Page 36 of 42 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 415

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

  1. #351
    Thatís good information. Isnít the burden of proof on her still to show a defect exists that could allow this to happen? It seems to me like itís well understood how the gun can fire when subjected to abusive conditions. Sig has acknowledged this. To my knowledge theyíve never acknowledged a defect that allows the gun to fire the way sheís described. Iím not opposed to the idea. I welcome theories for the sake of everyoneís safety. I just havenít read anything substantial, yet.
    Last edited by LowLead; 05-08-2022 at 09:36 PM. Reason: Spelling

  2. #352
    Chronic Leg Day Skipper BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by LowLead View Post
    People are missing the point Iím making. It was suggested that Sig Sauer should be held liable in court for advertising a gun as being drop safe, when it apparently wasnít. According to Sig, it not only met US standards, but consistent with other pistol manufacturers, yes, including GlockÖ

    Attachment 88591

    ÖSig mentions safeties can fail, resulting in an unintentional discharge. Youíll see this in a lot of manuals. The above referenced one comes from Glock. Common sense. Technology has limitations.

    Iím not comparing a pre-upgraded P320 to a Glock in terms of which one is more likely to fire when dropped, Iím 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 sheíll be able to prove this wasnít a risk she accepted when strapping her belt on.

    Weíre beyond debating whether or not a P320 in itís pre-upgraded configuration is likely to fire when subjected to abusive conditions. Weíve been beyond that for years. Iím not here to post ďtrust me broĒ anecdotes because I donít have any to share, and I donít find that kind of information verifiable.

    Iím posting what Sig claims. Thatís why if you re-read my posts, they all say, Sig claimsÖ

    Whether or not someone at a ďlarge agencyĒ 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 couldnít 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, thatís not my opinion, itís a claim Sig is making, and if that offends you, your issue isnít with me.

    Nobody is offended. This is well trodden ground here and you lack a lot of background information as well as understanding of how civil liability works.

    Sig is not as drop safe as Glock. While both may pass a given test, that does not mean they are equal outside the test. I'm well aware of how drop safe testing is done. I'm also well aware that Sig knew there pistol was discharging during real world drops, hid behind NDAs, and lied about it. Anyone who chooses to believe Sig probably also believes Glock when they say <insert any issue here> is caused by limp wristing. Manufacturers lie, then pay off quietly and hide behind NDAs. There's a lot of information that you won't find online and 'verifiable' in the public domain, but there are folks here who know things anyway and share what they can as they can and have a reputation for being right. Take that as you will. I expect Sig will pay out again.
    Clever signature line in progress

  3. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    This is well trodden ground here and you lack a lot of background information
    I must have missed the check-in gate when I arrived. Sorry about that.

    If Sig has settled in the past, did this happen by force? If the position is that attorneys are expensive, and itís best for Sig to settle with Catatao, thatíd be a perfectly fair point, but if Sig chose to fight this, and you were her, how would you prove it Sig is liable? Tell the court Sig put out an advertisement that said the gun's safeties were 100% reliable? Good luck. Does she not need to prove this? If I'm wrong about that, then how does civil liability apply to this case?

    Not sure why we needed to take a 4 year old detour into whether or not a pre-upgrade P320 is capable of firing when abused. Itís in the manual. Itís on their website. Itís on video. Officer Catatao didn't drop her gun.

  4. #354
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    [QUOTE=LowLead;1351184]I must have missed the check-in gate when I arrived. Sorry about that.
    QUOTE]

    Maybe read the thread ?

  5. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    Maybe read the thread ?
    That went over your head. Tongue in cheek way of saying my forum registration date doesn't prohibit me from questioning your sources, nor does it prohibit you from questioning mine. The difference is, I'm trying to verify mine, whereas the investigative work of others amounts to: guy on pistol-forum.com said so. See the difference? Yet I'm the one with preconceived notions.

  6. #356
    Chronic Leg Day Skipper BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by LowLead View Post
    That went over your head. Tongue in cheek way of saying my forum registration date doesn't prohibit me from questioning your sources, nor does it prohibit you from questioning mine. The difference is, I'm trying to verify mine, whereas the investigative work of others amounts to: guy on pistol-forum.com said so. See the difference? Yet I'm the one with preconceived notions.
    Guys on PF have knowledge from experiences and sources you don't have access to. Maybe search for old P320 threads. Maybe note that "less drop safe" references well predate it being common knowledge. Maybe understand some folks are still working in the industry and can't bite the hand that feeds them or are still under NDAs. Nothing to do with your sign up date other than we didn't wait for you to show to have this discussion. Search is your friend if you really want to understand why you don't know what you don't know.
    Clever signature line in progress

  7. #357
    Site Supporter Cory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Florida
    You're not doing anything wrong in your discussion. The forum has had this discussion many times though, and it can be frustrating for those in the know to explain it ad nauseum. Some incredibly respected SMEs have simply stopped posting here because they had to explain the same thing repeatedly to under informed folks who acted as an authority on topics that the SMEs have dedicated their life too.

    The engineering side how these mechanical failures actually happen was explained in detail by the previous owner of the forum, Tom. I don't know him but he has been described as an incredibly skilled engineer and I have no reason to doubt that. I know that he was responsible for bringing the original SCD to production. His detailed posts (and all his posts) have been removed from the forum at his request.

    Seperate from the fact this has all been discussed by highly informed folks, and the engineering broken down barney style for idiots like me, is the case at hand. How can someone deny the firearm is at fault when someone is on video not touching a holstered firearm when it fires? How do the mechanics at play factor in? And I think this is the second incident to be on video like this with an obvious no fault to the user.

    Regardless of any standard test these guns go off. It isn't even a question. They are not drop safe, regardless of if they pass some test. They have reported problems of uncommanded fire as well. Some of which are verifiable and on video. I don't see a need to ever carry the M17 I own. I would certainly never choose a P320 with the options available.

  8. #358
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Is that thunder? No, itís just Fort Hood.
    Iím far from a SME on firearm engineering, but I am on products liability from the insurerís viewpoint. In my professional opinion there is something to all of these reports, and the standardized testing is faulty. Beyond that, I defer to and respect the opinions of the SMEs here and elsewhere.
    Ken

    BBI: ...Ēyou better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weirdĒ...
    revchuck38: ...Ēmo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.Ē

  9. #359
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Yup....there have been several incidents recorded on video, both in the US and in allied nations, documenting various P320 family pistols firing w/no mechanical manipulation of the trigger, often with the pistols still in holsters. This remains a problem, as do some other issues.
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  10. #360
    Site Supporter JonInWA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auburn, WA
    The key things now seem to be:

    1. Determining is the P320 is a pre-2019 gun;

    2. If pre-2019 (and arguably, pre 1 June 2019) has the gun had the VUP performed;

    3. If its had the VUP performed, does it have the upgraded sear so that the dual sear springs are retained and positioned by posts that the springs fit over (as opposed to ther earlier dimples that the sear springs fit into, and could cross over, creatring huge issues)

    4. If it's a post 2019/1 June 2019 gun, with all the improved components, was the FCU properly assembled and QC'd?

    As HCM alluded, I would not personally consider getting or using (especially in a professional/duty capacity) a pre-1 June 2019 P320. And, ideally, I'd have a qualified gunsmith or armorer go through my FCU to ensure that it was properly assembled. P-f member lwt16, who is a thread participant and current qualified SIG P320 armorer has eaamined enough of these to establish that correct date/correct improved components aside, there are some assembly/QC issues that warrant a detailed examination of individual FCUs before a gun is placed into duty. I would probably feel most comfortable with a manual safety P320 variant, or one of the LEO specific skus that are discussed in the thread (and probably not available to most P320 buyers, especially individual buyers).

    My personal P320 is an October 2019 production piece, and the FCU was looked at (but not detail disassembled) by a regional SIG LEO rep. I'm qualified on it for duty and successfully classified with it for IDPA. It's a RX gun, that came with the Romeo1 RDS as OEM; that developed an operational issue (fortunately discovered duaing an IDPA match, not while on duty); SIG immediately stepped up to the plate and replaced it at no charge with a later Variant 5 Romeo1, which has subsequently performed flawlessly.

    The nebulousness of current P320 discussions of "uncommanded discharges" is the lack of individual firearm specificity as to which of the categories 1-4 discussed above that the guns discussed fit into.

    Best, Jon
    Last edited by JonInWA; 05-09-2022 at 12:09 PM.

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
  •