Tirod, I just could not
disagree more thoroughly.
First, more truthful information is better than less. I would even go so far as to say that a great deal of what is "wrong with the world today" is that unwelcome facts that conflict with our pre-existing notions are not merely ignored or disregarded (that's not new), but are affirmatively attacked as being harmful
despite their truth. Given that the same result has been replicated by numerous different testers, few (if any) of which have any sort of demonstrable reason for bias against P320's, there doesn't seem to be any issue of whether this is "fake news" with rigged tests.
Second, the significance of these tests seems self-evident to
almost everyone in the firearms community. A 4' drop is
not an unrealistic event. It is an
inevitable event for a mass-marketed gun sold as a duty and carry weapon. If "industry standards" don't currently detect a gun's ability to fire from a 4' drop at
whatever angle, then those industry standards are insufficient. The fact that Sig has designed a revision to eliminate this problem indicates that they agree.
Third, this issue is remedied
when the guns are fixed (barring those in the hands of those who refuse to send them in, although the risk to
others inherent in those guns will sadly remain). Announcing a fix is not a fix. Part of the fix is solving the engineering challenge. Sig appears to have that done. Another part is meeting the logistical, manufacturing, and cost challenges for rolling out that fix to all the products in the marketplace. Just look at the Takata airbag recall... that's
still going, years later. Designing replacement airbags was, in many ways, the easy part. Getting millions of vehicles into garages, finding production capacity to crank out millions more replacement airbags in factories built to meet
ongoing demands, etc... that's the hard stuff. Sig still has to clear this hurdle. I have high expectations that they will, and not just because I think they're a reputable company. The market demands it. If Sig wants to exist in 10 years, they'll figure it out.
Fourth, this is
all good. Anti-gun people love to make a lot of BS claims.
- One of these claims is that guns shouldn't be allowed in public because they will just "go off" if they're dropped. Well, modern carry-suitable guns generally don't, and especially not in a muzzle-up situation. The last thing we need is to have hundreds of thousands or millions of modern guns out there that will do precisely that.
- Another frequent BS anti-gun claim is that gun manufacturers are uniquely immune to product liability suits for defective goods. That's baloney. They have protection against frivolous suits that seek to hold manufacturers responsible for the intentional misuse of their product - something that doesn't even need to be spelled out for every other kind of product because it is so obvious. All the same, regular rules of product liability apply for guns when it comes to design issues.
- A closely related piece of nonsense is the idea that the firearms community and market are so ignorant and/or so tribal that they cannot police themselves. This is one of the arguments made in favor of more regulation (such as requiring smart guns or internal locks): "That market is failing, it doesn't even demand safe products like a rational, functioning market - time to regulate!" Well, the firearms market actually does function fairly efficiently. Consumers want multiple things from firearms, but a degree of safety consistent with the dangers inherent in firearms is typically one of them. Here, the market is demanding a reasonably drop-safe gun.... and it's going to get it, sooner or later. I hope it's sooner.
Fifth, as to the notion that Sig was "ambushed," this is both false and irrelevant. It is clear that various agencies and individuals brought this issue to Sig's attention, including via a lawsuit, well before the current crop of video testing came out. If Sig didn't know this was coming, it was simply because they misjudged the gun-interested public. They were not "ambushed." Moreover, they way to avoid being "ambushed" with complaints about your product is not to make products that have a demonstrable, serious problem. If you want to sell to the general public, you need to either do the testing necessary to make sure you don't have problems (irrespective of whether that testing is "industry standard" or not), or prepare to be "ambushed." It happens in every industry.
Finally, as to "If they will do that against SIG, then they will not stop to do it to your favorite," you assume I
have some favorite. I buy guns that suit my purposes and that are of interest to me. I don't owe any kind of allegiance to any gun manufacturer. If a manufacturer whose products I have purchased in the past (which includes Sig, FWIW) turns out a product that has a safety issue, I will want to see that issue addressed. And the same will be true if it's a manufacturer whose products I have
not purchased in the past. I'm not on anyone's "team." If a firearms company wants blind loyalty from me, they'll have to pay
me for it; people who have "favorites" and are on Team ___ after
they, as the customer, pay for the privilege baffle me. (I also don't have Yeti stickers on my car... maybe I'm just weird.) If a gun that I own and like has a serious safety issue, I
hope someone does make a video about it - so that I can process that information and make rational, fully-informed decisions about what to do.
Fundamentally, I think you are confused about what "mob rule" is. A group of consumers freely communicating information and then making their market desires and expectations known is not "mob rule" unless all capitalism is "mob rule." I think the market works most of the time. It's working right now. It is exerting hydraulic pressure on Sig to actually resolve this problem. That's good. There's nothing to despair about here.
