Sig p320 recall?

[davidsog]

Well, the existing standard for safety is not going boom when dropped.
You confuse passing a SAAMI drop test with a safe design. If the 320 was a safe design it wouldn't matter what drop test was used.

Wow...

No, safe handling practices are in place because the standard you imply is impossible to meet.

SAAMI is the standard all manufacturers have to meet. That is simply fact.

can see that you're unhappy

Oh, so you have the ability to peer thru a computer and judge emotional states.

It is just a fact guy. We as American's tend to think everything is fast food with instant gratification including engineering and production lines.

It is just not that way.

It's not reasonable to pretend that this is all about OO--they were just the last straw.

Again, your assumption. It is not all about OO. It is simply a fact they have "assumed leadership" in youtube land principally for their own benefit. The reality is at odds with the perception they would like to create.

Therefore they are "lacking leadership" when it comes to getting facts out that do not promote them as the caped crusaders of pistol launchers.

Why has SIG never claimed or pointed out as much as you are saying?

I have actually read more about SIG in the two threads on this rather cliquish board than I cared too.

Some critical thinking skills in addition to what youtube tells you to think, read the DoD reports, and cross reference SIG's actions.....

You will find they are saying the same thing I am.

It is called VETTING of information. Something I am very used to doing. If we did not, then we would have shot a lot of innocent farmers simply because their neighbors wanted their farm in Afghanistan and other Durka Durka-stan's.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I’m like >< this close to bingo. Can’t you work in a SOTIC reference?

[TunnelRat]

It is not all about OO. It is simply a fact they have "assumed leadership" in youtube land principally for their own benefit.

They have a grand total of 9,673 subscribers and 48 videos on YouTube. Their last video was 5 months ago. Their video on P320 "drop safety" isn't even the most viewed video on the topic, by a difference of hundreds of thousands of views. They certainly aren't the leader of gun channels on YouTube, not even remotely. How have they assumed that role exactly?

I have actually read more about SIG in the two threads on this rather cliquish board than I cared too.

Some critical thinking skills in addition to what youtube tells you to think, read the DoD reports, and cross reference SIG's actions.....

You will find they are saying the same thing I am.

This is pretty much what I expected. Some mild ad hominems as well as the "if you were as clever as I am you'd see my conclusion is the only logical one" response. Okay then.

It is called VETTING of information. Something I am very used to doing. If we did not, then we would have shot a lot of innocent farmers simply because their neighbors wanted their farm in Afghanistan and other Durka Durka-stan's.

In both my professional and personal life I've had the opportunity to work with a number of people that were in the special operations community. It was a privilege. I found them great sources of information and people who were both great teachers and collaborators. In a number of threads now you've brought up your military service at later points in the conversation. At best they've been passingly relevant to the topic at hand, but at worst they seem to be efforts to shut down discussion by positioning yourself as the only one with enough experience to have an informed opinion and thus the penultimate authority. I find it somewhat disingenuous, and doesn't match the attitudes I've encountered from people of similar professional backgrounds.

[davidsog]

In both my professional and personal life I've had the opportunity to work with a number of people that were in the special operations community. It was a privilege. I found them great sources of information and people who were both great teachers and collaborators. In a number of threads now you've brought up your military service at later points in the conversation. At best they've been passingly relevant to the topic at hand, but at worst they seem to be efforts to shut down discussion by positioning yourself as the only one with enough experience to have an informed opinion and thus the penultimate authority. I find it somewhat disingenuous, and doesn't match the attitudes I've encountered from people of similar professional backgrounds.

Wow...

So I should not mention any experience gleaned in what amounts to my entire adult life because you are so insecure as to think it is "shutting down" a conversation?

Got it.

[TunnelRat]

I've had plenty of people share similar experiences with me without me feeling "insecure" (and for that matter I neither have the authority nor the desire to tell you what to do). The difference is, from my impression, they do it to actually provide value to a discussion, whereas you do it to present yourself as the only authority in the room as a means to try to win an argument. Your repeated use of ad hominems throughout this thread goes to my main point of that post, which is basically about intellectual honesty.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[davidsog]

We do not know that SIG was informed of a drop-fire issue in April 2017 during product verification testing of the XM17/18 or whether the issue became known during bid sample testing that started in February of 2016.

We kind of do. They won the competition and were awarded the contract in January 2017. In order for that to happen, the Pistol submitted for testing had to have passed the drop test.

The customer (DoD) tells them in no uncertain terms in April of 2017 their initial delivery did not pass PVT testing. And then in the same paragraph, DoD DIRECTS SIG to fix it. That is not a request.

If it did not pass the initial drop test then we would be talking about a vast conspiracy to cover up and award SIG the contract. We are talking a lot people who would go to jail. It is going a rabbit hole to visit Wonderland.

TunnelRat

Look, stop projecting issues and emotional blah blah and talk about guns or go join a discussion group that helps with that kind of thing when you get triggered.

You realize you are draggin the thread off topic. You are free to decide what ever you wish. I am sorry that I talk about my experiences with guns on a gun forum.

[davidsog]

Can’t you work in a SOTIC reference?

SOTIC

[TunnelRat]

I have no problem talking about guns. What you've been posting about has more to do with business practice speculation than semiautomatic firearms (the topic of this subforum) themselves. The OP has long since disappeared, and the original topic of, "is it worth doing the recall?", has long been answered and is something that even you and I agree on. I'll take your point, but you might want to follow your own advice.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[dogtown tom]

davidsog

Wow...

No, safe handling practices are in place because the standard you imply is impossible to meet.

Wrong, quite a few firearms are wholly and completely "drop safe" because their design does not allow the hammer/firing pin/striker assembly to make contact with the primer unless the trigger is pulled.

SAAMI is the standard all manufacturers have to meet. That is simply fact.

Well, wrong again. SAAMI standards are voluntary. There is no law that requires a firearm manufacturer to join, much less abide by SAAMI specs. That, sir, is simply fact.
If you removed your SIG branded eyewear long enough to do five minutes of Googling you would know this.

[JohnKSa]

Let's see if we can stop the personal attacks and also minimize the "I'm X and/or have done X so I obviously know more than everyone else." arguments.

This is, in the final analysis, a pretty straightforward topic with a lot of facts available and therefore, since we are all adults, we should be able to discuss it based on the facts, without having to resort to personal attacks and urination Olympiads.

Oh, so you have the ability to peer thru a computer and judge emotional states.

Fair enough.

Allow me to rephrase: I can see that you are either unhappy or are doing your absolutely level best to make it seem that you are unhappy about how things have turned out.

Therefore they are "lacking leadership" when it comes to getting facts out...

I confess I'm not even sure what this means.

It is simply a fact they have "assumed leadership" in youtube land principally for their own benefit. The reality is at odds with the perception they would like to create.

Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "assuming leadership". They were not the only people to post videos, but they do appear to have been the first. If being the first was "assuming leadership" then I guess one could say that they "assumed leadership".

It seems that this is boiling down more to your apparent dislike of OO than to any objection to the actual content they posted. Maybe rather than trying to interpret OO's motives (especially since you seem to be against this type of approach when it is applied to you) it would be better to focus more on the veracity of their claims and the validity of their results.