quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
Just curious.

Why did you comply with the "request"?

This is America, where, despite the fact that "the truth is the ultimate defence" against charges of libel or slander, one might still be obliged to mount a defence. That costs money. It can cost a lot of money.

I watched a major sailing forum get muzzled in just such a way. The forum was owned, at least at the time, by a big-name sailing supply store which was unwilling to take the chance they'd be sued by the manufacturer about which a certain member had been posting. This despite the fact that everything the member had been posting was clearly, provably true in every last respect. Following that: No posts were allowed at all discussing that particular manufacturer's issues. They lost quite a bit of their more knowledgeable membership over that brouhaha.

Sucks, but there it is.

That's nice, but I work in an industry where such things are handled so I'm pretty familiar with the terms and concepts.

So, again, since you are not the member who posted, I'll ask him again: Why did you comply with the "request"?

As for shutting down forums and such, decisions of moderating fall under para's authority so he is and would be the last word on the subject of what is allowed on the forum. What he says, goes.

By the way, if a manufacturer decided to request all guns of a certain run or model to be sent back to them for some sort of an "upgrade" especially involving, say, safety or functioning, the use of the term "recall" to describe said activity hardly seems a foundation for a lawsuit of any kind against the user of the term. In fact, it would seem quite laughable, notwithstanding the fact that frivolous lawsuits are filed or threatened all the time.

Now, if the person was speaking as an official of the company involved, or acting as an agent of the company, the company might have various and sundry other options as to how do deal with said person if the use of the term was unsatisfactory to the directors of the company.

Anyway, I'm curious as to why JLJ complied.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Para, thank you for your continued tolerance and consistent moderation of your forum.

Stick a sock in it.

We REALLY need a like button!!!

Sig has announced that they inform everyone next week what they will abut the accidental discharge problem with the p320 when dropped. They admit that the problem has occurred in their own labs when they were testing for it. No company is perfect guys. Things happen. People shouldn't get all defensive when word comes out about a problem. I expect sig will handle this problem with class.

I had started another thread about this topic and I understand why the mods wanted to consolidate.

Throwing my 2 cents in.

Shit happens. I have used and abused my P320C for 30k plus rounds. It has traveled around the country for the last 2 years in a Sparks VM2. It has been through dozens of shooting courses and never failed me. I recently had it rebuilt and put another 1k rounds through it. Smooth Shooting.

In that time I have acquired a back up to this gun, a full size, a tactical, and recently an X5 variant.

Dozens of Mags, back upholsters, new grips, trips to Bruce Gray for new triggers. I probably have 5k wrapped up and I really like the P320 and I continue to like it.

I am disappointed in how Sig has handled this. Evidence is building that they knew about this situation and did nothing.

Now they come out with an incomplete plan with a "Hey! we will tell you what we do on Monday!". Just tell us the plan don't make it a "coming soon!" type situation. It is broke, pay to fix it.

I have sidelined all of them for now. I am slightly concerned the big trainers (Givens, Farnham, etc..) will sideline them until the problem is corrected. I just ordered another VM2 for my Glock 19 just in case (I mean, I "NEEDED" it right)

I understand being upset about the situation but like I said, shit happens, they just need to make it right.

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
Anyway, I'm curious as to why JLJ complied.

You pick and choose your battles, and that was one I didn't care about.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
Anyway, I'm curious as to why JLJ complied.

You pick and choose your battles, and that was one I didn't care about.

You should have told them to go shoot a bill drill

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by 3/4Flap:
Anyway, I'm curious as to why JLJ complied.

You pick and choose your battles, and that was one I didn't care about.

Gotcha.

Indeed we do.

http://www.popularmechanics.co...17-drop-test-roblem/

"Civilian versions of the Sig 320 fail the so-called "drop test," but the military version appears unaffected."

How very interesting. So how long have they been aware of this issue?

Or maybe the military discovered the issue early on, and Sig developed the mod to resolve it for the military trials. Or maybe Sig discovered it before the military ever got their hands on it... It's pure speculation, but this stinks to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
As I recall, Springfield had a recall not too long ago and it collapsed the value on those pistols even though they were repaired and fully functional.

I see this as a golden opportunity to finally pick a 320C up for substantially under the outrageous $600 they are charging for them.

There is a silver lining to this.

You're not the only one waiting for additional 320 discounts.

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:
I have read in multiple places that the military did hardly any real testing, especially drop testing in Phase 1. The guns were supposed to be off the shelf, proven designs. Phase 2 was supposed to have the really meaty tests.

I think SIG USA just missed the vulnerability out of inexperience.

Read on the internet or the official .gov test plans for the program? Because unless it was an official test plan, it's all speculation and heresay. Just like the claims of inexperience for Sig's engineers.

Did anyone see this?

SIG P320 Page

In the safety area towards the bottom, the have the following:

Tabbed Trigger Safety
Magazine Disconnect Safety

I'm not sure I want either of those on my P320.

quote:

Originally posted by Fire Away:
Did anyone see this?

SIG P320 Page

In the safety area towards the bottom, the have the following:

Tabbed Trigger Safety
Magazine Disconnect Safety

I'm not sure I want either of those on my P320.

I would never own a gun for serious purposes with a magazine disconnect safety. Usually from what I understand though, they are easy to remove. Still, all other things being equal I would just prefer to buy a gun without one in the first place.

Odds are it's just a Web site screw up. Wouldn't be the first instance. Either that or Sig attorneys are now doing Web development work.

I wouldn't buy a P320 with those two features either.

Ouch...

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Houston police to get new pistols....

Sig Sauer pistols prone to faulty firing lead to handgun upgrades for Houston police

Houston police officials are warning officers to take caution using standard-issue Sig Sauer P320 pistols amid growing evidence nationwide that the guns can fire errantly when dropped.

The firearm manufacturer has told the Houston Police Department it will replace the hundreds of weapons now used by the city's officers, according to an HPD safety bulletin.

The Dallas Police Department suspended use of the pistols recently after receiving complaints from police officers there that the P320 pistols failed "drop tests" by firing when they hit the ground.

HPD recently designated the P320 as the primary service weapon for new officers, though it had allowed officers previously to use one of several firearms.

Houston police officials conducted their own tests of the weapons and issued the safety bulletin this week.

HPD firearm instructors and officials from the Houston Police Officers' Union tested the weapons and found that the gun drop-fired more than 10 percent of the time.

"It only happened a few times, but we can't have that happen at all," said Capt. Greg Fremin, who oversees HPD's training academy. "It could cost somebody's life. There cannot be any potential possibilities for a gun to misfire."

The video below from Omaha Outdoors shows that when dropped at a certain angle, the P320 would fire.

The HPD safety bulletin advises officers of the problem and notes "caution must be used when handling the Sig Sauer P320 models."

The Houston Police Officers' Union contacted Sig Sauer, which is facing the prospect of replacing or repairing tens of thousands of firearms for law enforcement agencies around the country.

The manufacturer issued a statement on Tuesday saying that the P320's design "overcomes the most significant safety concern in striker-fired pistols today: the practice of pressing the trigger for disassembly."

But the statement acknowledged that "recent events indicate that dropping the P320 beyond U.S. standards for safety may cause an unintentional discharge."

An officer in Connecticut is suing Sig Sauer for $6 million over claims that in January, his weapon fell from its holster and fired, hitting him in the leg.

When the HPOU contacted the manufacturer, they initially received a "generic press release response that it had 'passed previous federal drop tests,'" HPOU Vice President Joseph Gamaldi said, in a message on social media to union members.

"We were completely unsatisfied with their response," he said.

The organization pressed the manufacturer, which ultimately agreed to exchange all of HPD's faulty pistols for new ones. The union has also asked Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo to identify other weapons for on-duty carry as backups.

"In the event that something like this happens again, HPD won't be hamstrung into only one firearm," Gamaldi wrote.

Open Eye.

Insert thumb.

Push hard.

There, SIG.

Ouch is right...

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:
I have read in multiple places that the military did hardly any real testing, especially drop testing in Phase 1. The guns were supposed to be off the shelf, proven designs. Phase 2 was supposed to have the really meaty tests.

Just my reading, but it seems few of the testing details were included in the public RFP. The RFP makes frequent reference to Performance Purchase Description Modular Handgun System (AR-PD-177), which was available as follows:

quote:

To obtain a copy of the latest PD AR-PD-177, AR-PD-179, AR-PD-180, AR-PD-183, AR-PD-184, the Government's Tissue Damage Model, and other controlled documents, interested parties must mail / email the following documents:

a) A signed and approved DD Form 2345 Military Critical Technical Data Agreement
b) A completed AMSTA AR Form 1350 Technical Data Questionnaire
c) A completed and signed Non-Disclosure / Non-Use Agreement
d) A copy of a valid ITAR registration
e) A signed Tissue Damage Model-Shipping Request and Software Key Form

Please send these documents to:

Department of the Army
U.S. Army Contracting Command - New Jersey
ACC-NJ-SW, BLDG. 9, Mail Stop BLDG. 10
Attn: Mr. Vincent F. Turco / Mr. Daniel Potempa
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-500

quote:

Originally posted by Fire Away:
Did anyone see this?


In the safety area In the safety area towards the bottom, the have the following:

Tabbed Trigger Safety
Magazine Disconnect Safety

I'm not sure I want either of those on my P320.

I chuckled a little bit inside from those words.

quote:

Originally posted by Fire Away:
Did anyone see this?

SIG P320 Page

In the safety area towards the bottom, the have the following:

Tabbed Trigger Safety
Magazine Disconnect Safety

I'm not sure I want either of those on my P320.

There's also this part, just above that:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig:
SAFETY WITHOUT COMPROMISE
We’ve designed safety elements into every necessary feature on this pistol. From the trigger, to the striker and even the magazine, the P320 won’t fire unless you want it to.