I am not surprised by continual upgrades to the P320. GGI announced in 2014 that they were in the process of reworking the P320. GGI’s website published a statement dated June 16, 2014 as follows:

“Howdy! Roy and I each obtained full-size SIG Sauer® P320 9mm pistols for research and development testing here at Grayguns. We’ve come up with a killer trigger system for it based on an idea Roy pursued, but that’s a subject for another time.”

I understood that Sig’s engineers and other concerned parties also sought to change/develop the P320. Some wanted tab triggers. Others wanted a thumb safety. And, others kept working to make a better P320 for various purposes. It seems that the new models such as the X5 show that development was ongoing.

It is not clear to outsiders just who contributed what engineering idea to the pistol produced at any given time. Due to non disclosure agreements, I am not sure we may ever know who’s ideas actually made it into production. But, it seems like a lot of folks were offering/demanding changes to the 320 over the last years.

How many drop fires during the R&D process should condemn a pistol as “unsafe?” I guess if one drop-fire occurred from a pistol produced off the line it would be too many unless there was some special explanation.

Maybe the problem in some of this is from not having a single development path because each path had different goals and solutions. It seems that the military version is quite different from the civilian/LEO versions.

In that June 2014 post, GGI stated that they were building something for Bianchi. The military contract was building something for the battlefield. Then GGI worked on the X5 to be the “beat all comers” competition/USPSA/IDPA pistol.

For those who know production, would those different goals have created different tolerances in the pistols? It seems so as an outside observer. It is not known if the different paths deliberately left more opportunity for a drop-fire problem.

But, it seems the paths resulted in different drop-fire risks and results.

It also seems to me that SIG is bringing the better safety features into all paths now. If SIG was truthful, they indicated that the new, safer design was already supposed to be incorporated into future production runs.

I hope the fix can be done by LEO armorers and in other ways than sending the whole pistol back to the factory. There is a lot of scuttlebutt.

quote:

When I speculated earlier in the thread that SIG used the words "commercial market" for a good reason, my speculations were validated when SIG said that there were 3 LE unintentional discharges.

While I'm aware of the "some" of the circumstances behind the one "known" AD where the officer was struck in the leg, what were the other 2? Or are we lumping those 2 in with the other? That doesn't make good sense either. How can we even know the circumstances?
Got any links??

quote:

Originally posted by Nipper:

The fix? Have you called your Senator, Congressman and the DOJ with this information?

It's well known. After Glock's protest, even those that weren't following the selection know that this really was a low bidder issue, not a which-pistol-was-superior, issue. Sans the second phase testing, no one will ever know. Two very good designs, and the lowest bid won.

The end user will never know if they got the one that passed the trials because based on price, the trials were never held.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Nipper:

The fix? Have you called your Senator, Congressman and the DOJ with this information?

It's well known. After Glock's protest, even those that weren't following the selection know that this really was a low bidder issue, not a which-pistol-was-superior, issue. Sans the second phase testing, no one will ever know. Two very good designs, and the lowest bid won.

The end user will never know if they got the one that passed the trials because based on price, the trials were never held.

Fair enough. The Army contract was not something I bothered to follow.

However, why then is it a "fix" if all contenders were competing on price? Are you saying Sig influenced the methodology used by the Army? This isn't argumentative, just trying to understand the nomenclature. Thanks.

Ok here are some assumptions and math that may also be on a white board in a conference room in Exeter NH

Say that half of the 500,000 P320 in the wild show up at Sig for upgrade.

Say that one skilled technician can process the upgrade start to finish in 10 minutes, then it will take one tech:

5,208 days to complete upgrades on all pistols, no lunch no breaks or
14.3 years to complete upgrades no holidays no vacation and work weekends

Some where in all that process is my lonesome P320.

Just speculation, waiting for Sig and GGI statements coming soon.

If I liked my P320 I would have shot it more since March '15. Ok, brag time. I own a little more than 100 firearms. A little over 80 handguns, the rest rifles. So if I "liked my P320" that much do you think I might have shot it more? Or do you consider me a "fanboi"? LOL. Can I get a dancing banana?

I like it because it is an interesting design. One of the reasons I purchase many different firearms, I like how engineers can make a bullet go boom.

Stick to the facts. Your technical analysis has been spot on from what I can see. Keep the opinion and speculation out or your analysis and you will have a solid report.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
It's well known. After Glock's protest, even those that weren't following the selection know that this really was a low bidder issue, not a which-pistol-was-superior, issue. Sans the second phase testing, no one will ever know. Two very good designs, and the lowest bid won.

The end user will never know if they got the one that passed the trials because based on price, the trials were never held.

Got any proof? Love to see it. Because this goes against EVERYTHING I have ever seen in government testing.

I object to nothing. I just ask for FACTS. FACTS which you fail to provide. I have NEVER disputed that the P320 goes off when dropped. I just ask for FACTS for all of your other SPECULATIONS.

Cut it out, guys. I thought I made it clear that there was to be no more bickering in this thread.

It's noise.

Roger.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Nipper:

The fix? Have you called your Senator, Congressman and the DOJ with this information?

It's well known. After Glock's protest, even those that weren't following the selection know that this really was a low bidder issue, not a which-pistol-was-superior, issue. Sans the second phase testing, no one will ever know. Two very good designs, and the lowest bid won.

The end user will never know if they got the one that passed the trials because based on price, the trials were never held.

Have you seen this??

According to the gao/gov report. See page 3 of 17 it states "The combination of all non-price factors was significantly more important than price.". The table on page 6 of 17 is also interesting.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf

320 fanboy here. I wasn't until I was. Once I found a small grip module, unicorn until recently, stippled it to my idea of perfection (besides looks lol), it easily shot in my hand better than any other striker fired gun. My first striker gun was a P99 which I liked a whole lot. Its a 40 though and I don't shoot those much anymore. Besides which the 320 out of the box is better, for me, than any other handgun. I like strikers for some purposes. I don't like them appendix and I don't like them for my wife to use. Her trigger discipline is lacking and I like the CZ75, as does she, for HD on her side of the bed.

The 320 is more complex than I like but I shoot it lights out (for me). I really, really want them to announce a good fix on Monday.

This is a great gun with a big problem right now. It should be fixable. Will it be a great gun for big green? Don't know.

Well I don't plan on dropping my P-320 or any other firearm I own as that would be inherently dangerous. I'll wait for Monday's update from Sig to find out what they have to say about the issue (if any) and their fix (again if any). Chris

It is my speculation that some people have their finger perpetually over the F5 key.

quote:

Originally posted by gc70:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
SPECULATION: The M17 never passed drop tests.

As previously reported by Soldier Systems (emphasis added):

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.

TOP 3-2-045 page 54 describes the drop test.

quote:

b. 1.5 Meter (5 Ft) Drop.

• Use three serviceable weapons for this test. Load each weapon with a primed but otherwise empty cartridge case to assess the possibility of accidental firing. Place the safety switch in the Safe position.
  
• Drop each weapon one time in each of the following orientations:
  
  1. Major axis horizontal (normal firing orientation).
  2. Major axis vertical, butt down.
  3. Major axis vertical, muzzle down.
  4. Major axis 45° from vertical, butt down.
  5. Major axis 45° from vertical, muzzle down.
  
  
• Drop the weapons onto a clean, level, concrete surface. They may be dropped by a mechanical means or by manually releasing them in the required orientation. Verify the proper impact orientation by video recording (preferred), or by careful visual observation, or photographic records.
  
• Inspect the weapons after each drop. Ascertain the position of the safety switch and check to see if the primed cartridge case has fired. Record all damages and all maintenance required. Conduct a firing test if the serviceability of the weapons is questionable.

So if this is the test spec, you'll noitice all drop testing is one with the safety switch in the ON position. Most civilian p320s don't have a safety switch. IMO the army test should have included tests in the switch off position for this testing to have any bearing on the civilian version.

Given that the civilian variant has no switch, and they only tested pistols with switch in the on position...their statement

"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."

Is meaningless

What does the F5 key do?

And no one knows what the DOD tests were, or can comment on them. (Although .gov small arms tests are done by the ATC small arms guys. With different locations.)

Anyone got a test report?

Regardless of performance, if one provider is 1/3 more expensive on a contract that big, they ain't gonna win it.

SIG learned from their loss in the XM9 trials, price is king.

Not saying the P320 didn't beat the Glock submission, but it seems we'll never know the details.

Depends. First you have to pass the tests. And then you have to have the capacity to deliver. Cost comes in last as a deciding factor.

Cost is only king if you have passed the other requirements. But, why not keep internet lore alive?

People who think contracts are decided solely on cost have no clue how testing works.

ETA: I doubt we will ever know the details. Every test plan I ever conducted was at a minimun FOUO. Depending on the component (comm) or test (survivability) they may be classed higher.

Maybe in 30 years someone will get a FOIA request and get a copy, I don't know.

Yeah, they aren't 'soley on cost', but a best value award is easy when you have a passing product and your competition is 1/3 more.

Sure, on a contract in the $100,000 range, you might win even being 1/3 higher

Maybe even in the low 7-figured you could sneak i out, especially if you were the favorite, at 1/3 more.

But on $100M plus contract, you need to have a couple of Senators on the take to pull being 1/3 higher.

And of course it is the given that you and your competition both passed.