Dallas PD pulls the P320 from their Approved List.

Bruce is an honorable man of his word. I think that in this instance he is wrong but that does not change my opinion of the man. We all make mistakes. I do not believe there was any ill intention or cover up on his part. It would just not be consistent with every interaction I have ever had with him.

Here is what he said on the Sigforum:

posted August 01, 2017 01:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grayguns:
Friends,

Nothing being discussed here appears to be based in fact from what my informed sources tell us. I can't go into details, but I can comment on some of what's been "reported".

I've personally drop-tested a bunch of P320's in various conditions and in excess of ANSI/SAAMI protocol, and cannot get them to fail.

The so-called P320 drop test video referenced by many is an outright fraud intended to damage SIG SAUER and the P320, in my opinion. I can perhaps replicate what it portrays, only by removing a bunch of springs and the striker lock first. I defy the makers of that video to come forth and prove they can make a stock P320 fire like that in my presence, under controlled conditions. They can't.

In any event I predict this decision by someone in DPD will not pan out to be objectively reasonable or justifiable, and will be reversed.

-Bruce
posted August 05, 2017 03:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grayguns:
I am here to tell you that there is no safety issues with the P320.

There was no incident, ND, or failure of a P320 of any sort that prompted the memo by Lt. Williamson.

DPD does not have any in their inventory, has never tested it, has only a couple officers carrying it so far, and none have had any issues.

The memo was simply addressing some outdated legacy language that inexplicably made it's way into one of the P320 owner's manuals. In doing due diligence just as I would have, this was questioned, SIG responded to clarify, and it was over.

All reports and online discussions to follow trace back to an article published by gunmagwarehouse.com. There was a headline stating "SIG SAUER P320 Fails Drop Test." In the article, the author reports that an anonymous reliable source within DPD stated that a P320 ND'd during training, among other inflammatory implications that proved not to be true.

I reached out, speaking for myself and Grayguns Inc., to this author on Tuesday to offer factual, verifiable information or an interview, but was rebuffed. This erroneous story was then reposted and repeated widely.

I and others knew this entire thing was bull-CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- from the start, but the author of this hyped up and apparently fabricated non-story from an "anonymous source" was not interested in hearing verifiable information, on the record.

And, for that record, there has never been a verified instance of any P320 firing when dropped out of the nearly 350,000 sold to date, much less a factory-spec pistol.

I have looked for such reports and followed up on everything I find, for three solud years. It hasn't happened.

The recent YouTube video pupirtibg to show a "P320 drop test" failure is an obvious fake.

I have personally bounced these puppies off of everything I can find. No go bang, ever.

This crap needs to be dismissed. The P320 is safe.

-Bruce
These were both before the most recent TTAG video was uploaded but IIRC after the Omaha Outdoors video. For me the TTAG video is much more damaging because it was a new out of the box gun. It has not been subjected to the same tests and abuse the Omaha Outdoors guns had.

After that I believe Bruce goes silent.
Click to expand...

Time for Bruce to speak up and admit that he was wrong, along with offering some apologies for wrongly accusing people of being "outright frauds", liars and fakers.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
“Drop safe,” Cohen explained, “Those two words don’t exist together. No gun is drop safe. It’s a function of angle, height and surface. If you build it completely drop safe, you legitimize mishandling. Inherently guns are not meant to be dropped, and are unsafe when dropped.”
Click to expand...

Though it seems obvious that "...Inherently guns are not meant to be dropped", I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Cohen's opinion that "...If you build it [a pistol] drop safe, you legitimize mishandling". Is he implying that by making a firearm as safe as possible means that the shooter will correspondingly and accordingly ignore basic gun safety protocol?
 
From Gray's FB today. If you were looking for a walk back of previous comments, I don't read this as that. I'm off to the store to buy a sympathy card for SIG. I'll be sure to pass it around to those of us here.



"The Lord made but one perfect man. The rest of us make choices." -Pop

(Grayguns Inc. will release one of a series of official statements regarding the P320 drop issue today, and will continue to update everyone as we move forward with answers and solutions.)

On a personal, moral note: Since this Omaha Drop story broke Monday, we've watched as the world's premier gunmaker has been subjected to the nastiest indignities that every partisan fanboy troll and antisocial hater with a meme app can dream up.

They have managed to drown out and shout down the honest concerns of loyal customers, shooters, and cops who actually have a stake in this issue and our mutually shared responsibility for creative, effective resolution. People who aren't even our customers have used this as a pretext attack our integrity.

Sadly, I'm used to what passes for culture from certain sectors of "social media" these days, but the shenanigans of the last few days have truly exposed those few for who they really are.

This behaviour is sickening. It's foolish. And it helps no one.

Meanwhile, since we first saw this Monday morning my Crew at Grayguns Inc. and I have been diligently working the new problem. With our partners at SIG, we're developing an array of possibilities to positively address our mutual customer's very understandable safety concerns.

I've backed everything I've done for 43 years. Nothing changes that ethical, loyal commitment to our friends and customers.

Know what else doesn't change with me? My utterly warranted loyalty to my friends.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wow. I don't have a dog in this fight, but apparently calling others frauds and liars is good culture for some, but taking a corporation to task is just all degradation of decency and high mindedness.
 
I don't know the man, but from both moral and PR perspective, apologizing publicly for calling others frauds and liars, and admitting he jumped to the conclusion too quickly would probably earn him MORE regard, not less... instead of doubling down with corporate-speak and on how it's all the "haters'" fault.

I don't know why, but no one seems to apologize like a man anymore. That'd been so refreshing in this case.
 
I have no experience with Gray Guns, but have a low tolerance for BS. The excerpted passages do not make a good impression on me.

His original reaction, while wrong, is also understandable in the heat of the moment. Choosing to attack his critics and refusing to concede a single point instead of owning up to his own mistake is a deliberate choice.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
No gun is drop safe. It’s a function of angle, height and surface.
Click to expand...

I have no dog in this fight but I do believe that social media has loosed a phenomenon that, at its worst, is akin to mob hysteria. Other manufacturers have had issues equally or more serious and rightfully took their lumps but due to the instant response of anyone with a keyboard, the tendency to be "in on the action" and pile on is sometimes frightening. We see it with celebrities. We see it with politicians. Accusations, and innuendo are too often enough to destroy reputations and careers. Sig has an issue that needs to be addressed and cleared up, no question. I certainly have not seen every owners manual out there but it seems to me that every one I have read includes the statement that "no gun is drop safe" or words very similar.

It is conceivable to assume that Sig was made aware of this and was formulating a response when the story was broken ahead of schedule by a third party for reasons either innocent or otherwise, it doesn't matter. The fact that someone else beat Sig to public disclosure is not a basis for assuming Sig was covering it up and I can't see that we know that.

If videos begin to show up subjecting a slew of favorite pistols to unusual methods of proving how they can fire under this or that circumstance (like beating them several times with a mallet) gun owners might find that in their zeal to lynch Sig (and that word is IMO not too strong) that they have unleashed a slew of new laws and regulations that could destroy favorite models and even companies. Remember how gun owners HOWLED when the Winchester 94 was fitted with a cross bolt safety.

In fairness also, I would lean more toward choosing a Glock for the military and/or police, but I think Sig deserves a fair hearing. I'm neither a Glock or Sig fanboy.
 
Please stop pretending like they are upright without an issue.
Click to expand...
I'm not certain that was in response to my post but I don't think I'm at all pretending they are anything at all. All I'm saying is we don't yet know and what Sig did in Germany is not at issue here. I'm not prone to jumping to conclusions but the news cycle and the internet seems to encourage just that. We'll see
 
TunnelRat said:
From Gray's FB today. If you were looking for a walk back of previous comments, I don't read this as that. I'm off to the store to buy a sympathy card for SIG. I'll be sure to pass it around to those of us here.
Click to expand...
That makes me sad because I respect Bruce Gray's skills as a smith and a shooter. I think he is too close to the fire on this one. I do not believe I will be sending him any work in the future which is a shame because I like his work. Was considering sending a W. German P228 his way. Oh well.
 
gc70 said:
I am not saying Sig might not have had nefarious motives in this case, but addressing their customers' most common complaint is something companies commonly do.
Click to expand...

I don't believe SIG because I think it is likely that even as they were telling us there had been "zero reported incidents", they knew about the Connecticut officer. I also don't believe SIG; because I suspect the M17 trials would have revealed that issue.

The story I quoted was basically "Hey, first we heard of it; but luckily the double-click trigger problem we were working on also happens to fix this specific problem we had no idea existed." That could have happened. I don't think it is probable.
 
Bart, Apparently the m17 already has improvements in place that eliminate the problem.
I had the same concerns about the XM17 trials but apparently it was never affected.

now whether or not this is a happy accident or it was a solution to a known problem that Sig hadn't yet phased over to the commercial line I dunno.

They claim these improvements was already planed for the retail market.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
I also don't believe SIG; because I suspect the M17 trials would have revealed that issue.
Click to expand...

Believing the M17 trials would have revealed the issue suggests the Army allowed Sig to correct a grievous safety defect in its submission.
 
Houston Police Department has done the same.
Click to expand...

I just read the article. They did not "do the same". They warned officers and arranged with Sig to repair or replace existing weapons. Where does it say they did the same as Dallas?

This stuff is getting just a wee bit feverish.
 
Believing the M17 trials would have revealed the issue suggests the Army allowed Sig to correct a grievous safety defect in its submission.
Click to expand...

The M17 is advertised as having a "reduced mass trigger" in the military configuration. If they didn't make that during or after the trials, then they did it a long time ago. Maybe SIG will clarify when that change was made for the M17.
 
I assume that part of the discovery process in the CT lawsuit is going to involve the emails detailing the design changes for the M17. There is zero chance they made all those changes without discussing the reasons for them at length.

I am personally very incredulous that those changes just happened to precisely fix the defect that caused the discharge.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The M17 is advertised as having a "reduced mass trigger" in the military configuration. If they didn't make that during or after the trials, then they did it a long time ago. Maybe SIG will clarify when that change was made for the M17.
Click to expand...

As previously reported by Soldier Systems (emphasis added):

While the MHS passed DoD’s TOP 3-2-045 test with the trigger currently in the commercial P320, SIG proposed an enhanced trigger via Engineering Change Request E0005.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top