Folks are getting really excited about this, over spotty and outdated info, or not?

Sometimes, the internet doesn't help.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
Folks are getting really excited about this, over spotty and outdated info, or not?

Sometimes, the internet doesn't help.

A good summary!

Every service weapon has had warts at the beginning due to manufacturing problems or design flaws with gun or ammo or both that eventually were worked out or in some cases, just accepted. 1873 Springfield, 1873 Colt, the various iterations in the 1890's of the Krags, the 1903 .30-03 Springfield, 1903 .30-06 Springfield, 1911 Colt {I know it's heresy to suggest such a thing, but it's true...}, Garand Gas-Trap and later mod, Smith & Wesson M&P Models {lack of drop safety...sound familiar?}.

There HAVE been some real lemons, true failures, like the Colt .38 Colt revolvers whose main problems were mechanical deficiencies, but they are rare.

I suspect the P320 will pan out to be a decent pistol.

Yawn. All I care about is whether MY own P320's (Jan 2015) are reliable. They are.

I remember the endless Gen4 BTF threads several years ago. I owned two of the "afflicted" Gen4 G34 and G19's with the original "defective" RSA and ejectors. Never had a BTF or reliability issue with either...didn't "upgrade either one. Jeez, you still have ignoramuses worried about kabooms in .40 cal Glocks.

I'm not saying some of these issues don't/didn't exist. Just that I'm not inclined to waste my time in discussions regarding problems I don't have. Just my 2 cents.

quote:

Originally posted by Nipper:
Yawn. All I care about is whether MY own P320's (Jan 2015) are reliable. They are.

I remember the endless Gen4 BTF threads several years ago. I owned two of the "afflicted" Gen4 G34 and G19's with the original "defective" RSA and ejectors. Never had a BTF or reliability issue with either...didn't "upgrade either one. Jeez, you still have ignoramuses worried about kabooms in .40 cal Glocks.

I'm not saying some of these issues don't/didn't exist. Just that I'm not inclined to waste my time in discussions regarding problems I don't have. Just my 2 cents.

I have a library of technical documents and books on various weapons. I find the whole design, production, issue and service "story" quite interesting even if I don't own or never will own a given weapon. I very much enjoy history. I guess that's it.

As for the Glock BTF, I had two that ran fine...until they didn't. So that issue I had a personal interest in.

I have no gripe with folks who have no interest in stuff they don't own or won't buy. I get it. But some of us are interested in arms for other reasons as well, and the "Saga" of the P320 is an interesting one whichever winding trail it takes, at least to me.

Photo looks like the shooter is left handed.

And the Glock lovers rejoiced.

On a different note. I wonder if we had the same level of testing and the internet back when the M16 first came out would we still have a M16?

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:

quote:

So when did SIG really know that they had a problem with the gun?

That's bull. The military contract guns were all upgraded with what is the current parts.

Armorer courses reflected that over a year and a half ago.

When did it become "bull" to ask a question?

quote:

Originally posted by Sparkyk:
On a different note. I wonder if we had the same level of testing and the internet back when the M16 first came out would we still have a M16?

Oh, yes, except it would be far more advanced, without any of the hiccups it experienced, what with benefiting from the overwhelming wisdom of the internet and all...

quote:

Originally posted by Sparkyk:
And the Glock lovers rejoiced.

On a different note. I wonder if we had the same level of testing and the internet back when the M16 first came out would we still have a M16?

People who treat firearm brands like they're sports teams, need to keep that shit to sports. Honestly it's so tiresome.

As someone who owns both, and generally pays no mind to gun brands I don't care for, I really don't get the attitude of someone who bothers to spend time on such things.

It strikes me as a similar vein to how we all assume the guy who hates gays, probably secretly wants to blow his best friend. "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

Said it a loooong time ago.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...370028714#6370028714

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:
Said it a loooong time ago.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...370028714#6370028714

Well, congratulations.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:
Said it a loooong time ago.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...370028714#6370028714

Well, congratulations.

You’re welcome

The document is not an Army report. It is a summation of results of all testing that was produced by the Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation. Such a report would not exist for other potential contractors.

quote:

Originally posted by Budlum:
The document is not an Army report. It is a summation of results of all testing that was produced by the Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation. Such a report would not exist for other potential contractors.

It's an executive summary of the "Product Verification Test" done by the DOD of the "to date performance" of delivered product. Of course it wouldn't exist because they didn't get selected. Semantics.

What's come to light since the selection with the drop test failures in P320's and now this PVT of the XM's preformance failures (yes, it too including drop test failures) is still relevant and may be a further indication of errors in the selection process or maybe even some "gaming" in that selection process.

The real concern is, the commercial market has see the same types of reliability issues/failures in P320's, which means that after years of COTS availability, Sig still hasn't solved the issues with reliability. Those issues appear to be propagating down to the P365 based on early reports.

Don't know why it's so difficult for Sig to provide a reliable product. I've had "cheaper" guns like Springfield's or Ruger's that run 100% out the gate.

I got in trouble on another forum for pointing out some details. 132 testers, of those 8 guys caused 60% of all the stoppages. Why the Army didn't stop the testing and either train those 8 guys or pull them because the literally caused the vast majority of the problems. Garbage in garbage out.

I also think something else was in play. I have never seen a gun that loved HP's but would bobble to the tune of 63% reliability on ball ammo. Sounds like out of spec ammo.

I would approach that test/report with a healthy dose of cynicism.

Shoot yourself in the forehead? Maybe. Not feed ball? Ummm, not so much.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:
Said it a loooong time ago.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...370028714#6370028714

Said what? Can you expand?

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:
Said it a loooong time ago.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...370028714#6370028714

Said what? Can you expand?

I think I just did, 2 posts up.

"The real concern is, the commercial market has see the same types of reliability issues/failures in P320's, which means that after years of COTS availability, Sig still hasn't solved the issues with reliability"

Nothing has changed in the yesrs since the P320 was introduced. Sig are still plagued with failures across their product line. Choose this over the venerable G17/G19, yes, Big Green made a HUGE mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I got in trouble on another forum for pointing out some details. 132 testers, of those 8 guys caused 60% of all the stoppages. Why the Army didn't stop the testing and either train those 8 guys or pull them because the literally caused the vast majority of the problems. Garbage in garbage out.

I also think something else was in play. I have never seen a gun that loved HP's but would bobble to the tune of 63% reliability on ball ammo. Sounds like out of spec ammo.

I would approach that test/report with a healthy dose of cynicism.

Shoot yourself in the forehead? Maybe. Not feed ball? Ummm, not so much.

I saw that post. It was interesting. For what it's worth I'm current AD and I wasn't insulted at all.

I agree with you and the AMU even commented that it was an issue that could be eliminated with proper training. I'd also be interested in the rank, MOS and previous training of the 8 soldiers.

I also agree with you on the ammo. The new ball is XM1152, the X standing for experimental. I'm trying to find more on the specs, if they went with a new strange design that could cause a feed issue. I haven't seen any documents on testing with the existing M882.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I got in trouble on another forum for pointing out some details. 132 testers, of those 8 guys caused 60% of all the stoppages. Why the Army didn't stop the testing and either train those 8 guys or pull them because the literally caused the vast majority of the problems. Garbage in garbage out.

I also think something else was in play. I have never seen a gun that loved HP's but would bobble to the tune of 63% reliability on ball ammo. Sounds like out of spec ammo.

I would approach that test/report with a healthy dose of cynicism.

Shoot yourself in the forehead? Maybe. Not feed ball? Ummm, not so much.

I wondered about this, too, but I think the 8 guys/60% was limited to the slide lock issue.

What's the deal with "double ejecting"?

Has this been observed among the civilian shooters/competitors? I mean there are guys out there with LOTS of bullets thru these guns {some I believe on this forum} and I've never heard that one before.

Anyone have any info on that?

If so, has the cause been identified?

Is it for certain magazines? Which magazines?
When made, etc?

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
132 testers, of those 8 guys caused 60% of all the stoppages.

I'm not familiar with the testing procedure. Are the pistols rotated among the testers or is each tester assigned a single pistol?