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, 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?
I LOVED it!!!!!!!
). 
