Sig's "voluntary upgrade program" sig p320 drop fire

[rifleman0311]

P320 was my first Sig. I'm not worried about it firing when dropped bc I know they will fix it. Sounds like they are "doing us a favor" rather than recalling it. Anyone else agree? I don't care what "tests" they did, it fires when dropped, let's call a spade a spade. I went online and filled out the required info and haven't heard anything back so this will be a long drawn out process. They should admit they messed up rather than say no big deal. Got a p320c 9mm for sale, pm me if interested

[pat701]

I am a Sig guy here. Don't like striker fired pistols. I completely trust Sig DA/SA pistols with my life.

[CDW4ME]

Don't have a Sig, that being said, I thought this funny:

[qwiksdraw]

The Germans call it Schadenfreude – taking pleasure at the misfortune of others.

[Uncle Malice]

What a strange post. In the same couple of sentences, you went from saying that you liked the gun and were confident that Sig would make it right, and then on to how Sig is screwing up the process and you are selling your P320.

Seems like a post of no substance. The voluntary upgrade is a well documented discussion if you use the search feature.

[TunnelRat]

While I don't disagree with your sentiments, we did have a number of threads on the issue back when it was just coming out. Like you I signed up and like you I haven't heard anything back and frankly at this point I have no idea when they will be sending out labels for the returns.

[rifleman0311]

Not a strange post at all. What I'm saying is the actual pistol doesn't bother me, it will be fixed by Sig but the way they are handling it bothers me. Guess I need to break it down Barney style for you unc

[SA1911]

pat701.

We're two of a kind. I love my P239.

I own no striker fire handguns.

[TunnelRat]

To be honest I agree with Uncle to an extent in that I did re-read that first post a few times as I found it a bit contradictory at first.

I don't care what "tests" they did

The "tests" they did are the standard industry drop tests. Part of the revelation of all of this should be that the standard industry drop tests are rather lacking in that they only tested two drop orientations and those orientations happened to prevent the rear of the slide impacting the ground first, which is what seems to cause the failure as the P320 passes the standard tests.

I wouldn't say I'm "defending" SIG, but they are correct to point out that by the industry standards the pistol is drop safe. Does that mean I don't think the issue should be fixed? Of course not, especially as other pistols that were tested at the same orientation did pass that same test. However, I am not convinced I can say SIG didn't do their due diligence as I haven't seen evidence that other manufacturers do include these angled drops in their standard tests. My bigger gripe is related to when SIG learned of this issue originally.

As to not liking the way they are handling it, the best advice I can give there is speak with your wallet. Hold off on buying more SIG products for a time.

Also, I own a number of both hammer fired and striker fired pistols. This incident doesn't make me toss out a method of primer ignition that has been around since before the 20th Century.

[rifleman0311]

So what they are saying is they "meet industry standards" but the competition goes above them? I won't remain a Sig consumer and stick with my Glocks

[jmr40]

I don't have one, at least not yet. An undetected defect can happen with any manufactured product. But Sig is doing the right thing. Good for them.

Striker fired vs hammer fired isn't the issue here. Lots of hammer fired guns over the years would have failed too.

[rifleman0311]

It's shady, calling it an upgrade?? Almost comical. Guns get recalled all the time and I have no issues with a firearm being recalled but to voluntarily upgrade a firearm that could potentially kill you when loaded and dropped should be recalled; not upgraded period.

[xcc_rider]

It's an industry standard test just like the crash tests on cars. Sure they meet the industry standard but some how some yokel will find a way to crash it in a different way and be injured. It's not flawed, it's just impossible to predict how far someone will go to find a way to make it fail.

There's been other threads on the same subject with the same back and forth crap.

Do other manufacturers do more testing? Sure. Does Sig do more? Don't know but I'm sure if someone takes a handgun, almost any handgun and spends countless hours dropping it in countless ways that they'll eventually find that it will fire when dropped at (hypothetical) 29.736 degrees from the inverse quadrangle from 18 ft onto a carved granite polar bear.

Voluntary? Sure because there is no way to make anything perfectly safe under any condition.
I'm sure they'll contact you for the upgrade. It's not like they're busy or anything...

If you're unhappy with it you can sell your flawed handgun for $20. Just pm me when you're ready.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by rifleman0311

So what they are saying is they "meet industry standards" but the competition goes above them?

What they're saying is that industry standard drop tests failed to uncover an unusual failure mode that SIG seemingly didn't anticipate.

It's unclear to what degree other manufacturers drop-test their pistols above and beyond SIG standards, and whether their tests would have uncovered this specific problem.

Oftentimes, a unique design aspect of a manufactured product will cause it to fail in a specific, unusual, and unanticipated way that doesn't affect nominally similar competing products. However, the mere fact that other products don't fail in the same way doesn't necessarily prove that other manufacturers specifically know better or conduct superior tests. They could simply be lucky.

As with TunnelRat, I'm not necessarily trying to defend SIG. I'm just pointing out that releasing the pistol with this design flaw isn't necessarily the result of outright negligence on their part. I do, however, agree that they could have handled the initial situation better.

[Ricklin]

Their response is typical corporate.

Deny and obfuscate. All courtesy of their corporate attorneys.

All one has to do when dealing with any corporation is distill it down to dollars, it's the only language they speak.

[TunnelRat]

So what they are saying is they "meet industry standards" but the competition goes above them? I won't remain a Sig consumer and stick with my Glocks

I doubt that Glock did more drop tests than SIG nor have I seen or read anything that would indicate that is true. It's simply that Glock's use of the trigger tab prevents this issue for being a problem for them as opposed to SIG's method. The difference in performance here is from the design itself, not from a lack of testing on one side or more testing on the other.

carguychris touches on what I was trying to say earlier quite well.

If you want to go away from SIG because of this that's certainly your option. I guess I'm over the initial "outrage" from this because frankly it's been a number of weeks now since this all broke and a number of us already vented on this topic.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My main gripe with SIG is that their initial response reflected poorly on them. At the same time they are being sued for that particular defect, they are telling consumers: "There have been zero (0) reported drop-related P320 incidents in the U.S. commercial market, with hundreds of thousands of guns delivered to date."

That's a classic "debateably, technically, true but hides the truth" answer crafted by a lawyer. It was only after the individual youtube videos demonstrating the defect started showing up that they started dealing with their customers in a more open and forthright manner.

[pblanc]

The buzz is that SIG is going to give priority first to LE P320s, and will next modify existing new stock P320s before accepting any civilian customers' pistols for modification.

I have read that it will be another 6 weeks or more before any of us sitting in the cheap seats will receive shipping labels.

[ritepath]

Don't even send it in, it's a stupid waste of time. Shoot it and enjoy it just like you did before some ID10T glock fan started throwing one on the ground just being a dumba$$. Then all the butthurt glock fans jumped on the "SEE! Sigs are just range toys too!"

[balance]

However, I am not convinced I can say SIG didn't do their due diligence as I haven't seen evidence that other manufacturers do include these angled drops in their standard tests.

Most (if not all) other comparable polymer pistols have a drop safety on the trigger. Sig chose to not put a drop safety on the trigger. Most (if not all) other polymer pistols will not fail and discharge a round from a drop as little as two and a half feet high. Most (if not all) other polymer pistols meet standards higher than the "industry standards".

Those were the facts. My belief is that most (if not all) other manufacturers knew that their pistols would likely go off if dropped in a muzzle up position, and chose to add a drop safety on the trigger. All Sig had to do, was to look at almost every other polymer pistol design, and ask themselves, why are they putting those tabs on their triggers. Why is EVERYONE else putting those tabs on their triggers?

Either Sig did this on purpose, which I doubt, or they just didn't know, which is still very bad for different reasons, in my opinion. I don't think people should just brush this off as "you can't test from every angle", when every other manufacturer put a drop safety on the trigger to avoid the very issue that Sig is having with their P320 pistols.

Anyone who wants to tell me that any pistol can fire from a drop, can feel free to show me what it takes to make any other comparable pistol do so. I have no doubt that people have been dropping every other pistol imaginable after the Sig P320 fiasco, and so far, nobody has been able to duplicate a discharge from a drop of as little as two and a half feet from the ground.

The Germans call it Schadenfreude – taking pleasure at the misfortune of others.

I have a completely opposite opinion. I don't think people are getting riled up enough. I don't take pleasure in knowing that a police officer got shot while his pistol, still in its holster, fired a round into his leg after it dropped on the ground.

Anyone who does can feel free to defend Sig and their "voluntary upgrade". Personally, I believe the amount of support they have received, to include responses along the lines of "it's no big deal" or "any pistol can fire if dropped", are beyond ridiculous.

Now let me see and read the disagreements, but if you do so, please explain exactly why you do, so I can better understand your argument to the contrary, because as of right now, I just don't.

[TunnelRat]

That case with the officer hasn't been settled yet. Maybe it was the P320, but there are plenty of officers that have hurt gen selves through negligence. If it ends up being the pistol's fault by all means best SIG over the head with the case, I just think use it as an example is premature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The point is that on the same day the suit was filed in Connecticut court (which means SIG likely received a demand letter before that), they are telling consumers there had been zero reports of such a failure.

And the complaint alleges that the pistol was in a specific Safariland holster when it discharged after being dropped, which narrows it down quite a bit.

I'm not saying SIG is at fault in that case, though the facts alleged look very grim for them; but to turn around and tell consumers on the same day the suit is filed there were zero reports? That incident happened on January 5, 2017. For us to believe the zero reports story, we have to believe that neither the officer nor the department contacted SIG to say "Hey, your pistol just went off after being dropped in a secured holster!" until the very day of their announcement and that this was simply unfortunate timing for SIG.

The other alternative is SIG knew about the report and either didn't classify it as a drop-related incident (which seems difficult to accept based on the complaint) or decided that LE and military sales were not the "commercial market" and so they could make that statement with a straight face and reassure their consumers even though there had been report(s?) of drop-related failures concerning the same model of pistol being sold on the "commercial market."

That second approach is not the way I'd wish to be treated as a consumer and even if technically correct, would be quite upsetting to me. Not to mention the way they underbussed DPD in that deal.

[TunnelRat]

Again I am not defending SIG, but no I don't personally consider an non-settled lawsuit a "report". In that case there are reports of practically everything. Maybe the word "report" should have been chosen differently.

[balance]

And the complaint alleges that the pistol was in a specific Safariland holster when it discharged after being dropped, which narrows it down quite a bit.

It was allegedly caught on camera as well.

The other alternative is SIG knew about the report and either didn't classify it as a drop-related incident (which seems difficult to accept based on the complaint) or decided that LE and military sales were not the "commercial market" and so they could make that statement with a straight face and reassure their consumers even though there had been report(s?) of drop-related failures concerning the same model of pistol being sold on the "commercial market."

This is so obviously the case here, that I wonder if people like it when manufacturers lie to them.

It is amazing how quickly Sig became aware of the issue, tested the design, found the issue, came up with a fix, manufactured the new parts, tested the new design, and offered a "voluntary recall". What did it take? About a day?

Also amazing that Sig knew immediately that the M17 was not effected.

Also, the post about halfway down the page here seems to indicate that a "civilian" in the "commercial market" did report a drop fire directly to Sig.

http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc...930050824/p/61

So even with their clever wording, to include the "commercial market", I believe they still lied to us.

Again I am not defending SIG, but no I don't personally consider an non-settled lawsuit a "report". In that case there are reports of practically everything. Maybe the word "report" should have been chosen differently.

Do you not believe that the officer and/or police department reported the issue to Sig?

Look about halfway down the page here to see the quote below:

https://www.sigsauer.com/products/fi.../pistols/p320/

Safety without compromise.

Safety isn’t negotiable. The P320 maximizes peace of mind with a robust safety system. Never again will you need to pull the trigger to disassemble your pistol. And, while available as an option, you won’t need a tabbed trigger safety for your gun to be drop safe.

Another lie, that would seem to indicate that Sig knew why other manufacturers put that tab on the trigger, which goes back to due diligence with their testing protocols.

Also, the tabbed trigger was never available, so if you wanted to, I guess you could count this as another lie.

It doesn't get any more obvious than this. What more do you guys need?

[TunnelRat]

Need for what exactly? To know that SIG took the corporate excuse way out of the situation? Heck I knew that long before you posted about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk