Sig p320 recall?

davidsog …..No, in fact SIG has acted responsibly and proactively....
Absolute nonsense.
-Sig knew about the issues many months before Omaha Outdoors discovered & publicized the flaw.
-Sig knew the design was defective because the military told them so..
-Sig chose to not responsibly and proactively recall civilian guns that SIG KNEW were defective.
-Sig's initial response was "well it passed the industry standard test"....which is irrelevant when your firearm can fire when dropped.
-

Sig is going to pay $$$$ out the buttocks for a poor design that has resulted in real world injuries.

hfddrxauu5fz.jpg
 
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.

That is an assumption on your part and is overly simplistic. Just because SIG separates the M17 contract from the Commercial P320 does not mean one was fixed while the other was not.

SIG had to developed a common "the fix" and emplace all the pieces right down to a very large assembly line in order to roll out the changes.

Additionally, Organizations like Omaha Outdoors keep implying SIG was somehow at fault or negligent for producing and thoroughly testing a pistol that met all EXISTING standards for safety at the time.

Omaha Outdoors certainly implies a "coverup" and greatly exaggerates their part in this process simply because they bubba launched some pistols.

Omaha Outdoors testing regarding the P320 drop fire issue was conducted in early August 2017 and released on August 7, 2017. On August 4, 2017, SIG had stated that the company “has full confidence in the reliability, durability, and safety of its striker-fired handgun platform” and that there had been “zero (0) reported drop-related P320 incidents in the U.S. commercial market” as well as describing that “the P320 meets and exceeds all U.S. standards for safety.”


This did not happen in a vacuum. Even the determination there is a problem took some time.

The pistol passed DoD drop testing and was awarded the contract. There is no issue as the pistol meets the higher DoD standard! Verification Testing of the Initial production deliveries discovered an issue with the drop safety. SIG is told to fix it. PVT is Performance Verification Testing.

2db0vwy.jpg



A testing program had to be developed, the issue repeated, a database assembled, to confirm and ID a problem. Raw solutions developed to fix the problem, those solutions implemented, tested, and refined before any logistical plan to distribute the fix, retool production lines, train workers, and finally implement the solution.

In perspective this is an issue which far exceeds any legal drop safety standard in place at the time. With a .000008% chance of a drop failure it is hard to argue there was an issue at all.

To better understand what we are talking about....Your chances of dying from testicular cancer stand at .4% or 50,000 times greater than a P320 owner experience an AD from a dropped pistol.

Your chances of getting a hole in one at golf on your birthday stand at .00004% or 5 times greater than the chances a P320 owner will experience an AD from a dropped pistol.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cance...ility-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mega-millions-lottery-odds-of-winning/

So no, it is highly unlikely M17's were fixed outside a few initial delivery examples but rather in a similar spot in the process as commercial P320. The M17 is a totally seperate contract without any reason to blend or confuse the two. It makes perfect sense SIG would say there are taken care of and have nothing to do with civilian P320's.

That does not mean the same fix in the form of a voluntary recall was not already in place for the Commerical P320.


https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/pentagon-weapons-testing-office-report-sig-mhs-xm17/

SIG completed this process in just four short months. It is obvious bubba gun throwers had nothing to do with it.

Clearly SIG was informed of the drop issue in April of 2017 and directed to implement a solution.

Now, to be clear, the upgrade is free and should be taken advantage of but saying this issue has been greatly distorted by the internet is a huge understatement.

That the internet would jump to conclusion is also unsurprising.

Absolute nonsense.
-Sig knew about the issues many months before Omaha Outdoors discovered & publicized the flaw.
-Sig knew the design was defective because the military told them so..
-Sig chose to not responsibly and proactively recall civilian guns that SIG KNEW were defective.
-Sig's initial response was "well it passed the industry standard test"....which is irrelevant when your firearm can fire when dropped.
-

Sig is going to pay $$$$ out the buttocks for a poor design that has resulted in real world injuries.

And there are Aliens at Roswell and a monster in Loch Ness! It is on YOUTUUUUUBBBE!! It must be true, LOL. ;)

FACTS:

There is ONE injury of a Police Officer and no proof that it was caused by pistol that did not meet industry safety standards.

The lawsuit will make its way thru the system and we will all see the result.

I tend to think he is going to lose.
 
We do not know that SIG was informed of a drop-fire issue in April 2017 during product verification testing of the XM17/18 or whether the issue became known during bid sample testing that started in February of 2016.
 
We do not know that SIG was informed of a drop-fire issue in April 2017 during product verification testing of the XM17/18 or whether the issue became known during bid sample testing that started in February of 2016.

According to the reports I have seen, the only mention of the pistol not passing a drop safety test was in April 2017 during PVT testing of the first batch.

SIG was awarded the contract in January 2017 after winning (passing all test including drop standard testing) the competition.
 
That does not mean the same fix in the form of a voluntary recall was not already in place for the Commerical P320.

So then your argument is that coincidentally to the originally planned announcement of the Voluntary Upgrade, as well as the stoppage of production of new P320s, all of these events happened? If SIG had plans in place for the Voluntary Upgrade prior to all the news stories why have they never released any statement or shown any documentation claiming as much?
 
So then your argument is that coincidentally to the originally planned announcement of the Voluntary Upgrade all of these events happened? If SIG had plans in place for the Voluntary Upgrade prior to all the news stories why have they never released any statement claiming as much?

You know that SIG only had 50 examples of the redesigned trigger installed on ANY pistol in existence on August 9th when they stopped Commercial P320 production?

That is the Army's PVT test sample and nothing else.

SIG was at:

A testing program had to be developed, the issue repeated, a database assembled, to confirm and ID a problem. Raw solutions developed to fix the problem, those solutions implemented, tested, and refined before any logistical plan to distribute the fix, retool production lines, train workers, and finally implement the solution.

After completing:

A testing program had to be developed, the issue repeated, a database assembled, to confirm and ID a problem. Raw solutions developed to fix the problem, those solutions implemented, tested, and refined before any logistical plan to distribute the fix

Parts needed to be manufactured, production retooled, and workers trained. That means stopping the line while the logistical plan gets implemented.
 
So that is your argument then? I asked it as an honest question so I could clarify what you were saying.

Why has SIG never claimed or pointed out as much as you are saying? Wouldn't doing so have completely shut down the claims you take issue with from Omaha Outdoors?
 
Last edited:
davidsog: ….Additionally, Organizations like Omaha Outdoors keep implying SIG was somehow at fault or negligent for producing and thoroughly testing a pistol that met all EXISTING standards for safety at the time.
Well, the existing standard for safety is not going boom when dropped.:rolleyes:
You confuse passing a SAAMI drop test with a safe design. If the 320 was a safe design it wouldn't matter what drop test was used.

I'm sure SIG loves an apologist, but know what it is your are apologizing for.



Omaha Outdoors certainly implies a "coverup" and greatly exaggerates their part in this process simply because they bubba launched some pistols.
Not hardly.


You need to step back from being a fanboy and see how ridiculous your argument is.

SIG screwed up.





FACTS:

There is ONE injury of a Police Officer and no proof that it was caused by pistol that did not meet industry safety standards.
Like your other "facts" you're wrong. As of today there are at least three police officers claiming injury from a SIG 320. Read the CNN story.



The lawsuit will make its way thru the system and we will all see the result.

I tend to think he is going to lose.
SIG will settle out of court. (and one of the officers is a she)
 
That is an assumption on your part and is overly simplistic.
The date of the OO video and the date of the SIG announcement, combined with the content of the SIG announcement is conclusive and requires no assumption at all--other than that SIG is telling the truth in the announcement.
Just because SIG separates the M17 contract from the Commercial P320 does not mean one was fixed while the other was not.
Read the announcement. It does not say they are "separated". It says that the military pistols are not affected. Either SIG was lying on 8 August when it said the military pistols were not affected or they were telling the truth which would mean that the military pistols had already been fixed.
Omaha Outdoors certainly implies a "coverup" and greatly exaggerates their part in this process simply because they bubba launched some pistols.
I can see that you're unhappy about how things have turned out, but trying to make OO the bad guy in all this is simply not going to work. Even if OO had never said a word, the fact that the Dallas PD made an announcement that they had dropped the P320 a few days before the OO video was publicized, combined with the other well-documented instances of the problem would have eventually brought about the same results that the OO video did.

It's not reasonable to pretend that this is all about OO--they were just the last straw.
Even the determination there is a problem took some time.

The pistol passed DoD drop testing and was awarded the contract. There is no issue as the pistol meets the higher DoD standard! Verification Testing of the Initial production deliveries discovered an issue with the drop safety. SIG is told to fix it. PVT is Performance Verification Testing.
And they did fix it if you believe SIG.

Or if you believe this article which was posted on 8 August 2017.

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/08/0...-unaffected-announces-voluntary-p320-upgrade/

...SIG proposed an enhanced trigger via Engineering Change Request E0005. As it didn’t result in additional cost to the government and only improved the firearm’s performance, M17s currently being delivered to the US Army have this trigger. Additionally, this trigger also eliminates the “double click” felt during P320 trigger pull.​
So no, it is highly unlikely M17's were fixed...
SIG says they were. The article, written after an interview with SIG at their factory and based on information provided by SIG says they were. What's "highly unlikely" is that everyone (including SIG) has it wrong but you somehow have figured out the truth.
 
Well, the existing standard for safety is not going boom when dropped.
You confuse passing a SAAMI drop test with a safe design. If the 320 was a safe design it wouldn't matter what drop test was used.

Wow...

No, safe handling practices are in place because the standard you imply is impossible to meet.

SAAMI is the standard all manufacturers have to meet. That is simply fact.

can see that you're unhappy

Oh, so you have the ability to peer thru a computer and judge emotional states.

It is just a fact guy. We as American's tend to think everything is fast food with instant gratification including engineering and production lines.

It is just not that way.

It's not reasonable to pretend that this is all about OO--they were just the last straw.

Again, your assumption. It is not all about OO. It is simply a fact they have "assumed leadership" in youtube land principally for their own benefit. The reality is at odds with the perception they would like to create.

Therefore they are "lacking leadership" when it comes to getting facts out that do not promote them as the caped crusaders of pistol launchers.


Why has SIG never claimed or pointed out as much as you are saying?

I have actually read more about SIG in the two threads on this rather cliquish board than I cared too.

Some critical thinking skills in addition to what youtube tells you to think, read the DoD reports, and cross reference SIG's actions.....

You will find they are saying the same thing I am.

It is called VETTING of information. Something I am very used to doing. If we did not, then we would have shot a lot of innocent farmers simply because their neighbors wanted their farm in Afghanistan and other Durka Durka-stan's.
 
It is not all about OO. It is simply a fact they have "assumed leadership" in youtube land principally for their own benefit.

They have a grand total of 9,673 subscribers and 48 videos on YouTube. Their last video was 5 months ago. Their video on P320 "drop safety" isn't even the most viewed video on the topic, by a difference of hundreds of thousands of views. They certainly aren't the leader of gun channels on YouTube, not even remotely. How have they assumed that role exactly?

I have actually read more about SIG in the two threads on this rather cliquish board than I cared too.

Some critical thinking skills in addition to what youtube tells you to think, read the DoD reports, and cross reference SIG's actions.....

You will find they are saying the same thing I am.

This is pretty much what I expected. Some mild ad hominems as well as the "if you were as clever as I am you'd see my conclusion is the only logical one" response. Okay then.

It is called VETTING of information. Something I am very used to doing. If we did not, then we would have shot a lot of innocent farmers simply because their neighbors wanted their farm in Afghanistan and other Durka Durka-stan's.

In both my professional and personal life I've had the opportunity to work with a number of people that were in the special operations community. It was a privilege. I found them great sources of information and people who were both great teachers and collaborators. In a number of threads now you've brought up your military service at later points in the conversation. At best they've been passingly relevant to the topic at hand, but at worst they seem to be efforts to shut down discussion by positioning yourself as the only one with enough experience to have an informed opinion and thus the penultimate authority. I find it somewhat disingenuous, and doesn't match the attitudes I've encountered from people of similar professional backgrounds.
 
Last edited:
In both my professional and personal life I've had the opportunity to work with a number of people that were in the special operations community. It was a privilege. I found them great sources of information and people who were both great teachers and collaborators. In a number of threads now you've brought up your military service at later points in the conversation. At best they've been passingly relevant to the topic at hand, but at worst they seem to be efforts to shut down discussion by positioning yourself as the only one with enough experience to have an informed opinion and thus the penultimate authority. I find it somewhat disingenuous, and doesn't match the attitudes I've encountered from people of similar professional backgrounds.

Wow...

So I should not mention any experience gleaned in what amounts to my entire adult life because you are so insecure as to think it is "shutting down" a conversation?

Got it.
 
I've had plenty of people share similar experiences with me without me feeling "insecure" (and for that matter I neither have the authority nor the desire to tell you what to do). The difference is, from my impression, they do it to actually provide value to a discussion, whereas you do it to present yourself as the only authority in the room as a means to try to win an argument. Your repeated use of ad hominems throughout this thread goes to my main point of that post, which is basically about intellectual honesty.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
We do not know that SIG was informed of a drop-fire issue in April 2017 during product verification testing of the XM17/18 or whether the issue became known during bid sample testing that started in February of 2016.

We kind of do. They won the competition and were awarded the contract in January 2017. In order for that to happen, the Pistol submitted for testing had to have passed the drop test.

The customer (DoD) tells them in no uncertain terms in April of 2017 their initial delivery did not pass PVT testing. And then in the same paragraph, DoD DIRECTS SIG to fix it. That is not a request.

If it did not pass the initial drop test then we would be talking about a vast conspiracy to cover up and award SIG the contract. We are talking a lot people who would go to jail. It is going a rabbit hole to visit Wonderland.

TunnelRat

Look, stop projecting issues and emotional blah blah and talk about guns or go join a discussion group that helps with that kind of thing when you get triggered.

You realize you are draggin the thread off topic. You are free to decide what ever you wish. I am sorry that I talk about my experiences with guns on a gun forum.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem talking about guns. What you've been posting about has more to do with business practice speculation than semiautomatic firearms (the topic of this subforum) themselves. The OP has long since disappeared, and the original topic of, "is it worth doing the recall?", has long been answered and is something that even you and I agree on. I'll take your point, but you might want to follow your own advice.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
davidsog
Quote:
Well, the existing standard for safety is not going boom when dropped.
You confuse passing a SAAMI drop test with a safe design. If the 320 was a safe design it wouldn't matter what drop test was used.

Wow...

No, safe handling practices are in place because the standard you imply is impossible to meet.
Wrong, quite a few firearms are wholly and completely "drop safe" because their design does not allow the hammer/firing pin/striker assembly to make contact with the primer unless the trigger is pulled.


SAAMI is the standard all manufacturers have to meet. That is simply fact.
Well, wrong again. SAAMI standards are voluntary. There is no law that requires a firearm manufacturer to join, much less abide by SAAMI specs. That, sir, is simply fact.
If you removed your SIG branded eyewear long enough to do five minutes of Googling you would know this.;)
 
Let's see if we can stop the personal attacks and also minimize the "I'm X and/or have done X so I obviously know more than everyone else." arguments.

This is, in the final analysis, a pretty straightforward topic with a lot of facts available and therefore, since we are all adults, we should be able to discuss it based on the facts, without having to resort to personal attacks and urination Olympiads.
Oh, so you have the ability to peer thru a computer and judge emotional states.
Fair enough. :D

Allow me to rephrase: I can see that you are either unhappy or are doing your absolutely level best to make it seem that you are unhappy about how things have turned out.
Therefore they are "lacking leadership" when it comes to getting facts out...
I confess I'm not even sure what this means.
It is simply a fact they have "assumed leadership" in youtube land principally for their own benefit. The reality is at odds with the perception they would like to create.
Again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "assuming leadership". They were not the only people to post videos, but they do appear to have been the first. If being the first was "assuming leadership" then I guess one could say that they "assumed leadership".

It seems that this is boiling down more to your apparent dislike of OO than to any objection to the actual content they posted. Maybe rather than trying to interpret OO's motives (especially since you seem to be against this type of approach when it is applied to you) it would be better to focus more on the veracity of their claims and the validity of their results.
 
Back
Top