I would think that some attorney would consider the plight of the Gen1 owner with a class action???

SIG SAUER is a multi-million dollar company that could afford to easily make the Gen1 customer 100% satisfied with their investment. We bought into the claim of modularity, and that includes magazines too.

Right now, what we hear from Customer Service still falls short of the advertised MPX literature of modularity for the 9mm Gen1 owner.

Come on SIG... Gen2 uppers AND a Gen2 magazine discount for the guinea pigs of your project would settle this debacle.

I'm sure someone inside of SIG-SAUER reads these posts. Pass this on to your CEO if you have balls...

There are hundreds of posts on various Sig forums  all over the internet with lots of really pissed off people, not to mention numerous phone calls I'm sure they have received about the issue. There's no way Sig doesn't know about it.

Let's hope they do some kind of recall, or at the very least work with Lancer to make a "Gen III" magazine that's cross-compatible.

This is the Sig P250 all over again. They did the same shit with the Gen 1 and Gen 2 frames. The mags were able to be used in either one, etc... they didn't do shit and kept on making money.

god forbid Gen3 talk...


Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel(or a Gen3 magazine), just offer a discount on Gen2 mags. Simple. It just requires an "okay" from the top to make this happen. No redesign, no drawing boards. Done.

I'm still trying to figure out why the hell they changed the magazine in the first place.

The only thing I can think of is a change in the feed ramps on the Gen II barrel extension that required the angle of the round in the magazine to be changed as well via longer feed-lips on the mag.I dunno, I'm not an engineer, just an enthusiast. I haven't seen anyone discuss this yet. Doesn't anyone have hard data on this?

Never buy Gen one!

Class dismissed...

The hard data belongs to SIG.

I'm sure it has to do with when the the bullet starts to make it's tip up, into the redesigned Gen2 feed ramp.

Love my MPX, but Sig has turned into one shitty company.

Really???

Excatly, how would you know that you bought a Gen1, until a Gen2 is released???

Life is too short to wait for a second generation of anything, to start having fun.

Would you have passed on a 1953 Gen1 Corvette, and wish you owned one today???

Ahhhhhh... by waiting to see if there were any problems before dropping the cash!

You mean a hyped car that does OK going straight, but handles like shit in the curves... that Corvette???


It's like Microsoft Windows...  the first retail release is the final beta test of the product!  There no doubt will be some shit that needs to be fixed!

You may someday regret not buying a Gen1.

I wish I had dropped the cash on a 1953 Gen1 Corvette or a 1965 Gen 1 Shelby Mustang!

Or owning S/N 000002 of the AR-15.

I just want SIG to make good on their advertising claim of modularity.

Didn't Volkswagon just get wacked for not living up to their advertising???

There is very little real consumer satisfaction that you were among the first to get a piece of shit... er ah... flawed product!


Let me give some examples.  The Smith & Wesson 686, I purchased (at a premium) serial number AAA-0443. The 443rd gun off the line.  It had a cylinder misalignment so bad that i picked lead and jacket shavings from my face.

I had one of the first 10 Essex stainless steel 1911 frames. There was a mold void in the grip area that was stars shaped. The letter with the frame explained a "cosmetic flaw" that would be covered by the grips.  That I was fortunate to get one of the first 10 frames cast!

The MPX was introduced at the 2013 SHOT Show. That was nearly 3 years ago.

The Gen I/Gen II thing is irritating, but its not like these guns are blowing up in people's faces or having a whole smattering of problems. I'd say your examples are in a different category entirely.

I was about to post about the MPX, just handled one at the fun shop and was about to do it, but had a bad jedi feeling. I came home, looked up mags and fuck me! I am not paying that much for a magazine! and after reading this...nope not doing it.

You'd think after 3-4 years of testing would have got these issues worked out.

Spend your money on something else. I wish I would have.

exactly this...The fact that this was a gen 1 gun was known ONLY by those that follow the forums closely.  I am not one of those..

as for the waiting part...I am not getting any younger and want my toys now while I am able to enjoy them..

did I mention I'm still waiting for my tele stock?

I sold my Scorpion to fund my MPX purchase earlier this year due to lack of mags and no stocks. Guess I really f'd up.

I, along with many others anticipated the release of the MPX for a long while. When it was finally released, I bought the Gen I knowing that Sig was going to come out with a Gen II. Me, I like it, if I want another, I'll just buy a Gen II and Gen II mags.

I was about to pull the pin on one, but luckily searched how much mags cost, if you could find them.  No thank you, Sig.  Now, having read about the gen issues, the no thank you is a HELL NO.    

Was also disappointed when I could not find a new Legion p226 without "Sig-Gap" under the front sight.  I do not know what happened to the company, but I do not understand their actions.

If I had a 1953 Gen1 Corvette, I wouldn't be demanding that a multibillion dollar company like GM give me a discount on the current gen corvette.

Gen 1 MPX aren't going to be worth anything. They aren't collectable. They have no iconic image or history associated with them. They're just commercial PCCs.

Has Sig released a formal statement yet?

Why should they? Hey haven't done anything wrong. They released a product and are releasing another one.

 

I don't have the answer as to "why".  It was stated in an earlier thread that Sig was releasing a statement in response to this Gen 1 and Gen 2 issue in order to "clear the record" as to compatibility or lack thereof.

You don't think advertising a platform as modular when it isn't and selling $60 magazines that were obsolete in a period of 3 months is an issue?  Okay.

No, it is shitty customer service but they did nothing criminal or wrong. We knew there was going to be a Gen 2. This isn't the first time Sig has even done this. The P250 was the same deal.

Companies do this shit all the time.

I at one time considered both the CZ Scorpion and the Sig MPX but the high cost of Sig's magazines and my experience as a very early adopter of a 556 rifle steered me back to the CZ.  I have been very glad since and especially after reading this.  I avoid anything new from Sig these days.

Edit. grammar.

I don't think anyone is making criminal accusations -- that seems unsubstantiated at this juncture.  I think what may conceivably be on the table is some sort civil liability by virtue of deceptive trade practices or some other civil avenue.  In my mind, as a consumer and as an attorney, it doesn't seem equitable or "fair" to release a product with advertised features (caliber conversion) that are germane to the platform design, but after release and in actuality the initial commercial products sold don't actually contain said features, and the only way for the consumer to obtain said features is through an additional purchase.  Something just doesn't seem right here.  It seems repugnant that a certain commercial expectancy interest wasn't delivered by Sig in favor of the the original purchasers of the mpx product.  Breach of warrant for particular purpose rings a bell. I'm just thinking out loud here and I'm not saying that liability is clear by any means (and this is not legal advice), but this just doesn't seem equitable. They may have to step up their mitigation efforts.

I think the corollary hypothetical as previously stated in another thread is a vehicle advertised as a 4x4, but in reality after sale it is determined that the vehicle is in fact a 2 wheel drive and the 4x4 upgrade is only available after additional consideration paid by the customer. Caliber conversion was sold as a key feature available on this platform, and that they failed to deliver.  I would be inclined to make a strong argument for a total warranty exchange on gen 1 uppers and the gen 1 magazines as well.  Food for thought.

If in 1953, my Gen1 Corvette did not live up to its advertising, the owner would have had a legitimate gripe. New models always come out, and I am only referring to the promised hype that SIG was suppused to deliver to the Gen1 owner. That's all.

Go out and buy a new car based on what they have been telling you (for 3 years), then tell me you would't be pissed if the car you bought fell short of their sales pitch.

Not living up to advertising claims has been proven many times. Remember the Tucker automobile??? or the current Volkswagon fiasco.

The law is called TRUTH IN ADVERTISING

I'm all for a Gen2, or 3, or 20... just make good on what you promised for the Gen1 or give us a reasonable solution, including the magazines.

What exactly is going on here?  (serious question)

There has been a Gen2 version released of virtually everything on this planet.

But the original literature on this gun made certain claims, and that is why I bought this gun. That literature released by the SIG is a contract, if you choose to buy the advertised product.

There was no fine print in the paper literature or online at sigsauer.com that   "Some of what we say at SIG-SAUER... may not be not true about the item you are about to purchase".

Please offer a discount to Gen1 owners for (both) a Gen2 upper and its Gen2 magazines, and we will be content with the advertised modularity of the MPX, and this thread drops off the radar. So simple.

Sig has been dishonest as of late and extreme failure in QC

P320 modularity
P227 14rd magazines
P220 10mm magazines
now MPX

very disappointing they refuse to acknowledge their lack of support and QC

To quote another poster in this forum:
"Sigfucked"

TL;DR: hypotheticals to rectify the issues being faced because of sig sauer's business decisions.

I'm just waiting to hear back on my mpx...


Eta: syntax.

The fault lies in SIG's advertising that the Gen1 could do "so" much.

This was posted by another member, kudos brother!

I called to order my "Gen II" magazines today...

- No part number yet and they won't have them until next week
- They will not be offering the "Essentials Pack" only single mags
- When I inquired about discounts on Gen II 9MM mags for those of us who bought them but now need a Gen II upper if we want run a factory shorter barrel...I was told that apparently they have changed their mind and WILL be making different barrel lengths for Gen I uppers
- This "new" data came to light in a "big" meeting they had this morning
- Still said they will offer Gen II upper to Gen I owners for the price of the normal caliber conversion kit

Me - "You all understand that this whole situation is pissing a lot of people off"
Them - "Yes"

Me - "With all the information / mis-information out on this whole issue, including Gen I and Gen compatibility, timing of releasing mags, uppers, barrels, etc. do folks need to just keep calling you periodically to get answers/updates? Seems a waste of everyone's time. When is there going to be some info readily available and updated somewhere to address all these things"
Them - "Well, that was part of this big meeting we had today with marketing. We've asked them to put some sort of web page together to address the compatibility and availability questions"

Me - "When will that be up"
Them - "Sometime in the next month"

Seems ludicrous that it could take a month to get this info out there. This is all about transparency. Don't try to cover your ass. Tell people what happened, why it happened, what's the fix and what's the timing. Do that, do it right, and execute it as promised and while folks may still be upset, clearing up all the confusion will go along way to not having the situation continue to get out of hand.

Still worried about long-term support for everything Gen I. May still have to pony up for 9MM Gen II upper and mags to be safe. If my lower wasn't already engraved I'd sell it and never look back. Whole situation is just shitty.


All things considered...Cheers on this news!

Sounds like the 'essential packs' were just trying to dump the Gen 1 mags ASAP

This.

From my understanding, the 9mm MPX are messed up in the magazines not working from Gen1 to Gen2 and the other calibers are OK from GEN1 to GEN2.  Am I tracking good so far??


How is this different from Glocks and the 40S&W kabooms??  

But I agree that there should be a admission that the 9mm MPX is subject to a fix..  But I don't agree to a recall..   Canon never did a recall for my $3,300 5D camera..just a product advisory for the mirror falling off..  It didn't kill me, and the same with the MPX.   No one died/ suffered loss of limbs from the flaw right??

Inb4 someone loses limb from flaw in the gen 1 mpx

This.

And I'd love to know how many people crying lawsuit right now were people crying about Sig taking so long to release the MPX.

Newsflash: You knowingly bought a first generation product.

I hope SIG understands that those people on the forums are some of their most loyal customers. Not only that procurement people read them too. At this point they have a majority of their previous purchasers unhappy and future potential buyers wary. Not exactly good for sales outlook.

Who's running SIG these days? Sounds like nobody is in charge.

Caliber conversion was sold as a key feature available on this platform, and that they failed to deliver.  I would be inclined to make a strong argument for a total warranty exchange on gen 1 uppers and the gen 1 magazines as well.  Food for thought.

Article 13 (Commercial Law) of the Maryland Code Annotated:
§13–301.     IN EFFECT
Unfair or deceptive trade practices include any:
(1)   False, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers;
(2)   Representation that:
(i)   Consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer services have a sponsorship, approval, accessory, characteristic, ingredient, use, benefit, or quantity which they do not have;
(iv)   Consumer goods, consumer realty, or consumer services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model which they are not;
(3)   Failure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive;

As stated in the post quoted above, Sig has advertised and still advertises the MPX as being caliber convertible.  The Gen 1 MPX is currently not caliber convertible, nor is compatible with the Gen 2 magazines.  Sig needs to step up and make the Gen 1 buyers "whole" and that does not mean we should have to pay more money to get what we have already allegedly paid for and for which they have failed to deliver.

The same exact thing happened with the 1st Generation of the P250.

 







Magazines and Frames from the gen 1 don't work with gen 2 and the other way around.

Same thing happened with the P250. Nothing happened and they did nothing wrong except rush a product and have shitty designers.

 

What does the first thing have in common with the second?  We knew we were buying a first generation product and knew another version would probabily come out in the future.  But we also expected it to do everything that it was advertised to be able to do.  That is the complaint not sure what you are talking about.  

Robison XCR and Bushmaster ACR ring a bell?

I knew I wasn't that far off.  I contemplated today drafting a complaint to file with our small claims division of the district court to see if casting a rock at Sig would get them to respond.  Let's see what my state law has to say on this topic....



§ 4-88-107. Deceptive and unconscionable trade practices

(a) Deceptive and unconscionable trade practices made unlawful and prohibited by this chapter include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Knowingly making a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services or as to whether goods are original or new or of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model;
(2) Disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact;
(3) Advertising the goods or services with the intent not to sell them as advertised;
(4) Refusal of a retailer to deliver to a customer purchasing any electronic or mechanical apparatus the record of warranty and statement of service availability which the manufacturer includes in the original carton or container of the product or the refusal to make available on request information relating thereto;
(5) The employment of bait-and-switch advertising consisting of an attractive but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the seller in truth does not intend or desire to sell, evidenced by:
(A) A refusal to show or a disparagement of the advertised product;
(B) The requirement of a tie-in sale or other undisclosed conditions precedent to the purchase;
(C) A demonstration of a defective product; or
(D) Other acts demonstrating an intent not to sell the advertised product or services;
(6) Knowingly failing to identify flood, water, fire, or accidentally damaged goods as to such damages;
(7) Making a false representation that contributions solicited for charitable purposes shall be spent in a specific manner or for specified purposes;
(8) Knowingly taking advantage of a consumer who is reasonably unable to protect his or her interest because of:
(A) Physical infirmity;
(B) Ignorance;
(C) Illiteracy;
(D) Inability to understand the language of the agreement; or
(E) A similar factor;
(9) The offering for sale, assembly, or drafting of any trust document, including a living trust, by a nonlawyer, excluding the marketing, assembly, and funding by bank trust departments and trust companies;
(10) Engaging in any other unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in business, commerce, or trade; and
(11)(A) Displaying or causing to be displayed a fictitious or misleading name or telephone number on an Arkansas resident's telephone caller identification service.
(B) Subdivision (a)(11)(A) of this section does not apply to the transmission of a caller identification service by a telecommunications provider.
(b) The deceptive and unconscionable trade practices listed in this section are in addition to and do not limit the types of unfair trade practices actionable at common law or under other statutes of this state.

Well they succeeded at this a LONG time ago.... They have been back ordered everywhere....

T