Dallas PD pulls the P320 from their Approved List.

Dropped muzzle up and the trigger bar would be driven rearward. The trigger bar has to go forward on the P320 to release the striker.
 
I can't find a detailed explanation of the P320, safety; but the P250 safety was designed so that if you dropped it muzzle up, the action to lift the firing pin block was in a different direction than the forces working on the trigger.

SIG offered the P320 from the get-go with a center-slot type safety if requested as an additional safety feature; but claimed it was unnecessary in light of their advanced design.

Between the SIG press release and the Dallas PD memo, there are some interesting possibilities. In any case, it appears DPD finds the 226 safety system as OK; but the 320 system as a no-go. Since the two major differences are the striker and the modular frame, a safe bet suggests whatever imagined problem there is focuses on that difference.
 
So in that case, it would be much harder. In the Glock design, the trigger bar and striker both move backwards initially to fire the gun so inertia works on both of them the same way.

In the P320 design the striker would still move backwards but if the trigger bar moves forward to fire the gun then it's going to be pretty difficult to get them both moving in the proper direction at the same time from inertia. That may be why they felt like they didn't need the trigger safety.
 
Between the SIG press release and the Dallas PD memo, there are some interesting possibilities. In any case, it appears DPD finds the 226 safety system as OK; but the 320 system as a no-go. Since the two major differences are the striker and the modular frame, a safe bet suggests whatever imagined problem there is focuses on that difference.
Click to expand...

At first it was reported that someone at DPD had an AD dropping a P320 but they have since said that did not happen and SIG is on record as saying that has never happened in at least the commercial market per their latest press release. Then is seems that someone at DPD was concerned about the drop pistol warning in the P320 manual taking it to mean the P320 would most likely fire if dropped. SIG has since rewritten the drop pistol warning. Time will tell if that will be enough for DPD. If not there is an option to get the P320C with a manual safety.
 
They didn't need to say it's possible for any loaded firearm to discharge when dropped.

Anyone with a brain knows that it's possible for any loaded firearm to be discharged without being touched much less dropped. To say something is impossible, just shows a lack of knowledge in exactly what is possible.
 
And the hits keep coming for the red faced DPD.

http://www.tactical-life.com/news/sig-sauer-p320-dallas-pd/#sig-p320-2

Rumors of Dallas PD Issues with Sig Sauer P320 Are False

Tactical-Life.com has confirmed that the Dallas Police Department’s suspension of use of the Sig Sauer P320 was based on a miscommunication of a non-existent defect.

A blog by the name of GunMagWarehouse.com erroneously reported that there had been a Dallas PD training incident involving Sig Sauer P320. Specifically, the blog stated that the pistol “discharged as a result of being dropped during training,” which was far from the truth.

“The Dallas Police Department has not tested the P320 and has had no issue with the P320,” Sig spokesman Jordan Hunter told Tactical-Life.

There was never a “defect” with the P320. The confusion stemmed from an out-of-date manual that was given to the Dallas Police Department’s new lieutenant, according to Hunter.

Taking the necessary precautions with the older manual, the lieutenant temporarily suspended use of the P320 until Dallas PD could get in touch with Sig Sauer to clarify the issue.

A memo was issued to the Dallas Police Department detailing the temporary suspension, which someone leaked to another blog and the rumor mill began turning at a ferocious pace
Click to expand...
........
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
I can't find a detailed explanation of the P320, safety; but the P250 safety was designed so that if you dropped it muzzle up, the action to lift the firing pin block was in a different direction than the forces working on the trigger.
Click to expand...

SIG's P320 video at 1:55 shows the trigger bar moving forward to lift the firing pin block and release the sear.
 
And the hits keep coming for the red faced DPD.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't bet against that version of events; but given how easy it is to make a public information request of DPD, that reporter did sloppy work in not getting their side of the story and relying on only one side in a situation with a fair amount of cash at stake.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!"
:D
 
WyMark wrote:
I wonder if the DPD P320's will be available for cheap?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top