[Dean Speir]

 

There were some photos floating about the 'Net earlier this month of a SIG P229 which seems to exhibit an almost unheard of low round count, low fracture toughness slide failure. This was followed up on with both SIG-Sauer and the Swiss agency in which this occurred.

        Unusual SIG Slide Fracture (http://www.thegunzone.com/sigp229-fracture.html)

And yes, just as happened with early iterations of the M9s with slides manufactured in Italy, there was a complete slide separation failure with an injury to a female officer.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

In addition, unspecified problems have recently caused a total of 41 Model P229s in 357 SIG to be removed from the Federal Air Marshals program.


This is total BS, I know this first hand, for a fact.

[Tamara]

Aren't US-made SIG P-229 slides milled from castings supplied by Pinetree Castings (ie Ruger)? Or is this just one of those rumors one hears?

[CZ52GUY]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, unspecified problems have recently caused a total of 41 Model P229s in 357 SIG to be removed from the Federal Air Marshals program.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is total BS, I know this first hand, for a fact.


Either there has been an identified problem where corrective action has been taken, or a claim of product defectivity is being made that is bogus.

I would think Mr. Speir would be able to corroborate his claim, or that TheFederalistWeasal would be able to provide some context to the claimed rebuttal?

If this claim is untrue, than one could question the authenticity of other claims made in the article which are without sufficient corroboration to sustain the credibility of the article in question.

If the article is completely bogus, then why believe anything published at the site?

Product safety watch dogs can provide a useful service only when providing objective evidence that the product in question is really deserving of the scrutiny it is receiving.

To both individuals, please help clarify the record on this item.

Thanks in advance,

CZ52'

[Jim K]

FWIW, a note that SIG-Sauer does not exist any more. SIG is now Swiss Arms and Sauer & Son is again a separate company.

CZ52, I don't know if you are talking about the statement on Air Marshals or the Swiss situation, but if the latter, those pictures look pretty definitive to me. I would say Sauer has/had a problem. And yes, sometimes a small machining difference can create big trouble.

Jim

[CZ52GUY]

...is not always worth a thousand words.

The author attempts to make a case asserting specific facts to provide context to the story.

I've reviewed content by this author before and have within this forum aggressively disputed some of his logic...namely, that in the case of one manufacturer, isolated incidents occurring with two firearms more than 10 years ago represent an indictment of the entire product line...to include models that are made today that did not exist at the time of the supposed defect. No statistical sampling was offered to provide even representative evidence as to whether the issue could be written off as a fluke, or whether the problem was pervasive enough to support his conclusions.

Now with this article, a disturbing picture is shown and then some of the author's assertions are disputed by an individual claiming discrete knowledge rebutting the author's claims.

What I have to wonder out loud is whether what is truly pervasive is this author's willingness to yell DEFECT without providing sufficient independently verifiable evidence to back up the claim.

Those who provide scrutiny regarding product safety can be invaluable IF their claims are credible.

At this point, I'm concerned about the credibility of the claims being made.

I would invite the author to provide more definitive evidence, including sources that can be independently verified.

If Sig truly has a problem, we want to know about it.

If like the other incident, one can reasonably argue that the evidence may not support the conclusion asserted, we need to scrutinize the alarm as carefully as the product and its manufacturer.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[C.R.Sam]

Lack of proper radius in a corner can cause stress concentration and thus big failure.

Sam

[dsk]

Okay.................

So, according to Dean Speir SIG's are defective. So are Glocks according to him, and of course Beretta M9 pistols.

Is he aware that 1911 slides can and do crack, sometimes with complete separation too? Whoops! Better recall all every 1911 made in the past 90+ years, because they're defective!

Guns break. Get over it.

[45R]

Alll I gotta say is Blahhhhhhhhhhh and here is something to help you guys with the process :uhoh:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dare2b/hillary.jpg

[CZ52GUY]

I just lost my breakfast :barf:

CZ52'

[BluesBear]

What a FUGLY picture. You'd think Billery had never seen a cigar before. :evil:

[RCS]

45R,

That was just down right nasty:what: I LOVED it!!!!!!!

regards

[45R]

I just find that this article has too much BS. Sure guns fail but if your read this article.

Deans reference to the Sig in question (the one pictured) was AL XXXXXX. That is 6Xs could equates to between 100K to 999K guns. 1 gun out of a possible 100,000 to 999,999 with broken sides. From a QC standpoint thats probably acceptable (please correct me if that is not right). Then he later states that 2 other Sigs had fractured slides not sighting serial number ranges.

He also states that "In addition, unspecified problems have recently caused a total of 41 Model P229s in 357 SIG to be removed from the Federal Air Marshals program." Is this significant to the article.

[Duke of Lawnchair]

45R, you just sterilized me...

[J.Bourne]

Hey Dean -

Do you have any evidence whatsoever (even the tiniest shred) to support the following extraordinarily monumental claim you made on your website?:

"We've found that quality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years, basically since the arms factory was sold from Switzerland to a German owner."

Or do you just like the sound of your own baseless statements?

:rolleyes:

[tomkatz]

Oh man, that pic IS coyote ugly.........
http://www.glocktalk.com/images/smilies/puke.gif

[Dean Speir]

 

45R writes: I just find that this article has too much BS. Sure guns fail but if your read this article. Huh? Deans reference to the Sig in question (the one pictured) was AL XXXXXX. That is 6Xs could equates to between 100K to 999K guns. 1 gun out of a possible 100,000 to 999,999 with broken sides. From a QC standpoint thats probably acceptable (please correct me if that is not right). Then he later states that 2 other Sigs had fractured slides not sighting serial number ranges. Certain nuances seem to elude this reader… first and foremost that the slides of three (3) SIG P229s issued within the same agency experienced low fracture toughness.

Note that SIG has acknowledged the problem and taken steps to address it. He also states that "In addition, unspecified problems have recently caused a total of 41 Model P229s in 357 SIG to be removed from the Federal Air Marshals program." Is this significant to the article. I dunno… what do you think? Same model pistol in a chambering which develops considerably higher pressures?

It's information, is all… and re-confirmed, withstanding TheFederalistWeasel's indignant assertions to the contrary.

And talk about indignant, comes now one J.Bourne, who's been improving his vocabulary… mes compléments… be wary of your hyperbole, however. I realize that you have an emotional investment in your SIGs, but let's stick with the facts, okay? Hey Dean -

Do you have any evidence whatsoever (even the tiniest shred) to support the following extraordinarily monumental claim you made on your website?:

"We've found that quality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years, basically since the arms factory was sold from Switzerland to a German owner."

Or do you just like the sound of your own baseless statements? Now all you need to do, J.Bourne, is work on your reading skills.

A more careful examination of that statement reveals it to be a quote from the report made by the Swiss Federal Police range officer present when the P229 in the photograph experienced the slide fracture. As you are apparently unfamiliar with the conventions of the content there, the double-indented material in blue is quoted material.

So that is not my statement, but that of a well-placed MOS. And when he states "We've found that quality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years," that is his first-hand observation. An "extraordinarily monumental claim?" I don't think so, but a significant and relevant one.

On another thread earlier this year, you asked: Hey Dean, where did you get those statistics you cited?

I'm always curious where you get your statistics, as you never really seem to cite the sources… I tend to leave "statistics" to Mr. Lott et al… I'm more interested in verifiable information. And where sources are willing to go on the record, I cite their name, position and a method of contacting them. When they are not, I will independently verify the information, going to the highest possible source. If that's not available, then either the information is set aside, or the original source had damned well better have excellent credentials and be well-vouched for.

And in that earlier thread, the "statistics" you seemed to be interested in, were nothing more than numbers sited by Glock Inc. in a company meeting. But there (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2263), as in here, if you've read more carefully before kicking in the door, and recklessly spraying 'n' praying, you might have noticed the following: "The fact that Glock has now acknowledged to its sales staff that there are 169,782 pistols at risk of the frame slide rail breakage…"

So now that we've cleared that up, on what basis do you assert that anything on that page is a "baseless statement?" What sort of investigation have you made, and where… outside of the SigForum, of course?

 

[J.Bourne]

Dean:

1) You write about an alleged case of a single slide fracture occurring in a Sig-Sauer 229, and ultimately incorporate the statement that "quality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years, basically since the arms factory was sold from Switzerland to a German owner." You then accuse others of hyperbole :rolleyes:;

2) You have the audacity to criticize me for quoting that statement from YOUR WEBSITE, that wasn't even properly cited if it indeed came from the mouth of another (i.e. a Swiss Police official as you claim). For future reference, when you must quote another source and want to avoid the act of plagiarism, use quotations or proper citations that make it abundantly clear to the reader that you are referencing another source of information, and who or what that source is with specificity. Blue text (that contigually comprises 80% of the article, by the way) is not a proper or conventional method to cite material.

4) You claim on your own website that you are a "Formerly Famous Gunwriter." I don't know what a "Gunwriter" does exactly, as I am unfamiliar with that term (is it someone who attempts to use a firearm as a writing instrument? :scrutiny: ).

If my opinion matters to any degree, I think you make one fine tabloid journalist. :neener:

[Dean Speir]

 

Br'er Bourne, you can toss as much verbiage as you can muster in an attempt to obfuscate your own inadequacies as either a careful reader or a critical thinker, but do not presume to dictate the conventions of my website. If it baffles you, or if you find it too tabloidesque for your tastes, pass by.

In all your blather to cover your embarrassment, it is noted that you have failed to answer the questions quite directly put to you.

And I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with your coinage, "contigually."

 

[J.Bourne]

What exact portion of the following are you not able to comprehend?:

"You write about an alleged case of a single slide fracture occurring in a Sig-Sauer 229, and ultimately incorporate the statement that "quality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years, basically since the arms factory was sold from Switzerland to a German owner." You then accuse others of hyperbole."


Let me break the question down even further and spoon feed it to you in itty-bitty bites.

*Why does a single incident of a slide fracture in a Sig-Sauer P229, assuming it actually occurred, lend credence to the incredibly broad statement that "quality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years, basically since the arms factory was sold from Switzerland to a German owner?"

*What other problems with Sig-Sauer firearms can you credibly document that lend credence to the incredibly broad statement that "quality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years, basically since the arms factory was sold from Switzerland to a German owner?"

I pose these questions to you, Dean, because you are the one who chose to publish that the "quality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years, basically since the arms factory was sold from Switzerland to a German owner" on your website.

Once again, here is the relevant claim, which YOU published on your website WITHOUT any QUALIFICATION, that I'm asking for you to back up:

"[Q]uality in general deteriorated with SIG Sauer in the last couple of years, basically since the arms factory was sold from Switzerland to a German owner."

Whether that broad sweeping generalization is the byproduct of your genius or another source is irrelevant (despite your failure to properly cite your source(s)), as you published it without qualification on your website.

So, now would be a good time to put up or shut up.

[Tecolote]

SIG stainless slides are milled from a solid billet at the Exeter plant.

One cracked P229 doesn't mean that QC is down at the SIG plant. There are thousands of P229s and stainless slide P226s in service without a single reported problem.

[J.Bourne]

I can just envision Dean now, scrambling to find reported problems with Sigs, so that he can finally attempt to respond to the very basic question I interposed.

:rolleyes:

[BluesBear]

:rolleyes: It would appear that for some, no explanation is required... for others, no explanation will do. :rolleyes:

[45R]

http://usualsuspect.net/forums/images/smilies/17.gif

This argurment is going to be a waste of bandwidth. So goes the saying "Be wary what you read about on the internet" "Confirm the Source" and "Do your own research"

[RON in PA]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

[buzz_knox]

What's funny is that another gunwriter I know has stated that the quality of Sigs has been improving since the sale. I'd identify him, but if Dean can conceal his sources, so can I. ;)

[J.Bourne]

Is this one of the last firearm forums where Speir is still allowed? I think he has been banned from most others...

Maybe that's why he started his own website. I actually am starting to feel sorry for him, despite his pretentious ways.

[Quickloader]

I’m just as skeptical reading the GunZone article as some of you are. One thing that puzzles me a bit is, the article is on the GunZone page for some time now, and the subject well known and discussed, but I didn’t read a comment from SIGARMS anywhere yet; I suppose they (SA) are sneaking around the gun forums just like other manufacturers, and they should also be aware of Dean’s claims on his site, so why don’t they react to this? I would only be interested in knowing the technical facts, if there really happened anything actually, not for drawing any conclusions. SIG’s are well proven guns, if it’s true what Dean states, SIGARMS wouldn’t loose any ground in confirming his claims publicly combined with releasing the technical facts, quite the opposite is true. I contacted SIGARMS some time ago in this context but didn’t get any reply. I’m highly suspicious of Dean’s commentaries here too, but as long as no one proves him wrong, he has the credit of doubt, and therefore he’s right.

Quickloader

[J.Bourne]

Who says Sigarms OR any other firearms manufacturer has an obligation to monitor the internet and respond to every ALLEGED incident that has occurred with one of their products, lest the allegation be allowed presumptive truth?

Are you aware of how much crap is spread on the internet that has absolutely no basis in fact? Do you know how much of a burden it would be to have to respond to all of it, no matter how baseless it might be?

Besides, that isn't the issue that is relevant here.

No one has stated that a slide fracture did not occur with a Sig-Sauer produced 229 chambered in 9mm in Switzerland, as Speir alleges.

The larger issue is whether A SINGLE SLIDE FRACTURE, even given the presumption of credibility, warrants the kind of dire warnings and claims of shoddy quality control that Dean Speir automatically elevates the incident to.

If such an incident, as someone else here stated, warrants such a "the sky is falling" response as Speir is notorious for, God help us all.

I have witnessed problems of some significance firsthand with at least seven different types of firearms. I have read about hundreds of others. Modern firearms are man/machine made, high production commodities, and subject to occassional problems, no matter how excellent the quality control measures put into place. Despite this, I don't go around posting links, pictures, and quoting unnamed sources blowing the incidents completely out of proportion like Speir has an apparent compulsion to do.

Some problems become frequent enough to warrant real concern and a credible response from a manufacturer. This was the case with the Glock frame rail issue.

Others are isolated incidents (in this case, one alleged, undocumented incident) that are to be expected.

There's no reason to make MOUNTAINS out of grains of sand.

I read about a kb with a HK USP Tactical using Federal .45 ammo just last week, and from a source I deem entirely credible. Do I plan on selling or trashing my beloved USP .45 because of this? Hell no.

Speir gets called on the carpet on issues all the time, and then just retreats to the security blanket of that website he set up. Why hasn't he been back to answer the last question I asked him, which is the central question in reality? Because he apparently can't justify his cries of "the sky is falling!"

:rolleyes:

[dsk]

Apparently all makes and models of firearms are succeptible to parts breakage, therefore we had all better stop buying and owning guns before we hurt ourselves. :rolleyes:

[Grump]

Others are isolated incidents (in this case, one alleged, undocumented incident) that are to be expected.

Uh, I thought a photograph counted as a "document."

Statements from the witness to the event were reduced to writing in another document.

Another written document from another source was quoted at length in the Gun Zone article.

You won't believe it unless the source quoted was willing to be cited in print as the source? Then you surely won't believe any news article that quotes "unnamed Administration" sources, eh? Dean describes a tried and true responsible journalism technique--second-source verification of alleged "facts" before reporting them without attribution. Seems like some hacks named Woodward and Bernstein got a Pulitzer Prize for using precisely the same method to break the Watergate story. Oh, but maybe that's not a big deal and none of those facts could be "documented."

WELL, THOSE FACTS SURE AS HE dubbletoothpicks were substantiated and corraborated and all that, later on in sworn testimony, but that's all just what John Dean and Gordon Liddy and all those other guys "said" or "claimed" and there was NEVER a memo from Nixon or his campaign comittee to back it up, so that was never documented either. Apply your standards consistently...

Yeah, there is room for some healthy skepticism on what conclusions to draw from this one event which *could* be a mere specimen defect and might even be a manufacturing defect for some portion of the product line made in Europe. But some of this criticism is unreasonable and reveals a certain level of intellectual dishonesty.

Dean, how about getting some "Certificate of Authenticity" on the photo and the Euro quality problems communique, to satisfy these dweebs?

Edited to correct John Dean's first name.

[J.Bourne]

I go through all the effort, and Grump still misses the point.

One incident of a slide fracture in a Sig-Sauer 229 does not equal a quality control or manufacturing defect crisis - whether the incident is doumented or undocumented.

I'll even concede the incident occurred even though I wasn't there; how's that?

I can not make it any simpler, Grump. I've spoon fed you and Dean, and will not burp you.

[45R]

http://usualsuspect.net/forums/images/smilies/more/haha.gif

[BluesBear]

Well since no one else will will say it I guess I'll have to...Rules Of Conduct;
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Stephen A. Camp]

I would consider it a personal favor if the rhetoric could be toned down and if the discussion's to continue that it concern itself with firearm-related aspects and not bantering back and forth between individuals. If that's even necessary, I'd strongly suggest going to Email or PM.

Best and thanks in advance.

[Duke of Lawnchair]

I've spoon fed you and Dean, and will not burp you.

LOL!!!!!

[Stephen A. Camp]

I asked that this sort of thing cease. It didn't. The thread has.