[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SIG “ The P320. It ends today.” (Page 11 of 142)
|
Quoted: If all these NDs are from mishandling, wouldn't there be similar lawsuits against Glock, S&W, Springfield etc?? Seems too convenient to just happen with Sigs. https://everytownlaw.org/case/parents-sue-glock-for-firearm-design-that-led-to-the-unintentional-shooting-of-their-son/ https://casetext.com/case/wasylow-v-glock-inc https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/sporting-goods-equipment/gun-owners-urge-court-to-certify-glock-defect-class-action/ https://www.rosenbaumnylaw.com/blog/2014/08/smith-wesson-faces-product-liability-case-over-gun-discharge/ https://www.guns.com/news/2016/01/26/product-liability-suit-filed-against-smith-wesson-in-tn https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/gustafson-v-springfield-inc-924580627 https://gunstoday.com/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-240-million-defective-pistol-case/ |
|
Quoted: Like these? lol. It takes like 5 seconds of google searches. https://everytownlaw.org/case/parents-sue-glock-for-firearm-design-that-led-to-the-unintentional-shooting-of-their-son/ https://casetext.com/case/wasylow-v-glock-inc https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/sporting-goods-equipment/gun-owners-urge-court-to-certify-glock-defect-class-action/ https://www.rosenbaumnylaw.com/blog/2014/08/smith-wesson-faces-product-liability-case-over-gun-discharge/ https://www.guns.com/news/2016/01/26/product-liability-suit-filed-against-smith-wesson-in-tn https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/gustafson-v-springfield-inc-924580627 https://gunstoday.com/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-240-million-defective-pistol-case/ Are you comparing lawsuits funded by anti-gun lobbies that the Glock doesn't have a safety to lawsuits brought by gun owners and police officers that 320s went off because of a mechanical failure? Weak sauce. |
|
Quoted: Are you comparing lawsuits funded by anti-gun lobbies that the Glock doesn't have a safety to lawsuits brought by gun owners and police officers that 320s went off because of a mechanical failure? Weak sauce. Glock has had tons of lawsuits over the years by gun owners and LE. No, I'm not digging around the internet for links. I have shit to do. |
|
Quoted: Are you comparing lawsuits funded by anti-gun lobbies that the Glock doesn't have a safety to lawsuits brought by gun owners and police officers that 320s went off because of a mechanical failure? Weak sauce. Quoted: Quoted: Like these? lol. It takes like 5 seconds of google searches. https://everytownlaw.org/case/parents-sue-glock-for-firearm-design-that-led-to-the-unintentional-shooting-of-their-son/ https://casetext.com/case/wasylow-v-glock-inc https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/sporting-goods-equipment/gun-owners-urge-court-to-certify-glock-defect-class-action/ https://www.rosenbaumnylaw.com/blog/2014/08/smith-wesson-faces-product-liability-case-over-gun-discharge/ https://www.guns.com/news/2016/01/26/product-liability-suit-filed-against-smith-wesson-in-tn https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/gustafson-v-springfield-inc-924580627 https://gunstoday.com/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-240-million-defective-pistol-case/ Are you comparing lawsuits funded by anti-gun lobbies that the Glock doesn't have a safety to lawsuits brought by gun owners and police officers that 320s went off because of a mechanical failure? Weak sauce. |
|
Quoted: Glock has had tons of lawsuits over the years by gun owners and LE. No, I'm not digging around the internet for links. I have shit to do. No need. Everybody knows Glock's been sued a bunch. Just find me one were Glock was found liable because they didn't put a safety tab on the trigger or liable because of a mechanical failure in the design. |
|
Quoted: Just like what SIG was claiming in the OP? lololol Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Like these? lol. It takes like 5 seconds of google searches. https://everytownlaw.org/case/parents-sue-glock-for-firearm-design-that-led-to-the-unintentional-shooting-of-their-son/ https://casetext.com/case/wasylow-v-glock-inc https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/sporting-goods-equipment/gun-owners-urge-court-to-certify-glock-defect-class-action/ https://www.rosenbaumnylaw.com/blog/2014/08/smith-wesson-faces-product-liability-case-over-gun-discharge/ https://www.guns.com/news/2016/01/26/product-liability-suit-filed-against-smith-wesson-in-tn https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/gustafson-v-springfield-inc-924580627 https://gunstoday.com/federal-judge-orders-hearing-in-240-million-defective-pistol-case/ Are you comparing lawsuits funded by anti-gun lobbies that the Glock doesn't have a safety to lawsuits brought by gun owners and police officers that 320s went off because of a mechanical failure? Weak sauce. Yeah, that's the reason for the thread- everybody incredulous at SIG's bs. |
|
Quoted: For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. |
|
Quoted: I am old enough to remember when Glock was the big new thing. Glock haters declared them unsafe, mostly due to the lack of a manual thumb safety. They would flood the internet with posting baseless claims, and repost ND videos over and over, many blaming the gun. If I recall correctly, there were some lawsuits against Glock too. Quoted: Quoted: If all these NDs are from mishandling, wouldn’t there be similar lawsuits against Glock, S&W, Springfield etc?? Seems too convenient to just happen with Sigs. I am old enough to remember when Glock was the big new thing. Glock haters declared them unsafe, mostly due to the lack of a manual thumb safety. They would flood the internet with posting baseless claims, and repost ND videos over and over, many blaming the gun. If I recall correctly, there were some lawsuits against Glock too. Posting ND videos on the internet back in the 80s huh? |
|
Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it's impossible to replicate ? How about same guns that "went off"? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I'm not here defending the P320 or Sig. I'm trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I'll call a dud a dud. Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it's impossible to replicate ? How about same guns that "went off"? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I'm not here defending the P320 or Sig. I'm trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I'll call a dud a dud. Sig Sauer Testing In October 2021, Sig Sauer had vibration testing performed, nearly a year after the subject incident. This has been the only testing documentation produced by Sig Sauer in any of the litigation cases and took place approximately seven years after the P320 was introduced. Sig Sauer did not make anyone outside of Sig Sauer aware of the testing so appropriate representatives could be present. The testing was performed on ten new firearms. comprised of different P320 models and included pre- and post-upgrade designs. The Sig Sauer test request dated September 2, 2021, states that the "Anticipated Malfunction: Loosening of components, Potential sear disengagement, wear, etc.". This test request, as well as the test report, both state that video documentation of each test is to be obtained, but no videos have been produced. The first tests performed were the vibration tests, which included sinusoidal vibration at various frequencies, and shock (jolt) testing. While the summary report from the testing facility states that no primers were struck, there were at least three tests that "light strikes" were identified from the photographs in the report. Since not all test iteration photographs clearly showed the primer cartridges, there could have been more. Also, these are referred to as "light strikes" in this report, but it is possible the primer was ignited and not noted in the summary report. Examples of photographs showing the "light strikes" are shown in Figure 19. The firing pin contacted the primer in at least 3 of 10 pistols tested during Sigs vibe test. |
|
Quoted: Posting ND videos on the internet back in the 80s huh? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If all these NDs are from mishandling, wouldn’t there be similar lawsuits against Glock, S&W, Springfield etc?? Seems too convenient to just happen with Sigs. I am old enough to remember when Glock was the big new thing. Glock haters declared them unsafe, mostly due to the lack of a manual thumb safety. They would flood the internet with posting baseless claims, and repost ND videos over and over, many blaming the gun. If I recall correctly, there were some lawsuits against Glock too. Posting ND videos on the internet back in the 80s huh? Usenet? |
|
Quoted: Posting ND videos on the internet back in the 80s huh? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If all these NDs are from mishandling, wouldn't there be similar lawsuits against Glock, S&W, Springfield etc?? Seems too convenient to just happen with Sigs. I am old enough to remember when Glock was the big new thing. Glock haters declared them unsafe, mostly due to the lack of a manual thumb safety. They would flood the internet with posting baseless claims, and repost ND videos over and over, many blaming the gun. If I recall correctly, there were some lawsuits against Glock too. Posting ND videos on the internet back in the 80s huh?  What happened to the DEA Agent Who Shot Himself? | Glock 40 Meme |
|
Quoted: There are people here that still try to argue the lobby video has someone mess with the gun in the holster. It reminds me why GD is always taken with a grain, or 1lb container, of salt. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let's try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn't an issue, and wasn't replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn't. If it was out of plane, it wouldn't. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I've seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn't always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here's where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn't the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it's 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it's 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn't the root cause. And we're back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I'm sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I've been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I've always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I'm open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it's poor handling that is the root cause. There are people here that still try to argue the lobby video has someone mess with the gun in the holster. It reminds me why GD is always taken with a grain, or 1lb container, of salt. But then people also miss the point of what hoster? Did the holster contribute to it going off. It never does it when perfectly still only when the holster is being moved in some fashion... I don't own a P320 I am a normally a glock guy... I do own a P365... I do wonder why the P365FCU is a redesign and not a scaled down version of the P320. I do know that glock 43's are scaled down parts from larger glock and not a complete redesign. I also know that something is wrong within the P320 bubble... What I don't know is what or why... 
|
|
Quoted: But then people also miss the point of what hoster? Did the holster contribute to it going off. It never does it when perfectly still only when the holster is being moved in some fashion... I don't own a P320 I am a normally a glock guy... I do own a P365... I do wonder why the P365FCU is a redesign and not a scaled down version of the P320. I do know that glock 43's are scaled down parts from larger glock and not a complete redesign. I also know that something is wrong within the P320 bubble... What I don't know is what or why... Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is buried deep in page 10, so no one will actually read, much less respond, but let's try. How many people understand that the original drop safe issue is different than the current alleged issues? How many people understand that even with the drop issue, it passed all existing drop tests? That is not to say it wasn't an issue, and wasn't replicable (both repeatedly with one firearm, and across samples). But I believe there was something like 17 tests that the design passed. But it was found that when the pistol fell in a plane at a -30 degree angle, it would regularly discharge. If that was -10 degrees, it wouldn't. If it was out of plane, it wouldn't. It had to be that precise angle. Regardless, a repeatable issue was found and a solution presented. Do you understand that there is the same firing pin/striker safety that most modern guns have? Where a block is in the way in case of sear slippage, and that the block requires a trigger pull to move it out of the way? Do you understand that all the videos (that I've seen anyway) show the pistol either being pushed down, or motions that would pull adjacent material up? Do you understand that (to my knowledge) not one has been able to replicate the circumstances and have it result in a discharge? Either with the exact same pistol or any other. Do you know that none have found any mechanical defects? Someone earlier claimed that SIG is getting their hands on them and the pistols are never seen again. My understanding is actually rather the opposite. SIG hasn't always been given the opportunity to examine the pistols in question, much less the opportunity to steal them away. If you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it. I completely understand the smoke/fire thing. But it does no good to spout off nonsense based on your feels. I hate 5 Why, but try using it. Why did the gun discharge? Because the primer ignited the gunpowder. Why did the primer ignite? Because it was struck by the striker/firing pin. Why did the striker hit the primer? Because it was released from the sear. Why was it released from the sear? Here's where you may have to split for the first time. 1) Because the trigger was pulled. Why was the trigger pulled? Because there was a foreign object against which the pistol was pressed (or was pulled against the trigger). 2) Because a jarring motion made the sear engagement slip. Why didn't the striker motion get arrested by the striker block? Because of multiple simultaneous system failures. So if it's 1, why was there a foreign object? Because of inappropriate handling practices. Address that. If it's 2, are multiple simultaneous system failures possible, and if so, under what conditions? Replicate them and see if the same results occur. If not, 2 isn't the root cause. And we're back to 1. If someone can demonstrate 2, I wanna hear it. And I'm sure SIG would too. But based on all available evidence that I've been privy to, 1 appears to be the root cause. Train people to properly avoid foreign objects in the holstering process. You can, of course, choose an alternative. Like a pistol that is more resistant to poor handling. But if the root cause is poor handling, it will show up somewhere else. And I've always said, if you have a logical explanation of how systems can simultaneously fail, but not be able to be replicated, I'm open to hearing them. But until then, it seems clear to me that it's poor handling that is the root cause. There are people here that still try to argue the lobby video has someone mess with the gun in the holster. It reminds me why GD is always taken with a grain, or 1lb container, of salt. But then people also miss the point of what hoster? Did the holster contribute to it going off. It never does it when perfectly still only when the holster is being moved in some fashion... I don't own a P320 I am a normally a glock guy... I do own a P365... I do wonder why the P365FCU is a redesign and not a scaled down version of the P320. I do know that glock 43's are scaled down parts from larger glock and not a complete redesign. I also know that something is wrong within the P320 bubble... What I don't know is what or why... In all fairness sig loves to redesign existing designs without telling anyone or throw new models/trims out with little to no warning . I had a bitch of a time trying to put an optic on my P320 X-carry due to fastener issues until I found this little gem: |
|
Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. All I’m saying is something’s wrong and it’s ok to state that without having all the facts. That’s usually the situation we find ourselves in: having to make a call about something without possessing all the facts. In this debate, quite literally about safety and the potential to harm innocents, people defending Sig either have a financial interest in doing so or are fans of Sig, in the truly emotional sense of the word. |
|
Quoted: The firing pin contacted the primer in at least 3 of 10 pistols tested during Sigs vibe test. Quoted: Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it's impossible to replicate ? How about same guns that "went off"? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I'm not here defending the P320 or Sig. I'm trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I'll call a dud a dud. Sig Sauer Testing In October 2021, Sig Sauer had vibration testing performed, nearly a year after the subject incident. This has been the only testing documentation produced by Sig Sauer in any of the litigation cases and took place approximately seven years after the P320 was introduced. Sig Sauer did not make anyone outside of Sig Sauer aware of the testing so appropriate representatives could be present. The testing was performed on ten new firearms. comprised of different P320 models and included pre- and post-upgrade designs. The Sig Sauer test request dated September 2, 2021, states that the "Anticipated Malfunction: Loosening of components, Potential sear disengagement, wear, etc.". This test request, as well as the test report, both state that video documentation of each test is to be obtained, but no videos have been produced. The first tests performed were the vibration tests, which included sinusoidal vibration at various frequencies, and shock (jolt) testing. While the summary report from the testing facility states that no primers were struck, there were at least three tests that "light strikes" were identified from the photographs in the report. Since not all test iteration photographs clearly showed the primer cartridges, there could have been more. Also, these are referred to as "light strikes" in this report, but it is possible the primer was ignited and not noted in the summary report. Examples of photographs showing the "light strikes" are shown in Figure 19. The firing pin contacted the primer in at least 3 of 10 pistols tested during Sigs vibe test. Where is that from? |
|
Quoted: All I’m saying is something’s wrong and it’s ok to state that without having all the facts. That’s usually the situation we find ourselves in: having to make a call about something without possessing all the facts. In this debate, quite literally about safety and the potential to harm innocents, people defending Sig either have a financial interest in doing so or are fans of Sig, in the truly emotional sense of the word. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. All I’m saying is something’s wrong and it’s ok to state that without having all the facts. That’s usually the situation we find ourselves in: having to make a call about something without possessing all the facts. In this debate, quite literally about safety and the potential to harm innocents, people defending Sig either have a financial interest in doing so or are fans of Sig, in the truly emotional sense of the word. Fair enough, but not everyone simply asking for clarification before tossing the entire platform out, is being paid or “fanbois”. Those are overly simplistic characterizations that do not befit the request for more data before making a decision. On the upside, there are options out there. |
|
Quoted: Where is that from? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it's impossible to replicate ? How about same guns that "went off"? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I'm not here defending the P320 or Sig. I'm trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I'll call a dud a dud. Sig Sauer Testing In October 2021, Sig Sauer had vibration testing performed, nearly a year after the subject incident. This has been the only testing documentation produced by Sig Sauer in any of the litigation cases and took place approximately seven years after the P320 was introduced. Sig Sauer did not make anyone outside of Sig Sauer aware of the testing so appropriate representatives could be present. The testing was performed on ten new firearms. comprised of different P320 models and included pre- and post-upgrade designs. The Sig Sauer test request dated September 2, 2021, states that the "Anticipated Malfunction: Loosening of components, Potential sear disengagement, wear, etc.". This test request, as well as the test report, both state that video documentation of each test is to be obtained, but no videos have been produced. The first tests performed were the vibration tests, which included sinusoidal vibration at various frequencies, and shock (jolt) testing. While the summary report from the testing facility states that no primers were struck, there were at least three tests that "light strikes" were identified from the photographs in the report. Since not all test iteration photographs clearly showed the primer cartridges, there could have been more. Also, these are referred to as "light strikes" in this report, but it is possible the primer was ignited and not noted in the summary report. Examples of photographs showing the "light strikes" are shown in Figure 19. The firing pin contacted the primer in at least 3 of 10 pistols tested during Sigs vibe test. Where is that from? The court dossier provided a few pages ago. Presumably Sig provided some of the testing documents to the plaintiff during discovery. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCGiOsP9aymOaEKg6pLSObYXM9tRBv4p/view |
|
Quoted: So when my warrant officer dropped his and it went off without anyone pulling the trigger... SIG is STILL pretending that it didn't happen?  If you read Sigs statement carefully they never really said that doesn’t happen. The gun cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled is a “true” statement if you consider inertia cycling the trigger to be a “trigger pull”. |
|
Quoted: If it was a parts problem, you'd think you would be able replicate the failure in a pistol that has exhibited the fault once. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. If it was a parts problem, you'd think you would be able replicate the failure in a pistol that has exhibited the fault once. This is what I'm waiting on. |
|
Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. That's not a requirement to conclude there is a problem. What is a requirement is evidence of a significantly higher rate of failures. Unless that higher rate can be explained AWAY, that's indicator of a safety issue alone. The replication, in the form of higher frequency of occurance, is sufficient replication to affect decision making policy. And if the best explanation is user-error, then that is also sufficient to suggest there is a safety problem, if that design is more prone to guns going off than baseline - even if user error. The overfixation on Replication of failures by guns, that are quickly out of hand and not available for replication testing, is not sufficient basis for dismissal of a safety policy in light of a higher failure rate that is being experienced. |
|
Quoted: That's not a requirement to conclude there is a problem. What is a requirement is evidence of a significantly higher rate of failures. Unless that higher rate can be explained AWAY, that's indicator of a safety issue alone. The replication, in the form of higher frequency of occurance, is sufficient replication to affect decision making policy. And if the best explanation is user-error, then that is also sufficient to suggest there is a safety problem, if that design is more prone to guns going off than baseline - even if user error. The overfixation on Replication of failures by guns, that are quickly out of hand and not available for replication testing, is not sufficient basis for dismissal of a safety policy in light of a higher failure rate that is being experienced. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. That's not a requirement to conclude there is a problem. What is a requirement is evidence of a significantly higher rate of failures. Unless that higher rate can be explained AWAY, that's indicator of a safety issue alone. The replication, in the form of higher frequency of occurance, is sufficient replication to affect decision making policy. And if the best explanation is user-error, then that is also sufficient to suggest there is a safety problem, if that design is more prone to guns going off than baseline - even if user error. The overfixation on Replication of failures by guns, that are quickly out of hand and not available for replication testing, is not sufficient basis for dismissal of a safety policy in light of a higher failure rate that is being experienced. That’s where the gray area comes in. Are these failures happening when the guns are in correct holsters? Are they happening when there’s nothing in the trigger guard whatsoever? This isn’t a fixation; I’m shocked given all I have seen here regarding rigorous testing and empirical evidence, that suddenly the requirement for empirical evidence is removed. Glock’s had their share of issues and we (as a community) still love Glock. |
|
Quoted: The firing pin contacted the primer in at least 3 of 10 pistols tested during Sigs vibe test. Quoted: Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it's impossible to replicate ? How about same guns that "went off"? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I'm not here defending the P320 or Sig. I'm trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I'll call a dud a dud. Sig Sauer Testing In October 2021, Sig Sauer had vibration testing performed, nearly a year after the subject incident. This has been the only testing documentation produced by Sig Sauer in any of the litigation cases and took place approximately seven years after the P320 was introduced. Sig Sauer did not make anyone outside of Sig Sauer aware of the testing so appropriate representatives could be present. The testing was performed on ten new firearms. comprised of different P320 models and included pre- and post-upgrade designs. The Sig Sauer test request dated September 2, 2021, states that the "Anticipated Malfunction: Loosening of components, Potential sear disengagement, wear, etc.". This test request, as well as the test report, both state that video documentation of each test is to be obtained, but no videos have been produced. The first tests performed were the vibration tests, which included sinusoidal vibration at various frequencies, and shock (jolt) testing. While the summary report from the testing facility states that no primers were struck, there were at least three tests that "light strikes" were identified from the photographs in the report. Since not all test iteration photographs clearly showed the primer cartridges, there could have been more. Also, these are referred to as "light strikes" in this report, but it is possible the primer was ignited and not noted in the summary report. Examples of photographs showing the "light strikes" are shown in Figure 19. The firing pin contacted the primer in at least 3 of 10 pistols tested during Sigs vibe test. This happens every time you load a round in a standard AR15. in and of itself it tells us nothing. not protecting sig just pointing it out. |
 Magic Gunsmithing Box: Is That A Grenade? *ouch* |
|
Quoted: This happens every time you load a round in a standard AR15. in and of itself it tells us nothing. not protecting sig just pointing it out. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it's impossible to replicate ? How about same guns that "went off"? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I'm not here defending the P320 or Sig. I'm trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I'll call a dud a dud. Sig Sauer Testing In October 2021, Sig Sauer had vibration testing performed, nearly a year after the subject incident. This has been the only testing documentation produced by Sig Sauer in any of the litigation cases and took place approximately seven years after the P320 was introduced. Sig Sauer did not make anyone outside of Sig Sauer aware of the testing so appropriate representatives could be present. The testing was performed on ten new firearms. comprised of different P320 models and included pre- and post-upgrade designs. The Sig Sauer test request dated September 2, 2021, states that the "Anticipated Malfunction: Loosening of components, Potential sear disengagement, wear, etc.". This test request, as well as the test report, both state that video documentation of each test is to be obtained, but no videos have been produced. The first tests performed were the vibration tests, which included sinusoidal vibration at various frequencies, and shock (jolt) testing. While the summary report from the testing facility states that no primers were struck, there were at least three tests that "light strikes" were identified from the photographs in the report. Since not all test iteration photographs clearly showed the primer cartridges, there could have been more. Also, these are referred to as "light strikes" in this report, but it is possible the primer was ignited and not noted in the summary report. Examples of photographs showing the "light strikes" are shown in Figure 19. The firing pin contacted the primer in at least 3 of 10 pistols tested during Sigs vibe test. This happens every time you load a round in a standard AR15. in and of itself it tells us nothing. not protecting sig just pointing it out. The AR-15 is not striker-fired with a fully tensioned firing pin 100% of the time, nor is it daily carried with a round chambered. |
|
Quoted: If you read Sigs statement carefully they never really said that doesn’t happen. The gun cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled is a “true” statement if you consider inertia cycling the trigger to be a “trigger pull”. The real bitch is that was a option back in 2014/2015. Scroll down the article. There is a factory picture of a dingus. Sig P320 Trigger safety tab. |
|
Quoted: Posting ND videos on the internet back in the 80s huh? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If all these NDs are from mishandling, wouldn’t there be similar lawsuits against Glock, S&W, Springfield etc?? Seems too convenient to just happen with Sigs. I am old enough to remember when Glock was the big new thing. Glock haters declared them unsafe, mostly due to the lack of a manual thumb safety. They would flood the internet with posting baseless claims, and repost ND videos over and over, many blaming the gun. If I recall correctly, there were some lawsuits against Glock too. Posting ND videos on the internet back in the 80s huh? I could be wrong, but I don't recall Glock being a big thing in the US in the 80s or even the early 90s. Internet says FBI adopted Glocks in 97, along with some other large police agencies in the mid to late 90s. Lots of people I knew started buying them in the late 90s and early 2000s. I think that's when it really became the "big thing" I was talking about. As an example, people would post this video, then shit talk Glock and or Glock owners.  DEA Agent shoots himself in front of children - Orlando 2004 Edit I guess I was beat badly on the DEA video. Amazingly other people knew exactly what was inferred. |
|
Quoted: For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. Sigh. If a part has poor quality, does it have that poor quality all of the time? Or does it come and go? If it has that poor quality all of the time, then it would be subject to the failure all of the time. It would be…replicable. If you think it comes and goes, then you’re just unreasonable and not worth talking to. |
|
Maybe someone should man up and offer a real reward for showing and repeating how it happens. Who's got $50k to put up? $100k? Make it a contest! Maybe MAC or that bald guy, no not that bald guy, the other bald guy! They can get clicks and clicks and chicks with dicks. Oh my! It will be WILD WILD WILD. Someone do it. Show it prove it. Or is it really about Ron cohen banging your mom? |
|
Quoted: Maybe someone should man up and offer a real reward for showing and repeating how it happens. Who's got $50k to put up? $100k? Make it a contest! Maybe MAC or that bald guy, no not that bald guy, the other bald guy! They can get clicks and clicks and chicks with dicks. Oh my! It will be WILD WILD WILD. Someone do it. Show it prove it. Or is it really about Ron cohen banging your mom? It’s already been shown to the point of Sig doing a voluntary upgrade. |
|
As now people are claiming this is only happening with SIG, let’s clear that up. People have already posted the DEA Glock guy, though I feel he’s probably a better example of Serpa issues (finger on trigger) than bad holstering. Here’s two of guys that don’t take due care while holstering and suffer an ND because of it: Apparently arfcom doesn’t like YouTube shorts, so here is just a link: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/ENT2X4TeZIM And another, start around 0:55  Drawstrings can cause guns many law enforcement agencies use to fire I don’t blame Glock for these either. They are due to poor handling. |
|
Quoted: It’s already been shown to the point of Sig doing a voluntary upgrade. Quoted: Quoted: Maybe someone should man up and offer a real reward for showing and repeating how it happens. Who's got $50k to put up? $100k? Make it a contest! Maybe MAC or that bald guy, no not that bald guy, the other bald guy! They can get clicks and clicks and chicks with dicks. Oh my! It will be WILD WILD WILD. Someone do it. Show it prove it. Or is it really about Ron cohen banging your mom? It’s already been shown to the point of Sig doing a voluntary upgrade. Please stop speaking. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. |
|
Quoted: The DEA guy glock legging himself is over 20 years old now.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0z_qeW53jc20 years ago was 2005 bro |
|
Quoted: 20 years ago was 2005 bro Quoted: Quoted: The DEA guy glock legging himself is over 20 years old now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0z_qeW53jc20 years ago was 2005 bro The original DEA video is from 2004... Which is explained in the video he posted. |
|
Quoted: Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. I was allegedly good friends with some people who worked at Sig pre-Cohen and immediately after Cohen came to be CEO. In the early 2010's Sig was pushing the P250 pretty hard despite the fact that it was by all objective measurements a flaming pile of dogshit in terms of reliability. Very early models that my buddy Todd Green (whom I just made up) was demonstrating for department and agency purchases were failing in the field in pretty embarrassing fashion. Todd wasn't around at Sig terribly long after that. He was of the opinion they should actually return to making the reliable pistols that Sig knew how to build. Management was intent on newer and crucially much cheaper to manufacture designs using contractor built parts instead of making everything in house. The virtues of JIT manufacture and some sort of perverted Lean Six Sigma bullshit was espoused and that trumped everything. Prior to Cohen, Sig manufactured ergonomically challenged but highly reliable and durable handguns that agencies could depend on. Almost all parts were made in house and held to a very high level of quality control. The company made reliable weapons but almost no money. Cohen was brought in to make the company more profitable. It became more profitable almost immediately because Cohen started farming out production of parts. This cut costs dramatically...up front. It turns out to have been less profitable once it became known that the contractor they had making grip panels for P229 pistols intended for their ongoing USSS contract weren't compatible with the now contracted trigger bars they were using in the pistols. This became known when more than 1,000 of them showed up to the USSS academy and the trigger on them wouldn't pull. This was kind of a big oopsie because every pistol shipped on that contract was supposed to receive a series of quality control and function checks before they left the factory. But all that quality control time and function check stuff costs money too, so better to just ship them. That resulted in Todd allegedly showing up at the USSS academy to deal with a very pissed off customer on one of their highest profile clients. Shortly before Cohen came on as CEO, Todd allegedly worked together with some other folks to create a special commemorative run of P226 pistols made to the NSW spec used by the SEALs. Due to maritime operations they required some extra coatings on parts for their pistols. The pistols would get the same coatings, inspections and crucially the dedicated contract inspection markings and a special unit marking to be sold on the civilian market with a portion of the proceeds dedicated to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. These sold out almost immediately. As the project was already underway before Cohen showed up, it continued as he came into the company. The sales were noticed by the new CEO who wanted to keep the project going beyond the original 2,000 guns. Only without the extra coatings. Or the extra quality control steps from the contracts. Or giving any money to the SOWF. But the key was they weren't going to tell anyone any of that. The P250 was supposed to be the next great pistol platform from Sig with all kinds of whiz bang new features like a modular frame. On paper it sounded absolutely fantastic as a concept, except that the execution would depend on the same management now allegedly shipping contract P229's with triggers that wouldn't pull because they'd sub-contracted parts and cut quality control to the quick. The P250's got submitted for various agency contracts only to perform incredibly poorly. Sig badly needed some sort of win for the P250 and they got it from the Federal Air Marshalls Service. Seemingly out of the blue one day the FAMS went agency-wide with adoption of the P250 pistols (They had been issuing the P229 in .357 Sig up to this point) after an unusually brief and non-public testing process. It was so brief and so non-public that people inside the agency were quite taken aback and started asking questions. This resulted in upper management at FAMS allegedly showing up to their training center and telling the training staff that their opinion of the pistol and the process of adoption was neither needed or wanted and that they'd best shut the fuck up immediately. And to make the point, they "disciplined" several of them and outright fired one of them because he'd dared express his questions publicly. Well it turns out that the guns shipped to the agency were dogshit and exhibited parts breakages and severe reliability problems. But that wasn't discovered until they had called in all the P229 pistols out of the field and forced everybody on to the new P250 hotness...where requalifications on the new gun saw the guns allegedly not going bang, not feeding, or in some cases spontaneously disassembling themselves while being fired. Ultimately to such an extent that the P250's were all recalled and the P229's shipped back out to go back to service. It was such an alleged fiasco that it got public attention...and prompted an investigation. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/air-marshal-director-stepping-down-amid-agency-gun-scheme-probe See, post 9-11 the FAMS had been mandated to grow and got the blessing of new "management" from the SES levels of other LE agencies. Which is how they went from being a very small agency (more like a unit) with really skilled pistoleros to being a bloated no-child-left-behind agency complete with corrupt management who took bribes and handed out taxpayer contracts as a result. Of course, Cohen didn't put all his eggs into bribing SES level federal agents. At the time there was also a BATFE contract solicitation out there for handguns. Except the contract wasn't going to be exclusive to BATFE. Any agency in the federal government, including DOD, could buy off of it. It would result in a bunch of gun sales. Sig submitted the P250 where it again allegedly flamed out in spectacular fashion. I "knew" (allegedly, of course, because I am not a real person and am, in fact an AI chatbot being run by a labrador retriever) some of the people involved with the testing and over some Chili's chips and salsa I found out the same sorts of reliability and durability problems that got the guns pulled from FAMS service manifested. Cohen didn't take that laying down. He filed legal challenges to the contract process and actually made the argument that the testing put too high of an emphasis on reliability https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-402339.3.pdf I caught reams of shit for telling people that the P250 was dogshit. ARF lol'd at me and cast plenty of insults my way at the time because clearly I'm just some asshole rando with a silly screen name who doesn't know anything. It's pure luck that I was dead on the money about not only the product being deeply flawed, but that the adoption of the product (where it was adopted) was tainted by corrupt actions designed to rig it in Sig's favor. Of course, that's all in the past. ...of course, the same guy who was in charge for all of that is still the CEO in charge today. And Sig has never been more profitable. The profitability of Sig under Cohen allowed them to build their optics division and pursue the military contracts they've been slaying like gangbusters lately...like the M17 and M18 contract. ...which happened after a curiously abbreviated and curiously non-public testing and evaluation process. But I'm sure it's fine this time. Really. And I'm not hearing from any reliable sources about poor durability and reliability of the DOD contract pistols out in the wild. Or in police agency use. Or hearing of instances where half a dozen people witnessed a holstered P320 on a duty belt being carried over the shoulder after a shift making contact with a doorway and firing a shot that thankfully didn't hit anyone. Nothing like that. As previously established, I'm just some asshole rando with a stupid screen name and I don't know anything of value. The lawsuits aren't as strong an argument as people think because Glock has probably been sued more than anyone else due to their dangerous design flaw of requiring a trigger press to disassemble their pistols. It has resulted in a truly unholy number of negligent discharges and injuries. And for all the shit people are talking about Sig's conduct, nobody seems to know that Glock pioneered PR management by threat and gaslighting. Again, I'm a rando moron who doesn't know anything so I completely invented out of thin air the idea that the third gen Glock .40 caliber pistols had serious reliability and durability problems and that people who worked for Glock actually tried to get officers who besmirched their good name by talking about failures they'd personally seen fired and threatened them with lawsuits for accurately reporting what was being seen in shooting investigations. There's definitely no pattern of behavior here that is worth considering to give context to the discussion...even if it does involve the exact same decision makers. It's all fine. Everything is fine. I don't actually exist. And if I did actually exist, I definitely don't know anything. I work the drive thru at a Wendy's. |
|
Quoted: Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. If we adopt a standard that says "it can happen to everyone in the country but if it doesn't happen to any one of them twice, or twice in the same way, it doesn't matter" ... well, that would be ludicrous on it's face, no? After a while of it happening to different people you have to give that up and say that something IS happening, regardless what it is, and look for what is a constant in those situations. In these cases, at absolute barest minimum ... it's an individual model of gun. |
|
Quoted: You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The brand loyalty here is sad. It's okay to make a bad purchase now and then. It's called a sunk cost, and it's a really bad idea to manage your life trying to compensate or justify past mistakes. Sure, maybe there's a little of that, somewhere... but you have to admit, the problem has to be replicable in order to be a Big Hairy Deal. Otherwise one is simply falling for the anti-hype because they agree with it. For the problem to be replicable, parts quality would need to be consistent, and the problem would have probably been discovered in pre production testing to begin with. But a problem could be inconsistent if some parts simply fail faster than others due to any number of root causes. It’s like when there’s a shooting and the FBI says “there’s no evidence of terrorism”. Which simply means they don’t know what the hell happened yet, other than the fact that there are dead bodies lying around. You don’t need a fully formed root cause analysis to decide something is messed up and shouldn’t be trusted. You are saying that the parts are so wildly out of spec that it’s impossible to replicate…? How about same guns that “went off”? Those should easily be replicatable. Once again, I’m not here defending the P320 or Sig. I’m trying to get you guys to take a rational and intelligent look at the few incidents. If it comes out that Sig made a clunker, I’ll call a dud a dud. Here's the problem w/ the replication argument. If it is the fault of SIG, either in design, machining, metallurgy, or QC, the failures are RANDOM. If on 5% of 320s, they fired on the first round chambered, well, we know that's a problem. The current situation is .001% of 320s seemingly fire uncommanded .001% of the time. That's a failure rate very difficult to replicate, particularly when we don't know what's causing it. Even if we have a suspect pistol in hand, we already know it's been carried for hundreds or even thousands of hours before the uncommanded discharge occurred. How do we replicate that? Load a blank in the suspect pistol, and have an officer carry it around for months until it happens again? Well, he can't carry it around w/o a live round in the chamber. We already know the gun failed, so we can't ask an officer to carry around a gun w/ a live round in the chamber, and to let us know the next time it shoots him in the leg. So, put it on a shake table and run it for weeks? Maybe it's replicable? Has anyone done that w/ a suspect pistol? |
|
Quoted:Here's the problem w/ the replication argument. If it is the fault of SIG, either in design, machining, metallurgy, or QC, the failures are RANDOM. If on 5% of 320s, they fired on the first round chambered, well, we know that's a problem. The current situation is .001% of 320s seemingly fire uncommanded .001% of the time. That's a failure rate very difficult to replicate, particularly when we don't know what's causing it. Even if we have a suspect pistol in hand, we already know it's been carried for hundreds or even thousands of hours before the uncommanded discharge occurred. How do we replicate that? Load a blank in the suspect pistol, and have an officer carry it around for months until it happens again? Well, he can't carry it around w/o a live round in the chamber. We already know the gun failed, so we can't ask an officer to carry around a gun w/ a live round in the chamber, and to let us know the next time it shoots him in the leg. So, put it on a shake table and run it for weeks? Maybe it's replicable? Has anyone done that w/ a suspect pistol? These guns aren't firing after being dropped, they're firing from relatively low movement in holsters, so this shouldn't require a sledgehammer. And I'm certain that if this was repeated in a single one of the guns we'd have heard about it. That's why I asked about the lobby incident since they said fuck you to SIG and sent it to the state crime lab. |
|
Quoted: I was allegedly good friends with some people who worked at Sig pre-Cohen and immediately after Cohen came to be CEO. In the early 2010's Sig was pushing the P250 pretty hard despite the fact that it was by all objective measurements a flaming pile of dogshit in terms of reliability. Very early models that my buddy Todd Green (whom I just made up) was demonstrating for department and agency purchases were failing in the field in pretty embarrassing fashion. Todd wasn't around at Sig terribly long after that. He was of the opinion they should actually return to making the reliable pistols that Sig knew how to build. Management was intent on newer and crucially much cheaper to manufacture designs using contractor built parts instead of making everything in house. The virtues of JIT manufacture and some sort of perverted Lean Six Sigma bullshit was espoused and that trumped everything. Prior to Cohen, Sig manufactured ergonomically challenged but highly reliable and durable handguns that agencies could depend on. Almost all parts were made in house and held to a very high level of quality control. The company made reliable weapons but almost no money. Cohen was brought in to make the company more profitable. It became more profitable almost immediately because Cohen started farming out production of parts. This cut costs dramatically...up front. It turns out to have been less profitable once it became known that the contractor they had making grip panels for P229 pistols intended for their ongoing USSS contract weren't compatible with the now contracted trigger bars they were using in the pistols. This became known when more than 1,000 of them showed up to the USSS academy and the trigger on them wouldn't pull. This was kind of a big oopsie because every pistol shipped on that contract was supposed to receive a series of quality control and function checks before they left the factory. But all that quality control time and function check stuff costs money too, so better to just ship them. That resulted in Todd allegedly showing up at the USSS academy to deal with a very pissed off customer on one of their highest profile clients. Shortly before Cohen came on as CEO, Todd allegedly worked together with some other folks to create a special commemorative run of P226 pistols made to the NSW spec used by the SEALs. Due to maritime operations they required some extra coatings on parts for their pistols. The pistols would get the same coatings, inspections and crucially the dedicated contract inspection markings and a special unit marking to be sold on the civilian market with a portion of the proceeds dedicated to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. These sold out almost immediately. As the project was already underway before Cohen showed up, it continued as he came into the company. The sales were noticed by the new CEO who wanted to keep the project going beyond the original 2,000 guns. Only without the extra coatings. Or the extra quality control steps from the contracts. Or giving any money to the SOWF. But the key was they weren't going to tell anyone any of that. The P250 was supposed to be the next great pistol platform from Sig with all kinds of whiz bang new features like a modular frame. On paper it sounded absolutely fantastic as a concept, except that the execution would depend on the same management now allegedly shipping contract P229's with triggers that wouldn't pull because they'd sub-contracted parts and cut quality control to the quick. The P250's got submitted for various agency contracts only to perform incredibly poorly. Sig badly needed some sort of win for the P250 and they got it from the Federal Air Marshalls Service. Seemingly out of the blue one day the FAMS went agency-wide with adoption of the P250 pistols (They had been issuing the P229 in .357 Sig up to this point) after an unusually brief and non-public testing process. It was so brief and so non-public that people inside the agency were quite taken aback and started asking questions. This resulted in upper management at FAMS allegedly showing up to their training center and telling the training staff that their opinion of the pistol and the process of adoption was neither needed or wanted and that they'd best shut the fuck up immediately. And to make the point, they "disciplined" several of them and outright fired one of them because he'd dared express his questions publicly. Well it turns out that the guns shipped to the agency were dogshit and exhibited parts breakages and severe reliability problems. But that wasn't discovered until they had called in all the P229 pistols out of the field and forced everybody on to the new P250 hotness...where requalifications on the new gun saw the guns allegedly not going bang, not feeding, or in some cases spontaneously disassembling themselves while being fired. Ultimately to such an extent that the P250's were all recalled and the P229's shipped back out to go back to service. It was such an alleged fiasco that it got public attention...and prompted an investigation. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/air-marshal-director-stepping-down-amid-agency-gun-scheme-probe See, post 9-11 the FAMS had been mandated to grow and got the blessing of new "management" from the SES levels of other LE agencies. Which is how they went from being a very small agency (more like a unit) with really skilled pistoleros to being a bloated no-child-left-behind agency complete with corrupt management who took bribes and handed out taxpayer contracts as a result. Of course, Cohen didn't put all his eggs into bribing SES level federal agents. At the time there was also a BATFE contract solicitation out there for handguns. Except the contract wasn't going to be exclusive to BATFE. Any agency in the federal government, including DOD, could buy off of it. It would result in a bunch of gun sales. Sig submitted the P250 where it again allegedly flamed out in spectacular fashion. I "knew" (allegedly, of course, because I am not a real person and am, in fact an AI chatbot being run by a labrador retriever) some of the people involved with the testing and over some Chili's chips and salsa I found out the same sorts of reliability and durability problems that got the guns pulled from FAMS service manifested. Cohen didn't take that laying down. He filed legal challenges to the contract process and actually made the argument that the testing put too high of an emphasis on reliability https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-402339.3.pdf I caught reams of shit for telling people that the P250 was dogshit. ARF lol'd at me and cast plenty of insults my way at the time because clearly I'm just some asshole rando with a silly screen name who doesn't know anything. It's pure luck that I was dead on the money about not only the product being deeply flawed, but that the adoption of the product (where it was adopted) was tainted by corrupt actions designed to rig it in Sig's favor. Of course, that's all in the past. ...of course, the same guy who was in charge for all of that is still the CEO in charge today. And Sig has never been more profitable. The profitability of Sig under Cohen allowed them to build their optics division and pursue the military contracts they've been slaying like gangbusters lately...like the M17 and M18 contract. ...which happened after a curiously abbreviated and curiously non-public testing and evaluation process. But I'm sure it's fine this time. Really. And I'm not hearing from any reliable sources about poor durability and reliability of the DOD contract pistols out in the wild. Or in police agency use. Or hearing of instances where half a dozen people witnessed a holstered P320 on a duty belt being carried over the shoulder after a shift making contact with a doorway and firing a shot that thankfully didn't hit anyone. Nothing like that. As previously established, I'm just some asshole rando with a stupid screen name and I don't know anything of value. The lawsuits aren't as strong an argument as people think because Glock has probably been sued more than anyone else due to their dangerous design flaw of requiring a trigger press to disassemble their pistols. It has resulted in a truly unholy number of negligent discharges and injuries. And for all the shit people are talking about Sig's conduct, nobody seems to know that Glock pioneered PR management by threat and gaslighting. Again, I'm a rando moron who doesn't know anything so I completely invented out of thin air the idea that the third gen Glock .40 caliber pistols had serious reliability and durability problems and that people who worked for Glock actually tried to get officers who besmirched their good name by talking about failures they'd personally seen fired and threatened them with lawsuits for accurately reporting what was being seen in shooting investigations. There's definitely no pattern of behavior here that is worth considering to give context to the discussion...even if it does involve the exact same decision makers. It's all fine. Everything is fine. I don't actually exist. And if I did actually exist, I definitely don't know anything. I work the drive thru at a Wendy's. I’d have a beer with that Labrador. |
|
Quoted: I can't imagine them not doing it with a suspect pistol. And it'd have to be repeatable, right? Unless the metal connections magically changed size or whatever after the AD. Cock the firearm, apply pressure or knocks exhaustively until something makes it go click. These guns aren't firing after being dropped, they're firing from relatively low movement in holsters, so this shouldn't require a sledgehammer. And I'm certain that if this was repeated in a single one of the guns we'd have heard about it. That's why I asked about the lobby incident since they said fuck you to SIG and sent it to the state crime lab. Quoted: Quoted:Here's the problem w/ the replication argument. If it is the fault of SIG, either in design, machining, metallurgy, or QC, the failures are RANDOM. If on 5% of 320s, they fired on the first round chambered, well, we know that's a problem. The current situation is .001% of 320s seemingly fire uncommanded .001% of the time. That's a failure rate very difficult to replicate, particularly when we don't know what's causing it. Even if we have a suspect pistol in hand, we already know it's been carried for hundreds or even thousands of hours before the uncommanded discharge occurred. How do we replicate that? Load a blank in the suspect pistol, and have an officer carry it around for months until it happens again? Well, he can't carry it around w/o a live round in the chamber. We already know the gun failed, so we can't ask an officer to carry around a gun w/ a live round in the chamber, and to let us know the next time it shoots him in the leg. So, put it on a shake table and run it for weeks? Maybe it's replicable? Has anyone done that w/ a suspect pistol? These guns aren't firing after being dropped, they're firing from relatively low movement in holsters, so this shouldn't require a sledgehammer. And I'm certain that if this was repeated in a single one of the guns we'd have heard about it. That's why I asked about the lobby incident since they said fuck you to SIG and sent it to the state crime lab. I would imagine they involve a walking of parts behavior that can take some time of subtle movements just so, to walk a part out of the way. thats not going to be easy to replicate. Vibration pattern isn't just so, and state of oil and fouling isn't just so and that part isn't going to creep out of engagement in a replication test. Do it with a million guns in different settings, and here we are. The safety assessment criteria doesn't require such a replication in a lab be done. it requires the failure rate in the field to be comparable to baseline of other units in the field. Or a clear and correctable explanation as to why. That is not being met, and the attempts at explanation are not satisfactory. "User error" even if true (doubt), is also not satisfactory, - those users aren't having this failure with other units. |