P320 Drop Safety in Question (Formerly DPD Recall thread)

quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
quote:
Originally posted by jbourneidentity:
...my faith is shaken to its foundation.
Let me help

Train how you intend to Fight

Remember - Training is not sparring. Sparring is not fighting. Fighting is not combat.

Posts: 8849 | Location: Woodstock, GA | Registered: August 04, 2005

Ignored post by myrottiety posted

Patrick-SP2022

On the wrong side of
the Mobius strip
Picture of Patrick-SP2022

posted

A little levity from way back.

Posts: 4127 | Location: Texas | Registered: April 16, 2012

Ignored post by Patrick-SP2022 posted

sns3guppy

Member

posted

A few years ago a couple of Sig reps came to a local range or Sig Day. They had boxes of firearms to sell, and one could try any Sig firearm. Just pay for ammo. It was available in small lots, something like ten rounds. I grabbed a P224 and P227. Both jammed consistently, wouldn't run. Both dry as a bone.

I'd have thought Sig would have made an effort to ensure their weapons were ready to go on sales day, but it wasn't part of their planning or preparation.

Nothing wrong with the pistols; they could have run. It was all in the presentation.

Posts: 6650 | Registered: September 13, 2006

Ignored post by sns3guppy posted

dusty3030

Member

posted

quote:
Originally posted by Nipper:
A little levity. We all need it.

After this is over, let's all get together in person. For convenience, Ive selected the location described below. There has to be a bar somewhere in Lebanon, Kansas. Or, if you prefer, 39°50′N 98°35′W.

Location:

"The geographic center of the contiguous United States is the center of 48 U.S. states. It has been regarded as such by the U.S. National Geodetic Survey (NGS) since the 1912 additions of New Mexico and Arizona to the United States.

Its position as located in a 1918 survey is located at 39°50′N 98°35′W, in Kansas about 2.6 miles (4.2 km) northwest of the center of Lebanon, approximately 12 miles (19 km) south of the Kansas-Nebraska border."

Well I be damned. I was on a turkey hunting trip in that neck of the woods this past spring and we figured we had to be in just about the middle of country and we were right.

Posts: 3718 | Registered: August 13, 2005

Ignored post by dusty3030 posted

ether

Member

posted

quote:
Originally posted by stoic-one:
quote:
Originally posted by jbourneidentity:
For me, clarification is key, as is the answer to 3 simple yes or no questions.

Did Sig Sauer know about the P320 drop safety issue during the time of the military handgun trials? Is this why the military P320's trigger and parts of the FCU were modified? Did Sig Sauer knowingly continue to sell unsafe P320s to armed citizens and law enforcement during this time?

If the answers to my questions are 3 checked "YES" boxes, I'm done. My Sig Sauers are gone. I'm $1,100 into 2 P320s, which doesn't sound like much, but for me, it's a small fortune. I'll unhesitatingly ditch them and my beloved German P228 for a different brand and never look back.

I hope with all hope that I am wrong about Sig Sauer's management, but my faith is shaken to its foundation.
Drama much?

I hope you're being rhetorical because if you think you're going to get actual answers to those questions I must question your sanity...

SIG did however make a statement, if you choose to believe them, regarding the changes made for the MHS as being made to "improve trigger performance", I would go look it up but I'm lazy. It was linked somewhere in this thread.

Here is one place it's mentioned: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...eceive-mhs-triggers/

So a manufacturer is going to suddenly propose to redesign a mechanism that already passed the test and at no charge, out of the goodness of their hearts? What could they possibly gain by that? What if the brand new design didn't pass a test for some reason? And if it was such a great idea and they're feeling so generous, why didn't they propose it for the civilian and LE markets sooner?

I guess the important thing is it sounds like the issues are finally going to get fixed, and hopefully no one else is injured before then. I'm certainly not boycotting Sig over this, but I do have the same questions a lot of people do. Unfortunately, the answers may only come out in a court of law, and the general public may never know for sure.

Posts: 872 | Registered: October 08, 2000

Ignored post by ether posted

ZSMICHAEL

Member

posted

quote:
A little levity from way back.

Thanks for posting. I had the same thought as you. Maybe there is a Deep Throat out there as well.

Posts: 17234 | Location: Stuck at home | Registered: January 02, 2015

Ignored post by ZSMICHAEL posted

ether

Member

posted

quote:
Originally posted by RX-79G:
quote:
Originally posted by ether:

Here is one place it's mentioned: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...eceive-mhs-triggers/

So a manufacturer is going to suddenly propose to redesign a mechanism that already passed the test and at no charge, out of the goodness of their hearts? What could they possibly gain by that? What if the brand new design didn't pass a test for some reason? And if it was such a great idea and they're feeling so generous, why didn't they propose it for the civilian and LE markets sooner?

I guess the important thing is it sounds like the issues are finally going to get fixed, and hopefully no one else is injured before then. I'm certainly not boycotting Sig over this, but I do have the same questions a lot of people do. Unfortunately, the answers may only come out in a court of law, and the general public may never know for sure.

The proposed engineering change for the M17 wasn't going to cost SIG anything - they hadn't made those pistols yet. Why not keep the military pistols compatible with down-the-road civilian pistols?

And for all we know, the "upgraded" parts might be a few cents cheaper to produce.

Depending on when the new design was finalized, it might have cost them the military contract if the new design had a flaw that hadn't even been field tested in civilian or LE hands yet. Again, I can't imagine what they could have possibly gained from a redesign unless it was requested by someone. And if the engineering change was requested by the military, why?

Posts: 872 | Registered: October 08, 2000

Ignored post by ether posted

ensigmatic

Nullus Anxietas
Picture of ensigmatic

posted

quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
quote:
Originally posted by jbourneidentity:
...my faith is shaken to its foundation.
Let me help

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher

Posts: 26009 | Location: S.E. Michigan | Registered: January 06, 2008

Ignored post by ensigmatic posted

stoic-one

Unflappable Enginerd
Picture of stoic-one

posted

http://soldiersystems.net/2017...untary-p320-upgrade/

quote:
Depending on when the new design was finalized, it might have cost them the military contract if the new design had a flaw that hadn't even been field tested in civilian or LE hands yet. Again, I can't imagine what they could have possibly gained from a redesign unless it was requested by someone. And if the engineering change was requested by the military, why?

quote:
While the MHS passed DoD’s TOP 3-2-045 test with the trigger currently in the commercial P320, SIG proposed an enhanced trigger via Engineering Change Request E0005. As it didn’t result in additional cost to the government and only improved the firearm’s performance, M17s currently being delivered to the US Army have this trigger. Additionally, this trigger also eliminates the “double click” felt during P320 trigger pull.

__________________________________

NRA Benefactor
I lost all my weapons in a boating, umm, accident.
http://www.aufamily.com/forums/

Posts: 6212 | Location: Headland, AL | Registered: April 19, 2006

Ignored post by stoic-one posted

Blackwater

Member

posted

quote:
Originally posted by RX-79G:
quote:
Originally posted by ether:

Here is one place it's mentioned: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...eceive-mhs-triggers/

So a manufacturer is going to suddenly propose to redesign a mechanism that already passed the test and at no charge, out of the goodness of their hearts? What could they possibly gain by that? What if the brand new design didn't pass a test for some reason? And if it was such a great idea and they're feeling so generous, why didn't they propose it for the civilian and LE markets sooner?

I guess the important thing is it sounds like the issues are finally going to get fixed, and hopefully no one else is injured before then. I'm certainly not boycotting Sig over this, but I do have the same questions a lot of people do. Unfortunately, the answers may only come out in a court of law, and the general public may never know for sure.

The proposed engineering change for the M17 wasn't going to cost SIG anything - they hadn't made those pistols yet. Why not keep the military pistols compatible with down-the-road civilian pistols?

And for all we know, the "upgraded" parts might be a few cents cheaper to produce.

More likely Sig redesigned components for the MHS contract. The question is why? Was is not up to snuff per the specifcations? More than a safety lever was addressed.

Joe

Posts: 2525 | Location: Az | Registered: October 28, 2006

Ignored post by Blackwater posted

ether

Member

posted

quote:
Originally posted by stoic-one:
quote:
Depending on when the new design was finalized, it might have cost them the military contract if the new design had a flaw that hadn't even been field tested in civilian or LE hands yet. Again, I can't imagine what they could have possibly gained from a redesign unless it was requested by someone. And if the engineering change was requested by the military, why?

http://soldiersystems.net/2017...untary-p320-upgrade/

quote:
While the MHS passed DoD’s TOP 3-2-045 test with the trigger currently in the commercial P320, SIG proposed an enhanced trigger via Engineering Change Request E0005. As it didn’t result in additional cost to the government and only improved the firearm’s performance, M17s currently being delivered to the US Army have this trigger. Additionally, this trigger also eliminates the “double click” felt during P320 trigger pull.

And that is a good thing because it looks like a couple birds might conveniently get kilt with one stone once the pistols are voluntarily upgraded. I might even buy one if no issues are found with the upgrade in a year or two.

Posts: 872 | Registered: October 08, 2000

Ignored post by ether posted

Blackwater

Member

posted

"Sig proposed An enhanced trigger"
No really we insist....

Over wine and dancers, I'm sure. "Meh don't worry about it, it won't cost the government a penny"

Everyone bursts out in laughter...

This makes me more skeptical, that Sig new about the issue and obviously had already designed new components. Didn't want to get caught with their panties around their ankles with gov contract.

Joe

Posts: 2525 | Location: Az | Registered: October 28, 2006

Ignored post by Blackwater posted

Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky

posted

So say Sig discovered this issue during M17 testing. They engineered a fix for that platform and were working towards a fix for the commercial variants (they are different). Before they could test and verify the fix and announce the repair, this whole shebang happened.

I understand their recent announcements do not help them at all, but that does not mean they were planning to ignore this altogether.

Posts: 10635 | Registered: June 13, 2003

Ignored post by mbinky posted

Operations

Member

posted

just check all our distributers and all p320's have been pulled, Lipseys, Davidsons, RSR has only 5 of one kind

Posts: 503 | Registered: January 13, 2012

Ignored post by Operations posted

Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky

posted

Do we know if they were indeed getting ready to place a halt on production? Distribute a release with the problem? No we do not. THAT is all speculation.

This thread is short on fact and long on speculation and opinion.

We will know more on Monday.

Posts: 10635 | Registered: June 13, 2003

Ignored post by mbinky posted

RoverSig

Member

posted

We are witnessing the power of the internet. Some of the information and RUMINT may be incorrect, but the basic story could not be suppressed.

The initial responses, whether rationalizations or perhaps incipient but doomed attempts to cover up things, reflect no credit on anyone involved.

Sig has no choice now but to fix the problem in commercial and LE P320s. They won't get their credibility back with this crowd unless they offer to fix them all, for free.

Posts: 1597 | Location: Virginia, USA | Registered: June 02, 2007

Ignored post by RoverSig posted

Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky

posted

quote:
Originally posted by RoverSig:
We are witnessing the power of the internet.

EXACTLY.

FACT: The Sig P320 can discharge if dropped.

FACT: Sig has acknowledged this and is working on a fix.

SPECUALTION: Sig knew of this and never intended to reveal it but was forced too once it hit the innerweb.

SPECULATION: Sig plans on making the current commercial owners pay some of the cost.

SPECULATION: The M17 never passed drop tests.

SPECULATION: Sig DID learn of this during the M17 trials and ignored it.

SPECULATION: Sig planned on ignoring this and hoped it would go away.

I prefer facts, and we only have a few now, but we will have more on Monday.

Posts: 10635 | Registered: June 13, 2003

Ignored post by mbinky posted

Operations

Member

posted

but for 3 years they never tried a drop test?

Posts: 503 | Registered: January 13, 2012

Ignored post by Operations posted

Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky

posted

quote:
Originally posted by Operations:
but for 3 years they never tried a drop test?

It passed ALL of the commercial (ANSI, ETC) drop tests. This flaw was discovered during a drop not covered in standardized testing.

Posts: 10635 | Registered: June 13, 2003

Ignored post by mbinky posted

RC Fan

Member

posted

quote:
Originally posted by mbinky:
quote:
Originally posted by RoverSig:
We are witnessing the power of the internet.

EXACTLY.

FACT: The Sig P320 can discharge if dropped.

FACT: Sig has acknowledged this and is working on a fix.

SPECUALTION: Sig knew of this and never intended to reveal it but was forced too once it hit the innerweb.

SPECULATION: Sig plans on making the current commercial owners pay some of the cost.

SPECULATION: The M17 never passed drop tests.

SPECULATION: Sig DID learn of this during the M17 trials and ignored it.

SPECULATION: Sig planned on ignoring this and hoped it would go away.

I prefer facts, and we only have a few now, but we will have more on Monday.

I agree.

There are some here with some real angst towards SIG.

Before all this, I assumed I never should drop a loaded gun. Before all this, I would not have assumed any gun should be able to sustain multiple 4-5 foot drops to concrete and still function reliably.

Cathy

Posts: 302 | Registered: August 10, 2014

Ignored post by RC Fan posted