People are missing the point I’m making. It was suggested that Sig Sauer should be held liable in court for advertising a gun as being drop safe, when it apparently wasn’t. According to Sig, it not only met US standards, but consistent with other pistol manufacturers, yes, including Glock…
Attachment 88591
…Sig mentions safeties can fail, resulting in an unintentional discharge. You’ll see this in a lot of manuals. The above referenced one comes from Glock. Common sense. Technology has limitations.
I’m not comparing a pre-upgraded P320 to a Glock in terms of which one is more likely to fire when dropped, I’m speaking on the specific case of a police officer walking with a gun in a holster claiming the gun fired by itself, and the likelihood that she’ll be able to prove this wasn’t a risk she accepted when strapping her belt on.
We’re beyond debating whether or not a P320 in it’s pre-upgraded configuration is likely to fire when subjected to abusive conditions. We’ve been beyond that for years. I’m not here to post “trust me bro” anecdotes because I don’t have any to share, and I don’t find that kind of information verifiable.
I’m posting what Sig claims. That’s why if you re-read my posts, they all say,
Sig claims…
Whether or not someone at a “large agency” chooses to believe what Sig claims has zero issue with me.
A similar example would be when Beretta won the M9 contract. The US Government deemed the TDP as safe, and once slides began separating, Beretta was off the hook, because the pistol had already been verified safe. They couldn’t force Beretta to pay for a new design.
In this instance, it seems unlikely a court can force Sig to compensate the police officer since the pre-upgraded P320 still meets or exceeds US standards - and no, that’s not my opinion, it’s a claim Sig is making, and if that offends you, your issue isn’t with me.