Dallas PD pulls the P320 from their Approved List.

Aguila Blanca said:
Does anyone have a link to a story on the Connecticut officer being shot?
Click to expand...
http://www.guns.com/2017/08/09/sig-sauer-hit-with-personal-injury-lawsuit-over-p320/

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202...ol-Sues-Gunmaker-Sig-Sauer?mcode=0&curindex=0

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_bcq0WcWuxWN3l1SHkwQ243TWs/view

To view the second link is free, but you will have to give an email address and sign up for an account with the Connecticut Law Tribune.

The third link is a pdf file of the actual legal complaint served on SIG Sauer.
 
TunnelRat said:
^ yea we pointed that out earlier. As I said then when that change request was made is what I want to know.
Click to expand...

The Soldier Systems article answers BR's question about whether the M17 trials revealed the issue.
 
Houston PD got SIG to agree to replace their pistols, not repair them. And they are going to consider other service pistols than the P320 or in addition to the P320.

They also did their own drop testing with P320s and found they drop-fired just over 10% of the time.
 
Today's article in the Wall Street Journal came out with a follow up on this stating that Smith & Wesson & Ruger would greatly have an selling advantage because of Sig's misfortune. "You're only as good as your last act" my saying not The WSJ.
 
gc70 said:
The Soldier Systems article answers BR's question about whether the M17 trials revealed the issue.
Click to expand...

Not to get all pedantic and lawyery with you; but that article reveals the P320 passed the TOPS 3-2-045 test with the commercial trigger (see page 53 for rough handling testing). I'm by no means knowledgable of DoD procurement; but as the summary page for 3-2-045 notes, safety evaluations of hand and shoulder weapons are conducted under TOPS 3-2-504.

So, not being knowledgable of DoD procurement, that sounds like it would be possible for the commercial trigger to pass 3-2-045 and then fail 3-2-504.* And it does show that the Arrmy did approve a change to the M17 trigger, and the change was away from the one with the identified safety issue.

*ETA: A quick look at the 1977 version of that doc suggests that is unlikely given the testing being done doesn't appear to have any drop testing; but my general point that passing one set of formalized procedures isn't the same as passing the entire trial process remains.
 
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Not to get all pedantic and lawyery with you; but that article reveals the P320 passed the TOPS 3-2-045 test with the commercial trigger (see page 53 for rough handling testing).
Click to expand...

Page 54 of TOPS 3-2-045 describes the drop test. While not dropped at a 30° angle, the test does include drops at 45°.
b. 1.5 Meter (5 Ft) Drop.
  1. Use three serviceable weapons for this test. Load each weapon with a primed but otherwise empty cartridge case to assess the possibility of accidental firing. Place the safety switch in the Safe position.
  2. Drop each weapon one time in each of the following orientations:
    1. Major axis horizontal (normal firing orientation).
    2. Major axis vertical, butt down.
    3. Major axis vertical, muzzle down.
    4. Major axis 45° from vertical, butt down.
    5. Major axis 45° from vertical, muzzle down.
  3. Drop the weapons onto a clean, level, concrete surface. They may be dropped by a mechanical means or by manually releasing them in the required orientation. Verify the proper impact orientation by video recording (preferred), or by careful visual observation, or photographic records.
  4. Inspect the weapons after each drop. Ascertain the position of the safety switch and check to see if the primed cartridge case has fired. Record all damages and all maintenance required. Conduct a firing test if the serviceability of the weapons is questionable.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I read it before I linked it here. I don't think it is unreasonable to say the P320 could pass that test without SIG being aware that a P320 with no manual safety may fire when dropped at a 30 degree angle. But passing that test isn't the entirety of the process.

ETA: I think you are correct SIG didn't discover it through the M17 trials though. Not sure how the M17 manual safety works; but if it locks the trigger bar, then there is no way for this failure (inertia pulling trigger) to happen regardless of the angle.

I'm still skeptical that SIG's engineering change was some happy coincidence that also fixed this problem though.

ETA2: Well, nevermind. Looks like inertia pulling the trigger is NOT the cause of failure: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/08/p320-failed-without-even-dropping-no-plans-test/
 
Last edited:
The M17 testing with a manual safety engaged certainly provides no information about the drop-safety of a P320 without a manual safety. However, the information about the Army's testing should help dispel suspicions that the Army engaged in fraud and conspiracy to award Sig a contract for a gun with a serious known defect.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
ETA2: Well, nevermind. Looks like inertia pulling the trigger is NOT the cause of failure: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...no-plans-test/
Click to expand...

Dropping a gun on a hard surface and hitting a gun with a hard object both involve inertia.

In a drop, both the gun and trigger are initially moving; when the gun is stopped, the trigger tries to continue to move.

In a hit, both the gun and trigger are initially at rest; when the gun is moved, the trigger tries to remain at rest.

In both cases, inertia will try to move the trigger in relation to the rest of the gun.
 
gc70 said:
However, the information about the Army's testing should help dispel suspicions that the Army engaged in fraud and conspiracy to award Sig a contract for a gun with a serious known defect.
Click to expand...

It is neither fraud nor conspiracy to award a contract to a pistol that meets the contract specifications. And a pistol that discharges at 30 degrees but not at 45 degrees meets those specifications. Although, I'm sure the Army's contract allows them discretion in considering those issues. It certainly wouldn't be the first nor the last time a product with serious deficiencies survived the procurement process without any criminal allegations.
 
2. Drop each weapon one time in each of the following orientations:

1. Major axis horizontal (normal firing orientation).
2. Major axis vertical, butt down.
3. Major axis vertical, muzzle down.
4. Major axis 45° from vertical, butt down.
5. Major axis 45° from vertical, muzzle down.​
Click to expand...
But the orientation that creates the discharge is muzzle 30 degrees from vertical, with the butt UP. That entire orientation, irrespective of 30 degrees, 45 degrees, or 60 degrees, is not part of the test protocol.
 
Butt up discharges are concerning but not to the same degree. Muzzle up means lead is headed towards someone, muzzle down implies you have a damaged ego and possibly floor.
 
Okay you're describing it in a different way than I would. By the way I'd describe it I think the government test does test this orientation, but not the right angle.
 
I guess some people won't be happy until the firing mechanisms on pistols are so lawyered up you can't hit the broad side of a barn. You can not build an idiot proof firearm. What test will be good enough? Fire 250,000 rounds through it and after that, use an air chisel with a dead blow bit to hit the pistol 5000 different times from 1000 different angles?
 
reynolds357 said:
I guess some people won't be happy until the firing mechanisms on pistols are so lawyered up you can't hit the broad side of a barn. You can not build an idiot proof firearm. What test will be good enough? Fire 250,000 rounds through it and after that, use an air chisel with a dead blow bit to hit the pistol 5000 different times from 1000 different angles?
Click to expand...
Sorry but that is not even close to what is happening here. Being drop safe even at a particular angle, 30 degrees on the butt, is not making a gun idiot proof. With todays tech and design capabilities this type of defect should not be present.
 
reynolds357 said:
I guess some people won't be happy until the firing mechanisms on pistols are so lawyered up you can't hit the broad side of a barn. You can not build an idiot proof firearm. What test will be good enough? Fire 250,000 rounds through it and after that, use an air chisel with a dead blow bit to hit the pistol 5000 different times from 1000 different angles?
Click to expand...



To echo WVsig, "Holy hyperbole Batman!" We're talking about making a feature that is already present on this pistol work when it doesn't. That's not remotely close to what you're saying. For that matter it's a feature that's been present on other pistols for literally decades.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top