Given Sig's huge military contracts it would seem that they prefer to quietly "fix" things rather than publicly admit something is wrong. It isn't an ethnical strategy in my opinion but it seems to be working for them.
Guns do not just go off by themselves. The 320 is no different. If you believe they do, thats ok. There is a pot of gold along with a unicorn waiting for you too at the end of that rainbow. Keep looking and believing and one day, maybe, you'll find it. 🙄
I don’t look forward to petting a unicorn. I do believe it is possible that design realities could combine with user behavior to increase a the chance of a negligent discharge without the user recognizing they were in fact fucking with the trigger. The fact that is not (easily, if one needs a qualifier ) replicable suggests the actual responsibility does lie with the end user’s lack of reasonable care. Whether a lawyer will believe that or not, they also know juries are arbitrary and capricious.
I have not reviewed the “silent design changes” but on hearing of them I would caution against seeing it as a smoking gun (pun intended.) Those usually indicate continuous improvement in manufacturing efficiency.
Agreed that the idea of a gun going off by itself is scare-mongering in most cases. But the evidence is strong that several generations of the P320 could indeed fire without anything physically pulling the trigger. Curious for your take on the links in the essay to various people's analysis of the design flaws.
Nice links. Substack app keeps deleting my comment before I can hit send. Tldr: Gen 1 passed standards and tests. Company did not violate engineering ethics in releasing or offering an upgrade without a recall. You cant admit wrongdoing when you didnt do anything wrong. Gen 4 definitely is drop safe. It now appears all gens might have a frame flex issue. If verified, they should issue a recall. Not aware of standard tests for frame flex in pistols to have previously checked and tested their product to satisfy reasonable care ethics. This would be a problem associated with reasonable care and use especially if it is, as appears, initiated by the high retention level 3 holsters. Some finger pointing to the holster company maybe. Too bad there isnt a firearms PE i could get to learn more, but I dont have access to the guns or the tools to add to a technical analysis. This is my opinion based on my standards for ethical behavior. Legality is divorced from reality and idgaf, but it does look like they’re focused on trying to not admit anything that would make a jury hold them liable. Waste of time. Degrades consumer confidence as you observed.
Agreed except for "Tldr: Gen 1 passed standards and tests. Company did not violate engineering ethics in releasing or offering an upgrade without a recall."
The pre-upgrade P320 did not meet the level of drop safety that people expect from modern striker-fired guns. Sig swore up and down that it was drop safe, but that was only true within the narrow definition of "it technically passes the specific tests we were required to subject it to".
I appreciate your response. Are you objecting to the state of release, or the refusal to call the changes a recall?
I’d die on the hill that, absent some subpoena or whistleblowers showing that they were aware of the problem, the release was ethical. The entire point of standards is to provide a universally accepted framework. We are already used to the contortions conducted by the ATF’s “gunsmiths” to “convert” inert or otherwise legal devices into damning evidence. The frustration with their technique arises from the lack of a standard. I haven’t watched every tom dick and harry’s youtube video from the controversy, but if it was a pervasive issue its hard to explain any owners defending the brand. According to sig, they could only replicate it under extremely controlled circumstances.
This is why I am leaning towards a belief that many of the original “drop” or “impact” firing were specifically off angle frame flex issues. If you are accusing the gun of dropfiring and teat it with replicable drops, or even randomly tossing it onto a garage floor, you’re much less likely to trigger a flex from the angle of impact.
As to the specific wording or lack thereof about a recall, I’m willing to admit our standards for what is a recall could be more inclusive.
> Are you objecting to the state of release, or the refusal to call the changes a recall?
The latter. They released the gun and either (a) didn't know about the problem or (b) did know and figured that it's fine because it's a pretty esoteric problem and the gun passed all the standard tests. Both of those are defensible.
But once the problem came to light, they basically refused to acknowledge that the problem existed. That's poor damage control and also just not trustworthy behavior. If I show a company a problem with their product and they say with a straight face that there is no problem, it becomes hard to take their word on anything.
Given Sig's huge military contracts it would seem that they prefer to quietly "fix" things rather than publicly admit something is wrong. It isn't an ethnical strategy in my opinion but it seems to be working for them.
Sig management: "Voluntary Upgrade" worked for Glock!
GarandThumb had a video last year where because of the incidents they went overboard drop testing the 320.
The only ones that did go off were the 1911s and 2011s.
The evidence is pretty good that latest-generation P320s have had the issues solved.
Guns do not just go off by themselves. The 320 is no different. If you believe they do, thats ok. There is a pot of gold along with a unicorn waiting for you too at the end of that rainbow. Keep looking and believing and one day, maybe, you'll find it. 🙄
I don’t look forward to petting a unicorn. I do believe it is possible that design realities could combine with user behavior to increase a the chance of a negligent discharge without the user recognizing they were in fact fucking with the trigger. The fact that is not (easily, if one needs a qualifier ) replicable suggests the actual responsibility does lie with the end user’s lack of reasonable care. Whether a lawyer will believe that or not, they also know juries are arbitrary and capricious.
I have not reviewed the “silent design changes” but on hearing of them I would caution against seeing it as a smoking gun (pun intended.) Those usually indicate continuous improvement in manufacturing efficiency.
Agreed that the idea of a gun going off by itself is scare-mongering in most cases. But the evidence is strong that several generations of the P320 could indeed fire without anything physically pulling the trigger. Curious for your take on the links in the essay to various people's analysis of the design flaws.
No, it was the "gen 1" version. The pre-upgrade circa 2016. The post-upgrade circa 2017 fixed the drop issue.
Nice links. Substack app keeps deleting my comment before I can hit send. Tldr: Gen 1 passed standards and tests. Company did not violate engineering ethics in releasing or offering an upgrade without a recall. You cant admit wrongdoing when you didnt do anything wrong. Gen 4 definitely is drop safe. It now appears all gens might have a frame flex issue. If verified, they should issue a recall. Not aware of standard tests for frame flex in pistols to have previously checked and tested their product to satisfy reasonable care ethics. This would be a problem associated with reasonable care and use especially if it is, as appears, initiated by the high retention level 3 holsters. Some finger pointing to the holster company maybe. Too bad there isnt a firearms PE i could get to learn more, but I dont have access to the guns or the tools to add to a technical analysis. This is my opinion based on my standards for ethical behavior. Legality is divorced from reality and idgaf, but it does look like they’re focused on trying to not admit anything that would make a jury hold them liable. Waste of time. Degrades consumer confidence as you observed.
Agreed except for "Tldr: Gen 1 passed standards and tests. Company did not violate engineering ethics in releasing or offering an upgrade without a recall."
The pre-upgrade P320 did not meet the level of drop safety that people expect from modern striker-fired guns. Sig swore up and down that it was drop safe, but that was only true within the narrow definition of "it technically passes the specific tests we were required to subject it to".
I appreciate your response. Are you objecting to the state of release, or the refusal to call the changes a recall?
I’d die on the hill that, absent some subpoena or whistleblowers showing that they were aware of the problem, the release was ethical. The entire point of standards is to provide a universally accepted framework. We are already used to the contortions conducted by the ATF’s “gunsmiths” to “convert” inert or otherwise legal devices into damning evidence. The frustration with their technique arises from the lack of a standard. I haven’t watched every tom dick and harry’s youtube video from the controversy, but if it was a pervasive issue its hard to explain any owners defending the brand. According to sig, they could only replicate it under extremely controlled circumstances.
This is why I am leaning towards a belief that many of the original “drop” or “impact” firing were specifically off angle frame flex issues. If you are accusing the gun of dropfiring and teat it with replicable drops, or even randomly tossing it onto a garage floor, you’re much less likely to trigger a flex from the angle of impact.
As to the specific wording or lack thereof about a recall, I’m willing to admit our standards for what is a recall could be more inclusive.
> Are you objecting to the state of release, or the refusal to call the changes a recall?
The latter. They released the gun and either (a) didn't know about the problem or (b) did know and figured that it's fine because it's a pretty esoteric problem and the gun passed all the standard tests. Both of those are defensible.
But once the problem came to light, they basically refused to acknowledge that the problem existed. That's poor damage control and also just not trustworthy behavior. If I show a company a problem with their product and they say with a straight face that there is no problem, it becomes hard to take their word on anything.
Exactly so. Rolling changes are the reason we no longer drive Model Ts.
The Montville gun WASNT in the holster all the way.
It was sitting on top of the retention feature.
Where can we read/see more detail on that?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/sig-sauer-issues-a-statement-regarding-the-video-of-a-montville-ct-police-officers-p320-discharge/
This video is a fairly persuasive counterpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ6GUxpzXTI
NO.
He flashes back and forth says "maybe" and "I think" alot and thats.... persuasive?!
Montville Police puts a press release out, blames Sig and then refuses to let Sig analyze the gun is way MORE persuasive.
Are people shocked by SIG corporate actions?
I'm not, they've been sued by folks who later admitted gross mishandling of weapons and lying.
But for some reason if you sue SIG, gunblogs and guntube think you MUST be legit.