quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by GJM AK:
So what documentation do you have that says they were in negotionation? Actual documentation, please. And if this was an out of court settlement, why is it repeated each time it's a lawsuit? The evidence does not support it

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id...r?mcode=0&curindex=0


CT Law Tribune article says:

Bagnell (attorney for plaintiff) said there were pre-suit discussions regarding a settlement, "but they did not result in a resolution."

Settlement negotiations are not admissible, so we are unlikely to know the details of those negotiations.

Common sense that if the officer was shot on January 15, 2017 and his department discontinued use of the 320 by their entire SRT, that Sig was well aware of the details of this discharge.

Right, where is the actual documentation from the "negotiations"? That is an article, and the attorney (from actually reading the suit) seems not to err on the side of the truth.[/QUOTE]

As stated above, since settlement negotiations are not admissible, how can there be documentation that would satisfy your request?

Are you suggesting Sig was unaware of the January 15, 2017 discharge of the 320, that hit the officer's leg, until the lawsuit was filed on August 4? If so, you seem to be taking comfort in Sig being merely negligent, as opposed to being intentionally deceptive. If the CT lawsuit goes to trial, depositions will no doubt be taken of all the key players at Sig, and then we will all be able to read the statements given under oath, and then know exactly who at Sig knew what and when.

More from TTAG, about what appears to be happening mechanically and what the fix is likely to include:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...rop-safety-failures/

Sounds like it's not a full trigger pull, but rather enough to push the striker block up, the the sear is jarred loose. Which makes sense to me, as I couldn't see how the trigger shoe could have enough inertia to accomplish a full trigger pull (though I only passed physics 101, so what do I know?). That also explains why the fix isn't just a tabbed trigger dingus, but a rework of several parts.

Must have come up with that fix real quick, just a few days ago there was no issue with the gun.

quote:

Originally posted by GJM AK:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by GJM AK:
So what documentation do you have that says they were in negotionation? Actual documentation, please. And if this was an out of court settlement, why is it repeated each time it's a lawsuit? The evidence does not support it

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id...r?mcode=0&curindex=0


CT Law Tribune article says:

Bagnell (attorney for plaintiff) said there were pre-suit discussions regarding a settlement, "but they did not result in a resolution."

Settlement negotiations are not admissible, so we are unlikely to know the details of those negotiations.

Common sense that if the officer was shot on January 15, 2017 and his department discontinued use of the 320 by their entire SRT, that Sig was well aware of the details of this discharge.

Right, where is the actual documentation from the "negotiations"? That is an article, and the attorney (from actually reading the suit) seems not to err on the side of the truth.

As stated above, since settlement negotiations are not admissible, how can there be documentation that would satisfy your request?

Are you suggesting Sig was unaware of the January 15, 2017 discharge of the 320, that hit the officer's leg, until the lawsuit was filed on August 4? If so, you seem to be taking comfort in Sig being merely negligent, as opposed to being intentionally deceptive. If the CT lawsuit goes to trial, depositions will no doubt be taken of all the key players at Sig, and then we will all be able to read the statements given under oath, and then know exactly who at Sig knew what and when.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that there is NO EVIDENCE that shows that they were in "negotiations" as the article says that there was, and certainly not as it has been portrayed many times as a "Lawsuit". The data just doesn't fit it. There is nothing backing the "settlement" other than an article written from the perspective of the now lawsuit attorney. What SIG knew, when they knew it, it doesn't matter.

People in this thread are so angry that simple math, and simple requests for documentation are escaping them. If the documentation doesn't exist, or isn't available, you probably shouldn't be claiming it as fact off a media article.

I am taking comfort that I might find someone here that will admit that the documentation that I am asking for doesn't exist, because guess what? It doesn't. I've spent a bunch of time looking, and nothing. This is silly to be arguing. I ask for simple documents, and I keep getting "Are you suggesting....".

What I am suggesting is people have been quoting the "lawsuit" and "settlement" that there is no proof existed, other than an article written from the attorney's point of view. Everyone is so angry that they want to explain stuff away, instead of just saying "Hey, I don't know, that would be interesting if true".

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Must have come up with that fix real quick, just a few days ago there was no issue with the gun.

Amen. I find it extremely odd that the M17 doesn't have this issue, yet Sig released the press release saying there was 0 incident of drop firing.

From the letter above: "As a result of input from law enforcement......Sig has developed a number of enhancements......including drop performance."

How the fuck did they develop all those changes in a matter of days?

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

Sure, where is the documentation of the "negotiations"? That is an article written off of information from the attorney that apparently has no trouble bending the truth in reading the complaint. This is an article written from his side of things, and right now, he can claim anything he likes. I am asking for simple documentation, not an article.

If you don't have actual documentation, just simply say "I don't have it, I'm going by what I read the attorney is saying and it is not fact" and we'll move on. I asked for documentation, and not an article written from the side of the attorney.

I see you are one of "those people".

Tell us what you think "out of court negotiation" documents look like?


If you aren't going to accept a direct quote from the attorney representing the plaintiff, I can't imagine what sort of proof you'd accept.


Are you a real person or Siri? Can you produce documents to prove it?

You know, its funny, just last night you were crying about personal attacks. Now, I ask for a simple document to back the assertion, and I am one of "those people". Give me an actual document, instead of trying to explain it away. Or be intellectually honest and admit that it doesn't exist. You guys are so angry that basic logic left the station long ago.

But, I imagine I'll be waiting a while. You've got nothing and you know it.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Must have come up with that fix real quick, just a few days ago there was no issue with the gun.

And thus the creeping credibility issue. The M17 doesn't have the issue, so did Sig modify the contract gun to pass drop tests and tried to hide the retro-fit of the 320k COTS guns?

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

I'm saying that there is NO EVIDENCE that shows that they were in "negotiations" as the article says that there was, and certainly not as it has been portrayed many times as a "Lawsuit". The data just doesn't fit it. There is nothing backing the "settlement" other than an article written from the perspective of the now lawsuit attorney. What SIG knew, when they knew it, it doesn't matter.

People in this thread are so angry that simple math, and simple requests for documentation are escaping them. If the documentation doesn't exist, or isn't available, you probably shouldn't be claiming it as fact off a media article.

I am taking comfort that I might find someone here that will admit that the documentation that I am asking for doesn't exist, because guess what? It doesn't. I've spent a bunch of time looking, and nothing. This is silly to be arguing. I ask for simple documents, and I keep getting "Are you suggesting....".

What I am suggesting is people have been quoting the "lawsuit" and "settlement" that there is no proof existed, other than an article written from the attorney's point of view. Everyone is so angry that they want to explain stuff away, instead of just saying "Hey, I don't know, that would be interesting if true".

You said you texted Bruce earlier. What kind of public documents are there to prove that?

Huh? I don't even know what y'all are arguing about, but that's grabbing at straws there.

Guys let's stay on topic. Arguing over aspects of the court case is pointless. Sig had the time to engineer a fix while lying to the civilian market, that much is known.

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

I'm saying that there is NO EVIDENCE that shows that they were in "negotiations" as the article says that there was, and certainly not as it has been portrayed many times as a "Lawsuit". The data just doesn't fit it. There is nothing backing the "settlement" other than an article written from the perspective of the now lawsuit attorney. What SIG knew, when they knew it, it doesn't matter.

People in this thread are so angry that simple math, and simple requests for documentation are escaping them. If the documentation doesn't exist, or isn't available, you probably shouldn't be claiming it as fact off a media article.

I am taking comfort that I might find someone here that will admit that the documentation that I am asking for doesn't exist, because guess what? It doesn't. I've spent a bunch of time looking, and nothing. This is silly to be arguing. I ask for simple documents, and I keep getting "Are you suggesting....".

What I am suggesting is people have been quoting the "lawsuit" and "settlement" that there is no proof existed, other than an article written from the attorney's point of view. Everyone is so angry that they want to explain stuff away, instead of just saying "Hey, I don't know, that would be interesting if true".

You said you texted Bruce earlier. What kind of public documents are there to prove that?



You have shown that you don't understand that out of court negotiations aren't "filed", you keep claiming that the lawsuit existed before it was a lawsuit and you find it unlikely that someone would look to settle a claim against a corporation out of court before resorting to the expense of a lawsuit.

Do you think anyone is going to find your line of reasoning convincing?

You seem to be obsessed with it. You don't have the self control to leave it be. So, do you have actual proof or not? No, I understand completely. You are taking the attorney's word in an article on face value, but you have demanded proof out of everyone else that has posted an opinion that differs from yours. Now, that you are being asked, you are desperate to explain it away. But, your ego won't simply let you say "I might be wrong".

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by wolffy88:

Huh? I don't even know what y'all are arguing about, but that's grabbing at straws there.

He wants someone to produce a public record of a private conversation the plaintiff had with SIG to prove it happened. It is as absurd as me asking him to do the same.

Does it really matter?

Arguments like this tend to get threads locked. Can we cool it please so that it stays open? A a casual observer I am kinda interested in this and would really like to get my information from here.

quote:

Originally posted by wolffy88:

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

I'm saying that there is NO EVIDENCE that shows that they were in "negotiations" as the article says that there was, and certainly not as it has been portrayed many times as a "Lawsuit". The data just doesn't fit it. There is nothing backing the "settlement" other than an article written from the perspective of the now lawsuit attorney. What SIG knew, when they knew it, it doesn't matter.

People in this thread are so angry that simple math, and simple requests for documentation are escaping them. If the documentation doesn't exist, or isn't available, you probably shouldn't be claiming it as fact off a media article.

I am taking comfort that I might find someone here that will admit that the documentation that I am asking for doesn't exist, because guess what? It doesn't. I've spent a bunch of time looking, and nothing. This is silly to be arguing. I ask for simple documents, and I keep getting "Are you suggesting....".

What I am suggesting is people have been quoting the "lawsuit" and "settlement" that there is no proof existed, other than an article written from the attorney's point of view. Everyone is so angry that they want to explain stuff away, instead of just saying "Hey, I don't know, that would be interesting if true".

You said you texted Bruce earlier. What kind of public documents are there to prove that?

Huh? I don't even know what y'all are arguing about, but that's grabbing at straws there.

Yeah, that is grabbing at straws. But, when you've got nothing, that is what you get.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Guys let's stay on topic. Arguing over aspects of the court case is pointless. Sig had the time to engineer a fix while lying to the civilian market, that much is known.

Yeah, I'm going to bed. This thread is amusing enough.

OK, guys. Let's be cool

Apex is out of stock also, but I don't know the status before the ball dropped.

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:
There are no public records of private conversations.


There is a public claim that they happened which SIG does not deny. That simple.

Hey....

Check out the post just above yours.

Jones, I don't get why you are rolling so hard here to defend Sig at this point. You're hanging your hat on semantics if there was lawsuit negotiations or not and that is completly beside a broader point....did Sig know about this or not before all of this happened? You sure came on strong in the beginning of the thread against anyone asking questions and looking for answers about all of this.

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
More from TTAG, about what appears to be happening mechanically and what the fix is likely to include:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...rop-safety-failures/

Sounds like it's not a full trigger pull, but rather enough to push the striker block up, the the sear is jarred loose. Which makes sense to me, as I couldn't see how the trigger shoe could have enough inertia to accomplish a full trigger pull (though I only passed physics 101, so what do I know?). That also explains why the fix isn't just a tabbed trigger dingus, but a rework of several parts.

Woooooo!!!!! No frame replacement!!!

When I look in on this thread tomorrow morning, I expect to see posts that stick to the subject at hand. Anyone who wants to snipe at others in the thread, or use the thread as their personal playground is asked to refrain.

P320 owners are looking for information. Let's stick to that subject, please.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Must have come up with that fix real quick, just a few days ago there was no issue with the gun.

And thus the creeping credibility issue. The M17 doesn't have the issue, so did Sig modify the contract gun to pass drop tests and tried to hide the retro-fit of the 320k COTS guns?

By "hide" you mean "respond fully to contract requirements and provide a gun with a manual safety"? And by "modify the contract gun to pass the drop tests" you mean "pass the publically documented drop test which don't include this particular test"?

See my post a couple pages ago, the one demonstrated test failure is one that isn't included in DoD's drop tests, and their gun has a manual safety anyway.

Guys, let's stay out of conspiracy theory territory here, and stick to the facts.