Dallas PD pulls the P320 from their Approved List.

One of the commenters claim the same thing happens to a few other guns including the Taurus 800 series.. that line was discontinued late last year by Taurus but Im still planing on pick up a couple so if anyone knows of any truth or testing done on those guns let me know.

At this point I'd be interested in seeing a series of tests on various guns just to see what's what.. I know the Glock can handle a drop test, I seen one where they dropped it out of a plane into a farmers field.. and tossed it out a 2nd story window onto the side walk.. sig gonna bitch about 5 feet onto concrete?
 
reynolds357 said:
Sig is correct. There is a possibility that any loaded firearm could discharge when dropped. The chance may be 1 in 5 billion, but there is a chance. You also have to factor in the occasional idiot who can tear up an anvil with a rubber hammer.
Click to expand...

Yep. Hopefully some good will come out of this in that people learn that dropping a loaded pistol should not be regarded as a trivial matter like it is shown on TVs and the movies. A better quality holster with better retention of the pistol and on your belt can also help reduce loaded pistol from sliding/falling out of the holster.
 
At this point I'd be interested in seeing a series of tests on various guns just to see what's what.. I know the Glock can handle a drop test, I seen one where they dropped it out of a plane into a farmers field.. and tossed it out a 2nd story window onto the side walk.
Click to expand...

Well I would not take that as a valid drop test of a Glock though I am not saying it would not pass a 5 foot drop and think it probably would. A farmer's field can be pretty soft and any vegetation can slow the descent to the ground. A lot depends on exactly what part/angle the pistol falls on. That is why most drop tests, including California, do multiple drops at various orientations.

Yes the only way to know would be to have an independent testing lab do drop testing at various heights of multiple samples of different models of pistols.
 
Last edited:
Lab testing is fine but ANYONE who can get a gun to go off is a good enough test to me.
So as far as im concerned the p320 is not drop safe at this time.

True we don't know the exact angle the glock hit the sidewalk or farmers field.
Some angles are obviously going to be more inductive then others at causing a discharge.
And ya it's not like they repeated those tests over and over again.. it was a one off thing.

And yes the farmers field was quite soft and it buried it self like a foot into the ground.

However we're talking about a drop from a plane.. I don't remember the exact altitude but it was probably over a 1k feet. and throwing it out a 2nd story window onto concrete? ya I still find that test damn impressive just of the durability of the gun period.

And I ain't even a fan of Glocks, But I gotta give credit when it's due.

Anyhow I wouldn't mind someone making this a regular thing.. to drop test guns.. I would find those videos much more helpful then the usual "lets cake it full of mud, freeze it in ice, drag it behind a car and then run it over" torture tests.
 
Agree - testing protocols exist to test a negative (the gun will not discharge when dropped). It takes a sample size of one to show the opposite (the gun will discharge under these conditions).

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
While they tested as high as five feet, they report that once they found the "correct angle" to drop it, it discharged as low as 30" (2.5 feet). And given that trigger mass correlated with whether the gun discharged when dropped, it sounds like an immediate fix would be a center-slot Glock-style trigger safety that SIG already offers.
 
it sounds like an immediate fix would be a center-slot Glock-style trigger safety that SIG already offers.
Click to expand...

SIG lists it as an option, but I have never seen one either in person in stores or at the SIG Academy Pro Shop (they literally have almost every model there) or online. I think the article mentions this too.
 
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch7si_VQsGA

In this video they point out that the weight of the trigger, not the pull weight but the actual weight of the physical part itself, seems to be fairly strongly correlated with the rate of these ADs. To me this actually makes sense. The SIG design, to my knowledge, is supposed to be safe because when dropped muzzle up the force will be on the trigger bar to move rearward but on a P320 the trigger bar has to move forward to release the striker. However, it would seem to me that the mass of the trigger vs. the mass of the trigger bar would then be an important balance. If the trigger itself in being driven rearward can exert more force on the trigger bar than the gravity driving the trigger bar rearward it would seem like the possibility for an AD exists.

It's interesting that the lighter X5 trigger and then their cut down stock trigger seem to have no such issues. Moreso to me this plays into a story of how this could have gotten to the market in this state. The trigger on the P320 has changed since it's initial release. It now has a tab on the front of it to supposedly prevent debris from getting into the trigger mechanism and I believe it also has a reinforcement rib inside that I can't remember if was there at the introduction. Now that doesn't sound like much of a difference in weight, but in the video they mention how the X5 trigger is only 6% lighter than the stock trigger and when swapped between different pistols seemed to dramatically reduce the rate of ADs, so not much weight difference seems to be required to start contributing to the problem.

I can imagine a situation in which the original configuration of the P320 was in fact drop safe, even at the slightly different angle as resulted in the ADs in this video, but evolutions over time have taken it into a realm where it still passes the standard tests, but the introduction of an angle causes these ADs. I would also accept someone pointing out that the pistol does still pass the industry tests. However, in the video they show a slight angle is enough to change those results completely. This was true both at, above, and below the industry height standard. Given that you can't be guaranteed of the angle at which a pistol might fall, I don't think this slight modification to the test is completely out of line.

Make some extra. I'd prefer mine with some bbq sauce, if it's not too much trouble.
Click to expand...

Well that goes without saying of course. Given the size of the crows in my neighborhood there should be enough to go around.
 
I have to say I'm shocked that this actually turned out to be true. Sigs statement has been proven false and I'm curious if the silence from DPD is due to political pressure. In light of that testing I'd be willing to bet there was a real incident down at DPD, and I wonder if not putting that incident on paper is going to earn them some free pistols in years to come.

I mean to me it's just incredible that they can reproduce the failure, and in our United States armed forces handgun. The P320 is a compromised design!
 
TunnelRat said:
In this video they point out that the weight of the trigger, not the pull weight but the actual weight of the physical part itself, seems to be fairly strongly correlated with the rate of these ADs. To me this actually makes sense. The SIG design, to my knowledge, is supposed to be safe because when dropped muzzle up the force will be on the trigger bar to move rearward but on a P320 the trigger bar has to move forward to release the striker. However, it would seem to me that the mass of the trigger vs. the mass of the trigger bar would then be an important balance. If the trigger itself in being driven rearward can exert more force on the trigger bar than the gravity driving the trigger bar rearward it would seem like the possibility for an AD exists.

It's interesting that the lighter X5 trigger and then their cut down stock trigger seem to have no such issues. Moreso to me this plays into a story of how this could have gotten to the market in this state. The trigger on the P320 has changed since it's initial release. It now has a tab on the front of it to supposedly prevent debris from getting into the trigger mechanism and I believe it also has a reinforcement rib inside that I can't remember if was there at the introduction. Now that doesn't sound like much of a difference in weight, but in the video they mention how the X5 trigger is only 6% lighter than the stock trigger and when swapped between different pistols seemed to dramatically reduce the rate of ADs, so not much weight difference seems to be required to start contributing to the problem.
Click to expand...

Very interesting analysis. Below is a photo of the original and later triggers, with areas of added mass circled.
 

Attachments

  • P320triggers.jpg
    P320triggers.jpg
    30.7 KB · Views: 35
Sequins said:
I mean to me it's just incredible that they can reproduce the failure, and in our United States armed forces handgun. The P320 is a compromised design!
Click to expand...

I do not believe that anyone has claimed that there is a drop defect associated with a P320 with a manual safety as adopted by the Army.
 
I often wonder about wild commercials like dropping a pistol from a helicopter. I wonder if the time we saw it not fire was the only time it was filmed.:confused:
 
Great writeup, TunnelRat. I wasn't aware of all those changes, and what you say makes perfect sense to me.

My other takeaway is that the standard industry tests might have to be re-written as a result of this.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
gc70 said:
I do not believe that anyone has claimed that there is a drop defect associated with a P320 with a manual safety as adopted by the Army.
Click to expand...
Since the drop failure seems to be linked to the trigger pull.
I guess it probably is not affected while on safe, however It does make you wonder how would it fair off safe?

I'd like to see it tested as adopted and see if it fails.. if it does it makes one wonder exactly how extensive the XM17 testing was.. there are already claims it was a sham.
 
JoeSixPack said:
I'd like to see it tested as adopted and see if it fails.. if it does it makes one wonder exactly how extensive the XM17 testing was.. there are already claims it was a sham.
Click to expand...

It is certainly a valid question.
 
This complicates things.
Click to expand...
I did not see that coming. I assumed this was just some sort of misunderstanding between DPD and SIG.
...it sounds like an immediate fix would be a center-slot Glock-style trigger safety that SIG already offers.
Click to expand...
That's going to be embarrassing to SIG after they explicitly said that the design didn't require it. Of course, I guess the whole mess is already very embarrassing.

Looks like there will soon be more drop test results to review.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ig-sauer-p320-pistols-following-drop-testing/
 
That's going to be embarrassing to SIG after they explicitly said that the design didn't require it. Of course, I guess the whole mess is already very embarrassing
Click to expand...

I guess they could follow TunnelRat's suggestion and increase the trigger bar mass. It sounds like a problem that escaped notice because it didn't discharge under the standardized testing protocol - which would certainly make me rethink that protocol if a pistol accidentally discharged after a 30" drop. I think I'd start including that angle and testing other pistols.

Congrats to Dallas PD on figuring it out. I wouldn't have bet on them in a million years to be on the right side of that story.

DallasPD said:
There have been no reported incidents of an accidental discharge involving this weapon because of the defect.
Click to expand...

So how did they figure it out? Is "reported" the weasel word in the above statement? Striker go forward on an empty chamber after being dropped?
 
Last edited:
My memory may be faulty and the reasons may have been different but didn't the original Ruger SR9 have a solid trigger that was later replaced with a Glock-like tabbed safety-trigger? My wording is no doubt clumsy. What caused that change?

Yes. See the following: http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR9-2.htm
 
I'm getting past the shock of this actually being a real issue and now I'm giving it some more thought... specifically on the testing protocol and what this might mean for other guns.

Maybe I'm just naive but I assumed the industry tests were robust and conducted in good faith. It seems now that the tests are not very robust, and that at least in the case of Sig (but probably all of them) the purpose of the test is to cross a regulatory hurdle, not to ensure safety. If the p320 really did pass all industry testing I don't see how any other conclusion can be reached because the claims that a drop fire don't count unless it's done according to protocol doesn't pass the smell test

How many other guns aren't drop safe, but they passed the test like the p320? Does the test even mean anything anymore after this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top