Dallas PD pulls the P320 from their Approved List.

[TunnelRat]

I'm a bit confused on the timeline. So did the blog post cause the Lieutenant to look at the manual, or was it just the perfect storm of two things going wrong at once?

[sigarms228]

I am pretty sure the blog had nothing to do with him reading the manual. He read the manual, which is a good thing, but got the impression that the P320 was not drop safe from the warning in the manual which led to the temporary ban on using P320 in the department. Then it came out that someone at DPD had an AD dropping a P320 during training and that SIG was looking into a way to fix the defect but that later was retracted.

[TunnelRat]

Lol, excellent.

[Independent George]

As near as I can tell based on the incomplete information, it went something like this:

1. DPD officer reads the freaking manual (hurray!).
2. DPD officer freaks out over the boilerplate on not dropping the gun (ruh-roh).
3. Freakout goes up the chain of command.
4. DPD bureaucracy reaches out to SIG for an explanation, but nobody's home.
5. DPD bureaucracy sends out the order to stop using the 320 until Sig fixes the 'defect'.
6. TFB gets a hold of the DPD email, and posts
7. SIG reads the blog post, then checks their voicemail
8. SIG contacts DPD, and says "Nyet! Pistol is fine!"
9. SIG issues press release saying, "Nyet! Pistol is fine!"

Apparently, at no point was there a negligent or accidental discharge - this was confirmed by both DPD and SIG.

We still don't have any official statement from DPD, though, so who knows what else is going on?

[44 AMP]

I would agree that is a very plausible chain of events, except for one small thing...

SIG would not say "Nyet", they would say "Nein!"

[Independent George]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I would agree that is a very plausible chain of events, except for one small thing...

SIG would not say "Nyet", they would say "Nein!"

Or whatever the New Hampshire equivalent is...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Water-Man]

Glock would say Ja.

[Model12Win]

Just like the Berettas having slides fly off, here we go! The brand new service pistol gets its own urban legend!!

[hdwhit]

WyMark wrote:
I wonder if the DPD P320's will be available for cheap?

No.

Sig will take them back and destroy them.

The drop vulnerability is now a "known defect". If Sig knowingly sells a product with a known defect it is liable for any damage or injury caused by that defect. And since they don't want to subject themselves to unlimited liability - particularly the liability that might arise from selling the pistols to people who are heedless of the danger - they will not be sold, but destroyed.

[Model12Win]

I wonder if any M17s have been delivered yet? And if so, will they be destroyed?

[TunnelRat]

The drop vulnerability is now a "known defect". If Sig knowingly sells a product with a known defect it is liable for any damage or injury caused by that defect. And since they don't want to subject themselves to unlimited liability - particularly the liability that might arise from selling the pistols to people who are heedless of the danger - they will not be sold, but destroyed.

Did you actually read the whole thread?

[TunnelRat]

I wonder if any M17s have been delivered yet? And if so, will they be destroyed?

See post 48.

[OhioGuy]

I'm glad to see the "fake news" was swiftly corrected. But what amazes me is this: some erroneous story about anything will surface and spread like wildfire. But the correction or retraction to that story seems to get little airplay. I don't doubt that people will still be shying away from this gun 2 years from now because some guy at a gun shop who knew some guy who visited Dallas once, heard it's not drop-safe.

The only clear solution is to buy one for $500 and then repeatedly slam it into the ground to see whether it'll fire. Or ride over it on a horse. Then put it on YouTube. Then we'll finally have our answer.

[Independent George]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I'm glad to see the "fake news" was swiftly corrected. But what amazes me is this: some erroneous story about anything will surface and spread like wildfire. But the correction or retraction to that story seems to get little airplay. I don't doubt that people will still be shying away from this gun 2 years from now because some guy at a gun shop who knew some guy who visited Dallas once, heard it's not drop-safe.

But it wasn't the story which was erroneous - DPD did actually remove the 320 from their approved guns list based on a misreading of the manual by one of their officers. It was the DPD officer (and everyone within the bureaucracy) who flipped out over some boilerplate language in the manual that was in error. The reporting accurately reflected that.


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by hdwhit

The drop vulnerability is now a "known defect". If Sig knowingly sells a product with a known defect it is liable for any damage or injury caused by that defect. And since they don't want to subject themselves to unlimited liability - particularly the liability that might arise from selling the pistols to people who are heedless of the danger - they will not be sold, but destroyed.

This is a remarkably and wholly false statement that should be deleted before it gets echoed all over the internets by the Google bot. You should read more of this thread before making this kind of ridiculous statement as though it were fact.

[zipspyder]

This is a remarkably and wholly false statement that should be deleted before it gets echoed all over the internets by the Google bot. You should read more of this thread before making this kind of ridiculous statement as though it were fact.

To late. It's over at arfcom being blown way out of control as well. Every time someone tries to explain the facts and actual reality they throw up a pic from the old manual of Sig saying the pistol may discharge when dropped. They've since updated their manual but haters won't let it go.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They've since updated their manual but haters won't let it go.

Those are just trolls amusing themselves with the issue du jour.

[Chui]

Originally Posted by sigarms228

The DPD had been saying that there was an incident where someone dropped a P320 during training and claiming it went off by itself calling it an AD which prompted the recall. Now their spokesperson is backing off on that and saying that never happened. Why in the world would SIG contact just DPD apparently to tell them there is a problem with the P320? Others are saying that someone at DPD read in the manual of the P320 where it states that "any firearm may fire if dropped", is that what they consider a notification from SIG? Something fishy about the whole story. Supposedly SIG is to release a statement in the near future.

There are two other departments claiming the same has happened and SIG is being less than transparent as well (of course, they'll tend not to - I get it...)

The info in their Owner's Manual and some anecdotal evidence from owner's who have called suggests that SIG is not 100 percent convinced that these particular pistols had parts that may not have been to spec or... it was/is a tolerance stack up issue.

It will be resolved. One way or another.

If SIG has not had a less than stellar run under its current management the internet rumbling would not be nearly as far and wide as it has been - and likely to continue to be for some time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chui]

Originally Posted by B-Shot

Maybe someone is mad because they can't carry their Glock.........Was this breaking news from CNN? Which statement is true from the Dallas PD?

Delve into the details of the story, please. The P320 was simply added to the approved list of pistols the officers could carry.

They normally carry P226 pistols so there was no opportunity for what you suggest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zipspyder]

I'm good for now but eventually I'm going to grab one of the new ones with an external safety in 9mm. After that what will the haters complain about?

[44 AMP]

The drop vulnerability is now a "known defect"....

The addition of one of the similes (example ) OR the addition of language such as "To the under-informed" drop..defect, would have made the poster intentions much clearer.

Sarcasm, light, moderate, or heavy is a difficult thing for some to recognize in print. Just using " " often isn't enough.

I am mildly amused by the lemming effect, but it has always been with us. The fashion industry depends on it. The more worrisome aspect is that with today's tech, an unsubstantiated rumor (especially if its some kind of juicy gossip) can become "a known fact" to huge numbers of people, around the world in minutes, because they read it on the Internet.

I am a bit concerned, about the demonstrated lack of reading comprehension shown by the people in the Dallas PD.

CAN is not the same as WILL. Never was, never will be. Different words with DIFFERENT MEANINGS!! IT is disturbing that people who's job is law enforcement have shown they are incapable of understanding the difference between two small, simple English words and their definitions.

Makes one wonder what other simple words and phrases they don't understand either, and how that affects their performance as law enforcement officers. ??

[JoeSixpack]

I wonder if the manual has as warning about the gun exploding.
Even if the design is sound could always get bad ammo, even factory ammo.

[qwiksdraw]

The good news is, in ten years we will still be reading about this.

Ain't the internets fun?

[gc70]

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

I wonder if the manual has as warning about the gun exploding.
Even if the design is sound could always get bad ammo, even factory ammo.

Does IMPROPER AMMUNITION DESTROYS FIREARMS work?

[presspics]

Here's some actual testing... This complicates things.

https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/s...ils-drop-test/