable of pulling the slide closed that fast, so there is not going to be an outrageous amount of force applied to the extractor. Furthermore, the very low mass spring loaded pivoting extractor is not in a fixed position and most of the energy applied to the extractor will be transferred through it into the extractor spring and dissipated by the spring when it flexes, and very little energy will actually be absorbed by the extractor.

The force applied to the extractor face will be directly proportional to the momentum of the slide at impact and inversely proportional to the time it takes to dissipate that momentum. (I leave it as an exercise for you to relate that explanation to the equation you quoted. )

Determining the time over which the momentum is dissipated requires understanding how the extractor face will flex on impact as well as how the rim of the cartridge will deform/flex. Even if the slide momentum is quite small, if the time it takes to bring that momentum to zero is very short, then the force applied can be very large.

It has virtually nothing to do with the extractor spring strength because the force is applied directly to the extractor face as a nearly instantaneous impact, not as a gradual "camming" force where the spring's resistance could play a significant part.

Your "analysis", along with your previous attempts at analyzing the problem, reveal that you have a completely inadequate understanding of the physics involved. I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised at that--I really thought there was a good chance that by now you would have made some significant progress with getting a handle on the physics. Maybe not actually solving the problem since it's a bit complicated, but at least getting to the point that you had a grasp of the basics.

You would need to measure to be sure, but I suspect that the stress on the extractor isn't going to be that much different between normal extraction or manual chambering.

The force on the extractor during extraction isn't an impact force.
There's no force at all applied to the extractor face during normal extraction.
The extractor is specifically designed to handle forces in the direction of normal extraction.

So yes, there will be a lot of difference between the two in terms of the amount of stress, the type of stress, and in whether the stress is applied in the direction that the part is made to handle or in the opposite direction.

Again, your commentary reveals that you don't even understand the basics of the processes you are claiming to know more about than the manufacturer does.

It's far safer to point the P365 downward, lock back the slide, insert a cartridge into the firing chamber, ease the slide onto the cartridge...

As you already know since you read the manual, it explicitly forbids riding the slide forward. That said, yes, it is less likely to cause damage to the extractor than dropping the slide on a chambered round.

So YES, Sig's response IS both PATHETIC and INSULTING!

Their response was surprising. I'm surprised that they responded to such a condescending email. I really thought they would ignore it as they did your previous attempt at contacting them, and for the same reasons.

So at this point who is more credible, Sig who REFUSES to say whether or not they have EVER performed ANY manual chambering testing on the P365, or me, who HAS actually performed manual chambering testing and has posted his test results?

You're really serious, aren't you?

• You don't understand the physics.
• You don't understand the processes you are trying to analyze.
  
• You haven't even mentioned what methods are used to manufacture the extractor (MIM, casting, forging, etc.) nor how those methods might relate to failure from impact fatigue. That's actually a pretty big piece of the puzzle.
  
• You have made and continue to make all kinds of clearly ridiculous claims with no backing other than your obviously flawed reasoning and a firm conviction that you must be correct and that anybody who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Then, to top it off, you actually believe that sitting around repeatedly engaging in a process that the manufacturer says is potentially damaging to your self-defense firearm has INCREASED your credibility level to the point that it exceeds that of the manufacturer.

It's literally mind-boggling.

 

[JDGray]

I did a setback test once and the bullet deformed, causing the shorter measurements. That was my one and only setback test! I don't load the chamber to prevent setback, but I do ride the slide on my carry ammo, so it don't slam home. I know, not mall ninja cool to ride the slide, but it works!

 

[Alllen Bundy]

I know, not mall ninja cool to ride the slide, but it works!

After I polished the breech face, the left adjacent wall to the breech face, and the underside of the extractor claw, no matter how slowly I ease the slide forward, it always chambers the round from the magazine and goes into battery, as long as my P365 is clean.

That said, allowing the slide to slam forward to chamber a round from the magazine is generally considered to be best practice, because that is more likely to work under adverse conditions, such as a dirty pistol, or perhaps you dropped your pistol in a self defense situation and got some crud inside that is slowing down the slide, etc. The general idea is to use a consistent procedure to develop your muscle memory so that you won't screw up in a high stress situation.

Manually chambering a round is something that I would never do in a self defense situation, unless I had a magazine problem and manually chambering was my only option. One round at a time is better than none.

In a self defense situation I would not worry about trying to add an extra round in the chamber. I would drop the magazine, insert another magazine, and release the slide quickly to chamber a round.

 

[JDGray]

Other then LE, I wonder how many people have actually reloaded in a SD scenario?

 

[JohnKSa]

Other then LE, I wonder how many people have actually reloaded in a SD scenario?

It does happen, but it's kind of uncommon.

1. Not a lot of people other than LE carry a reload. If you don't carry a reload, you certainly won't use it.
2. Even when someone does carry a reload, it's not that common for a gunfight to go on so long that a reload is necessary or possible.
3. Even if you have a reload and the gunfight lasts a long time, there's a decent chance of being injured in such a manner that reloading might not be possible. This happens in LE encounters as well. In the Miami shootout, one of the agents was shot in the hand and couldn't reload his revolver due to the injury.

Lance Thomas, the Jeweler who was in several shootouts during attempted robberies of his store reloaded during at least a couple of his scenarios. However, he reloaded by accessing another gun, not actually doing a reload.

I posted a scenario awhile back where a husband/wife team ended up "reloading" by accessing a second gun as they fought a determined home invader.

 

[danez71]

It's literally mind-boggling.

But he has a few months experience with this being his 1st pistol.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

I guess I don’t understand the point.

I understand setback. Check.
I understand the part about the extractor. Check.
I understand the part about the magazine loading. Check.

So what?

 

[JDGray]

Why on earth would someone chamber load thousands of times, just to see? They make a pill for that...