ADVERTISEMENT

Sig 320 fails most all drop tests

UCFKnight85

UCFKnight85

GOL's Inner Circle
Gold Member
May 6, 2003
106,210
120,921
113
I saw this week the Dallas PD issued a mandatory recall of their entire 320 fleet due to firing when dropped. These guys did their own tests and found the 320 would fire when dropped in almost every caliber and across almost every 320 model.

This is your newest US military sidearm folks. Bought on the cheap, without finishing testing vs a Glock, because Sig entered an insane lowball price that came in $102M total cheaper.

This is after their launch of the MCX was a disaster with at least 5 recalls done.

https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/08/07/video-sig-p320-dramatically-fails-drop-test/
 
****ing ridiculous. Did you see the video by Omaha outdoors? Showed it firing multiple times evidently after being dropped on the beaver tail, but one type of trigger installed would not drop fire.

Absolutely ridiculous in this day and age to not have a 100% drop safe firearm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Yes. And now Sig has issued a "voluntary recall". I guess for those who may not want their firearm discharging in the house if it happens to drop from
The table.

I still don't understand how the USG could issue Sig this contract being $102M cheaper than the most efficient pistol maker in the world. There are DFAR laws preventing the USGS from choosing bids that are deemed unreasonably low.
 
Voluntary, what a joke. I sold my P938 because it wasn't 100% reliable, and I really don't want to get rid of my 1911 scorpion but this is pretty shady.
 
chemmie said:
Why do you hate Capitalism?
Click to expand...

Well that's a stupid comment, capitalism is fixing this problem rather quickly, sig is getting (justifiably) crucified in the public market right now for releasing a shitty product, I've already witnessed half a dozen P320's listed in my local gun buy/sell/trade groups. the free market is speaking. The problem lies in the government contract being awarded to an obviously inferior product, which is not free market capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFRogerz, barrister1602 and fabknight
NinjaKnight said:
Well that's a stupid comment, capitalism is fixing this problem rather quickly, sig is getting (justifiably) crucified in the public market right now for releasing a shitty product, I've already witnessed half a dozen P320's listed in my local gun buy/sell/trade groups. the free market is speaking. The problem lies in the government contract being awarded to an obviously inferior product, which is not free market capitalism.
Click to expand...
First ever post from Ninja that I liked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS, UCFWayne and fabknight
20622298_1320739324705797_8404345542537545945_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: btbones, MACHater02, JSeloc and 3 others
UCFWayne said:
I dont know why that drop test wasnt included as part of the comprehensive drop testing, just stupid...
Click to expand...

From what I know, there was supposed to be an entire series of down select testing that was between Sig and Glock. This testing was going to put the firearms through the rigors and to basically assure that both can pass MILSPEC testing requirements. They did not do this. They went through a paper down select, looked at Sig's price, and declared them the winner.

If you read the news, you'll see Glock basically challenging the Army to finish the testing regardless to see which pistol actually grades higher. The Army of course won't do this since if Glock were to smoke them in the down select testing, they'd have massive loads of egg on their face.

In the end it's still utterly idiotic that the Army spent over $300M just to select a sidearm that the majority of soldiers will never use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne and barrister1602
UCFKnight85 said:
From what I know, there was supposed to be an entire series of down select testing that was between Sig and Glock. This testing was going to put the firearms through the rigors and to basically assure that both can pass MILSPEC testing requirements. They did not do this. They went through a paper down select, looked at Sig's price, and declared them the winner.

If you read the news, you'll see Glock basically challenging the Army to finish the testing regardless to see which pistol actually grades higher. The Army of course won't do this since if Glock were to smoke them in the down select testing, they'd have massive loads of egg on their face.

In the end it's still utterly idiotic that the Army spent over $300M just to select a sidearm that the majority of soldiers will never use.
Click to expand...
I'm a Glock fan. Only 1 misfire with about 10,000 rounds in various models. That 1 misfire was prolly due to ammo rather than gun. With Glock, you pull tigger....it go Boom.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
From what I know, there was supposed to be an entire series of down select testing that was between Sig and Glock. This testing was going to put the firearms through the rigors and to basically assure that both can pass MILSPEC testing requirements. They did not do this. They went through a paper down select, looked at Sig's price, and declared them the winner.

If you read the news, you'll see Glock basically challenging the Army to finish the testing regardless to see which pistol actually grades higher. The Army of course won't do this since if Glock were to smoke them in the down select testing, they'd have massive loads of egg on their face.

In the end it's still utterly idiotic that the Army spent over $300M just to select a sidearm that the majority of soldiers will never use.
Click to expand...
Yea they came in super low, almost making no money at all on the contract itself. I just with the test wouldve been fair. Hey if the p320 won, thats cool with me too. I just wanted to see them make the choice on the best available side arm at a reasonable price, not just price alone...
 
BTW- I love how Sig has called this a "voluntary upgrade".

This is like Toyota issuing a "voluntary upgrade" notice for those needing new brakes that won't fail at high speeds. "Look what we are giving you people!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
UCFWayne said:
what is really funny is The all the sig fans were so obnoxious to the glock fans after the p320 was selected. its absolutely hilarious
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong- the 226 and 229 lines are awesome pistols. Some of the best IMO. However Sig's first entrance into the polymer striker fired world has not gone well. Their fanboys should be honest with themselves and admit that Sig won purely on an unreasonable low ball price, not technical superiority.

I have a hard time believing they were a better pistol all around. Both SOCOM and USMC ran competitions and ended up picking the Glock 19 after beating the shit out of many pistols. The FBI picked the Glock 19.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
NinjaKnight said:
Well that's a stupid comment, capitalism is fixing this problem rather quickly, sig is getting (justifiably) crucified in the public market right now for releasing a shitty product, I've already witnessed half a dozen P320's listed in my local gun buy/sell/trade groups. the free market is speaking. The problem lies in the government contract being awarded to an obviously inferior product, which is not free market capitalism.
Click to expand...
So, a company intentionally lowering the price of their product in order to attract more buyers (in this case, a large government contract,) resulting in a poorer design that endangers their customers, while their shareholders continue to benefit from the original sale and will never be held accountable for their deadly design flaw, isn't a normal thing in our form of capitalism?

LOL.
 
On a related note, I've heard SOCOM is going to ditch the M4 and adopt a new rifle in the 2-3 year timespan that utilizes 6.5mm Creedmoor. They've already gone that way for Sniper rifles and there are now "M4 type" weapons that use the same caliber. More range/lethality.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
On a related note, I've heard SOCOM is going to ditch the M4 and adopt a new rifle in the 2-3 year timespan that utilizes 6.5mm Creedmoor. They've already gone that way for Sniper rifles and there are now "M4 type" weapons that use the same caliber. More range/lethality.
Click to expand...
wow thats pretty crazy shake up. wonder why they wouldnt consider doing a different caliber like 300 blackout and just keep the m4 awhile longer.
 
UCFWayne said:
wow thats pretty crazy shake up. wonder why they wouldnt consider doing a different caliber like 300 blackout and just keep the m4 awhile longer.
Click to expand...

.300 BK has a heavier projectile. It's good for engagements out to just about 400-500 meters; the 6.5mm (in hunting with match grade ammo) is often described as "boring accurate" at 1,000 meters.

SOCOM can basically do what they want. They aren't hamstrung by onerous procurement rules like the big Services are. They can field new equipment in a fraction of the time.
 
Sig is in a world of hurt. Their plan is bring guns back in house to rework the slide, change the trigger along with some other parts.
 
UCFKnight85 said:
.300 BK has a heavier projectile. It's good for engagements out to just about 400-500 meters; the 6.5mm (in hunting with match grade ammo) is often described as "boring accurate" at 1,000 meters.

SOCOM can basically do what they want. They aren't hamstrung by onerous procurement rules like the big Services are. They can field new equipment in a fraction of the time.
Click to expand...
so are they looking at the scar or something similar?
 
chemmie said:
So, a company intentionally lowering the price of their product in order to attract more buyers (in this case, a large government contract,) resulting in a poorer design that endangers their customers, while their shareholders continue to benefit from the original sale and will never be held accountable for their deadly design flaw, isn't a normal thing in our form of capitalism?

LOL.
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore the fact that your almighty government controlled everything in this process. Free market was thrown to the gutter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS
Bob the Knight said:
Why do you ignore the fact that your almighty government controlled everything in this process. Free market was thrown to the gutter.
Click to expand...

Not to mention this competition amongst 6 bidders derived 6 entire new pistols developed by private research money and gave the USG a multitude of great options at good prices. Something only private enterprise could deliver.

It's a shame the USG (errrr the government) doesn't follow their own procurement guidelines
 
UCFKnight85 said:
I saw this week the Dallas PD issued a mandatory recall of their entire 320 fleet due to firing when dropped. These guys did their own tests and found the 320 would fire when dropped in almost every caliber and across almost every 320 model.

This is your newest US military sidearm folks. Bought on the cheap, without finishing testing vs a Glock, because Sig entered an insane lowball price that came in $102M total cheaper.

This is after their launch of the MCX was a disaster with at least 5 recalls done.

https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/08/07/video-sig-p320-dramatically-fails-drop-test/
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly one of the requirements was to have an external safety. The military SIGS will be shipped with decocking levers and firing pin blocks the same as the M9.

One of my first days in the Coast Guard, one of the guys picked up an M16 and with the bolt locked to the rear with a full magazine and hit the butt on the ground causing the bolt to go forward and charging a round. His advise don't drop the gun.

The Coast Guard has also used the SIG, I don't know which model for at least 5 years. I got out about 10 years ago. If their was systematic issues with them I'm sure they would have let the DOD know.
 
They kept making excuses ... until multiple outlets showed what everyone was telling them, and exactly how easily it could happen. Of all the negativity towards firearms in the age of the Internet, the one thing that I have really appreciated is the knowledge that is leading to safer designs -- including forcing manufacturers to take things far more seriously than before as users collaborate and validate issues.
 
Beretta has continued shitting on the MHs program and released a pressed today showing that the M9 is 10 times more reliable than the MHS requirement. And since Sig never actually met the requirement, and the Army stopped its testing program as they were supposed to, you could infer the M9 is more reliable than the Sig by a magnitude of 12 times.

http://www.guns.com/2017/09/16/beretta-m9-pistol-reliability-safety/
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
UCFKnight85 said:
On a related note, I've heard SOCOM is going to ditch the M4 and adopt a new rifle in the 2-3 year timespan that utilizes 6.5mm Creedmoor. They've already gone that way for Sniper rifles and there are now "M4 type" weapons that use the same caliber. More range/lethality.
Click to expand...
It's looking like they want something capable and flexible, based on the 7.62 NATO, which gives them alternative options. Hence the interim use of the Creedmoor.

One repeat theme in all of these 'alternative calibers' is that 2.25" OAL is too short. This is especially the case with 'green ammunition' that usually entails a longer bullet. A lot of alternative designs are at least 2.5"+, so 2.75"+. That along with the 12mm cartridge base gives a lot more room to go beyond the 5.56 NATO's 9.6mm, such as 10.7-11.3mm (.30 Rem and 7.62x39 parents).
 
UCFKnight85 said:
.300 BK has a heavier projectile. It's good for engagements out to just about 400-500 meters; the 6.5mm (in hunting with match grade ammo) is often described as "boring accurate" at 1,000 meters.

SOCOM can basically do what they want. They aren't hamstrung by onerous procurement rules like the big Services are. They can field new equipment in a fraction of the time.
Click to expand...
Yep, SOCOM et al. were big on the 6.8x42, who's parent is the .30 Rem (10.7mm rim), which is stretching the boltface of the M4 platform (although not as much as a 11.3mm). But Afganistan engagements changed all that, hence why the BLK300 won't fly either.

It's looking more and more that the military, long-term, will either adopt a cartridge that can fit within a 2.75" OAL short action, possibly a subset OAL and rim like 2.5-2.6" and 10.7-11.3mm, or just get serious about moving to the very well developed CT ammunition and a new platform, which will likely be 6.5mm just over 100 grains, and finally bring an end of the split 5.56 and 7.62, at least among general issue cartridge. The only inderminate is velocity, which goes back to needing more powder (bigger/longer case/OAL) at the expense of recoil. The new 2,500 v. 3,000J argument.

The irony is that we're actually headed back bigger for MG and Sniper. The .338 Norma is hard to ignore when it has 4x the energy than 7.62 NATO at 1,000m. CT will likely never be used for this, both for heat and accuracy, respectively, and brass will continue. The .338 MG weight no more that the M240, although the ammo weight means only 500 rounds instead of 800 of 7.62.
 
chemmie said:
So, a company intentionally lowering the price of their product in order to attract more buyers (in this case, a large government contract,) resulting in a poorer design that endangers their customers, while their shareholders continue to benefit from the original sale and will never be held accountable for their deadly design flaw, isn't a normal thing in our form of capitalism?

LOL.
Click to expand...
The issue in your statement is the "never held accountable." The free market is already holding them accountable due to decreased sales and loss of reputation. Their customer in this contract will have a review and there are a number of remediations, from return all monies to suspension from competing on any federal contract ever again. This is all normal capitalism at work and quite appropriate.

What would you like to see happen here?
 
UCFKnight85 said:
Not to mention this competition amongst 6 bidders derived 6 entire new pistols developed by private research money and gave the USG a multitude of great options at good prices. Something only private enterprise could deliver.

It's a shame the USG (errrr the government) doesn't follow their own procurement guidelines
Click to expand...
I'm sure it's not that cut-and-dried but the "best value" trend of choosing the lowest cost almost exclusively across the DoD is wreaking havoc at every level.
 
I'd be shocked if all SOCOM units didn't just say screw it and reject deliveries of the M17 in favor of buying more Glock 19's. In fact I've heard this has already happened at some locations. They're the only units who may actually use a handgun at some point; for 99% of the military a handgun is just a doorstop.

That's the crock in all of this. They spent millions of dollars running this competition to ultimately end up with a very shady product. They could have just used the USMC and SOCOM contracts to buy more Glock 19's at volume discounts and called it a day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS and UCFWayne
It'd be interesting to see the AOAs, because if volume discounts of existing designs was a possibility it should've been addressed. It would be interesting to see what justification they used to turn away from that route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back