quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Now, ladies and gentlemen, we are in the "picking fly shit from pepper" phase.

The "recall", as predicted pages ago, was a whole lot of nothing. Except a good excuse for the haters to throw in their "lowbidderlowbidderlowbidderlowbidder" stuff.

Has Glock ever won a LEO contract where they were NOT the low bidder?

They made their empire on being the low bidder. I can remember in the early '90s when you could buy a 17/19/22/23 for $295 on the Blue Label Program. Hell, most other manufacturers at that time might have had a "Blue Label" program, but it wasn't near as enticing. Agencies were buying factory mags at that time for around $9-10 each, and LE individual officer pricing was around $16.

It was about the time that all the folks I worked with at an agency that didn't issue weapons began to buy their own Glocks. Glock is now more contemporarily priced with the other competitors because they can. They hold a 65 percent or so market share, and it was that strategy that placed them there (along with a good product). Smith and Wesson has tried to repeat it with limited success, and now comes SIG into the market with the same strategy. It works, or they wouldn't be trying it.

Smith and Wesson was so smart about it that Safariland had holsters in all configurations before Cincinnati even had the first guns, IIRC it was even before the gun hit the streets commercially. I think that the XD never made that big a splash in LE because they didn't follow this suit.

I said it earlier in the thread, "Low bidder" will be the "Russian Collusion" of the military pistols trials from here on out.

People don't realize that nearly every weapon system used by .gov/.mil is 'lowest bidder'.

Love the tea fight tho.

The .gov dosen't award contracts to the lowest bidder; it awards them to the lowest bidder who meets all of the requirements.

A subtle but distinct difference.

I love my 320C and think it will make a fine military arm. I kinda prefer the Beretta, but time marches on.

As expected, game over. Nothing but BS. Much ado about nothing.

Latest update from thefirearmblog. Similar to tactical-life piece, but a little additional info:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...l/?from=groupmessage

Excerpts:

"I just spoke with Jordan at SIG who clarified what started this whole ball rolling downhill. An armorer at Dallas PD read an old outdated user manual which SIG has since edited. The language was confusing but caused this officer concern for the safety of the officers. DPD halted all officers from carrying the P-320 until they could contact the right person at SIG. Since the person at SIG was not in the office DPD issued the do not carry internal memo.

The SIG P-320 will now be placed back on the authorized carry list.(as soon as the powers that be approve and statement issued). The PD took this action after speaking with SIG about the language in the outdated manual and coming to an understanding once the correct information was passed to the PD. Dallas PD will take a few days to ok the P-320 for carry. DPD will issue a public statement in a few days."

From what Nipper's found, apparently it's the generic "any pistol can fire if dropped" language on the manual pages you've seen earlier in this thread. There's nothing else in the manual about dropping pistols except references to passive safeties.

Perspective-

If the firearm blog posted it, it is official. They have always acted as a cut out for SIG marketing. The staff there has a direct line to Michael Hunter apparently. When I was on Team SIG, they would get the information from SIG proper long before the team would get it. IE- We'd see that Team SIG would be here or there, before we got notified that we would be making an appearance here or there.

SIG, right or wrong, has in recent years used the Firearms Blog exclusively as a conduit to release information on products. FYI.

As to DPD, all I have to say after 20+ years of being on the job, is that the larger the ship, the harder it is to turn. These crazy memos and policy shifts are the daily occurrence that drives larger LE agencies. This is just one of many that came to the public light. A large agency can't walk back something like this overnight. It has to go from the section to the section head, up the chain through several layers of administration, and then with the same turtles pace back down the chain to resolution. It is maddening. But, it is how it works. DPD appears to have stepped in it. A serious officer safety issue was alleged, no matter how fake it was, and they just can't say "whoopsie all good" without several layers of investigation. That's just how it works.

quote:

So if the problem was caused by an outdated manual, why would a current manual have fixed the problem?

Some things in manuals are so generic and (in the grand scheme of things) unimportant that no one bothers to update them. If the TFB report is accurate, some guy somewhere just wildly overthought this thing.

It wasn't an official memo unless it had a TPS report cover sheet.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

So if the problem was caused by an outdated manual, why would a current manual have fixed the problem?

Some things in manuals are so generic and (in the grand scheme of things) unimportant that no one bothers to update them. If the TFB report is accurate, some guy somewhere just wildly overthought this thing.

Then why did Sig claim the problem is from the manual being outdated?

Why reference only the commercial market?

Someone with a brain wrote this release, why these additional word choices if they have no importance or meaning?

Wouldn't these have been better:
"The problem was caused by misreading the manual."

"The P320 has had no drop incidents in any market."

Well, I guess if you're not satisfied, then you could always send them an email or something. I'm sure they'll have a detailed response to each and every little item anyone could pick out of the flurry of reports on the subject, and I'm sure they could use some help when it comes to editing the manual in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:
Then why did Sig claim the problem is from the manual being outdated?

It is generally considered rude to issue a press release that says "The idiots at Organization X lost their minds because they cannot understand the simplest legal disclaimer."

I am here to tell you that there is no safety issues with the P320.

There was no incident, ND, or failure of a P320 of any sort that prompted the memo by Lt. Williamson.

DPD does not have any in their inventory, has never tested it, has only a couple officers carrying it so far, and none have had any issues.

The memo was simply addressing some outdated legacy language that inexplicably made it's way into one of the P320 owner's manuals. In doing due diligence just as I would have, this was questioned, SIG responded to clarify, and it was over.

All reports and online discussions to follow trace back to an article published by gunmagwarehouse.com. There was a headline stating "SIG SAUER P320 Fails Drop Test." In the article, the author reports that an anonymous reliable source within DPD stated that a P320 ND'd during training, among other inflammatory implications that proved not to be true.

I reached out, speaking for myself and Grayguns Inc., to this author on Tuesday to offer factual, verifiable information or an interview, but was rebuffed. This erroneous story was then reposted and repeated widely.

I and others knew this entire thing was bullshit from the start, but the author of this hyped up and apparently fabricated non-story from an "anonymous source" was not interested in hearing verifiable information, on the record.

And, for that record, there has never been a verified instance of any P320 firing when dropped out of the nearly 350,000 sold to date, much less a factory-spec pistol.

I have looked for such reports and followed up on everything I find, for three solud years. It hasn't happened.

The recent YouTube video pupirtibg to show a "P320 drop test" failure is an obvious fake.

I have personally bounced these puppies off of everything I can find. No go bang, ever.

This crap needs to be dismissed. The P320 is safe.

-Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Well, I guess if you're not satisfied, then you could always send them an email or something. I'm sure they'll have a detailed response to each and every little item anyone could pick out of the flurry of reports on the subject, and I'm sure they could use some help when it comes to editing the manual in the future.

Il Cattivo, at this point I'm convinced the most productive thing to do is take up a collection for RX-79G. This would fund a three day visit to Dallas in order to speak directly to the DPD armorer who started this thing. Next, a trip to Sig headquarters to discuss their inadequate responses to this nothingburger. Should those visits be unproductive, a grand jury could be convened to issue subpoenas and take testimony from the involved parties. I think we owe it to the nation, our children and spouses to get to the bottom of this. I can think of no better person to entrust with this task than RX-79G.

Whatever the cost for the above course of action, it would be well worth it. First, failure to do so will end up extending this thread to the length of the Mother of All Threads, "You will buy a Glock". Second, if these issues aren't resolved, I can see a global catastrophe in the making that would make Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth look like a fairy tale. Pony up boys.

Finally, thanks are in order to DPD for raising awareness in regards to "drop safety" issues generally. Prior to reading this thread, I never felt quite comfortable throwing my P320 on the concrete range floor, as is my practice after a bad range session. Now my nagging, subliminal fears have vanished...off to the range. Hallelujah!

P.S. Just noticed Bruce's post above after I posted. Hopefully, that is the last railroad spike in this thrice dead horse.

(Sigh.) Well, I did just get paid. Is SouthWest offering any end-of-the-summer deals?

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:
There are a thousand ways to be dismissive of this situation, and you have just found some more.

Perhaps, but...

quote:

Is there a real problem? I have no idea

So you can either worry about everything like looks like it might be a mote of dust in the air, or you can let the dust settle and see how things look then. There simply isn't enough information of substance to justify worrying to the point of needing to address every random snippet in every story about this right this instant.

You might consider actually reading what people with first hand knowledge on the topic have to say about the matter.

I won't steal his thunder, but I've spoken to Bruce Gray twice this week and in both conversations we discussed this matter. He has been ankle deep in the pursuit of the actual facts from talking to all involved parties.

He has posted a couple of times in this thread. You might consider actually reading what he posted as to the actual facts before you dismiss this as people pretending to "know" what is going on "one way or the other". He actually does know as he has been involved since this broke out. He is honest and a fair broker, to the extent if there was an actual problem he'd tell it like it is. I've known him for 15 years and his history on this forum is that he tells it like it is good or bad.

I have to wonder if this is the only firearms manual this dude has ever read. I am one of those geeky people who read owner's manuals. I've read quite a few gun manuals, and I seem to recall they all have a similar warning about drops.

Good thing they weren't carrying Glocks! Warning number 17 in the manual states:

"Never walk, climb, follow a companion or hunt with your pistol ready to fire (in battery), out of it's holster, or with the trigger in any position other than rearward".

How can this be safe for LE use???

Some additional warnings from the current user's manual included with the Glock 19:

"WARNING Although GLOCK pistols have several internal design features and mechanical safeties designed to prevent an unintentional discharge if the pistol is dropped or hit, the proper and safe function of your GLOCK pistol depends on it being used for its intended purposes and not being altered or modified. Like any other mechanical device, if your GLOCK pistol is subjected to unusual and extreme forces a part failure can occur."

"WARNING In case any of your GLOCK pistol's safeties prove to be ineffective for any reason, the possibility of an unintentional discharge exists."

"WARNING Although your GLOCK pistol has a loaded chamber indicator, it is a mechanical device which could fail."

In other words, the firearm is a mechanical device, and any part in a mechanical device can potentially fail, including drop safeties. In my experience, disclaimers of this type are standard fare in firearms manuals. I really can't see how the disclaimer in the original P320 manual is much different in this regard.

Indy, is that you?