SIG P320 Drop Test Compilation

[Mitlov]

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.

You can advertise your gun as being drop safe. Or you can say that being drop safe is pointless and no fun should be "drop safe.". But you can't do both. And Sig specifically advertised this gun as drop safe.

"Safety isn’t negotiable. The P320 maximizes peace of mind with a robust safety system. Never again will you need to pull the trigger to disassemble your pistol. And, while available as an option, you won’t need a tabbed trigger safety for your gun to be drop safe."

https://www.sigsauer.com/products/firearms/pistols/p320/

 

[lordhamster]

Omaha Outdoors just posted a nice followup:

 

[wally]

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.

I'm pretty sure what they call it was determined by their lawyers. In law words don't usually mean what we usually think they mean, its how they keep their fees so high!

They will pay for it. I just filled in their web form (pP320 serial number, name address, Email and phone number) and they will be sending me an Email with a pre-paid return shipping label.
Seems they've done the right thing, and rather quickly as these things generally go. Being a very popular gun didn't help the situation.

Here is the link to their web form:
https://www.sigsauer.com/support/p320-voluntary-upgrade-program/
(from the discussion in another thread here)

 

[Panzerschwein]

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.

I agree that the M9A3 should have been adopted, but sadly, we have to deal with the SIG P320 now. Time will tell whether the M17 is as good or even better a gun as the M9... let's just hope that the military doesn't make some of the same mistakes that it did with M9 servicing and parts requisitioning that gave the M9 a sometimes spotty (and undeserved) reputation. If so, we will no doubt eventually here what an unreliable gun the M17 is and that is must be replaced soon!

 

[sigsteve]

I have owned three Sigs over my time with firearms and I've been pleased with all save one. The two I liked were the P229 (.357sig) and the X5 Tactical (9mm). The one I didn't like was the P220. It was just not a good fit for me. I used to say "I hate Glocks" and that I'd never carry one because I thought the safe action trigger was stupid. Well, now I own only Glocks! Why did I change my mind? I finally had a chance to spend some time with one at the range and I couldn't believe how dead on I was with the Glock! It's grip angle is perfect for my natural draw/aim position and the damn thing has never failed me or jammed. So there are my qualifications on the two. Having said that, I cannot believe that the US Military failed it's service men/women by inking a deal with Sig and not finding this out before! It was to my understanding Glocks contract to lose and that the military didn't even finish all of its testing on the Gen 5 Glock it had developed for the Military Contract. It almost sounds like something a bit underhanded took place behind the scenes to ensure that Glock didn't get the contract and that Sig did. I haven't any evidence to this, but there's something a bit odd about this whole thing.

 

[Fiv3r]

I have owned three Sigs over my time with firearms and I've been pleased with all save one. The two I liked were the P229 (.357sig) and the X5 Tactical (9mm). The one I didn't like was the P220. It was just not a good fit for me. I used to say "I hate Glocks" and that I'd never carry one because I thought the safe action trigger was stupid. Well, now I own only Glocks! Why did I change my mind? I finally had a chance to spend some time with one at the range and I couldn't believe how dead on I was with the Glock! It's grip angle is perfect for my natural draw/aim position and the damn thing has never failed me or jammed. So there are my qualifications on the two. Having said that, I cannot believe that the US Military failed it's service men/women by inking a deal with Sig and not finding this out before! It was to my understanding Glocks contract to lose and that the military didn't even finish all of its testing on the Gen 5 Glock it had developed for the Military Contract. It almost sounds like something a bit underhanded took place behind the scenes to ensure that Glock didn't get the contract and that Sig did. I haven't any evidence to this, but there's something a bit odd about this whole thing.

From what I understand, the M17 doesn't have the same issues in part due to the requirements of the military to have a manual safety.

The 320s in question are the ones currently being sold "over the counter" to the civilian market (both individual gun owners and law enforcement agencies).

There will always be a lot of questions and what-ifs when it comes to military equipment trials. I mean, there are still multi-page arguments of why the 1911 should not have been replaced by the M9...THIRTY years ago.

The internet is just getting started arguing about the decision on going with SIG. Price cuts, parts packages, service promises, and maybe good old fashioned palm-greasing, who knows. We'll have another 3 decades to hash this one out with a fair amount of speculation on all of our parts.

I have owned Glocks, and I currently own one SIG. I'm of the mindset that either pistol would be a good fit as a modern sidearm for today's soldier. The SIG shoots better for me, but I would not feel under served with a Glock 19.

I will say that if you remove the dollars reasons out of keeping the M9, I think that either the SIG or the Glock (and probably even the FN) is a better fit for today's military. This is coming from a huge fan of the 92fs. I think it's a fantastic gun, and I will never give mine up. However the modular design of a gun like the 320 offers a cost effective firearm that is both easily repaired as well as modified for the specific mission.

 

[Cump]

Omaha Outdoors just posted a nice followup:

Well-spoken and credible. Good video.

I know Sig is responding through lawyers, but in contrast, their use of phrases like voluntary upgrade and safe to carry is Orwellian double-speak. Maybe nonadmission admission protects them from liability, but I think many of us would respect the company more if it would have responded with straight talk and held itself accountable without the excuses or twisted logic.

 

[wally]

I cannot believe that the US Military failed it's service men/women by inking a deal with Sig and not finding this out before!

People aren't paying attention and flying off the handle with speculation. The military contract guns are not affected, apparently the fix is to modify the P320 to the military trigger configuration, sans external thumb safety.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I cannot believe that the US Military failed it's service men/women by inking a deal with Sig and not finding this out before!

Well, I can not believe that people are still failing to find out the basic details of what is happening... you know... like that the M17 isn't effect at all by this issue.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Well, I can not believe that people are still failing to find out the basic details of what is happening... you know... like that the M17 isn't effect at all by this issue.

What we don't really know is if the tested Sigs were drop safe. Sig put the change in after the trials. There is a paper trail in this since they did a mod to the contract. A lot of people think it went through testing and was not caught. That might be the case and might not since it had a manual safety. Personally, I don't think it had a trigger inertia problem. I'm not so sure about whether it was drop safe though. I think Sig doing the mod marks when Sig discovered it had a problem and kept selling them.

 

[paulsj]

Some gun making company bested by a plastic "pot, pan, part maker" from Austria. I for one am not going to be "guinea pig" tester for them.

 

[jjones45]

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.

That's funny, that's my manual and it says p320 right on the front cover. Don't dismiss real things just because you're a fan of a certain brand. This is my p320 manual from early 2016

 

[PabloJ]

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??

Look, you're not some soldier that has to use what they issue them, but you're fee and are paying out of pocket for this item so I suggest picking from a dozen or more choices that can be thrown against stone wall and will not go off, hint.

 

[gc70]

That's funny, that's my manual and it says p320 right on the front cover. Don't dismiss real things just because you're a fan of a certain brand. This is my p320 manual from early 2016

Ignore that all of SIG's pistol and rifle manuals had the same "All firearms may fire if dropped" warning until a few weeks ago. It is your right to believe that SIG put a specific warning in the manual that the P320 was unsafe. And you STILL bought a P320 ...

 

[BILLG]

• Just in Sig has stopped production of 320 and will be issuing a recall

It is not a recall.

 

[jjones45]

Ignore that all of SIG's pistol and rifle manuals had the same "All firearms may fire if dropped" warning until a few weeks ago. It is your right to believe that SIG put a specific warning in the manual that the P320 was unsafe. And you STILL bought a P320 ...

I don't read manuals before I buy pistols. Excuse me sir can I see the p320 owners manual before I purchase that pistol? Come on man. Sig knew this was a problem and that's why the m17 has the upgraded parts already. I love my p320 and can't wait to get it back with the "upgrade". Jeremy S. over at TTAG told me the upgraded trigger is even better than the original. I love the original trigger so I can't imagine what the improved trigger will feel like. I have no regrets with my purchase, but Sig made a mistake here and no one including you can prove to me otherwise. The p320 in its original form is the most drop Unsafe modern striker fired handgun out right now. A company won't offer a voluntary upgrade with paid shipping both ways for possibly 500,000 guns for something that's not a safety flaw. I think mine is actually drop safe because I dropped it 5 times with a snap cap and it didn't strike out because I had a live trigger still. I'm still sending it in though because supposedly the trigger upgrade is really that

 

[PabloJ]

While I would not touch this thing with a flagpole if one has it safety upgrade is significant if you ever plan to sell your gun. While you will not enjoy resale value held by Glock at least you will be able to move it if you need to.

 

[grampajack]

This isn't really a matter of personal comfort since it's just as likely, if not more likely, to injure a bystander as it is the actual butterfingers himself. If you have one of these, it's your duty to make sure it gets fixed. If someone does not get it fixed, he has no business carrying it in public or bringing it to a public range. If I had a gun range right now I would immediately ban it.

Now, onto the real matter at hand. Why in blue blazes were those jackwagons wearing body armor to fire blanks???

I have this overwhelming urge to beat them up and take their lunch money right now.

 

[FL-NC]

I agree that the M9A3 should have been adopted, but sadly, we have to deal with the SIG P320 now. Time will tell whether the M17 is as good or even better a gun as the M9... let's just hope that the military doesn't make some of the same mistakes that it did with M9 servicing and parts requisitioning that gave the M9 a sometimes spotty (and undeserved) reputation. If so, we will no doubt eventually here what an unreliable gun the M17 is and that is must be replaced soon!

In my experience as a trainer and end-user, the M9 deserved the poor reputation it got. The Glock was and is easier to train newer shooters with, and was more reliable and easier to maintain. Our M9's had a much shorter service life, and required more frequent repairs.Even though our M9's went through several upgrades,none of the problems were never really truly "fixed". The command I was assigned to just got sick of it and adopted the Glock, which eliminated most of the problems. I don't recall a single shooter wishing he could get his M9 back. Most upgrades in warfighting equipment for the military can be traced to initiatives that began in SOCOM- whether we are talking items like individual gear, clothing, or lethal equipment. Sometimes the conventional side adopts the exact same items, sometimes they choose something that is very similar in concept. The move from the M9 to a striker fired handgun (about 12 years after SOCOM did this) is another example. Some people really like their 92 series pistols, and shoot them well. A good friend uses a custom model in service competition. These are individual choices, and there are many choices in pistols available. Those who serve in the military have no choice in what they use. The military has the unenviable job of selecting equipment that will work the best for everyone- whether it is a 6'6" infantryman built like a NFL linebacker or a 5' tall female clerk typist- so that these men and women can fight, win, and survive. And just to keep things interesting, budgets, testing, contracts, and a whole bunch of other stuff comes in to play as well- the type of things most agencies and no civilians need to contend with.