[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sig P320 - put on your finest tinfoil headwear and join me inside… (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 4/24/2025 10:13:17 AM EDT
|
I’m starting to think that the destruction of Sig because of this P320 debacle is intentional. Like there are antis who have been planted over the years to collaborate and destroy the company. Please correct my timeline/facts, as I’m far from a SME, but the platform is released as the M17, gets adopted on the grandest scale by the US military, with no more issues than can be expected in such a high volume adoption and rollout. Then police agencies follow suit, adopting the 320 in high numbers. Then civilians. Then the guns start seemingly off on their own. Sig knows how to produce a safe handgun. It’s fun to meme and talk trash, but they’ve engineered and manufactured many excellent (and safe) handguns over many, many years. So did they release a dud, knowing it was a dud? It requires intention to do something so dumb for business. Did they make a catastrophically unsafe firearm and not catch the problem during creation and testing? It seems like there are way too many smart people there for that oversight. Did they get screwed by a materials supplier and parts were made from out of spec materials? Issuing a recall would be the long term solution, despite the incredible cost of wholesale replacement of parts or entire guns. Every scenario I can imagine is so crazy or obvious that I can’t come to any other conclusion except that it was intentional. Thoughts? |
|
Quoted: Sig knows how to produce a safe handgun. It’s fun to meme and talk trash, but they’ve engineered and manufactured many excellent (and safe) handguns over many, many years. Sig Sauer could build safe, reliable, durable handguns, Sigarms is American Taurus |
|
Quoted: I’m starting to think that the destruction of Sig because of this P320 debacle is intentional. Like there are antis who have been planted over the years to collaborate and destroy the company. Please correct my timeline/facts, as I’m far from a SME, but the platform is released as the M17, gets adopted on the grandest scale by the US military, with no more issues than can be expected in such a high volume adoption and rollout. Then police agencies follow suit, adopting the 320 in high numbers. Then civilians. Then the guns start seemingly off on their own. Sig knows how to produce a safe handgun. It’s fun to meme and talk trash, but they’ve engineered and manufactured many excellent (and safe) handguns over many, many years. So did they release a dud, knowing it was a dud? It requires intention to do something so dumb for business. Did they make a catastrophically unsafe firearm and not catch the problem during creation and testing? It seems like there are way too many smart people there for that oversight. Did they get screwed by a materials supplier and parts were made from out of spec materials? Issuing a recall would be the long term solution, despite the incredible cost of wholesale replacement of parts or entire guns. Every scenario I can imagine is so crazy or obvious that I can’t come to any other conclusion except that it was intentional. Thoughts? Dude! Maybe even do a little bit of research before you post such an fubared timeline and analysis. The 320 and its problems predate its adoption by the Military. Maybe research their “voluntary recall” (oh I mean safety upgrade) because the design wasn’t drop safe when released. The military adoption was questioned heavily regarding safety, but Sig assured everyone there was significant design changes between the 320 and what the military adopted. Maybe look up the CEO of Sig and look at his track record of ruining gun companies by cutting corners. You ever heard of Kimber? |
|
Sig relies on its customers to fully test its products. That’s the only way they can release so many new products all the time, and then they stop support and drop a new revised version that’s “better” or has some problem fixed. And it’s just 1 model of sig that’s under fire for nd’s, not the 226, not the p365. The p320 has had safety issues from its birth, it’s not antigun to call it out sigs shitty gun and bad business practices. In fact I believe it’s the opposite and it’s giving the antigun groups ammo to use against gun manufacturers because they can say they are about profit over safety of the end user. |
The_Beer_Slayer is about to be very, very busy... Fuck it tho I'm here for the shit show. Let's get it! Eta: But as far as your posed questions I think it is a combination of rushing out the design/rollout to get the military contract, cost cutting, and Made in India component quality combined with tolerance stacking made worse because of Made in India quality. |
|
No. Nobody is intentionally sabotaging a company by making a product with a failure rate well under 1%. I think the answer is pretty simple. Sig made dumb design choices because they converted a DAO hammer fired gun into a striker fired gun as cheaply as possible, and those design choices have consequences. The end. The P365, a clean sheet striker gun from Sig, proves the same people can build a gun with the same processes and same QC and not have these problems. It all points back to the P320's design and history. |
|
Quoted: What am I missing? Is it a coc violation to shit talk Sig? I ask because I didn't realize that posting a Rickroll vid was grounds for a lock… Nah im just saying it cus I know other dudes will be here shortly with little self control. Not calling anyone out here. Basing this on the track record of other Sig threads as of recently. 
|
|
Quoted: What am I missing? Is it a coc violation to shit talk Sig? I ask because I didn't realize that posting a Rickroll vid was grounds for a lock… Quoted: Quoted: The_Beer_Slayer is about to be very, very busy... Fuck it tho I'm here for the shit show. Let's get it! What am I missing? Is it a coc violation to shit talk Sig? I ask because I didn't realize that posting a Rickroll vid was grounds for a lock… There’s a lot of animosity among some people on both sides of the issue and they lack self control. |
|
Quoted: I think that's the issue. A P320 is not a M17. I have a M17. I have no issues with the M17 but wouldn't own a P320. Its the same gun. The manual safety only prevents trigger movement not the firing pin. The fact is its a loose fitting striker fired gun with a fully cocked striker. Its only a matter of time before parts wear in and start malfunctioning. It was a bad design from the start. People like it because the trigger is lite. |
|
Quoted: A sig rep told me they have an entire years worth of marketing prepared for the 320. A bunch of people tried to tell her that sig is going to burn themselves into oblivion with it, but she was all about the 320 koolaid and wouldn't hear any of the concerns. And that should clearly illustrate the attitude that likely prevails in their boardroom. Voicing any real concerns will get you an invitation to depart the company... |
|
Quoted: Its the same gun. The manual safety only prevents trigger movement not the firing pin. The fact is its a loose fitting striker fired gun with a fully cocked striker. Its only a matter of time before parts wear in and start malfunctioning. It was a bad design from the start. People like it because the trigger is lite. The trigger is soooooo sweet it can't help but pull itself... 
|
|
Quoted: What am I missing? Is it a coc violation to shit talk Sig? I ask because I didn't realize that posting a Rickroll vid was grounds for a lock… The Beer Slayer has warned people not to be edgy in SIG threads. He is removing accounts. Also not to call sig guys something, something. @pdm |
|
Quoted: The trigger is soooooo sweet it can't help but pull itself... Attached File |
|
Quoted: What am I missing? Is it a coc violation to shit talk Sig? I ask because I didn't realize that posting a Rickroll vid was grounds for a lock… Quoted: Quoted: The_Beer_Slayer is about to be very, very busy... Fuck it tho I'm here for the shit show. Let's get it! What am I missing? Is it a coc violation to shit talk Sig? I ask because I didn't realize that posting a Rickroll vid was grounds for a lock… You can shit talk SIG, but you can't make jokes about SIG owners here anymore. It hurt their feelings so much in the main thread that the mods had to step in. |
|
Quoted: You can shit talk SIG, but you can't make jokes about SIG owners here anymore. It hurt their feelings so much in the main thread that the mods had to step in. To be fair they were conflating the word Sig with other racially implied epitaphs. Which isn't a good look overall for the board or any of its members. I got no dog in the fight, but certainly understand the sentiment. |
|
Quoted: I’m starting to think that the destruction of Sig because of this P320 debacle is intentional. Like there are antis who have been planted over the years to collaborate and destroy the company. Please correct my timeline/facts, as I’m far from a SME, but the platform is released as the M17, gets adopted on the grandest scale by the US military, with no more issues than can be expected in such a high volume adoption and rollout. Then police agencies follow suit, adopting the 320 in high numbers. Then civilians. Then the guns start seemingly off on their own. Sig knows how to produce a safe handgun. It’s fun to meme and talk trash, but they’ve engineered and manufactured many excellent (and safe) handguns over many, many years. So did they release a dud, knowing it was a dud? It requires intention to do something so dumb for business. Did they make a catastrophically unsafe firearm and not catch the problem during creation and testing? It seems like there are way too many smart people there for that oversight. Did they get screwed by a materials supplier and parts were made from out of spec materials? Issuing a recall would be the long term solution, despite the incredible cost of wholesale replacement of parts or entire guns. Every scenario I can imagine is so crazy or obvious that I can’t come to any other conclusion except that it was intentional. Thoughts? If only there was a 65 page thread that addresses all the misinformation in your post. |
|
Quoted: I think that's the issue. A P320 is not a M17. I have a M17. I have no issues with the M17 but wouldn't own a P320. Quoted: Quoted: A "Cut costs at all cost" CEO, the same attitude that has and will continue to destroy many companies. I think that's the issue. A P320 is not a M17. I have a M17. I have no issues with the M17 but wouldn't own a P320. @pdm the M17 is having the same issues as the 320. It’s been documented numerous times in the big thread. |
|
Quoted: There’s a lot of animosity among some people on both sides of the issue and they lack self control. Which is why there is no reason to try to have any kind of reasonable discussion about it anywhere on this site. Just turns into a shit talking insult festival. |
|
Quoted: I don't know what to make of this P320 debacle. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the histrionics from both sides. SIG has a problem, they KNOW they have a problem, they know they can't afford to admit that there is a problem. They're hoping to wish it away from one quarterly earnings report to the next. |
|
Quoted: Snip /snip I think the answer is pretty simple. Sig made dumb design choices because they converted a DAO hammer fired gun into a striker fired gun as cheaply as possible, and those design choices have consequences. The end. snip /snip And that’s my point. Why would a company that exists for profit and/or shareholders “make dumb design choices” that would result in NDs and a shitstorm of bad press and at incredible financial loss? To do so goes against everything ever taught or learned in business. You don’t do things that aren’t eventually profitable. And this issue is certainly going to cost them, big time. Is it justified if they make even one single dollar of profit after all the dust settles? What about the unquantifiable costs, like to their reputation? It has to be intentional. |
|
Quoted: And that’s my point. Why would a company that exists for profit and/or shareholders “make dumb design choices” that would result in NDs and a shitstorm of bad press and at incredible financial loss? To do so goes against everything ever taught or learned in business. You don’t do things that aren’t eventually profitable. And this issue is certainly going to cost them, big time. Is it justified if they make even one single dollar of profit after all the dust settles? What about the unquantifiable costs, like to their reputation? It has to be intentional. Quoted: Quoted: Snip /snip I think the answer is pretty simple. Sig made dumb design choices because they converted a DAO hammer fired gun into a striker fired gun as cheaply as possible, and those design choices have consequences. The end. snip /snip And that’s my point. Why would a company that exists for profit and/or shareholders “make dumb design choices” that would result in NDs and a shitstorm of bad press and at incredible financial loss? To do so goes against everything ever taught or learned in business. You don’t do things that aren’t eventually profitable. And this issue is certainly going to cost them, big time. Is it justified if they make even one single dollar of profit after all the dust settles? What about the unquantifiable costs, like to their reputation? It has to be intentional. Hubris? They didn't think the design was bad. Like many other companies in many other situations, they assumed their design was good enough. And they've made truckloads of money with it. |
|
Quoted: SIG has a problem, they KNOW they have a problem, they know they can't afford to admit that there is a problem. They're hoping to wish it away from one quarterly earnings report to the next. Yup. I was honestly sorta neutral on Sig. Up until very recently, a M17 was on my short list. The “drop safe” issue very early in the 320’s release was my first indication that something was amiss. Ron Cohen said when that was going on, something to the effect of “Well of course it’s unsafe to drop a gun.” IIRC. If that’s your mindset toward a very real and well documented safety issue with your product, something is really wrong. I assumed the issues since then were related to the fact the 320 has a narrow trigger guard and no trigger dingus. Combine that with a relatively light fully cocked striker and light bearing holsters, and bam, there is your issue… The numerous videos showing striker safety failures, etc in the other thread proved that theory wrong. The biggest “smoking gun” that Sig knows what’s up, is the fact the 365 is a complete redesign rather that a miniaturized 320. |
|
Quoted: If only there was a 65 page thread that addresses all the misinformation in your post. Quoted: Quoted: I’m starting to think that the destruction of Sig because of this P320 debacle is intentional. Like there are antis who have been planted over the years to collaborate and destroy the company. Please correct my timeline/facts, as I’m far from a SME, but the platform is released as the M17, gets adopted on the grandest scale by the US military, with no more issues than can be expected in such a high volume adoption and rollout. Then police agencies follow suit, adopting the 320 in high numbers. Then civilians. Then the guns start seemingly off on their own. Sig knows how to produce a safe handgun. It’s fun to meme and talk trash, but they’ve engineered and manufactured many excellent (and safe) handguns over many, many years. So did they release a dud, knowing it was a dud? It requires intention to do something so dumb for business. Did they make a catastrophically unsafe firearm and not catch the problem during creation and testing? It seems like there are way too many smart people there for that oversight. Did they get screwed by a materials supplier and parts were made from out of spec materials? Issuing a recall would be the long term solution, despite the incredible cost of wholesale replacement of parts or entire guns. Every scenario I can imagine is so crazy or obvious that I can’t come to any other conclusion except that it was intentional. Thoughts? If only there was a 65 page thread that addresses all the misinformation in your post. I’ll be sure to tell my employer and my family that I’ll be spending the rest of the week wading through 65 pages that are 99% steaming hot garbage, bad jokes, memes I’ve seen dozens of times, outright lies and random guesses, quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, and one on one arguments between members that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the thread so I can find the “facts” that are sprinkled in here and there. 
|
|
Quoted: And that’s my point. Why would a company that exists for profit and/or shareholders “make dumb design choices” that would result in NDs and a shitstorm of bad press and at incredible financial loss? To do so goes against everything ever taught or learned in business. You don’t do things that aren’t eventually profitable. And this issue is certainly going to cost them, big time. Is it justified if they make even one single dollar of profit after all the dust settles? What about the unquantifiable costs, like to their reputation? It has to be intentional. They have blamed everything from Cops to Safariland and everything else under the sun. Internet personalities, anti gun people....everything. Then the striker block test comes out and shows that a fair amount of guns are now showing 50% of the equation to firing without a trigger press. Then revision 15 comes out in their manual where they basically tell you not to carry with a round in the chamber. They may very well not have known that these things could fire without a trigger pull after the "voluntary recall". With their latest revision, they certainly know it now. I'd say it was arrogance, ego, and contracts that kept this going so long. Rather than look at it, they figured they were fine. "Theres no proof this can happen", until the striker block test. Their hand was forced, hence the revision. Glad I ditched mine years ago. |
|
Quoted: So who here can tell us why the SIG P320 is going off in holsters?  Doesn't matter until Sig can demonstrate that their striker block works 100% of the time, and primers won't show dents after their in house vibration test. The only entity that has to tell anyone anything at this point, is Sig, to the hundreds of thousands of people who heavily invested in their flawed platform, not to mention the Military and LE agencies. |
|
Quoted: Hubris? They didn't think the design was bad. Like many other companies in many other situations, they assumed their design was good enough. And they've made truckloads of money with it. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Snip /snip I think the answer is pretty simple. Sig made dumb design choices because they converted a DAO hammer fired gun into a striker fired gun as cheaply as possible, and those design choices have consequences. The end. snip /snip And that’s my point. Why would a company that exists for profit and/or shareholders “make dumb design choices” that would result in NDs and a shitstorm of bad press and at incredible financial loss? To do so goes against everything ever taught or learned in business. You don’t do things that aren’t eventually profitable. And this issue is certainly going to cost them, big time. Is it justified if they make even one single dollar of profit after all the dust settles? What about the unquantifiable costs, like to their reputation? It has to be intentional. Hubris? They didn't think the design was bad. Like many other companies in many other situations, they assumed their design was good enough. And they've made truckloads of money with it. And that circles back to another one of my points: testing and QC. You don’t release an unproven firearm design into the world. Not if you intend to make a profit and maintain viability in the long term. We’re not talking about a video game thats issues are relatively inconsequential. It can be patched. And if not, oops, here’s your money back until we get it fixed. This is a deadly weapon that is going to be put into service in law enforcement and military hands in massive numbers. An untested, flawed firearm is the definition of consequential. It has to be intentionally done by people who want to intentionally destroy a prominent firearm manufacturer. |
|
Quoted: And that circles back to another one of my points: testing and QC. You don’t release an unproven firearm design into the world. Not if you intend to make a profit and maintain viability in the long term. We’re not talking about a video game thats issues are relatively inconsequential. It can be patched. And if not, oops, here’s your money back until we get it fixed. This is a deadly weapon that is going to be put into service in law enforcement and military hands in massive numbers. An untested, flawed firearm is the definition of consequential. It has to be intentionally done by people who want to intentionally destroy a prominent firearm manufacturer. Unless you view Cohen in the light of a venture capitalistic manner or any sterile fortune x000 company. Get ahold of the reigns, turn the company around, sell the company, and dip before any ramifications/repercussions come back to bite you in the ass. He's probably just hoping to get voted off the board and do the same thing somewhere else at this point. |
|
Quoted: And that circles back to another one of my points: testing and QC. You don’t release an unproven firearm design into the world. Not if you intend to make a profit and maintain viability in the long term. We’re not talking about a video game thats issues are relatively inconsequential. It can be patched. And if not, oops, here’s your money back until we get it fixed. This is a deadly weapon that is going to be put into service in law enforcement and military hands in massive numbers. An untested, flawed firearm is the definition of consequential. It has to be intentionally done by people who want to intentionally destroy a prominent firearm manufacturer. Or, a CEO who is notorious for cost cutting measures takes a design that is sound on paper, and makes it full of shoddy indian made MIM trash parts that unexpectedly introduced failure points. |
|
Quoted: And that circles back to another one of my points: testing and QC. You don’t release an unproven firearm design into the world. Not if you intend to make a profit and maintain viability in the long term. We’re not talking about a video game thats issues are relatively inconsequential. It can be patched. And if not, oops, here’s your money back until we get it fixed. This is a deadly weapon that is going to be put into service in law enforcement and military hands in massive numbers. An untested, flawed firearm is the definition of consequential. It has to be intentionally done by people who want to intentionally destroy a prominent firearm manufacturer. Companies release things that break and fail all the time. Mix poor engineering with a culture of ego and marketing before product quality and it’s a perfect recipe for what we are seeing. Nobody’s trying to destroy sig from within. |