runningbear
New member
I would never ever buy a GM anything.
SIG Sauer: The Break Up. Updates.
- Thread starter Tactical Jackalope
- Start date
- Status
Constantine, I understand your frustration. I'm sorry to say that it's not just SIG doing this crap. I have a Walther PPQ that I bought used. I discovered a frame crack. I emailed Walther Arms. They looked at the pics and said that it was not repairable. It just needed the polymer frame replaced, I even offered to pay for the frame. They said that they do not replace frames and that I should dispose of the gun!! I went right to the head of customer service and he still refused. Thankfully I contacted Earl's Repair and he sold me a new frame.
If it is the slide that is bad on your SIG then you could always try to find a used slide and salvage what you have..Just a thought..Certainly not ideal but it is an option.
If it is the slide that is bad on your SIG then you could always try to find a used slide and salvage what you have..Just a thought..Certainly not ideal but it is an option.
I own two sigs, a P238 and P938. Happy with both but will not buy another sig. If a company won't stand behind a defective part due to a manufacting problem/error I won't stand by them. They are too many companies who do stand by their product to do business with one who doesn't care about there coustomers.
Ocra, no one is claiming that SIG is operating outside the law or even that they are going back on a promise or obligation of theirs. Instead I think what I and others are concerned with is that they are using the terms of the warranty as an excuse to not make good on shoddy production. If the gun is truly faulty, as I believe, then it's just inconceivable to imagine doing business with a company that won't do right by it when most others will.
Keltec, SCCY, SA, Ruger, S&W, probably more I'm forgetting- But not SIG apparently.
That's where the GM logic falls flat really. What if there was a company that sold just as good of cars but had a lifetime unlimited warranty in the case of obvious manufacturer defect regardless of ownership issues? What if that was the industry standard and GM stood alone in their avarice.
The reason I'm so adament about this point of view and punishing SIG for this is because I get better service from my gun companies when all the rest of you demand it along with me. We all benefit from high standards and expectations and I think punishing bad CS is a key to keeping it high quality across the board.
Keltec, SCCY, SA, Ruger, S&W, probably more I'm forgetting- But not SIG apparently.
That's where the GM logic falls flat really. What if there was a company that sold just as good of cars but had a lifetime unlimited warranty in the case of obvious manufacturer defect regardless of ownership issues? What if that was the industry standard and GM stood alone in their avarice.
The reason I'm so adament about this point of view and punishing SIG for this is because I get better service from my gun companies when all the rest of you demand it along with me. We all benefit from high standards and expectations and I think punishing bad CS is a key to keeping it high quality across the board.
I have seen lots of p239s with that wear pattern.
SIG owes you nothing. That being said if I were in charge I would have at least worked with you for no other reason than the ole adage that a happy customer tells a friend. An angry customer tells 10 friends. An angry customer made happy tells everybody.
I don't see why they cannot / will not just sell you a frame or full fun at a discount/cost or something.
It saddens me to see this. SIG SAUER used to be to hell and back and had great customer service.
SIG owes you nothing. That being said if I were in charge I would have at least worked with you for no other reason than the ole adage that a happy customer tells a friend. An angry customer tells 10 friends. An angry customer made happy tells everybody.
I don't see why they cannot / will not just sell you a frame or full fun at a discount/cost or something.
It saddens me to see this. SIG SAUER used to be to hell and back and had great customer service.
FrankenMauser
New member
Stop trying to create a "PR nightmare" for Sig, and just shoot the bloody thing!
It isn't as bad as you think.
It isn't as bad as you think.
Pond James Pond
New member
I can see both sides of this story, but that doesn't mean I agree with how it's being handled.
Firstly, I feel the OP is entitled to share this story. No one decries another when they are posting how brilliantly their gun has shot, but when someone complains about something, it seems sometimes others resent it. If the criticism has a basis, I think it benefits us all to know about it.
Personally, I judge a company by both its product, but also its attitude. In this case it seems to me that Sig is not acting in a laudable manner. Yes, legally they are not obliged to do anything, but on the other hand if I bought a "used" gun that was essentially unfired, to all intents and purposes, and it exhibited the problems described I'd be apoplectic.... And had I manufactured that gun, I'd be concerned if not plain embarrassed.
This is a gun, not a perishable food-stuff.
Age, provided it has been stored correctly, is irrelevant. No well-stored gun has ever eroded away. It is use that destroys a gun, and in this case that destruction is happening both quickly and prematurely.
So, whilst not obliged to do anything, I feel Sig would have done itself and the OP a good turn by at least looking for a solution that would help the OP rather than leaving him to his own devices.
And if the risks of a failure are as real as described and Sig are aware of that, then there is an added dimension.
Whilst this even may not hurt Sig in and of itself, it shows a business philosophy that eventually will. Already, there are murmurs of lower QC for the same high price and once that rep sets in its damn hard and damn expensive to reverse...
Firstly, I feel the OP is entitled to share this story. No one decries another when they are posting how brilliantly their gun has shot, but when someone complains about something, it seems sometimes others resent it. If the criticism has a basis, I think it benefits us all to know about it.
Personally, I judge a company by both its product, but also its attitude. In this case it seems to me that Sig is not acting in a laudable manner. Yes, legally they are not obliged to do anything, but on the other hand if I bought a "used" gun that was essentially unfired, to all intents and purposes, and it exhibited the problems described I'd be apoplectic.... And had I manufactured that gun, I'd be concerned if not plain embarrassed.
This is a gun, not a perishable food-stuff.
Age, provided it has been stored correctly, is irrelevant. No well-stored gun has ever eroded away. It is use that destroys a gun, and in this case that destruction is happening both quickly and prematurely.
So, whilst not obliged to do anything, I feel Sig would have done itself and the OP a good turn by at least looking for a solution that would help the OP rather than leaving him to his own devices.
And if the risks of a failure are as real as described and Sig are aware of that, then there is an added dimension.
Whilst this even may not hurt Sig in and of itself, it shows a business philosophy that eventually will. Already, there are murmurs of lower QC for the same high price and once that rep sets in its damn hard and damn expensive to reverse...
Last edited:
We need not beat the OP up for sharing his opinions and emotions based on this experience. That is what this forum is for, after all. If he will not buy another sig because of this, I completely understand and would not either. He is not out to destroy sig or make them look awful. He has been polite and courteous about the whole thing.
P71 Pilot I do not disagree. However we also need to keep in mind that SIG was never given the opportunity to inspect this while dealing directly with the customer. Before I would condemn SIG based on this experience I would have liked to know what would have happened had the $55 inspection fee been paid. I don't think that SIG was going to cover all of this but I also question if they would have covered none of it as well.
We are struck in dealing in hypotheticals. I don't blame the OP - I would be more than a little annoyed as well. I get sending it to a third party but I also wonder if this resulted in the best possible service.
I'm curious to the outcome but at this point I don't see where SIG is going to remedy it as things stand. I doubt they at this point reach out and make any more promises then they did before inspecting the gun prior to this.
If I owned the gun, knowing what has transpired to this point, I would pay SIG the inspection fee and send it in to see if any remedy was proposed. I doubt they cover all of the repairs (replacement?) but I would be curious to see if they cover part of them.
We are struck in dealing in hypotheticals. I don't blame the OP - I would be more than a little annoyed as well. I get sending it to a third party but I also wonder if this resulted in the best possible service.
I'm curious to the outcome but at this point I don't see where SIG is going to remedy it as things stand. I doubt they at this point reach out and make any more promises then they did before inspecting the gun prior to this.
If I owned the gun, knowing what has transpired to this point, I would pay SIG the inspection fee and send it in to see if any remedy was proposed. I doubt they cover all of the repairs (replacement?) but I would be curious to see if they cover part of them.
Destructo6
New member
I'll take it off your hands for $50 or the price of shipping, whichever is more.
Better than having a grenade in your hands, right?
Better than having a grenade in your hands, right?
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Again, you didn't read. It went to SIG when Bruce Gray took it to SIG. They still said "no".
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Cute, but I'd rather put it in an oven.
Thank you good sir!
lol...phenomenal input.
Bruce Gray > Franken Mauser.
Yes, that's why he offered.
- Status