quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by lordhamster:
If I ever accidentally drop a P320, I'll be sure to consult the ANSI/SAAMI standards first.

*sigh* This is what I meant by "histrionics."

Look: SAAMI and ANSI develop their standards based as well as they can on real-life reproducible and repeatable tests and measurements. Just like NHTSA, NTSB, etc. Saying what you said would be like saying "If I ever get in an auto accident I'll be sure to consult NHTSA standards, first."

C'mon, people, get a freakin' grip.

Oh I think we are just having a little fun with the way the letter was written.

The fact is that when it comes to this particular issue nobody cares that you don't have to pull the trigger disassemble or that the Sig met the requirements of some standardized test, which clearly appears to be pretty limited. People care that their guns might go bang if dropped. Sig could have lead with that and left all the irrelevant bullshit out of the letter. But they choose to open with it so we choose to razz them a bit for their choice.

Speaking only for myself I would still buy a P320 and I will still recommend it to people if asked. I will wait to find out what the fixes are and make sure those are implemented in any P320 I own but it isn't like Sig is on my shitlist. They are fixing it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BuddyChryst:
......SIG thoroughly tested their design according to the industry standards and found no issues. I presume others did as well.....

......people started doing their own drop tests and someone apparently found a sweet spot that hadn't previously been discovered......

......SIG made a statement based on the best information available at the time, then the available information changed./QUOTE]

All of the above. That's why I posted the SAAMI/ANSI standards. If one feels they don't adequately address the drop safety issue in question, the GD standards should be changed. Simple enough? Don't carpet bomb the manufacturer for following the commonly accepted standards. Fair enough?

In the 8/8/2017 release, Sig has somewhat admitted this by stating: "Recent events indicate that dropping the P320 beyond U.S. standards for safety may cause an unintentional discharge." Note the phrase "beyond U.S. standards". That's the SAAMI/ANSI stuff. Presumably, they are now offering an effective remedy that exceeds "U.S. standards". Out of necessity of course, not because they got caught hiding something. Now some posters are bitchin over style points.

Space to earth...with the trial bar you'd better be DAMNED careful how you respond to issues like this. Listen to your lawyers...or die. While us SF members would like a one hour turnaround time from Sig on this, that ain't how it works.

Finally, anybody that takes tort lawsuit bull crap at it's face value, has something to learn about our legal system. See the post from rjbaal posted August 08, 2017 10:34 AM. He's a trial attorney. He might know something about tort lawsuits. Buying into stuff introduced in tort cases is like relying on divorce court documents to asses a person's character. For anybody with an ex, you know what I mean.

I think you are confusing "histrionics" with sarcasm. Look it up.

Sig may have passed the bare minimum testing requirements set forth by ANSI/SAAMI. That doesn't make this particular scenario any less damaging or problematic. Especially given the ease with which this scenario can be repeated... and even more so because they are ALREADY being sued over this very issue.

CLEARLY, the standard testing procedures are inadequate in this case and mentioning them in this letter is a CYA legalese move.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by lordhamster:
If I ever accidentally drop a P320, I'll be sure to consult the ANSI/SAAMI standards first.

*sigh* This is what I meant by "histrionics."

Look: SAAMI and ANSI develop their standards based as well as they can on real-life reproducible and repeatable tests and measurements. Just like NHTSA, NTSB, etc. Saying what you said would be like saying "If I ever get in an auto accident I'll be sure to consult NHTSA standards, first."

C'mon, people, get a freakin' grip.

The denials and playing down of a known issue is some real Taurus level stuff.

Curious as to what the upgrades will be. I have a feeling it may be a different trigger and maybe a heavier spring. Just gotta wait another week.

quote:

Originally posted by comet24:

quote:

Originally posted by ScopeX5:
So then is it fair to say that GGI and Apex are selling unsafe triggers as of right this moment? If indeed a trigger tab is needed, what does this mean for our aftermarket triggers?

So this is your first post here. Good job you've managed to insult two respected custom shops.

While there may be a problem with the gun not sure I would make the jump from the manufactory to these shops.

Foolish

Fact is I wasn't insulting anyone. Simply stating a fact. Will GGI and Apex now have to up a warning on their trigger kits that the guns maybe less drop safe? It depends on what the fix from Sig is and how it interacts with their triggers.

quote:

Originally posted by Mustang-PaPa:
So I'll have a guess that the cost to ship your 320 into Sig for the "voluntary recall" will be on your dime and not Sigs?
Guess if it was mandatory Sig would have to pay the shipping...

My wife had a Walther CCP that was affected by that recall several months back. In that case, Walther paid the cost both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by ScopeX5:

quote:

Originally posted by comet24:

quote:

Originally posted by ScopeX5:
So then is it fair to say that GGI and Apex are selling unsafe triggers as of right this moment? If indeed a trigger tab is needed, what does this mean for our aftermarket triggers?

So this is your first post here. Good job you've managed to insult two respected custom shops.
While there may be a problem with the gun not sure I would make the jump from the manufactory to these shops.
Foolish

Fact is I wasn't insulting anyone. Simply stating a fact. Will GGI and Apex now have to up a warning on their trigger kits that the guns maybe less drop safe? It depends on what the fix from Sig is and how it interacts with their triggers.

Perfectly reasonable question.

OP, don't take it personally. This has turned into a runaway over heated thread. Lots of tempers are flaring. My opinion, of course.

Welcome to the forum.

SIG should be paying for shipment of each customers gun to get fixed. Anything less will further harm the tarnished reputation they have earned.

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmdude:
SIG should be paying for shipment of each customers gun to get fixed. Anything less will further harm the tarnished reputation they have earned.

How hard is it to change the trigger? I have never seen the insides of a P320 but it has to be pretty easy right?

Maybe owners can ask for a tabbed trigger to be sent to them for free instead of having to send the gun back. Even if Sig is paying for shipping I would ask for that option as I hate having to send my gun away. If the tabbed trigger is the answer I mean.

FWIW Sig paid for shipping on my early model C3 which had an improperly designed barrel that caused it to fail. There was never a recall for that issue either but they still paid. I'd wait until the 14th before making assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
How hard is it to change the trigger? I have never seen the insides of a P320 but it has to be pretty easy right?

Yes, it is really easy, and can be done with no tools.

Getting the spring reattached to the trigger bar is a little fiddly, but it's a very simple job overall.

So has it been conceded that the videos weren't fakes???

I know the Glock-Conspirators are crafty bastards, but I doubt SIG would be drafting letters and preparing a website for 'voluntary upgrades' just for those polymer-loving freaks.



It will be interesting to see how the shipping issue goes with SIG... pretty confident they are going to fuck that up. Just a wild asses guess.

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:


Any consumer product can be subject to a recall. Not sure what you're saying.

The G33 frame rail thing wasn't likely to cause an AD, was it?

Sorry. I was speaking English.

It was not termed a recall. Glock preferred to call it an "upgrade," and it was far from limited to the G33.

No, the rail failing did not cause negligent discharges. In fact, in the few failures that did occur, the weapons kept functioning.

From the end-user perspective, the possibility of the weapon failing during use is more than enough cause to return the firearm.

It was a recall. Glock simply chose to call it an "upgrade." Much like Sig has chosen to do.

Still beter than s&w which flatly refuses to honor their warranty when the frame splits...

Im curious as to what parts they will use to make it safe......and why not just use those parts to begin with? They seem to have all these parts/upgrades ready to go......its almsot like they ve known about this for a while and were working on a solution for a while behind the scenes.

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
Im curious as to what parts they will use to make it safe......and why not just use those parts to begin with? They seem to have all these parts/upgrades ready to go......its almsot like they ve known about this for a while and were working on a solution for a while behind the scenes.

No, SIG just built all the parts last night after seeing the videos....

quote:

Originally posted by Fire Away:
SIG failing sure is like a wet dream for some folks on here.

No it isn't. Please don't pour gas on a real fire. You honestly think your statement is true? Please don't let fanboy glasses cloud your vision. Nobody here wants to see them fail. Because....an issue with this pistol just gives (I won't name any politician's name) anti-2A folks another reason or play in their playbook to go out and state we shouldn't be able to buy guns, etc. So this isn't good for anyone, even the people who don't care for the Cohen era Sig.

I don't own any of their products any longer, got out of the Sig game years ago after I bought a P224 that failed, and a 2022, one required full replacement, the other trips to Exeter to get it running right. I was quite vocal about their QC problems, and design problems in their 224. So even I, who have sworn them off completely, well I would never want to see this happen to them nor any firearm mfr. It isn't good for anyone that is pro 2A. I hope they get this fixed and quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by ScopeX5:

quote:

Originally posted by comet24:

quote:

Originally posted by ScopeX5:
So then is it fair to say that GGI and Apex are selling unsafe triggers as of right this moment? If indeed a trigger tab is needed, what does this mean for our aftermarket triggers?

So this is your first post here. Good job you've managed to insult two respected custom shops.

While there may be a problem with the gun not sure I would make the jump from the manufactory to these shops.

Foolish

Fact is I wasn't insulting anyone. Simply stating a fact. Will GGI and Apex now have to up a warning on their trigger kits that the guns maybe less drop safe? It depends on what the fix from Sig is and how it interacts with their triggers.

As I understand it the issue with these guns discharging a round when dropped a certain way is a factory design. Putting a aftermarket trigger in these guns does not cause the problem. Maybe it doesn't solve it but it is not the root cause of the problem.

Maybe I miss understood what you were saying.

It would appear that SIG already has a repair ready to go because the M17 Military guns already have the changes.. Soooo, it would appear that SIG knew that there was a better way of doing things. I'm disappointed that the resident expert said that the P320 could NEVER fire when dropped and that the video of it doing just that was an "obvious fake". It seems that SIG knew something that others did not. Never say never, don't be a fanboy and don't say that you are 100% certain of any machine. They will bite you on the ass.

quote:

Originally posted by WARPIG602:
Im curious as to what parts they will use to make it safe......and why not just use those parts to begin with? They seem to have all these parts/upgrades ready to go......its almsot like they ve known about this for a while and were working on a solution for a while behind the scenes.

Today's TTAG article contains a strong indication of why parts are readily available:

"Upgrades were engineered subsequently*, rolled into the M17s that are now shipping, and will appear as standard in commercial P320s in the future."

"For owners of current, commercial P320s, SIG is offering voluntary upgrades."

(* subsequent to the start of MHS testing)