Apex wants their P320 Triggers back - Page 2

gglass · August 23, 2017, 01:03 PM

presspics · August 24, 2017, 12:18 PM

I'm going to have to agree with Water-Man's post and rebuttal. First, If it wasn't for the internet then almost nobody would have known about this extremely rare occurrence. Second, Nowhere in water-Man's post did he say that he wasn't going to get his gun upgraded. He simply said that people are blowing this problem out of proportion and that is true. He also said that he likes the P320 and won't be getting rid of his. Hundreds of thousands of people will be doing the same. Hundreds of police departments won't be dumping it either.

Part of the problem with people today is that they try to read between the lines of what is being said or written. Read and Comprehend what Water-Man said NOT what you interpret him as saying.

turtlehead · August 24, 2017, 06:40 PM

I don't think the problem is being blown out of proportion. The problem is if the gun is dropped and lands a certain way it can go off.

That might be acceptable to some but maybe the rest of us should get a vote, too. That bullet is not going to discriminate about who it hits.

chardin · August 24, 2017, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by presspics

Read and Comprehend what Water-Man said NOT what you interpret him as saying.

When you find yourself tempted to type in capitals, you might ask yourself some questions:

Why doesn't my argument carry enough force without yelling?
Would I shout if I were face to face with this person?
What would I expect to happen if I did?

iraiam · August 24, 2017, 10:57 PM

Cleary Apex and Grayguns want to limit their liabiity with respect to the P320 trigger issue. If a dropped P320 discharges with one of their triggers in it and injures or kills someone, surely the fact it had an aftermarket trigger would be brought up by someone.

WVsig · August 25, 2017, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by presspics

I'm going to have to agree with Water-Man's post and rebuttal. First, If it wasn't for the internet then almost nobody would have known about this extremely rare occurrence. Second, Nowhere in water-Man's post did he say that he wasn't going to get his gun upgraded. He simply said that people are blowing this problem out of proportion and that is true. He also said that he likes the P320 and won't be getting rid of his. Hundreds of thousands of people will be doing the same. Hundreds of police departments won't be dumping it either.

Part of the problem with people today is that they try to read between the lines of what is being said or written. Read and Comprehend what Water-Man said NOT what you interpret him as saying.

Well when asked directly is he going to send his pistol in he went silent. Hey its no big deal if he does not want to send his pistol in. It is his gun and his liability. I don't really care what he does. My post was to bring to light the possibility that there are liability issue if you choose not to upgrade the P320. It was not a personal attack.

I do not think that it is being blown out of proportion. The gun has a flaw and that flaw has been brought to light. The internet helped facilitate that which IMHO is a great thing. If the internet did not exist Sig would not have issue a voluntary upgrade. They would have fixed them only if there was a reported problem with a particular gun while making changes to their current production.

Sig new there was a problem. They were addressing it internally which is clear because the changes were integrated into the M17 pistol. They did not admit there was and issue until the Dallas PD story started circulating and then the CT LEOs lawsuit. Once that lawsuit was filed they could no longer keep it under wraps. They were clearly running under the Pinto principle. You know there is a defect which could cause harm but the bean counters tell you it is cheaper to settle the lawsuits then recall and fix the problem. I guess the bean counters changed their mind after talking to the lawyers.

Spad_XIII · August 26, 2017, 07:40 PM

"Sig knew there was a problem. They were addressing it internally which is clear because the changes were integrated into the M17 pistol. They did not admit there was and issue until the Dallas PD story started circulating and then the CT LEOs lawsuit. Once that lawsuit was filed they could no longer keep it under wraps. They were clearly running under the Pinto principle. You know there is a defect which could cause harm but the bean counters tell you it is cheaper to settle the lawsuits then recall and fix the problem. I guess the bean counters changed their mind after talking to the lawyers."

I don't think Sig has acted ethically here and I believe that greatly damages their reputation.

What? Since Sig already knew of the safety issue, a problem in design that could easily get innocent people killed, why did they not come straight out and inform their non-military customers? Instead, the hid it and continued to sell a dangerous product to an unknowing public.

Second, as part of the "voluntary upgrade" Sig promises an alternate design, " . . . adding a mechanical disconnector." What is this? a manual safety? a Glock-like trigger-shoe safety? Why would I want such a thing? I bought my two P320s because I liked the smooth trigger and lack of manual safety --- AND because of Sig's reputation. Now that none of those things are operative, why should I not have bought another Glock G19/23?

Finally, if a gun has to hollow out the trigger and lighten components to make it safe, is it really a good design at all? That sounds like a kind of rigged-up Band-Aid for a fundamental design flaw. Why is our military buying this? Why not re-open trials and see if Sig's "Alternate Design" is still competitive with other entrants. If it is an "Alternate Design" then it is not the gun that was originally tested against Glock et. al.

August 23, 2017, 01:03 PM	#26
gglass Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2008 Location: Indiana Posts: 638	__________________ "...shall not be infringed." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states).

August 24, 2017, 12:18 PM	#27
presspics Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2001 Location: NH Posts: 343	I'm going to have to agree with Water-Man's post and rebuttal. First, If it wasn't for the internet then almost nobody would have known about this extremely rare occurrence. Second, Nowhere in water-Man's post did he say that he wasn't going to get his gun upgraded. He simply said that people are blowing this problem out of proportion and that is true. He also said that he likes the P320 and won't be getting rid of his. Hundreds of thousands of people will be doing the same. Hundreds of police departments won't be dumping it either. Part of the problem with people today is that they try to read between the lines of what is being said or written. Read and Comprehend what Water-Man said NOT what you interpret him as saying. __________________ "Quid Clarius Astris"

August 24, 2017, 10:57 PM	#30
iraiam Senior Member Join Date: September 6, 2012 Location: Lakewood, CO Posts: 1,057	Cleary Apex and Grayguns want to limit their liabiity with respect to the P320 trigger issue. If a dropped P320 discharges with one of their triggers in it and injures or kills someone, surely the fact it had an aftermarket trigger would be brought up by someone. __________________ NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason

August 24, 2017, 06:40 PM	#28
turtlehead Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2015 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,203	I don't think the problem is being blown out of proportion. The problem is if the gun is dropped and lands a certain way it can go off. That might be acceptable to some but maybe the rest of us should get a vote, too. That bullet is not going to discriminate about who it hits.

August 26, 2017, 07:40 PM	#32
Spad_XIII Junior Member Join Date: August 25, 2017 Posts: 1	"Sig knew there was a problem. They were addressing it internally which is clear because the changes were integrated into the M17 pistol. They did not admit there was and issue until the Dallas PD story started circulating and then the CT LEOs lawsuit. Once that lawsuit was filed they could no longer keep it under wraps. They were clearly running under the Pinto principle. You know there is a defect which could cause harm but the bean counters tell you it is cheaper to settle the lawsuits then recall and fix the problem. I guess the bean counters changed their mind after talking to the lawyers." I don't think Sig has acted ethically here and I believe that greatly damages their reputation. What? Since Sig already knew of the safety issue, a problem in design that could easily get innocent people killed, why did they not come straight out and inform their non-military customers? Instead, the hid it and continued to sell a dangerous product to an unknowing public. Second, as part of the "voluntary upgrade" Sig promises an alternate design, " . . . adding a mechanical disconnector." What is this? a manual safety? a Glock-like trigger-shoe safety? Why would I want such a thing? I bought my two P320s because I liked the smooth trigger and lack of manual safety --- AND because of Sig's reputation. Now that none of those things are operative, why should I not have bought another Glock G19/23? Finally, if a gun has to hollow out the trigger and lighten components to make it safe, is it really a good design at all? That sounds like a kind of rigged-up Band-Aid for a fundamental design flaw. Why is our military buying this? Why not re-open trials and see if Sig's "Alternate Design" is still competitive with other entrants. If it is an "Alternate Design" then it is not the gun that was originally tested against Glock et. al.