TomJ
Contributing Member
I'm okay with that as long as it's not used as an excuse to not honor their warranty. I don't know one way or another whether they've done that, and as much as I like mine I hope they wouldn't do so.
PSA for Owners of FNS Pistols
- Thread starter 9mmepiphany
- Start date
- Status
I'm okay with that as long as it's not used as an excuse to not honor their warranty. I don't know one way or another whether they've done that, and as much as I like mine I hope they wouldn't do so.
Walt Sherrill
Member
It should be noted, too, that FN (FNAmerica) warrants the gun, even those not owned by the original purchaser. And there's no time limit on the warranty period.
I got two of my FNS guns (an FNS-40 and an FNS-40L) through trades and one )a FNS-9c) was a purchase from the original owner. After contacting FNAmerica, they were all sent back and returned to me at FN's expense.
FN may not always pay shipping for an original owner -- that may depend on the nature of the issue needing warranty coverge, but their warranty coverage is the same for the all owners.
That seems to be the best warranty in the business.
I got two of my FNS guns (an FNS-40 and an FNS-40L) through trades and one )a FNS-9c) was a purchase from the original owner. After contacting FNAmerica, they were all sent back and returned to me at FN's expense.
FN may not always pay shipping for an original owner -- that may depend on the nature of the issue needing warranty coverge, but their warranty coverage is the same for the all owners.
That seems to be the best warranty in the business.
TomJ
Contributing Member
That’s good to hear.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
Ah that's right. Certainly a worse situation than this one, but still this issue is worrisome.
I haven't owned an FN pistol for several years, and I try not to freak out about a company because of one fumble, but their CYA statements in their manual bother me.
Was considerung a 509 but maybe going to think about it a bit.
JTQ
Member
The only reason I know about the note in the owners manual is because a guy on another forum had trouble with a warrantee claim with FN. FN would not honor the warrantee because the guy did not comply with the "every 2,000 round, once a year, factory inspection."
I'll admit, on line, the guy seemed like a complete jerk, and he may have come across to the FN customer service folks in such a way, and they simply used that owners manual caveat to not service an undeserving customer. Perhaps a more polite individual may have gotten service from FN. I don't know.
I merely point this out to folks, since I can't think of any other firearm that carries the same requirement. Let's face it, what non-Mil/LE person has their gun inspected by the factory every year? Pretty much nobody.
FN has a solid leg to stand on for not providing service if you don't follow the owner's manual. If you own one, forewarned is forearmed.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I'm a regular participant on the FN Forum, and that ISSUE has never come up -- and there are a few folks there who have had warranty work done.JTQ said:
I don't think it's a REQUIREMENT as much as a recommended service step. I don't know how FNAmerica could prove that the gun had NOT gotten its regular 2000 round checkup, or what proof they might require to affirm that it had been done. That step is NOT mentioned as a part of their warranty language.
Maybe, as you say, an FN customer service rep was just fed up with a obnoxious customer -- or maybe the customer didn't tell the story exactly as it happened when he was venting on the web.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I watched the latest video, which includes information about the Arizona situation. Here's a link: https://foxbaltimore.com/features/o...eveals-unexpected-gunfire-from-police-weapons
The pistol shown at point 4:11 in the Fox45 video is clearly a Glock, and it looks like it may have a NY trigger installed. That's just a filler shot not really relevant to the rest of the video, but someone involved in creating the video doesn't know much about the guns in question.
I can't imagine WHY anyone would (as is done in the video) fire a weapon, leave the trigger depressed (thereby not allowing it to reset) , and THEN press it against an unyielding surface. And then have it hit by a sharp blow -- again without releasing the trigger.
With Glocks, the striker spring is only partially tensioned until the trigger pull completes the process. I don't know enough about HOW MUCH/HOW FAR the FNS (or FN509) striker spring is tensioned prior to the trigger pull, but I would expect the firing pin (striker) safety to NOT be affected by strikes or drops...
But -- with most guns, the firing pin/striker safety is disabled when the trigger is pulled fully to the rear -- and that's what we see in the videos.
That doesn't explain why it might discharge when it's holstered, one of the claims in the video, as it's hard to holster a weapon while you're holding the trigger to the rear. Releasing the trigger should reactivate the safety mechanism. Then, too, you'd have to have pretty forceful strike to the firearm as it was holstered, but before the trigger was released. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I wonder if the photos in question were doctored -- as some folks have suggested, elsewhere.
The pistol shown at point 4:11 in the Fox45 video is clearly a Glock, and it looks like it may have a NY trigger installed. That's just a filler shot not really relevant to the rest of the video, but someone involved in creating the video doesn't know much about the guns in question.
I can't imagine WHY anyone would (as is done in the video) fire a weapon, leave the trigger depressed (thereby not allowing it to reset) , and THEN press it against an unyielding surface. And then have it hit by a sharp blow -- again without releasing the trigger.
With Glocks, the striker spring is only partially tensioned until the trigger pull completes the process. I don't know enough about HOW MUCH/HOW FAR the FNS (or FN509) striker spring is tensioned prior to the trigger pull, but I would expect the firing pin (striker) safety to NOT be affected by strikes or drops...
But -- with most guns, the firing pin/striker safety is disabled when the trigger is pulled fully to the rear -- and that's what we see in the videos.
That doesn't explain why it might discharge when it's holstered, one of the claims in the video, as it's hard to holster a weapon while you're holding the trigger to the rear. Releasing the trigger should reactivate the safety mechanism. Then, too, you'd have to have pretty forceful strike to the firearm as it was holstered, but before the trigger was released. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I wonder if the photos in question were doctored -- as some folks have suggested, elsewhere.
Last edited:
GunnyUSMC
Member
Walt Sherrill
Member
OP
OP
It is a bit confusing because there are two separate conditions which are causing the gun to discharge.
1. Gun discharges when returning into battery
a. Slide is pushed out of battery by being pushed against a solid surface.
b. Trigger is pulled, but gun doesn't discharge.
c. As gun is pulled back and slide goes into battery, the gun discharges
2. Gun discharges without trigger being touched
a. Finger is off trigger and along side frame
b. Sharp rap is applied to top of slide
c. Gun discharges
Walt Sherrill
Member
9mmepiphany said:
I think I saw this:
1. The gun is pushed against a hard surface, and the trigger is pulled and kept to the rear. Because it's out of battery it doesn't fire -- until it is returned to battery. The trigger is still pulled, I think. That deactivates the striker safety -- which is designed to disable the striker safety if the trigger is fully to the rear. WHY IN HELL IS ANYONE PULLING THE TRIGGER WHEN IT'S PRESSED AGAINST ANYTHING UNLESS THE SHOOTER WANTS IT'S TO FIRE?
Seems like this COULD be a problem with some hammer-fired guns, too, if you do something stupid like pulling the trigger when the gun is out of battery.
2. In the second example, we see the gun firing after being pushed out of battery, but we don't see HOW the striker safety was disabled. The trigger seems to be in it's FORWARD ready position, and not positioned to the rear. What deactivates the striker safety?. Was the trigger pulled when the slide was pushed out of battery?
This part of the video is more mysterious, as the details aren't shown.
I have three FNS guns, but I don't know whether the striker is tensioned like a Glock (partially) and additional trigger movement finishes the tensioning process and then releases the striker (overriding the striker safety mechanism). If the trigger just disables the striker safety and releases the striker, this could be an issue with other guns. (The Springfield XDm striker, I'm told, is fully tensioned,but there is a grip safety; the S&W M&Ps are somewhat like this, too, with a fully tensioned or nearly fully tensioned striker -- the trigger disables the striker safety and releases the striker.)
Last edited:
OP
OP
I refer you to the video posted in Post #5
The gun is not fired before being struck with the hammer and the trigger is not being held back. It the muzzle pointed at the backstop with the shooter's trigger finger clearly outside the trigger guard. It fires when the top of the slide is rapped with a hammer.
At no time is the trigger pressed
OP
OP
That isn't what I saw in the initial video and isn't what is described in the article I linked in the OP
The gun's muzzle is pressed against a hard surface to push it out of battery. The trigger is pulled to the rear and held. (it doesn't fire as it is out of battery) When the gun is withdrawn from the hard surface, the slide returns into battery and the gun fires.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I think we're saying the same thing. Check my post above; I wasn't clear and made some editing changes to make what I saying less confusing and did this AS YOU WERE REPLYING.
YES, it's pushed against a hard surface, but I think the trigger is fully to the rear as it's pushed against the hard surface. That could have deactivated the striker safety. And if the trigger isn't released, the safety does NOT get enabled again. That might just let the striker loose! Why is the trigger being PULLED!
There's no explanation of what happens to the trigger in the second example (with hammer blows, etc.) In the photos, the trigger seems to be fully forward. But it may NOT be.... If it reset properly (isn't fully to the rear) the striker safety should be working.
YES, it's pushed against a hard surface, but I think the trigger is fully to the rear as it's pushed against the hard surface. That could have deactivated the striker safety. And if the trigger isn't released, the safety does NOT get enabled again. That might just let the striker loose! Why is the trigger being PULLED!
There's no explanation of what happens to the trigger in the second example (with hammer blows, etc.) In the photos, the trigger seems to be fully forward. But it may NOT be.... If it reset properly (isn't fully to the rear) the striker safety should be working.
OP
OP
I think so too.
I reminded me somewhat of the issue that Remington had with their M-600 rifle some years back. If you pulled the trigger when the safety was engaged it wouldn't go off. However, if you took your finger off the trigger and subsequently pushed the safety off, the gun would fire.
The issue causing the gun to fire without the trigger being touched is much more concerning. If there were an incident of someone being accidentally shot, how many would believe the claim of, "I didn't touch the trigger"
That is a broken part.
Not broken, and a different design. Are the 9MM and .40 different, or is that the upgrade?
I need to get a pic of my FNS-40. I sure couldn't make it fire whacking it with the brass hammer, and not lightly either.
GunnyUSMC
Member
If you could get the FNS slide on a Glock frame, You could call it broken.
Fer cryin out loud, the cost of sending the gun back and forth for an annual checkup would quickly exceed the value of the gun - and vastly exceed the expected value/cost of any repair. Plastic pistols aren't anything like expensive enough to waste that amount of time, much less money, on.
JR24
Member
The first image is very clearly a Glock. I assume the second is a FNS, but I dont have one to be sure.
GunnyUSMC
Member
The second pic is of my FNS9.
JR24
Member
Reading comprehension, I may want to try it some time.
GunnyUSMC
Member
I miss things myself, at times.
Walt Sherrill
Member
Walkalong said:
The FNS 9 and FNS 40 all have the same internal parts. If there was an upgrade, you wouldn't be able to see the difference unless you detail-stripped the slide. (The Striker is hidden in there.)
That first photo in #33, above, is a Glock (probably a 17 or 19, although the Glocks all look alike in that area); the second photo is, as noted, an FNS.
Last edited:
My bad, should have realized they were too different. I don't have a Glock, so I wouldn't recognize it.
- Status
