Sig p320 recall?

[TunnelRat]

While you may not recognize that as important, as someone with a hard sciences degree, I certainly do.

I have a "hard sciences" degree and I actually work at a research lab (I'd point out your comment above starts to venture into ad hominem territory). Would I prefer more details on their testing? Sure, I'd love gun magazines/publications to do analysis at a high level and then even have it peer reviewed. Lets even throw in tests of statistical significance. But what is the likelihood of that? Given the limitations of time and the nature of their capabilities I think they made a modest effort to ensure some level of repeatability and consistency when they tested each of those pistols. Could it have been better? Again yes, but I think calling them "bubbas" again ventures into the territory of arguing by ad hominems. Even SIG themselves doesn't deny that there was a potential problem in those specific circumstances so the results aren't even unexpected. And the other manufacturers that were tested have additional features, specifically in the form of those trigger intertial safeties, to mitigate these issues. There's demanding scientific rigor, and then there's simply disqualifying sources that conflict with your narrative.

There is no way anything Omaha Outdoors did had any effect on the decision to meet the higher drop standards than the industry requires.

I don't remember claiming they did. I remember using them as an example.

Again, SIG engineers where addressing the higher than required drop safety standards long before Bubba started launching pistols.

Not something I ever denied. We already knew SIG was working on this beforehand.

You are not going to get that until the standards are raised.

Which is something I've pointed out multiple times in this thread and advocated for those many months ago.

 

[DubC-Hicks]

It's honestly somewhat laughable that people are fighting so hard against making a gun safer in the possibility of a drop. This isn't like a series 80 1911 where the trigger is worse or harder to work on, most people are saying the trigger comes back feeling better.

I thought us Glock fanboys were bad at times, but the mindset of these Sig guys coming in saying that Sig is being so generous as to "upgrade" these guns so they don't go off when you drop them is actually sad. It's a recall. It's an issue. This isn't an "upgrade".

 

[davidsog]

I have a "hard sciences" degree and I actually work at a research lab

Then why are you trying to create the impression bubba launching a small sample of unknown conditions weapons on uncalibrated equipment 4 months after the engineers have working to meet much higher standards than the industry requires has any meaning?

I thought us Glock fanboys were bad at times, but the mindset of these Sig guys coming in saying that Sig is being so generous as to "upgrade" these guns so they don't go off when you drop them is actually sad. It's a recall. It's an issue. This isn't an "upgrade"

Really has nothing to do with any brand of pistol.

It has to do with the Internet being about who screams the loudest and not about the facts.

 

[TunnelRat]

Then why are you trying to create the impression bubba launching a small sample of unknown conditions weapons on uncalibrated equipment 4 months after the engineers have working to meet much higher standards than the industry requires has any meaning?

Because I disagree with your characterization and I think the point that literally no other pistol tested in the same manner failed does in fact have meaning, and that meaning is that the fix that was implemented was worthwhile, which is something that others have doubted in this thread.

 

[davidsog]

that meaning is that the fix that was implemented was worthwhile

So now the narrative is the pistol is not fixed by the upgrade?

Getting a little conspiracy theorist aren't we??

 

[TunnelRat]

How are you even reading that out of what I said? Are you adding the word "not" in there somewhere, or are you going into another strawman argument as you have in the past?

meaning is that the fix that was implemented was worthwhile

How is anything in that remotely conspiracy oriented? I have never at any point suggested the fix doesn't work. As far as I know the fix does work, and works well. That's not my issue. My issue is with the people earlier in this thread saying the fix didn't provide any benefit, and to me it absolutely does.

 

[davidsog]

you going into another strawman argument as you have in the past?

So, you think uncontrolled testing and the resulting internet hysteria constitutes a strawman?

My issue is with the people earlier in this thread saying the fix didn't provide any benefit, and to me it absolutely does.

I agree. People who own first generation P320's without the updates should take advantage of the program. It will exceed industry drop safe standards and is free to do.

That was never a question.

What was questioned was the notion SIG did not meet current industry standards or was somehow hiding a defect from the consumer. That is a falsehood created on the internet because youtube is easier to digest than actually looking at the facts. No thinking involved.

It also covering up the fact that SIG has been extremely forthright and worked to do the right thing. They stood by their customers and have worked to exceed the safety standards of firearms. Opposite message from the "experts" on youtube.

That is a positive thing for the firearms industry no matter who made the firearm. Fortunately the court system, DoD, and the rule of law does not work on Internet Hysteria. If we allow it too, it won't be long before there is nobody to make firearms at all.

Your P320 serial number can be found by looking on the right side of the pistol grip. The serial number will be stamped into the receiver. This number should be entered into the first entry field of the form. SKU will automatically populate if your P320 is on a qualified list of U.S. Domestic consumer serial numbers.

https://www.sigsauer.com/support/p320-voluntary-upgrade/us-consumer-p320-voluntary-upgrade-program/

 

[TunnelRat]

So, you think uncontrolled testing and the resulting internet hysteria constitutes a strawman?

No I think saying I'm promoting conspiracy theories when I'm not is a strawman. It's that or you completely misread what I wrote and are unwilling to admit that.

That was never a question.

Yes it was a question, according to other people at the start of this thread, which is why I made those comments. You aren't the only person I reply to when I comment on a thread, as hard as that may be to believe. There are other people that post, and sometimes points are made between those people and not just directed at you.

Just as you aren't the only person on this thread, I'm not personally responsible for all comments made by YouTube posters. While I get pointing it out, it doesn't need to be pointed out with regards to me. Nothing I have stated on this thread bashes SIG to any extent.

If we allow it too, it won't be long before there is nobody to make firearms at all.

That's just pure hyperbole. Did the issue get blown out of proportion? Yes I think it did. Does that somehow lead to the eventual cessation of firearms production? I don't believe so. It was an issue that was pointed out and SIG then let the civilian customer base know that they had a fix and then made that fix available to the public. Whether those changes to the civilian P320 would have been made and if so when had the whole drop test madness not occurred is to me a legitimate question. Would the voluntary upgrade have happened had this issue not blown up? Idk. But the end result is the consumer got a better product. If that process leads to the eventual demise of all gun manufacturers then there's something weird going on.

 

[cslinger]

I don’t think anybody was insinuating that SIG didn’t or didn’t fully test the 320 nor do I think anybody said it was some kind of likely timebomb waiting to happen.

All that was said was a condition was found outside of normal test that did cause an unsafe firing to occur. Several other makes were anecdotally tested in the same or much much more extreme ways and were found not to fire. (Not a shot at SIG just peace of mind for other owners who have similar type pistols)

It was asked if a person should do the recall and, I believe both TR and I simply stated that there was no reason not to. There is no negative side effect, SIGs fix works and it is free. I think both TR and I simply think that mitigating a potentially deadly safety issue with no adverse effects should be a no brainer.

Not sure where all the conspiracy theory/animosity comes from. This isn’t a Glock doesn’t fire when thrown from a helicopter nanny nanny boo boo thing or HK can shoot bullets backwards thing. It’s just a simple I think addressing a safety issue when dealing with firearms is a good thing to do for yourself and those around you.

The 320 is a great gun. It had a hiccup that likely wouldn’t have been found in normal testing. Happens all the time with literally everything. No big deal, no conspiracy. SIG addressed it fairly well IMO. It got blown out of proportion because........well interwebz and gun nerds. (Said with love). But everything does on the internet. EVERY .40 caliber Glock is a finger severing explosion waiting to happen amiright.

Long story short. I just think there is no good reason not to take advantage of the “upgrade”

 

[davidsog]

Did the issue get blown out of proportion? Yes I think it did.

I agree. What creating a false perception will do is open manufacturers to more frivolous lawsuits, provide fuel for the anti-gun lobby, and make our hobby more expensive as lawyers cost money. It will also most certainly reduce the profit margin in a narrow market forming an impediment to entry possibly being the difference between staying in business or not. That is people lives that feed their families based on that business.

Had SIG done the wrong thing by denying the issue or not meeting current safety standards I would have no sympathy. Facts are they did not do that but acted responsibly and proactively.

I think credit should be given where credit is due or the next manufacturer might try a different route that is not as proactive.

No I think saying I'm promoting conspiracy theories when I'm not is a strawman. It's that or you completely misread what I wrote and are unwilling to admit that.

Your statement communicated that only the SIG P320 did not pass some unscientific testing done by Omaha Outdoors. It communicated a far greater importance to that set of testing performed long after the problem was noted and being fixed than actually exists.

That is what I got out of reading it. If I am wrong and misread what you meant to say, then certainly clarify it!

Long story short. I just think there is no good reason not to take advantage of the “upgrade”

Agreed.

 

[TunnelRat]

I agree. What creating a false perception will do is open manufacturers to more frivolous lawsuits, provide fuel for the anti-gun lobby, and make our hobby more expensive as lawyers cost money. It will also most certainly reduce the profit margin in a narrow market forming an impediment to entry possibly being the difference between staying in business or not. That is people lives that feed their families based on that business.

Had SIG done the wrong thing by denying the issue or not meeting current safety standards I would have no sympathy. Facts are they did not do that but acted responsibly and proactively.

I think credit should be given where credit is due or the next manufacturer might try a different route that is not as proactive.



Your statement communicated that only the SIG P320 did not pass some unscientific testing done by Omaha Outdoors. It communicated a far greater importance to that set of testing performed long after the problem was noted and being fixed than actually exists.

That is what I got out of reading it. If I am wrong and misread what you meant to say, then certainly clarify it!

I am not aware of a rash of frivolous lawsuits that resulted from all this. There is a difference between possible and probable. The end result of this was positive, as you yourself admitted. SIG is hardly the first manufacturer to face some bad PR, and come out the other side. While I believe it was overblown, I think consumers paying attention to the safety of products is a positive situation.

I've clarified what I said already in previous posts. I'm not sure what clarifying it further accomplishes. You're certainly free to interpret meaning that isn't there. I would point out that when the Omaha Outdoor testing was conducted the voluntary upgrade was not in full swing. Yes SIG had already developed the fix. That doesn't to me invalidate conducting the test, nor that the testing reinforces the need for the fix.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[davidsog]

I've clarified what I said already in previous posts. I'm not sure what clarifying it further accomplishes. You're certainly free to interpret meaning that isn't there. I would point out that when the Omaha Outdoor testing was conducted the voluntary upgrade was not in full swing. Yes SIG had already developed the fix. That doesn't to me invalidate conducting the test, nor that it reinforces the need for the fix.

SIG Identified the issue with the higher than standard conditions four months ahead of Omaha Outdoors article and began developing an engineering a fix in April 2017. That fix was issued the same day Omaha Outdoors did their testing.

Again....exactly how much of an effect do you think Omaha Outdoors on the situation?

 

[TunnelRat]

SIG Identified the issue with the higher than standard conditions four months ahead of Omaha Outdoors article and began developing an engineering a fix in April 2017. That fix was issued the same day Omaha Outdoors did their testing.

Again....exactly how much of an effect do you think Omaha Outdoors on the situation?

As I clarified to you before in Post 21, I don't think the Omaha Outdoors test did have an effect in terms of causing them to develop the fix. You seem to forget my responses quickly. I simply stated I find the results interesting and informative.

I am well aware, and I think we have beaten the horse to death, that the fix was a result of military testing. That's developing the fix and then making it available to the military. Now I do think the fact that the Voluntary Upgrade for civilian P320s, or I guess you could just say P320 as opposed to M17, was released very soon after all of this started to blow up on social media is a very unfortunate coincidence for SIG. The initial Omaha Outdoors article was on August 7 https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/sig-sauer-p320-fails-drop-test/and then days before that, August 2 https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/02/breaking-p320-recall-issued-dallas-police-prohibited-duty-till-repaired/, was the story about the Dallas PD pulling the P320 from duty (which turned out to be a decision made in error, but started people on this side of the fence talking and was supposedly the impetus for the Omaha Outdoors testing). And I hardly attribute all of that to Omaha Outdoors as they weren't the only ones covering this. Then the Voluntary Upgrade was issued on August 8 https://www.sigsauer.com/press-releases/sig-sauer-issues-voluntary-upgrade-p320-pistol/, the same day TTAG did their own testing https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/08/jeremy-s/breaking-ttag-tests-show-p320-striker-fired-pistols-are-not-drop-safe/. I would note that SIG's own press release makes mention of "recent events", though in fairness that may well mean the events from months prior (and SIG does mention the changes being a result of input from law enforcement and military customers).

I have not seen any proof that SIG was planning to conduct the Voluntary Upgrade, as it specifically relates to civilian owned commercial pistols, before all of this became talked about in civilian circles. It may well have been in those months from when they knew of the issue from military testing to when this blew up on social media that SIG was planning this upgrade for civilian pistols all along and that coincidentally just as they were about to release the fix for civilians this all happened. But I do not know that for sure. I am therefore left wondering when or if the Voluntary Upgrade for commercial P320s would have happened without the SIG pistol drop madness. Obviously the military pistols would have had the fix as a result of military requirements.

I don't see the thought above as a conspiracy, it's me acknowledging I don't have a company memo in front of me dated before all of this happened saying the Voluntary Upgrade would take place, and nor do I have a company memo saying that SIG was deliberately withholding the fix. I don't know either way, and I'm not going to automatically decide either way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[JohnKSa]

Uncontrolled and unknown conditions....

The tests are on video and others replicated them. The idea that the conditions were unknown is really a stretch. As far as the controls, the results were consistent and those who duplicated them got the same results.

Claims that Omaha Outdoors is in the running to replace UL for consumer testing would clearly be unwarranted , but taking the opposite extreme is equally unsupportable. The tests show what they show. Those who duplicated them got the same results. Not even SIG tried to deny the results were accurate.

So now the narrative is the pistol is not fixed by the upgrade?

Getting a little conspiracy theorist aren't we??

I've gone back and re-read this thread and no one has suggested that the pistol is not fixed by the upgrade. The statement you quoted certainly does not state or imply that.

Your statement communicated that only the SIG P320 did not pass some unscientific testing done by Omaha Outdoors. It communicated a far greater importance to that set of testing performed long after the problem was noted and being fixed than actually exists.

That is what I got out of reading it. If I am wrong and misread what you meant to say, then certainly clarify it!

1. It is true that only the SIG P320 failed the testing that Omaha Outdoors performed. That appears to be what TunnelRat stated and that appears to be what you have gotten out of the statement.

2. I don't really see the importance of the fact that the problem had already been noted and was being fixed at the time of the OO testing. I don't believe that anyone has implied otherwise. The OO testing definitely publicized the problem and it's true that most of the people who now know about the problem first learned about it as a result of the OO testing, either directly or indirectly.

Was the OO testing rigorously scientific? No. But they were conducted in a manner controlled enough to demonstrate that 1.) the P320 would fire if dropped in a particular manner and 2.) none of the other pistols tested could be made to fire if dropped in the same manner.

Some people see those results as very important. Some apparently do not. But no matter how you see them, those are the facts--and not even SIG denied them.

 

[davidsog]

2. I don't really see the importance of the fact that the problem had already been noted and was being fixed at the time of the OO testing.

What part about screaming and profiting off a problem that has already been noted and solved is koscher to you?

A simple google search of "omaha outdoors drop test" reveals pages of folks referencing those test's. It appears pretty much the source of the internet implosion. Omaha Outdoors even went so far as to impose their own personal ban on SIG 320's which their right but you cannot say it was done quietly. Nope, it looks like maximum advertising was in effect with little effort to get the facts out that might alter the perception of Omaha Outdoors innovating the way, LOL.

Was the OO testing rigorously scientific? No.

Right and that says it all. That anything else was done is irrelevant. Honestly, if it my pistol manufacturing company was in SIG's financial position, I get some lawyers and come after the bubba gun throwers. It looks to me like Omaha Outdoors got their panties ruffled when SIG blew them off because it was old news and the pistol did meet every required drop safety standard in existence at the time it was designed.

Since then Omaha Outdoors does not really seem to have shut up about it or tried to make it clear that SIG was doing the right thing long before they got involved and without their assistance.

At least that is perception I get after a few minutes searching on the internet.

This is a very well documented issue and Omaha Outdoors simply was not the player in it they hoped.

and not even SIG denied them.

No, in fact SIG has acted responsibly and proactively. Something that is not conveyed very well with the bubba gun throwers.

 

[TunnelRat]

What part about screaming and profiting off a problem that has already been noted and solved is koscher to you?

I'm not sure that the page views that came from this suddenly made Omaha Outdoors rich. And as has been pointed out, while it was noted and fixed for the military the same had not been done for commercial P320s, until the next day, and people with commercial P320s did not at that point know a fix existed and/or that SIG would make that fix available to them.

Honestly, if it my pistol manufacturing company was in SIG's financial position, I get some lawyers and come after the bubba gun throwers.

Then I imagine SIG is thankful you're not part of their company. What you just suggested would have dragged this issue out far more and drawn more ire. By taking the high route they make themselves look better and deflated the hullabaloo a lot faster.

Right and that says it all. That anything else was done is irrelevant.

I like when you quote snippets of what people say and ignore the detail their comments go into. I mean, do you think you quote people fairly?

Nope

Thanks.

 

[JohnKSa]

What part about screaming and profiting off a problem that has already been noted and solved is koscher to you?

That's not remotely relevant to what I was trying to say.

Let me rephrase:

2. I don't really see how the fact that the problem had already been noted and was being fixed at the time of the OO testing has any bearing on the validity of their testing.

Right and that says it all. That anything else was done is irrelevant.

I understand that is your opinion, but even if you say it many, many more times, it still won't change the facts.

Nitpicking their test methodology while affirming that their results are accurate (you agree that not even SIG denies their results) makes no sense. We all know and agree that the results they obtained are accurate and repeatable. Continuing to attack them and their methodology might make sense if their results were in question--but they're not.

It doesn't say it all--clearly there is more to it than that. Here are some other things that are relevant:

1. No other pistols tested the same way failed. That is relevant in several ways--the main one being that it shows that this is not a problem common to all pistols. Also that the problem is not purely theoretical--it can occur in real-world situations.

2. Other people were able to replicate the results. That is relevant because it demonstrates that this isn't just an isolated case of a defective pistol or two that OO just happened to have. It is relevant because it demonstrates that OO wasn't doing something weird to get the results they publicized.

3. The tests were conducted on video so that people could see what was being done and draw their own conclusions. This is relevant because it demonstrates that OO was being open about what they did and because it let people not only see and easily understand what was being done and draw their own conclusions but because it allowed them to replicate the experiment. It is also relevant because it was easily shared and therefore many people got the message in a short time.

4. Their results were accurate. The bottom line is that whatever else people can find to complain about, nobody, not even SIG, and not even you can say that their test results were incorrect.

...Omaha Outdoors simply was not the player in it they hoped.

See, I don't really care anything at all about OO or what they hoped to be or do or how they hoped to profit or IF they hoped to profit and if so, how much. I don't care if they are bubbas or if what they did to guns could reasonably be called "throwing" or not.

What does interest me is their testing and the results of it. What I appreciate is their making it public so I could see for myself what happened when P320 pistols were dropped and what happened when other similar/common pistols were dropped in the same way.

Something that is not conveyed very well with the bubba gun throwers.

I can't tell if you really have a lot of animosity towards OO or if you are just generating all this heat and smoke about OO as a red herring to deflect from the actual topic of the thread.

Just for clarification, this thread isn't about OO. It is about the P320 upgrade and whether or not getting the P320 upgrade makes sense or not. The organization that publicized the problem obviously played a part in the overall situation that led us to where we are, but focusing on them and their possible motives and nitpicking their testing methodology really has very little bearing at all on whether or not it makes sense to have the upgrade done.

 

[davidsog]

And as has been pointed out, while it was noted and fixed for the military the same had not been dome for commercial P320s, until the next day, and people with commercial P320s did not at that point know a fix existed and/or that SIG would make that fix available to them.

Not true and based upon internet speculation.

The fix for the military came in at the same time.

2. I don't really see how the fact that the problem had already been noted and was being fixed at the time of the OO testing has any bearing on the validity of their testing.

It produces a false narrative that is being repeated on the internet.

Now Omaha Outdoors did not lie outright but they are not doing much to get the truth out either. They certainly benefit from the propagation of that false perception they are the catalyst of change.

During yesterday’s visit to SIG HQ, the company recognized the issue with the -30 degree hard surface drop discharges brought to light in the Omaha Outdoors and TTAG videos.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...0-voluntary-safety-upgrade-details-on-monday/

Even you are repeating it.

The organization that publicized the problem obviously played a part in the overall situation that led us to where we are,

nitpicking their testing methodology

LOL, so pointing out the test is not valid is nitpicking?

 

[JohnKSa]

It produces a false narrative that is being repeated on the internet.

Here is what I said:

"I don't really see how the fact that the problem had already been noted and was being fixed at the time of the OO testing has any bearing on the validity of their testing."

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there is "a false narrative that is being repeated on the internet". That isn't something that has any bearing on the validity of their testing.

The fix for the military came in at the same time.

SIG's website announcement (which is still in place) clearly states that the military pistols were not affected.

Here is TAG's article on the issue dated 7 August.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...ig-sauer-p320-pistols-following-drop-testing/

SIG's announcement is dated 8 August and stated that the M17 pistols were not affected.

Clearly the military pistols were fixed before the 8 August announcement was posted. Before SIG publicly announced the voluntary upgrade for the commercial pistols. Before OO's testing results publicized the existing problem with the commercial pistols.

LOL, so pointing out the test is not valid is nitpicking?

Nitpicking is accepting that the results are accurate and still arguing about the validity of the tests.

Nitpicking is arguing about the testing methodology when everyone, including yourself and SIG agrees that the test results are correct.

 

[pblanc]

I agree entirely with JohnKSa, and as an owner of two SIG P320s, both of which were purchased well before August of 2017 I followed the drop-fire liability quite closely.

I watched at least 10 different videos of P320s that drop-fired primed cases when dropped muzzle up at an angle that maximized impact on the rear of the slide. In some of these, the pistol drop-fired on the very first attempt. Pistols were dropped onto a variety of surfaces usually from shoulder to mid-chest level, not from very high heights onto concrete. These videos seemed entirely credible to me.

Although the P320 passed two or three "standard" drop test batteries prior to release, none of these included a muzzle up drop test that maximized impact on the rear of the slide. In retrospect, it seems obvious that standard drop test batteries should and should have incorporated a test of this type.

If there is a drop-fire liability with a pistol, that is a potential issue for an owner whether or not the pistol passed a standard battery of drop tests or not. Having passed some battery of drop tests would be cold comfort to a gun owner that experienced a drop-fire that resulted in injury or death.

I am aware of four different claims from P320 owners posted on the internet that their pistol did drop-fire a live round. One poster showed a bullet hole in his living room ceiling that he claimed was the result of a P320 drop-fire. When the drop-fire issue became public knowledge Tom Taylor, Executive Vice-President of Sales for SIG, disclosed that he knew of 4 drop-fire events that had been reported in the "commercial market".

We also know that SIG Sauer knew of the drop-fire liability well before August of last year. It is absolutely true that SIG had completed an Engineering Change Protocol (ECP) for the military XM17/XM18 well before that time, although I personally do not know exactly when this ECP was initiated. We also know that SIG Sauer was aware of an alleged P320 drop-fire incident that resulted in serious injury to a Stamford, CT police officer very early in 2017. That occurred on January 5 and the pistol was sent to SIG Sauer for inspection very shortly after the event. Officer Sheparis' lawyers had been in some type of negotiation with SIG Sauer for months before Sheparis filed suit against SIG in early August 2017.

While it is true that the P320 passed accepted drop safety tests prior to its release, it is also true that SIG Sauer knew about a potential drop-fire liability of the commercial P320 well before they disclosed this publicly in August of 2017. This became known to them through military testing of the experimental XM17 and XM18 pistols and from a handful of alleged drop-fire events that had occurred in the commercial market that Tom Taylor later admitted had been reported, one of which resulted in serious personal injury. Exactly when they became aware of this and what their intentions were with regard to the commercial market are a matter of conjecture.

Based on the videos and information I had reviewed, I judged that the potential for a drop-fire occurring with my two pistols was quite small but I did choose to send both in for the "voluntary upgrade".