Page 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 411

Thread: New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    You're in the 'don't know what you don't know' phase.

    The P320, at least in original configuration, is capable of pulling it's own trigger via inertia. The Glock will not fire when dropped, even at heights exceeding standard testing protocols, due to the trigger-dicky moving on a different plane.
    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…

    Name:  36-F9-BD1-F-4006-4314-AC33-3-E8-F04044494.jpg
Views: 313
Size:  21.7 KB

    …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.

  2. #342
    Site Supporter Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewbie View Post
    What other platforms? The P250?
    1. West German 226/228 - the bottom of the breech block at the bottom of the breech face was 90 degree cut. Under certain circumstances involving hard reloads of partially filled magazines the 90 degree cut acted as a firing pin and detonated the primer. Which caused an out of battery detonation. We found this out the hard way. One of our Sgts, now a Chief Deputy at the local SO has a piece of casing still embedded in his arm, I believe. When we called Sig, they were like - “oh yeah, we know about that”. Subsequently they changed the cut on the bottom of the breech face to have 45 degree radius. But nothing was sent out to anyone that I know of. I know we were never informed that could be an issue. See pic below.
    Name:  BB80E0BB-7AF5-48ED-B66C-004588316B5B.jpg
Views: 304
Size:  35.0 KB

    2. 2010-2014 era 22x series - out of spec parts. We had two issues that Sig knew about and said nothing. First one were out of spec trigger bars that kept the trigger from resetting. Secondly, the sear spring retaining pins were out of spec. These are pressed in at the factory and should never need to be removed. It requires a special tool. When it shears off it locks up the gun and will not work at all. We had to wait in line to have all of ours replaced because Sig was sending it from rep to rep to fix agencies guns. But only when the agency called with problems. They didn’t let us know about it, we found out the hard way.

    3. Current 320 debacle.
    Formerly known as xpd54.
    The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
    www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com

  3. #343
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    1. West German 226/228 - the bottom of the breech block at the bottom of the breech face was 90 degree cut. Under certain circumstances involving hard reloads of partially filled magazines the 90 degree cut acted as a firing pin and detonated the primer. Which caused an out of battery detonation. We found this out the hard way. One of our Sgts, now a Chief Deputy at the local SO has a piece of casing still embedded in his arm, I believe. When we called Sig, they were like - “oh yeah, we know about that”. Subsequently they changed the cut on the bottom of the breech face to have 45 degree radius. But nothing was sent out to anyone that I know of. I know we were never informed that could be an issue. See pic below.
    Name:  BB80E0BB-7AF5-48ED-B66C-004588316B5B.jpg
Views: 304
Size:  35.0 KB

    2. 2010-2014 era 22x series - out of spec parts. We had two issues that Sig knew about and said nothing. First one were out of spec trigger bars that kept the trigger from resetting. Secondly, the sear spring retaining pins were out of spec. These are pressed in at the factory and should never need to be removed. It requires a special tool. When it shears off it locks up the gun and will not work at all. We had to wait in line to have all of ours replaced because Sig was sending it from rep to rep to fix agencies guns. But only when the agency called with problems. They didn’t let us know about it, we found out the hard way.

    3. Current 320 debacle.

    Man that’s rough. Modern Sigs have the proper radius cut?


    Sig and Taurus. Two companies who have a lot of ideas I like, but execution I do not.

    Yes I know Sig is not Taurus, but still, they disappoint in a concerning way.

  4. #344
    Member GearFondler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNewbie View Post
    Sig and Taurus. Two companies who have a lot of ideas I like, but execution I do not.
    You left off my favorite, KelTec... Mad genius designs, high school shop class builds.

  5. #345
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by LowLead View Post
    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…

    Name:  36-F9-BD1-F-4006-4314-AC33-3-E8-F04044494.jpg
Views: 313
Size:  21.7 KB

    …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.
    Nice back pedal. Are you an attorney?

    Because SIG has publicly settled at least one class action re the P320 without admitting guilt –Hartley v. Sig Sauer, in U.S. District Court in Missouri. While the settlement amount wasn’t disclosed, SIG paid $850,000 in attorney’s fees alone. Bro.

    Not all civil settlements are publicly acknowledged so it’s difficult to get a true picture of all such claims.

    Not to mention the old adage that the cover up is often worse than the crime. The biggest issue with SIG’s handling of the P320 situation is not that there was a mechanical or design flaw in the gun. It’s that SIG knew about it and continued pumping out Defective guns for months until someone else exposed the situation via the Stamford CT lawsuit.

    That deliberate indifference can itself be actionable.
    Last edited by HCM; 05-08-2022 at 07:19 PM.

  6. #346
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by GearFondler View Post
    You left off my favorite, KelTec... Mad genius designs, high school shop class builds.
    If Keltec could just design things and have Ruger take over all their manufacturing they would be a force to be Devine’s with.

  7. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Nice back pedal. Are you an attorney?
    You don't need to be an attorney to be capable of reading, writing, speaking, and understanding the English language. Me underlining what I've already said does not amount to backpedaling.

    SAAMI drop tests are to be conducted on a rubber mat, with the barrel vertical, muzzle up.

    Name:  IMG-0125.jpg
Views: 261
Size:  40.0 KB

    If the barrel of the P320 is perfectly vertical, it’ll land on the beaver tail, which is why the only sources I can seem to find suggest the gun can fire when dropped outside of the “vertical” parameter. Parameters involve more than height. They involve angles. Hence the pluralized word in Sig’s statement, “parameters”.

    Given this technicality, it likely means Sig can continue to advertise a pre-upgrade P320 as "drop safe" despite it being capable of firing outside of normal parameters.

    The US Army has their own TOP (Test Operations Procedure), which is probably what caught this issue.

    Just theorizing now.
    Last edited by LowLead; 05-08-2022 at 07:47 PM. Reason: Gif was too large to embed.

  8. #348
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by LowLead View Post
    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.
    That’s not how design defect claims work in most US states.

  9. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    That’s not how design defect claims work in most US states.
    Ok, that’s interesting. How would it work for Catatao in Massachusetts?

  10. #350
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by LowLead View Post
    Ok, that’s interesting. How would it work for Catatao in Massachusetts?
    I had to look at the Catatao allegations. Taking them as true, this will more likely be a manufacturing defect case. Nearly all US states have gone towards quasi-strict liability for manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn claims. Massachusetts law generally requires manufacturing defect plaintiffs to show “whether the deviation from the design rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and therefore unfit for its ordinary purposes.” Back v. Wickes Corp., 375 Mass. 633, 641, 378 N.E.2d 964 (1978). Since the officer claims that the pistol discharged in her holster without any serious impact, that seems like a design deviation that is unreasonably dangerous.

    Without knowing more facts (a civil complaint is generally a pretty one-sided version of the events), it's difficult to make a more thorough assessment.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •