I agree.
I disagree. I have a definite issue with the idea that any unintended discharge can be eventually traced back to negligence. I do not believe that this is a case of user negligence. It was a defective product.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Custom Kydex Nightmare
This is a story you NEED TO READ.
A person I know locally came to me privately asking advice. Because this person came privately, I will be redacting all PII.
This person purchased a kydex holster custom made for this person's Sig P365XL from a local maker. It's a pretty vanilla IWB with a standard belt clip. This person was getting ready to go out for the evening when this person put the holster on at about 3:00 waistband then holstered the P365XL. An Unintended Discharge immediately occurred as the firearm was being holstered, sending a 124gr. 9mm hollow point down the barrel. The injury was minimal, thank God; it creased this person's outer thigh for about 4" or so (judging by the cell phone photo I was shown). EMS was called and eventually also the police. This person received stitches in the Emergency Room and was discharged. The police took the firearm, cartridge case, and wrote a report. The firearm has since been retrieved from the Police. The official police report states that the cause of the accident was due to a defective holster. The trigger pocket was over-molded and forced in so far that when the firearm is inserted into the holster, the kydex indentation actually catches on the trigger, effectively pulling the trigger. The officer on scene eventually demonstrated this to this person.
This person took the holster back to the maker who apologized and gave this person a refund. I suggested that this person ask the maker to pay the medical expenses; this person has insurance but there is always an out-of-pocket expense.
This person lives in an apartment. The landlord was given a copy of the police report (apparently this is SOP?). The landlord is now talking about evicting this person because of the UD.
Because the holster was over-molded, this person now has a permanent disfiguring injury (it will scar), is out-of-pocket for some amount of medical expenses, had to temporarily be without the preferred self defense firearm, and might be evicted.
And before you ask, no, "this person" is not me. I'm too cheap to buy a Sig.
Still, this could have been much worse. If the firearm had been canted in toward the leg a tiny bit the leg could have been permanently debilitated, or, worse yet, if it had been an AIWB, this person might have been killed.
Be careful about your holsters.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
A person I know locally came to me privately asking advice. Because this person came privately, I will be redacting all PII.
This person purchased a kydex holster custom made for this person's Sig P365XL from a local maker. It's a pretty vanilla IWB with a standard belt clip. This person was getting ready to go out for the evening when this person put the holster on at about 3:00 waistband then holstered the P365XL. An Unintended Discharge immediately occurred as the firearm was being holstered, sending a 124gr. 9mm hollow point down the barrel. The injury was minimal, thank God; it creased this person's outer thigh for about 4" or so (judging by the cell phone photo I was shown). EMS was called and eventually also the police. This person received stitches in the Emergency Room and was discharged. The police took the firearm, cartridge case, and wrote a report. The firearm has since been retrieved from the Police. The official police report states that the cause of the accident was due to a defective holster. The trigger pocket was over-molded and forced in so far that when the firearm is inserted into the holster, the kydex indentation actually catches on the trigger, effectively pulling the trigger. The officer on scene eventually demonstrated this to this person.
This person took the holster back to the maker who apologized and gave this person a refund. I suggested that this person ask the maker to pay the medical expenses; this person has insurance but there is always an out-of-pocket expense.
This person lives in an apartment. The landlord was given a copy of the police report (apparently this is SOP?). The landlord is now talking about evicting this person because of the UD.
Because the holster was over-molded, this person now has a permanent disfiguring injury (it will scar), is out-of-pocket for some amount of medical expenses, had to temporarily be without the preferred self defense firearm, and might be evicted.
And before you ask, no, "this person" is not me. I'm too cheap to buy a Sig.
Still, this could have been much worse. If the firearm had been canted in toward the leg a tiny bit the leg could have been permanently debilitated, or, worse yet, if it had been an AIWB, this person might have been killed.
Be careful about your holsters.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
1 - 17 of 46 Posts
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
No I wouldn't. But in any other industry would we be assigning Negligence to the person who received a defective product? If a person takes their car in for repair and the mechanic screws up and it leaks CO into the cab, is the owner negligent because he didn't test for carbon monoxide? If a person buys a defective microwave oven and it leaks RF so bad that it stops someone's pacemaker is the consumer Negligent because he didn't do an RF test? Is there any other product which someone could buy that the purchaser would be considered Negligent if they used it In Good Faith, but product was defective? Of course not. The purchaser of a product has a Reasonable Expectation that the product will perform within specs and is not defective. The user is not Negligent if they receive a defective product and use it In Good Faith.Which made both the maker and end user negligent. Neither of them intended for the discharge to occur, but their failures to perform due diligence lead to a completely and totally avoidable incident that resulted in injury but could have easily ended in death.
Both parties could and should have test fit the appropriate firearm before delivery and/or use. Would you, as a reasonable individual, just jam a loaded firearm in to a brand new, freshly strapped on and untested holster?
In the "gun community" we take safety and personal responsibility incredibly serious, with good reason. We are always under attack by gun prohibitionists and we know the worst outcomes that could happen. Most of us would "dry fit" the gun first, taking additional cautions beyond what we normally would for almost any other product; not because failing to do so makes us Negligent, but out of a well-earned abundance of caution.
So, yes, calling this event Negligence on the part of the user is, well, wrong. Could this person have done something to (maybe) find the issue ahead of time? Yes. Was it Negligent? No, at least not in any legal or generally moral sense of the word.
That said, again, as I pointed out already, even if it's not negligent to fail to do so, take extra caution with your holsters. This person wasn't technically Negligent but this person did suffer a negative outcome, and could have suffered worse, which could have been avoided with what is considered SOP by many in the "gun community."
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
That's a good point. I assumed that the person did not dry fit the holster, but maybe this person did. I agree that it might not be obvious or might be just enough to only engage the trigger occasionally.Let's say this person did dry test it first. This particular issue could easily not be exposed with an empty gun- without something in there to go bang when holstered, how would the person be able to tell?
I'll try to get in touch with this person and ask.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I contacted the person and this person verified for me that they did, in fact, dry fit the holster looking for fit and other issues. This seems to be an intermittent problem, apparently.
Again, as Pistolkitty points out, it might not be readily obvious with a striker-fired firearm.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Again, as Pistolkitty points out, it might not be readily obvious with a striker-fired firearm.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Turns out the person did actually dry fit. The issue is either intermittent or the person could not detect the issue. In any case, it appears that this person did, in fact, do the due diligence.So technically both the victim and the holster maker are negligent in this situation, because neither one of them function checked it.
That aside, I stand by my original statement, a consumer using a product in good faith is not negligent.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I guess we're just not going to agree on this. I maintain that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a product to function as designed and intended, nor is it negligence of any kind, legal, moral, or procedural, to assume that the product will work as intended without defect.I read the updates and I still stand by it being the users ND. The story is changing. If an on scene officer was able to recreate the conditions that caused ND while still on scene, that's not an intermittent issue. If the holster was so obviously overmolded and deformed in to the trigger guard, it's an ND due to lack of proper inspection.
I'm betting that the malfunction happens when the firearm is being holstered the user applies pressure to the side of the holster with their trigger finger causing the nownotsoobviousovermolding to slip in to the trigger guard and make contact with the trigger.
On a side note, I strongly believe that claiming that such a non-negligent action was, in fact, somehow negligence only gives the gun prohibitionists ammunition to use against us.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
You are absolutely correct and that is part of the advice that I gave this person.Either way ND or UD. It was the holster makers faulty product. He should be responsible for damages. Tell your friend to get a lawyer.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I also posted this on the Kel Tec forum and one poster there replied that a firearm with a Glock-style trigger dingus probably would have been immune to this because it is very unlikely that the over-molding would have gotten so deep into the trigger guard to engage the dingus while the trigger was being forced back.
Now, truth to be told, I've never been a big fan of the trigger dingus, and I've often stated that it's not an actual safety because the shooter is doing the same thing to both pull the trigger and <cough> "disengage" the "safety." But, ya know, I might have to rethink that position, or at least take a much more nuanced understanding of it with this event in mind.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Now, truth to be told, I've never been a big fan of the trigger dingus, and I've often stated that it's not an actual safety because the shooter is doing the same thing to both pull the trigger and <cough> "disengage" the "safety." But, ya know, I might have to rethink that position, or at least take a much more nuanced understanding of it with this event in mind.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I have a friend who's mother took her car in to get the tires rotated. On the way back home afterwards, she felt a strong vibration from the front and called the shop who told her that it it continues that she should bring it back in. She turned around and on the way back, the front passenger side wheel literally came off. There was damage to the vehicle and the city street. Seems that the shop had forgotten to put the lug nuts back on that wheel. This was an incident that she could have prevented if she had immediately pulled over and inspected the wheels, or inspected the wheels before she left the shop; you know, literally "kicked the tires." But she was operating on Good Faith that the shop had performed their job appropriately. The fact that she could have found the issue herself fairly easily does not make her negligent in any way, not even contributorily.Most likely be found to be contributory negligence.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Not "petulant" but definitely insistent, based on logic and evidence. There has yet been any evidence or reasonable argument that this person bears any negligence outside of "well, it's a gun so people should be extra morer-st carerfuller 'cuz it's a gun." Why wouldn't the same standard be applied to a 4,000 lb 4-wheeled death machine? Frankly, it's a double standard. I know that it is born out of an abundance of caution and a desire to take "the extra step" to not give political enemies more ammunition. But it's still an unsupportable double-standard nonetheless.And again you keep defaulting to services performed by licensed professionals in licensed or certified facilities, not custom ordered products tailored to user specific equipment applied and/or installed by the user and not a professional installer...
How about the guy who shot himself through the ass with his Glock? The holster didn't fully cover the trigger and over multiple times getting in and out of his vehicle, the individual's shirt eventually bunched up in the trigger guard and when he got out of his vehicle the bunched up shirt depressed the trigger enough to fire.
Despite the holster itself failing to adequately cover the trigger, and the fact that there is no way that situation would have been tested for, it was ruled a negligent discharge caused by the user, and the holster manufacturer wasn't required to pay a dime.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree with you, but your petulant insistence that there is zero possibility that it should ever be considered an ND?
So me some logical reason why "gun product" is somehow morally or legally different from any other product and I'll give the argument serious consideration.
Peace favor your sword
I've been thinking about this. A person would have to have the gun dry, then holster, unholster, and pull the trigger to see if the striker drops. Lather, rinse, repeat.Let's say this person did dry test it first. This particular issue could easily not be exposed with an empty gun- without something in there to go bang when holstered, how would the person be able to tell?
Because most kydex holsters "click" when you insert them you can't just listen for it.
Apparently the cop was able to slowly watch it and see. But I don't think that's something you could do for every kydex holster.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Nope. The story has been consistent throughout.You yourself have given conflicting reports on your own story for this same incident.
It is true that I've asked for more details from this person a few times, usually to answer questions from others in this thread.Is it intermittent or easily repeatable? Was it obviously deformed and overmolded or is it barely noticeable? Just how much user input was applied to push the holster on to the trigger guard?
You're the only person here operating with a direct information pipeline and even you don't have the whole story
Based on both the information I was given by this person and the police report which cites a defective holster, not user error or negligence. Actually, that doesn't sound "preconceived" at all. It actually sounds more like, "based on the best evidence available."but you certainly came in with the preconceived notion that there is no way it could have been any fault of the user.
Nope. I've been consistent that no reasonable understanding of consumer products puts any negligence on the consumer for a defective product.Now you're sitting here, essentially scrambling for ways to exonerate
Never said this person is a friend. I know this person and am on good terms with this person. "Friendly" more that "friend."your friend.
The thing is, it shouldn't matter if one can hear or see a click because the product shouldn't be defective in the first place and that it is, is not this person's fault.Now he did test fit it, maybe it was a positional thing he couldn't see, maybe the retention click masked the sound of the trigger, maybe it's only intermittent. Come on man... I'll buy you a box of straws so you can stop grasping at them.
But, if you'll recall back to my OP, check for it anyway. This person didn't check well enough, or didn't know how, or it was intermittent or whatever. Just because this person exercised "reasonable" care and expectations doesn't mean that this person doesn't have a creased leg, out-of-pocket expenses, and has to find a new apartment. This person wasn't negligent in any sense of the word but, going forward, everyone should be even more careful. It's not about negligence, because there wasn't any on this person's part, it's about exercising additional care.
I agree that better checking could have saved this person all these headaches and possibly worse. That's why I posted in the first place. I simply take exception to the position that this person was negligent in any way.
Could anyone tell?Maybe I'm totally jacked up even more so than originally thought
<ducking>Don't we all?Yes, I randomly do quick draw drills during those few days. I'm fully aware I look like an idiot while doing so.
Sure. I think this current disagreement revolves around what I would call "best practices" and "failure to do so is negligence." They're not the same.However, I now have 100% faith that my new holster will be reliable when I need it to be because I'm weird and an idiot.
[...]
So if someone fails to do even the most basic of assessments on a piece of gear, and it fails, then to me they are negligent.
I don't know but I could check with this person if you care that much.EDIT: Just thought of this other thing I do that I'm willing to bet your friend didn't. Well... technically he did... but he didn't understand the assignment...
I holster the weapon while it's cocked to see if the trigger gets depressed.
One more test that could have saved him from all of this.
BTW, I'm a little tired of using "this person" to keep this person's anonymity. Going forward, I'll use the English Language default when gender is not known: "he."
Peace favor your sword
You know me. I'm too cheap to buy a Sig. But I did buy a used H&K once that I immediately traded.Well I was half expecting it to be you because we all know most stories about a friend falling victim to their own actions is usually the story teller.
It sounds like a reason for me to make a thread telling people the story and cautioning them to be extra careful with kydex holsters.Yes, you have repeatedly said that this manufacturer's defect in a CUSTOM holster made SPECIFICALLY for your friend's firearm would have, could have, should have been detected if he had applied the appropriate level of inspection.
You know what that sounds like the definition of?
My assumption is that you did something to make God mad.No... man... no...
Why, when somebody does some gnarly mess, is it always some variation of my name? Movies, TV, stories told...
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
The make her used his gun to mold the holster.Ok let's clear up one more detail with the whole custom made thing. Was it a custom holster for a Sig p365xl in general? Or a different very specific one for HIS sig p365xl- like a different mold or a new mold to accommodate some specific aftermarket sight or laser or optic or some such?
Because there are a lot of holster companies out there that make their standard line, custom fit to a wide variety of guns. Like same holster but you can order one for your glock 43 or for your sig p365xl- same holster but customized to a specific pistol. Alien gear comes to mind as an example.
Peace favor your sword (mobile)
That sounds possible.He probably didn't wrap the gun before he formed it
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
1 - 17 of 46 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Hi-Point Firearms Forums
A forum community dedicated to Hi-point firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
CamoDeafie
112 Replies
ajole
82 Replies
TNTRAILERTRASH
81 Replies
Recommended Communities
