Dallas PD pulls the P320 from their Approved List.

I wish I could remember if the discussions were so intense and even heated when a very similar occurrence happened with Ruger's then new SR9 back around 2008. I understand Ruger had not just been awarded a military contract and was not residing in many law enforcement holsters. I also understand that, unless I'm wrong, Ruger took the bull by the horns and issued an immediate recall and completely re-worked the trigger of the SR9, dropping the smooth trigger in favor of a tabbed, safety-trigger ala Glock. (Hmm, a surprise?). Since the SR9 has gone on to some success in the marketplace and is liked by many, Ruger seems to have handled their mistake with little lasting damage. Perhaps, we should wait to see how Sig handles this. (BTW, I have neither an SR9 or a P320.)
 
Perhaps, we should wait to see how Sig handles this.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying we won't do that. That doesn't mean we still can't talk about it given that this is, after all, a forum. We went through over a week of SIG categorically denying the possibility of the original event, which was improperly reported to be sure, to now them issuing a voluntary recall for what amounts to 500,000 pistols. That's probably going to generate some buzz. I've owned a lot of SIGs, as have many of those commenting here. I don't hate the company by any stretch. At the same time I don't feel sympathy for them.
 
Fair enough. I suspect someone at Sig may be looking at an earlier than expected departure. How high up the ladder this occurs remains to be seen.
 
I think we're all aware of that. I think many of us have also decided that the standard test as it exists currently is lacking when a slight 30 degree cant turns a pistol from drop safe to consistently discharging.
 
It passed the industry standard testing.
Click to expand...
Let's say the industry standard didn't involve any drop testing at all. Would that make any difference in the safety of a pistol that discharges when it drops?

It doesn't. Testing a pistol to verify that it meets an industry drop safety standard that doesn't insure the pistol is drop safe means that when you're done you still don't know if the pistol is drop safe.

Industry standard testing is great, but the point of the testing isn't the testing itself. The goal is to insure that guns meet a reasonable safety standard. Speaking hypothetically, if a gun company (or anyone else, for that matter) knows that a particular design will pass industry standards but will still exhibit the behavior that the industry standards are designed to exclude, they have an obligation to make that known.

As someone once said, "No matter how beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."

In other words, this whole situation is likely to not only result in a change to the P320 design, but also in a change to the industry drop testing standards. And both of those will be positive changes.

The one thing that is true is that if SIG made a good faith effort to drop test their pistol to insure that it met industry standards, that (plus the way they handle this situation) will go a long way towards upholding their reputation.

I include the words "good faith" because if they knew, or had good reason to believe, that the industry standard would not turn up safety problems that were likely to exist in the design, then their testing, even if it met industry standards, would be, in my opinion, inadequate and their behavior, reprehensible.

What I mean by that is that if I design a gun and I know (or have good reason to believe) that the gun has a feature/flaw/defect/oddity that could result in serious injury or death and also know that it will pass industry standard testing then I would be remiss to ignore the feature/flaw/defect/oddity and merely test the gun to industry standards.
 
I was going to get a P320 Compact soon too, then my buddy who owns a gunshop pointed out all these articles and issues on the 320 coming out. Unlike some of the other gunshops around here, he really knows his guns(maybe more than me!) and I trust his opinion. Looks like it saved me a headache.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I would wait until I could be sure that the pistols in the supply chain have the new trigger.
Click to expand...
In theory, I would to, with the possible caveat below.
TunnelRat said:
Yea buying a new pistol to only send it back would kind of stink.
Click to expand...
If I could get the pistol at the right price, I'd put up with that odor.
 
I agree stay away from the p320 till the new production hits the supply.
I mean if you buy one now you'll have to send it in for retro, much better to just wait till it comes out of the box fixed imo.
 
I agree with all the comments above about waiting (thanks to all), but that raises other questions ...

Assuming I wait, how will I know I am receiving a firearm with the updated fire-control module? Do you think SIG will provide a serial-number lookup that allows anyone to verify that a given fire-control module was manufactured (or otherwise updated) with new low-mass components?

I've had good experiences with Gunbroker.com, but, of course, we don't get to personally inspect the merchandise before we make transactions. In this case (again assuming SIG provides a means of verification), I suppose I'd have to request the S/N of the exact firearm I'd be receiving ahead of time, agreed? And what if SIG does not provide some sort of quick-check reference? What then?

I mean, it's not as though I'm gonna conduct my own drop tests.
 
Last edited:
I imagine they'd be able provide a serial number range, similar to how they did when they had a recall on the MCX, P938, P238. This isn't their first recall rodeo.
 
TunnelRat said:
I imagine they'd be able provide a serial number range, similar to how they did when they had a recall on the MCX, P938, P238. This isn't their first recall rodeo.
Click to expand...
I would think so too. I mean, I don't imagine they'd actually fix existing fire-control modules, right? If you need a retrofit, they'll trash your "bad" one and send you a "good" one, yes?

(I'd imagine that's not exactly what they had in mind when they developed the modular architecture, but, hey, plug-and-play will actually be handy for this kinda thing.)
 
I'm fully aware of that; I just didn't think it all the way through. Ergo ... an exchange would constitute a new sale (and the exchanger could be any ol' body), so they'd instead have to update the existing fire-control module and send it back to you. But then let's think the rest through ...

Assuming all that's true, a simple date range isn't gonna work. These updates could go on for many months (probably years, like Takata airbags), so, as I wrote originally, they'll need a way for us to check individual serial numbers, because, with basic safety at issue, used items are just as important as new ones.

Maybe they'll tell us this stuff Monday.
 
They're going to require sending the pistol in. This has been mentioned in other articles on this.

And yea Monday is the key.
 
Brownstone322 said:
I've had good experiences with Gunbroker.com, but, of course, we don't get to personally inspect the merchandise before we make transactions.
Click to expand...
Actually you can, Inspect it before completing the paperwork with your FFL and taking ownership.

Do this no matter if the gun is new or used, If it's not as advertised the time to send it back is before you do the paperwork.

TunnelRat said:
The fire control module is the serialized part. They can't just send you a new one.
Click to expand...
Don't quote me, But I think I've heard hi-point does this.
If the gun can't be repaired they stamp a new gun with your old serial number.
 
The company can absolutely issue you a new serial numbered firearm if they can't fix the original. But I doubt SIG is going to do that in this case is my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top