P320 drop safety issues

[HCM]

Certainly. Since the video posted up-thread seemed more-or-less unquestioned, it seemed fair to include a counter-point. I carry a P320, and if there's a drop safe issue, I want a fix for it right now. Since the PD that banned them (Dallas) said Sig called it a "defect," I can only imagine we'll hear something from Sig soon, considering the potential liability.

I would not hold my breath waiting on SIG. They would not be the first company to quietly fix an issue without public ally acknowledging the underlying issue.

Glock and Beretta have done this for years. Glock's Glock 22 gen 3 reliability issues with WMLs, Beretta early PX4 issues, the 1301 shell release issue Beretta quietly fixed etc. Another example would be Remington knowing about safety issues with the Model 700 trigger for years before being forced to publically acknowle the issue.

[98z28]

Here's the official GAO response to Glock's protest: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf

Hat tip to Default.mp3 for that link in the MHS thread.

It's not clear from the descriptions which of those tests, if any, include drop testing. Surely it would be part of the evaluation. It could have been part of the "Initial Reliability" (Factor 1, Subfactor 1) that was completed, or it could be part of Section H ("Reliability and Service Life" or "Material Reliability in Extreme Conditions"), which was not completed. I am not finding a breakdown anywhere of what the test protocols. I recall reading that drop testing was not part of the initial tests, but can't find evidence to back that up.

My recollection of GAO's response to Glock's protest was also incorrect. The GAO said that Sig won the contract based on value, which was acceptable given that Sig was equal to or better than Glock in other categories. Here is part of the text (begins on pg 6 of the GAO document linked above):

Based upon the technical evaluation and my comparative analysis of the
proposals, the Sig Sauer proposal has a slight technical advantage over
the Glock proposal given that their proposal was rated higher in Factor 1,
Bid Sample Test – Technical which is the most important factor. The
advantage of the Sig Sauer proposal is increased when the license rights
and production manufacturing factors are brought into consideration. [. . .]
The price analysis shows that the Sig Sauer total evaluated price is
$102,705,394 less than the Glock total evaluated price, making the Sig
Sauer proposal overall the Best Value to the Government.
Sig Sauer’s proposal was slightly superior technically and clearly superior
in factors 4 and 5. Since there were so few other discriminators between
the two proposals in most aspects, the least important factor, price,
became a significant discriminator. Simply put, when taking the price
premium into account, there is no correlating superior performance factor
for Glock, as compared to Sig Sauer, to support paying that premium.
Consequently, I cannot justify paying a price premium of over 37% for the
Glock submission, even as a second award. One (1) award to Sig Sauer
on Solicitation Number W15QKN-15-R-0002 represents the overall best
value to the Government.

As for not completing the second phase (Section H) of the testing, the GAO said that the Army plans to complete testing before issuing the handguns, which is allowable under the terms of the contract. Here is part of the relevant text:

The protester also contends that it is unclear whether the Army intends to complete the
section H evaluation prior to award of the production CLINs. Glock Supp. Comments,
May 9, 2017, at 1-2. The Army asserts that the Sig Sauer handguns “(both compact
and full size) will undergo all possible Section H Source Selection testing,” prior to
general distribution of the handguns. Supp. AR at 1-2. The base award is limited to the
CLINs for the weapon systems component package, as indicated by the specific CLIN
and SoW references in section M. RFP at 387, ¶ M.1.1.9 The RFP provides that
“award [of the “production” CLINs] will be made based on an integrated assessment of
the results of the evaluation” of the section H factors. RFP at 296, ¶ H.4.1. The record
here shows that the Army has only issued task orders for the weapons system
components package. AR, Tab 30, Delivery Orders 1 & 2. Thus, the agency has not
yet made award of the section H production CLINs. Protests that merely anticipate
improper agency action are speculative and premature and will not be considered by
our Office. See Sun Chemical Corp., B-288466 et al., Oct. 17, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 185
at 13 (dismissing as premature arguments that the agency would not properly evaluate
awardee’s proposal). On this basis, any challenge to the award of the production CLINs
is premature. This protest ground is denied in part and dismissed in part.10

I apologize for the slight thread drift. There's no information about drop testing.

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

I wonder if this could somehow upset the contract for big Army?

No, didn't they request manual safety? If so, I don't see it being a deal breaker...

[breakingtime91]

Color me shocked.. I was pretty surprised big agencies selected this gun as quickly as they did. It is a young design and has a lot of issues left to find and fix.

[breakingtime91]

No, didn't they request manual safety? If so, I don't see it being a deal breaker...

What if the gun is off safe, like your shooting it, and you drop it with the safety off? That matters, I would think...

[ralph]

Between this and the mallet thread, I myself have started to rethink fully tensioned striker fired pistols. It looks to me that the partially tensioned striker fired guns, and DA/SA/LEM, might be a better choice.

[ranger]

I was thinking 1911 with thumb safety and grip safety!

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

What if the gun is off safe, like your shooting it, and you drop it with the safety off? That matters, I would think...

It does indeed, but the military being what it is... they are up front they purchased on price. They will just say official use is anytime you are not firing the weapon goes back on safe, it will be ascribed to user error if it gets dropped off safe. Sure makes you wonder about them not finishing testing on these in the trials, almost as if they were tipped off that it would fail at this... probably some greased palms in on the deal to seal it.

Between this and the mallet thread, I myself have started to rethink fully tensioned striker fired pistols. It looks to me that the partially tensioned striker fired guns, and DA/SA/LEM, might be a better choice.

Well, I don't believe you can say with certainty that even a Glock wouldn't fire at whatever level of cocked it runs... assuming the other safeties are defeated. There have been reports of this happening with Glock also from what I've seen... though probably nowhere as often.

[octagon]

I was unable to find the information on drop testing at ANSI but I did find firearm drop test info on SAAMI site.

http://saami.org/specifications_and_...ishandling.pdf

For those who don't want to read it in detail it calls for 4 foot drop onto rubber mat in different positions.

[Balisong]

I appreciate Tom and Enel spending time with their 320s on this issue. With them unable to reproduce this, along with Bruce Grays thoughts, I feel a bit better about my 320s, but I wonder what Sig has found that led them to make this statement.

I'm transitioning to the USP compact as my EDC, but I've spent a lot of money on the 320 platform and mags/holsters. I will pissed off to no end if I'm unable to recoup some of my money selling them because of some crap like this.