Sig Debacle - Drop Test Fail -

Help Support Ruger Forum:

sargents1

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
365
Location
Maine
So, who all is watching Sig sit on its P320 Drop test fails?

Also, does anyone know if the Ruger American Pistol has been drop tested in the same way?
I'm curious because it seems Sig tested the P320 to all the usual standards and passed.

Makes you wonder if other manufacturers have the same issue and dont know it because they havent tested past the usual standards.

Also, I have a P320 and might be looking to swap it out for something that won't perforate me if I drop it. :roll:
 

grobin

Blackhawk
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
846
The right answer is don't drop the pistol with a chambered round. The striker fired pistols are supposed to be fool proof but so far as I know only the ruger hammer fired revolvers are.
 

Mike J

Hunter
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,204
Location
GA
Sig is offering a "voluntary upgrade" that is supposed to fix the issue. https://www.sigsauer.com/press-releases/sig-sauer-issues-voluntary-upgrade-p320-pistol/

If I had one I would probably send it in. I've never owned a Sig but I do on occasion find myself lusting after a P229.
 

22/45 Fan

Hunter
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
2,123
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Years ago (~ 2007) Ruger's then new SR-series guns also failed a drop test far beyond the required standards and Ruger also offered a voluntary recall to retrofit parts to fix that problem. I had one of the first SR9's and it was part of the recall.

I wonder if this will get the same hysterical reaction from SIG lovers that the MkIV recall has had here.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,435
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
Sadly and luckily my Ruger LC9s has passed the drop test 3 times, twice on concrete......

I was kind of interested in the Sig P320... mainly because of all the interchangeable options.. but you know that design is more of a 'we got you' kind of idea... I realized I'd much rather have two or three pistols that all will work than one pistol and two or three extra parts I got to keep up with to make it work one way or another.

I still plan to buy a few Sigs when $'s are around, I was interested in a Sig p226 single action only but when I held one the safety was pretty stiff and hard to flip down with just your thumb. But speaking of the 'we got you' idea... I'm sorely temped to join the 'Legion'.
 

s4s4u

Hunter
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
2,086
Location
MN, USA
I realized I'd much rather have two or three pistols that all will work than one pistol and two or three extra parts I got to keep up with to make it work one way or another

My sentiments exactly. I've had "interchangeable" platforms and seldom made use of the feature.
 

22/45 Fan

Hunter
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
2,123
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
s4s4u said:
My sentiments exactly. I've had "interchangeable" platforms and seldom made use of the feature.
Yes, and typically the "change parts kits" are so expensive you are nearly into the cost of a complete new gun anyway.

These multi-configured guns, both pistols and rifles, are more popular in Europe where buying more than one gun (i.e. the serial numbered part) is much more difficult legally.
 

Tom-R2

Bearcat
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
59
Location
Central Ohio
$40 for a different grip frame makes it a good deal if you are keeping the same caliber, only swapping out size. Converting to a different caliber can be done with just swapping the barrel if you are going from .40 to .357Sig I heard, but you can't go 9mm higher without the whole kit. My wife has had one for about a year, got about 700-800 rounds downrange and it's a tremendous weapon. We have no intention on slamming it on the concrete pavement 40-50 times to see if it will fire. It fires quite well when used properly.
 

sargents1

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
365
Location
Maine
grobin said:
The right answer is don't drop the pistol with a chambered round. The striker fired pistols are supposed to be fool proof but so far as I know only the ruger hammer fired revolvers are.


Well sure, nobody drops their gun on purpose. That is why it's called an accident. Things happen...

A dropped gun should not result in a AD/ND. Especially if the gun is holstered when dropped (and the trigger cannot snag because of that). So far as I know, Glock, S&W, CZ, Springfield, Ruger all have this figured out. I was asking if anyone knew what testing protocol these other mfgs use - ie, do they test to the same standard as SIG, and do they test Past that standard.

I feel like SIG is taking the wrong track here insofar as they have not issued a recall. The whole "Voluntary Upgrade" thing is basically the same thing - Except they are not notifying people that these guns will fire when dropped.
 

GaryA

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 27, 2001
Messages
230
Location
Belleville, IL, USA
"these guns will fire when dropped."

To be fair, that not entirely correct. They may fire if dropped and they strike at the right angle. The odds are they won't land at that angle and won't fire. I'm not saying there is not a problem to be corrected. I'm saying dropping a P320 would most likely not result in it firing. Any chance is too great, but we should try to be accurate about the chances. And Sig is not the only gunmaker to state in the manual that "any gun may fire if dropped". I think just about every manual I've seen says that. Not sure about the Glock manual, lol.

By the way, I don't own a Sig P320 and have never planned to purchase one.
 

Ruger45

Blackhawk
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
778
Location
Central NH
GaryA said:
"these guns will fire when dropped."

To be fair, that not entirely correct. They may fire if dropped and they strike at the right angle. The odds are they won't land at that angle and won't fire. I'm not saying there is not a problem to be corrected. I'm saying dropping a P320 would most likely not result in it firing. Any chance is too great, but we should try to be accurate about the chances. And Sig is not the only gunmaker to state in the manual that "any gun may fire if dropped". I think just about every manual I've seen says that. Not sure about the Glock manual, lol.

By the way, I don't own a Sig P320 and have never planned to purchase one.
I have been told it has to hit at a negative 30 degree angle to release the safety and the the firing pin hit the primer.
Also have no past wants or future needs for a P320
 

sargents1

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
365
Location
Maine
GaryA said:
"these guns will fire when dropped."

To be fair, that not entirely correct. They may fire if dropped and they strike at the right angle. The odds are they won't land at that angle and won't fire. I'm not saying there is not a problem to be corrected. I'm saying dropping a P320 would most likely not result in it firing.....


Sure, I will grant you that. Dropping a P320 probably won't result in a AD/ND. The thing is, drops that will definitely set off a P320 will not set off a Glock, S&W, Ruger etc.

Also, as many people have pointed out, SIG is far from the first company to have this kind of problem. My issue is the way they are handling it. It should be a straight up recall. Send out a notification, send your gun back, get it fixed and returned. The whole "Voluntary Upgrade" is just BS.
 

sargents1

Single-Sixer
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
365
Location
Maine
Mulebuk Sam said:
sargents1 said:
Also, I have a P320 and might be looking to swap it out for something that won't perforate me if I drop it. :roll:


Let us all know if you find one that pass's the 'Yankee Marshall' b.s. rant. The SIG P320 pass's all the drop test as any semi-auto does as mandated by the government. And as you may well be aware has won the military contract. Beating out all top tier manufactures in the first stage of the trials, meaning it was the only manufacture with a gun that did not malfunction.

By the final stage the military told all the rest of them don't let the door hit you in the a-- on the way out !

'Yankee Marshall' is a fraud who would pimp out his own kids for free merchandise.

I havent seen what the "Yankee Marshall" has to say.

As for the P320 passing gov't drop tests...it has been shown, conclusively, that those tests are lacking.

I am well aware that the P320 is the basis of the new M17/18 pistols. As I understand it Sig puts a different trigger in those guns (If you know differently feel free to correct me) - One that passes more stringent drop tests. This is the same trigger that Sig will be installing in guns sent back for the "Voluntary Upgrade".

Also, those guns (the military issue M17/18) are equipped with manual safeties which would eliminate the issue when engaged. This is important because the Connecticut police officer that is currently suing Sig was shot by his own gun when he dropped it on pavement while loading gear into his vehicle. The gun was Holstered at the time and if it had been a Manual Safety model, there is a good chance he would have had it on - and not been shot. Also, if his gun had been any one of the other guns rejected by the MHS program his gun would have simply hit the ground and not fired.

Point is: Sig seems to have known that this was a problem. They developed a fix and made sure it was implemented for the military but did not do it for civilian sales. They could have, but decided to cheap out. Now someone has an extra hole in their body where they shouldn't and it could have been prevented by issuing a recall.
 

hpman66

Hunter
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Messages
3,812
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/...urce=badaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Report Shows Problems With M17, M18 Pistols
Posted at 10:00 am on January 31, 2018
by Tom Knighton

....."The Pentagon recently released a report that shows testing of the M17 and M18 handguns exposed a number of significant and persistent deficiencies, including firing accidentally if a shooter dropped the gun, ejecting live ammunition, and low reliability with traditional "ball" cartridges with bullets enclosed inside a full metal jacket.".....
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,435
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
I sort of read the article... still trying to figure out why they (army testers) would use hollow point ammo for the 2000 round test when that is forbidden by the treaty we signed way back when.... then again it seems like a lot of legalities like the use of hollow points in war being forbidden... it really depends, especially since we have not had a war but only 'conflicts' for decades.

ejecting live rounds? still trying to figure that one out.. must be a magazine problem.
 

22/45 Fan

Hunter
Joined
Dec 8, 2001
Messages
2,123
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
blume357 said:
I sort of read the article... still trying to figure out why they (army testers) would use hollow point ammo for the 2000 round test when that is forbidden by the treaty we signed way back when.... then again it seems like a lot of legalities like the use of hollow points in war being forbidden... it really depends, especially since we have not had a war but only 'conflicts' for decades.
Actually the United States is not a signatory to the 1899 Hague Convention which prohibits expanding bullets in warfare. We have pretty much adhered to it's requirements but we are not contractually required to. The treaty really only prohibits the use of expanding bullets in wars between countries that signed the treaty.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,435
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
Kind of like not dropping bombs on civilian targets.... not being contentious... but we did after WWII right the 'final' history of that war....

The whole full metal jacket thing is about wounding and not killing the opponent.... some of it is old english battle rules and some of it is more practical .... you can leave a dead soldier where he is but it takes man and woman power to deal with a wounded one and cost a lot more in time and effort. Example: Iwo Jima, Japanese casualties were about 22,000, American: 28,000! (keep in mind the definition of casualties is both killed and wounded) from a numbers standpoint we lost that battle but took the island... of course that kind of thing only works with bean counters... practically all the Japanese casualties were killed while most of ours were wounded and taken out of action. ... which is part of the main reason we dropped the big on on them to end that mess.
 

louchia

Single-Sixer
Joined
May 3, 2014
Messages
157
blume357 said:
I sort of read the article... still trying to figure out why they (army testers) would use hollow point ammo for the 2000 round test when that is forbidden by the treaty we signed way back when.... then again it seems like a lot of legalities like the use of hollow points in war being forbidden... it really depends, especially since we have not had a war but only 'conflicts' for decades.

ejecting live rounds? still trying to figure that one out.. must be a magazine problem.


From what I read, don't remember where, some of our special forces do carry hollow point. Only makes good sense to me.
 
Top