SIG P320 Drop Test Compilation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Panzerschwein

Panzerschwein

member
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
8,122
Location
Desert
Just looking at some vids on dudes "drop testing" the SIG P320 which won the MHS trial tests for the next tactical battle military weapons system platform system handgun platform. As you all know, SIG has ignored this so called "problem" and noted none were encountered during the MHS test done my the .mil. Here are some videos trying to prove SIG, the vaunted tactical platform weapons system manufacturers from Germany, which always makes great stuff, and the U.S. Army (for crying out loud):





http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/08/p320-failed-without-even-dropping-no-plans-test/

The results in these videos are obviously anomalies. SIG is in the right on this one I think. Ze Germans are never wrong, and always make great stuff after all. And the U.S. Army's testing protocols are beyond flawless as well.

:)

Seriously, SIG is in deep trouble with this one I think. Maybe Glock should have been the winner??

Thoughts??
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Cooldill said:
Just looking at some vids on dudes "drop testing" the SIG P320 which won the MHS trial tests for the next tactical battle military weapons system platform system handgun platform. As you all know, SIG has ignored this so called "problem" and noted none were encountered during the MHS test done my the .mil. Here are some videos trying to prove SIG, the vaunted tactical platform weapons system manufacturers from Germany, which always makes great stuff, and the U.S. Army (for crying out loud):





http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/08/p320-failed-without-even-dropping-no-plans-test/

The results in these videos are obviously anomalies. SIG is in the right on this one I think. Ze Germans are never wrong, and always make great stuff after all. And the U.S. Army's testing protocols are beyond flawless as well.

:)

Seriously, SIG is in deep trouble with this one I think. Maybe Glock should have been the winner??

Thoughts??
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have been a problem with the P250.....cough, hammer, cough......
 
I think the platform is viable. From what SIG is saying, the new trigger has more mass than the older one. The older ones, I understand, didn't have a drop fire issue due to this.

I'm not a SIG fanboy. I really enjoy shooting my 320, but in light of this easily replicated issue, I will not be carrying it until it has been fixed by the factory.

I was > < this close to picking up the new fnh 509 today. However dropping another 500 dollars on a pistol didn't seem prudent. The 320 is a great gun that needs some adjustment from the factory.

The 320 was going to do cabin duty this weekend as my weapon of choice. Instead, I'm bringing along the boringly reliable GP100.

6 rounds of semi jacketed. 357 feels pretty good in hand, and there are a lot of places to drop my 320 down there. Sometimes Old School is the best school, I think.

I'm still kicking around that 509. FN makes a dang good gun. I traded off an fns-c40 toward my 320. The 509 seems like a real workhorse, but I suppose I owe SIG a chance to fix the problem first. The 320 really is a sweet shooter.
 
MichaelS. said:
This internet witch hunt is so laughable it defies reason. The aroma of Glock fanboy B.O. permeates the air with it.
Regardless, I'd say that dropping a firearm is never a safe proposition. And if you are in the habit of doing so, your clumsy Jerry Lewis arse shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm in the first place.
Click to expand...
I HATE Glocks......and I've got a trunk load of SIGs (including a P250), but that TTAG video scares the living Bejeezus out of me- that is a serious design flaw, and SIG's CEO put out a typically lawyeresque cover-your-giant DoD-contract-butt statement, rather than just saying: yep we got a problem. To be sure, dropping a gun is never safe, and if it was a forty-foot drop, I'd say "Sure, how often is that gonna happen?" But 4 feet? I can think of at least two occasions when I've seen people drop guns from that height and somebody prolly would have died had they discharged.
 
As you all know, SIG has ignored this so called "problem"

Actually, no, the issue did come up in their own testing and they already had applied for a modification at no cost to the military. That firearm under contract isn't in question because it passed Army tests.

The problem so far is confined to 4 - four - out of 500,000 guns shipped, according to SIG. SIG is now offering to modify the pistols already sold, halted civilian production to accommodate the retrofit, and is now waiting for those concerned to sent them in. They ALREADY had this program in the works - the internet hysteria simply pushed it up a few weeks.

Think about it - to get this program off the ground they had parts in production getting stockpiled to handle it. They have been working on production scheduling to implement it. They were on the verge of announcing it when the DPD went hysteric because they couldn't get someone in CS to answer the phone in the middle of the night.

SIG DID test the guns per the industry safety protocol - there are standards and the gun did pass. Blaming SIG for the test standards not being able to come up with the one condition that could cause it - 4 times out of 500,000 guns - is ridiculous. You can't engineer perfection, as owners of John Brownings 1911 well know trying to continually improve on it. That gun was always stalked with the number of ND's caused by dropping it on the hammer. And the Glock is well known to shoot cops in the leg - the SAFE trigger isn't all that SAFE when you push it back. It goes off!

What I see are Glock fanboys still reacting to the loss of the contract and spinning any story they can to trash SIG. For the most part we should just sit back and see what the real facts are before taking the Breaking News! too much to heart over a few incidents and the politics behind it. None of us are going to change the final outcome whatsoever.
 
.455_Hunter said:
I would be curious to see a cocked M9/92FS in the same exact test.
Click to expand...

I think you would be disappointed. The firing pin block was quite revolutionary when the 92 came out. Now-a-days darn near every gun has one in some form or fashion. But because cams and levers needed to activate it I dont think it would go off. (?) Course the sole issue seen in these tests as the trigger is moving with the inertia, just as if ones grubby mits were in it. So that will set off any gun where the trigger is allowed to overcome the springs.
 
If you want to see a drop test done with a Beretta 92FS with hammer cocked, go to Ernest Langdon's Facebook page and watch his video (spoiler: the hammer drops to half cock and the gun does not fire).

It should be noted that the statements made by Bruce Gray were in response to a drop test video that had been posted on youtube a good while ago, and to the Dallas PD email memo describing a defect and safety issue with the P320. Those comments were made before the rash of recent videos that documented a real issue with the P320.

The number of P320s that have actually had a drop fire incident in real life is irrelevant. The recent rash of drop test videos done with a variety of P320s clearly indicates that a potential exists for any P320 to drop fire if dropped at this specific angle. The odds of that happening in real life are undoubtedly pretty small, but not non-existent. It will be up to each current P320 owner to decide if they are comfortable living with that possibility or not.

For myself, I own two P320s. It is a pistol I have found ergonomic, reliable, accurate, and forgiving to shoot and one I have recommended to many others. And I am not happy about this revelation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
There is a Stamford CT officer who I believe that has filed a lawsuit against Sig. The CT officer's accidental discharge happened on January 5, 2017. He filed suit on August 4, 2017.

On the very same day Sig anounces:

Originally Posted by SIG Arms
Newington, NH (August 4, 2017) – In response to social media rumors questioning the safety of the P320 pistol, a variant of which was selected by the U.S. government as the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System (MHS), SIG SAUER, Inc. has full confidence in the reliability, durability and safety of its striker-fired handgun platform. There have been zero (0) reported drop-related P320 incidents in the U.S. commercial market, with hundreds of thousands of guns delivered to date.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe that Sig was not aware of the discharge and once the suit was filed and made public the lawyers went into CYA mode and disclosed the issue which Sig already knew about. They made these changes in the M17 guns and the new production X5 so they knew there was a problem but ran the numbers and a recall was not cost effective until the suit was filed. Then the scales tipped to disclosure and a voluntary fix.

This is what happens when people like Cohen run the show. It is a race to the bottom and Sig is clearly running on the Pinto principle. Run the numbers and if it save you money to pay out the lawsuits vs issue a recall you settle the suits. So sad I really thought that Sig had hit a home run with the P320 but instead it is just another in a long line of Sig products rushed to the market trading on the old school name while allow the buying public & LEO to beta test their product. I need to go back to my NO NEW SIG policy.
 
Last edited:
I rather share your sentiments. SIG Sauer was almost certainly aware of the Stamford CT LEO incident some time ago. According to this article appearing in the Connecticut Law Tribune, the attorney for the Stamford police officer stated that there had been pre-suit discussions regarding a settlement "but they did not result in a resolution":

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202...ol-Sues-Gunmaker-Sig-Sauer?mcode=0&curindex=0

Furthermore, the article states that the Stamford PD discontinued use of the P320 after the incident. I would have to believe that a police department that had experienced this type of AD resulting in serious injury, and had decided to pull the P320 from service, must have had some contact with SIG Sauer.

Furthermore, in this article:

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

Tom Taylor, Executive Vice-President of Commercial Sales for SIG is quoted as saying: " I want to put this perspective. Since it’s introduction in 2014, they’ve sold around 500,000 P320s. There are three recorded cases of unintended discharges in LE channels . There is one additional commercial incident which I am familiar with but was not formally reported to SIG. That’s four known incidents from 500,000 weapons, many of which are used on a daily basis. Additionally, those incidents have all been within the last year."

Some might argue that Ron Cohen didn't know about the Stamford PD incident or the other cases of ADs experienced by LEOs or the one in the commercial market "not formally reported to SIG". Those same folks probably also believe that Kenneth Lay really didn't know anything about what was going on at Enron.

And in my opinion this statement by Cohen: "“Drop safe,” Cohen explained, “Those two words don’t exist together. No gun is drop safe. It’s a function of angle, height and surface. If you build it completely drop safe, you legitimize mishandling." has got to be in the running for top moronic statement of the year. By the same logic, seatbelts, shoulder straps, and air bags legitimize poor driving.

Let's face facts, Ron Cohen knew there had been drop related incidents with the P320 when he made his statement on August 4th.
 
pblanc said:
And in my opinion this statement by Cohen: "“Drop safe,” Cohen explained, “Those two words don’t exist together. No gun is drop safe. It’s a function of angle, height and surface. If you build it completely drop safe, you legitimize mishandling." has got to be in the running for top moronic statement of the year. By the same logic, seatbelts, shoulder straps, and air bags legitimize poor driving.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have to agree. This however might be in the running for more than just top moronic statement of the year, it might be up for top moronic statement of the new millennium. He obviously didn't think about this statement very much before he made it. I can't think of a statement made for a gun company about a potential safety issue that was this ignorant ever before.
 
Cooldill said:
Seriously, SIG is in deep trouble with this one I think. Maybe Glock should have been the winner??

Thoughts??
Click to expand...

I think fanboism is clouding peoples perceptions. Tell me, is SIG in the same deep trouble Ruger was in after they had guns discharge after being dropped? I won't even mention which time Ruger failed...
 
jjones45 said:
Yes, I have to agree. This however might be in the running for more than just top moronic statement of the year, it might be up for top moronic statement of the new millennium. He obviously didn't think about this statement very much before he made it. I can't think of a statement made for a gun company about a potential safety issue that was this ignorant ever before.
Click to expand...

I agree. It almost strikes me as one of the "Russian" quotes about the difficulty of using the safety on a Mosin Nagant about how the safety is for when you are not killing enemies of mother Russia.

"Eef make peestle too safe, soldier may meestake for hammer. Better to let soldier shoot self one time, he will not make meestake again!"

Using Cohen's logic, there is no reason why the 320 shouldn't have a magazine disconnect, manual safety standard on every model, and maybe some sort of twisting lock on the slide to release the striker to "fire" so that the shooter can just be, you know, like really really sure he wants the gun to go off.

I don't think allowing the gun to fire when dropped in a somewhat likely way is promoting unsafe handling techniques. I'm pretty sure it's just allowing gravity and bad luck to potentially murder you.
 
Cooldill said:
Just looking at some vids on dudes "drop testing" the SIG P320 which won the MHS trial tests for the next tactical battle military weapons system platform system handgun platform. As you all know, SIG has ignored this so called "problem" and noted none were encountered during the MHS test done my the .mil. Here are some videos trying to prove SIG, the vaunted tactical platform weapons system manufacturers from Germany, which always makes great stuff, and the U.S. Army (for crying out loud):





http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/08/p320-failed-without-even-dropping-no-plans-test/

The results in these videos are obviously anomalies. SIG is in the right on this one I think. Ze Germans are never wrong, and always make great stuff after all. And the U.S. Army's testing protocols are beyond flawless as well.

:)

Seriously, SIG is in deep trouble with this one I think. Maybe Glock should have been the winner??

Thoughts??
Click to expand...


Wow and I thought Taurus got a bad rap for drop testing.
 
Patrick's tfb tv video showing a nylon gunsmith hammer striking the rear of the slide kind of disproves it's just a perfect -30 degree angle that makes for the perfect disaster. No ones going to be hammering the back of their loaded p320 but the force could easily be replicated on a drop.
How did such a serious issue fly under the radar for so long?
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
  • Just in Sig has stopped production of 320 and will be issuing a recall
 
SIG is not calling it a recall. They are calling it a "voluntary upgrade" or a "safety enhancement" and it is not yet clear who will pay for it.
 
"Recall" may have a lawbook definition like "guarantee" that would commit them to a specific program. Like a serious attempt to get them ALL back in at their expense. Frank, where are you, Frank?
 
jjones45 said:
How did such a serious issue fly under the radar for so long?
Click to expand...

How long has the issue existed? Did the problem exist from the first gun sold in January of 2014 or did the problem arise from later production changes?

People are testing and identifying problematic guns, but I have not yet seen a definitive statement about the cause of the problem.
 
IMG_0725.JPG
gc70 said:
How long has the issue existed? Did the problem exist from the first gun sold in January of 2014 or did the problem arise from later production changes?

People are testing and identifying problematic guns, but I have not yet seen a definitive statement about the cause of the problem.
Click to expand...
I say yes considering I bought mine in early 2016 and the manual says this. Apparently it's okay to release guns that are not drop safe these days. It's also apparent how many people don't read manuals, including myself
 
jjones45 said:
I say yes considering I bought mine in early 2016 and the manual says this. Apparently it's okay to release guns that are not drop safe these days. It's also apparent how many people don't read manuals, including myself
Click to expand...

The whole 'it says so in the manual' thing was debunked and dismissed nearly two weeks ago. And the picture in the manual is not even of a P320, but a P250.
 
Last edited:
Thoughts?

I have a few.

1. The fact that a lawsuit has been filed doesn't mean the plaintiff case has any merit.

2. LEO's in general as group have poor knowledge of their Duty Weapons and little interest in learning to shoot and handle them well. Annual qualification is looked at as a unpleasant tasks rather than a opportunity to learn how to handle their gun safely and improve their shooting skills.

3. Military Top Brass will rather spend millions and billions of dollars for new toys rather than simply improving what they already have. Consider the A-10 Warthog. Without any debate it is absolutely the best ground attack aircraft ever built. Yet the Air Force has repeatedly tried to withdraw it from service but they have been forced to admit there is not a better airplane for this role.

4. The Beretta M9A3 is the most economical choice for several reasons;
Training - Thousands of soldiers are already trained to use the M-9.
Parts - Are already in inventory.
Service - Already have trained Armorers to work on the M-9.

5. The 9mm NATO FMJ is still the same 9mm NATO FMJ.

6. The Army already has the M-11 in service for use by troops that need a smaller pistol which is another time proven battle tested design.

7. Last see comment #1. Lawyers regular file b.s. lawsuits expecting the company to settle out of court rather than go through a long and expensive lawsuit.

8. Last and last. See comment #7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
"Voluntary trigger upgrade" for P320 offered by SIG Sauer
Replies
3
Views
581
pblanc
P
TomJ
  • Locked
P320 Drop Test Failures?
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
Gary A
G
JonEvans1990FL
  • Locked
U.S Army picks Sig.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
140
Views
11K
Shinbone
S
<*(((><
  • Locked
P320 Discharged in Transit Policeman’s Holster
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
ArchAngelCD
ArchAngelCD
O
  • Locked
Sig 229 vs. Sig Pro...My first article.
Replies
4
Views
993
orangeninja
O
Back
Top