SIG Fails Drop Safety Test!!!

D

Dalton Spencer

Inactive
To view the 119 page NLECTC autoloading pistol report go to http://www.nlectc.org
click on 1) publications 2) Weapons and Ammo
and 3) Equipment Performance report: 1999 Autoloading Pistols, May 2000 (PDF).
The SIG P229 .40 (pistol #2) failed the "Drop Safety Test" b--Upside down: barrel horizontal.

This report has made me apprehensive of carrying my P229 .40 with a round in the pipe. I thought it was supposed to be impossible for a SIG to fire unless the trigger is pulled? Are SIG's unsafe guns?
 
If you read the entire report on the Sigs 1 or the 2 P229's in .40 failed, however the gun also failed on firing with on a NO GO headgauge test. It sounds like that gun was out of spec. I noticed that none of the other Sigs failed. A lemon can occur in any product. I did notice that Kahr, Kimber, and Taurus pistols failed some part of the test also.
 
Be amazed that any gun passed the test.

I think the tests were rigged to eliminate as many firearms as possible without issuing a wholesale ban across the board. that will probably be the next step.

Doc Hudson
 
I believe the tests were performed for the benefit of the law enforcement community so departments or officers could make a more informed decision on what to issue/carry. I posted my response to your question at the sigforum. But to sum up, Sigs are not unsafe.
 
Chris Orndorff wrote:
Help us out here; how did the pistol fail? And no, Sigs are not "unsafe guns".

"The [SIG P229 .40] pistol fired the live primer on drop #2, when the top surface of the slide impacted the rubber mat." Note: The failure occurred during the upside down, barrel horizontal test.

Drop Safety Requirement

Requirements: The pistol is dropped from a height of 4 feet onto a
1-inch-thick rubber mat, backed by concrete. The pistol will not fire
(cartridge with a live primer, but no bullet) during the drop test. Each
pistol is dropped from 7 different positions, with a different part of the
pistol hitting the ground on each drop, for a total of 14 drops. Firing on
any one of the 14 drops constitutes a failure for this test.

Methodology: A magazine is fully loaded with "dummy" ammunition
(live primers, no gunpowder or bullet), inserted into the pistol, and a
round is chambered. The pistol is suspended in a normal firing position
(barrel horizontal and parallel to the floor surface) from a "cradle" made
of string, held by a compressed-air controlled vise mounted to a fixture
whose height can be adjusted incrementally. The lowermost part of the
pistol is raised to a height of 1.22 meters (4 feet) from the surface of the
concrete-backed rubber mat. The pistol is dropped by releasing the jaws of
the air vise. If the primer detonates when the pistol hits the mat, it is
considered a failure. The test is repeated for each of the six remaining
positions:

o Upside down, barrel horizontal.

o On grip, barrel vertical.

o On muzzle, barrel vertical.

o On left side, barrel horizontal.

o On right side, barrel horizontal.

o On the rearmost point of that device, if there is an exposed hammer or
striker; otherwise, on the rearmost point of the pistol. Alternately, a
weight equivalent to that of the pistol may be dropped onto the rearmost
point.

Firing of the primer on any drop constitutes failure of the test.

Commentary:
A rubber mat is used in consideration of the fact that due to the number of
different drop positions that are required to fully determine if there are
any "weak points" in the pistol design that may cause inadvertent firing, it
may be unrealistic and unreasonable to expect a single pistol to pass seven
consecutive drops onto bare concrete.

I don't know enough about SIG design to speculate as to how such an unintended discharge might occur. With that said, however, I thought the firing pin unlocks only when the trigger is pulled?
 
Are they assuming that police are incapable of holding onto their weapons or that they tend to get bored and start playing catch with them?

(Just joking on the test, not on cops...)
 
MatthewM wrote: "Are they assuming that police are incapable of holding onto their weapons or that they tend to get bored and start playing catch with them?"

"Commentary: That a pistol may be dropped occasionally is a potential
hazard of law enforcement and corrections service. This could be a result
of the pistol being improperly secured in the holster, a physical struggle
with a combative suspect or arrestee, or any number of other
circumstances. It is a reasonable requirement to expect the pistol not to
discharge when dropped, as this poses a safety hazard to the officer and
anyone in the officer's immediate proximity. This test approximates a drop
from a typical height encountered when drawing or firing the pistol."
 
If ANYONE can bugger a weapon, a cop can. You should see some of the idiocy I've seen on the range. New officer points weapon at target, pulls trigger, hears loud noise, reacts by throwing pistol down. Older officer who doesn't practice much loads rounds in the magazine BACKWARDS, then complains about FTFs. New officer looks down barrel to determine if weapon is loaded. Officer snaps pistol forward while shooting to 'throw' the bullet at the target, claims it adds velocity. New officer fires weapon 'gangsta style' because he has seen entry team point do so while carrying shield, figures they must know what works best, can't understand why instructors are yelling at him. 'Instructors' that let this stuff happen. Geeeeze....
 
Get a Grip!

The Secret Service uses P229s. The BATF uses P229s. The FBI and DEA authorize P229s. The INS/Border Patrol use P229s. The US Marshals use P229s. The Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisianna, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont and Virginia state police use P229s... ya think they may have done some testing?

That test protocol is pretty much the same thing the state of California uses BTW. All the variations of the P229 in all calibers passed. Ya have to submit 3 guns of each type too IIRC?

Much ado 'bout nuttin' IMO. :)
 
To educate myself on the design of the P229, I've been viewing some exploded parts diagrams. Frankly, I can't find anything wrong with the design. Unless the trigger bar moves forward, thereby releasing the safety lock and hammer, it seems impossible for the weapon to fire. With great enough drop forces, I suppose the trigger bar could move forward in absence of deliberate user manipulation of the trigger. However, even if this is possible, it seems the "on muzzle, barrel vertical," "on grip, barrel vertical," and "on the rearmost point of the pistol" tests would be the most problematic. If the "upside down, barrel horizontal" test was capable of generating forces sufficient to cause the weight of the trigger to pull the trigger bar forward, I would expect such forces to be more efficiently transferred during the "on grip, barrel vertical" test. Perhaps rearward drop forces sufficiently counteract any forward forces placed on the trigger bar by the weight of the trigger.

Apparently, SIG is aware of the issue: http://www.rangerfop.com/sig_sauer.htm

I implore all SIG owners, especially those who work in law enforcement, to write SIG a letter conveying your concern with the safety of their firearms. If a "weakness" in the SIG design does, in fact, exist, small as it may be, maybe they will fix it.

The Chicago Police Department's slamfire issues resulted in the "Chicago modification." Maybe we could get a "NLECTC modification"? Law enforcement and consumer complacency won't encourage firearms manufacturers to build safer guns!!
 
The Chicago mod was a PR move, imo. I don't see the modification as being beneficial, although it placated the National FOP and the CPD.

Cries for "safer guns" result in locking devices, electronic security devices and horribly heavy trigger pulls.

A local police academy student recently shot himself in the leg while holstering his Glock .40. Ofcourse, his finger was on the trigger as he shoved the pistol down into the holster, but if Glock didn't have such a light trigger pull, the pistol probably would not have fired. Maybe we should all write to Glock and ask them to build us "safer" guns to save us from ourselves:) (sarcasm off).

A whole bunch of three-letter agencies have put Sig pistols through their paces, as BrokenArrow pointed out, and they performed well enough to warrant mass purchase or at least recommendation.
 
I'm sure that Sig's are fine, but we must have the humility to recognize that ALL of us will at some time pull a BOZO stunt. Then a margin of error built into the equipment is VITAL.

Even the sainted Jeff Cooper once destroyed his backyard gas meter.


I use Glock's but that trigger still makes me queasy.
 
One gun does not a production run make!

From the protocol it seems as if they are looking to discount everything but harsh language! That report has been used by glock-a-holics for a year now to bash the P229.

With the number of federal agencies that issue the P229 I don't believe that there is a true problem with the pistol. I know that my 229 has yet to have a problem and I always play catch with it with my friends! :D Of course we are playing William Tell! ;)

Derek
 
The test in itself would not prevent me from buying a Sig. If there was a widespread problem, the pistol would not have gained as much acceptance that currently has by different Law Enforcement Departments and Civilians.

"Commentary: That a pistol may be dropped occasionally is a potential hazard of law enforcement and corrections service. This could be a result of the pistol being improperly secured in the holster, a physical struggle
with a combative suspect or arrestee, or any number of other circumstances. It is a reasonable requirement to expect the pistol not to discharge when dropped, as this poses a safety hazard to the officer and anyone in the officer's immediate proximity. This test approximates a drop from a typical height encountered when drawing or firing the pistol."

A Sig has a lack of an external safety, therefore not allowing it to be carried safely in the single action position. I believe that I can be correct in assuming that 99 percent of all users carry the weapon holstered in DA mode. That pretty much throws much of the holstered weapon or dropping the weapon arguement out the window, unless the test pistol failed while in the hammer down DA mode.

If you had already fired the pistol and the threat is negated, the next step is to drop the hammer using the decocker prior to holstering. I can understand the test, but the chances of dropping the pistol in the SA mode is remote. But then I guess stuff happens.

I guess I would have passed the test. I'm only 5'4" and dropping the weapon from 4 feet high is a bit hard for me!:D

Good SHooting
RED
 
The Sig P229 in .40 passed the California drop and safety tests which are pretty stringent. The gun appears on the "approved" list posted by the CA DOJ. They drop the gun on concrete and basically destroy it. I think they have to submit 3 guns for testing also. So if the commie SOB's in the CA DOJ say it is safe in a drop test it probably is since their ultimate goal (IMO) is to have as many guns fail as possible.
 
The Sig P229 in .40 passed the California drop and safety tests which are pretty stringent.
Click to expand...

Were the pistols in the California tests dropped in the hammer cocked position? (DA/SA pistols in the NLECTC drop safety tests were dropped in the cocked position.)

One thing that concerns me about the NLECTC tests is section 5.5.5:

5.5.5 Safety Features Test

Obtain from the manufacturer a description of the design feature(s) included in the pistol to ensure that the pistol will discharge only through the proper operation of the trigger mechanism, the list of parts that implement the design feature(s), and the manner in which the safety feature(s) operate. Verify that all of the safety parts are present, that they operate in the manufacturer's intended manner, and that the feature(s) perform their intended function. Note: This description should be in the user information supplied by the manufacturer (see Sec. 4.2). Chamber a primed case (no propellant or projectile) and attempt to fire the pistol, with the safety device engaged, into a bullet trap or other suitable device to determine whether the round discharges. If a pistol has more than one safety device, disengage all but one to conduct the test. Repeat, using the second safety device. Continue in this manner until all safety devices have been tested. In some designs the removal of parts to disable one safety feature may affect the performance of another safety feature. If assistance is needed to test each safety feature independently, consult with the
manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Did they remove parts and disassemble the gun when testing the safety mechanisms? Did they put the gun back together correctly?

It should be mentioned that the P229 .40 drop safety failure would need to be reproducible (this should include testing different P229's) in order for the NLECTC results to be considered scientifically conclusive.

Furthermore, as Redlg155 previously mentioned, drop testing a decocker mounted DA/SA pistol in SA mode seems a bit unrealistic, considering the nature of typical lethal force encounters. But even if a weakness in the SIG SA drop safety design is conceded, proper training (i.e., decocking before holstering, before a foot chase, etc.) should reduce the risks of a drop induced discharge to near negligible levels.

However, with that said, Glock appears to have a superior drop safety design, largely due to the little spring loaded trigger safety lever.

By the way, I didn't start this thread to bash on SIG's. Even if SIG does, in fact, have a small SA drop safety weakness, I still believe SIG's are the finest combat handguns in the world. I have found them to be better handling, more accurate, and more reliable than any other major firearms manufacturer.
 
Dalton,

I don't know off hand if they were dropped in the manner you describe in the Kalifornia tests. I have read through the requirements detailed in SB 15 but it's been awhile so I don't remember. I will check it out again.

Russ
 
I came across some pertinent drop safety information in the U.S. military's M11 (SIG P228) specification.

4.6.12 Rough handling test.

The pistols shall be tested for rough handling with a primed cartridge case in the chamber, a fully loaded magazine in each firing/safety mode available. One pistol is to be conditioned at -40 ~ 3 degrees C, one at ambient and one at +60 ~ 3 degrees C. Each pistol is dropped from a minimum height of 1.2 meters (48 in) (lowest point of the pistol to the drop surface) in each of the following six orientations: muzzle down, hammer/striker area down, butt down, slide top down, right side down and left side down. The drop surface shall be a steel plate at least 12 mm thick, backed by concrete. The chambered cartridge case shall not fire during testing and at the conclusion of all drop events the chambered cartridge case and the full magazine shall fire without stoppages.

Since the M11 passed the above testing (which is nearly identical to the NLECTC's), it appears that the SIG P Series design is not inherently flawed. However, the failure of the P229 .40 still can't be explained. Perhaps the extra weight of the P229 .40 (as opposed to its lighter siblings) just barely pushes it past its drop safety threshold?
 
Sig better take care of this matter because there is a lawsuit waiting around the corner for things like this. I am no lawyer but Sig's lawyers better take note. Last thing a company wants is a Ford/Firestone situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top