P320 drop safety issues

[RHINOWSO]

Does Sig have the financial strength to buy back 500,000 pistols?

Bruce Gray puts the number nearer to 350,000 - but regardless its a lot of pistols. And just like SIG to inflate their actual sales.

[RHINOWSO]

Say it costs them $200 to replace each pistol. ($100 to build the pistol + $100 shipping) $200 x 500,000 = $100,000,000
Say they can turn around and sell 500,000 refurbs for $200 each. $200 x 500,000 = $100,000,000

Their cost would be the parts and labor to "fix" or "refurbish" 500,000 pistols.
Since they're paying their people anyway, it would be just the parts cost.

Let's see what they really do.

Don't forget the lost time to actually make new weapons, when their people are getting paid to make replacements.

I should be an interesting week of news on the topic...

[busykngt]

Nomenclature issues aside, my point was: production tooling will need to be changed. And that is both an expensive and potentially time consuming problem (if it hasn't already been done). The interested thread follower can view the video beginning at about the 4:30 mark in the video. The Sig engineer is explaining the modifications that are to take place, including a cut to the slide. He's explaining why Sig will require the entire gun to be sent in.

[RHINOWSO]

The video confirms earlier conclusions that Sig was aware of this problem long before the Omaha Outdoors video dropped. They're marketing the trigger changes as a "planned upgrade", but the in depth detail on what parts are being changed and the planning behind it signifies they knew a long time ago that this was a problem.

Yeah, the commentary at 2:20 is interesting "ah, we were looking at the double click, then thinking we could look at the drop safety..." (before the Omaha video). Maybe I'm seeing something that's not there, but maybe not.

[RHINOWSO]

Nomenclature issues aside, my point was: production tooling will need to be changed. And that is both an expensive and potentially time consuming problem (if it hasn't already been done). The interested thread follower can view the video beginning at about the 4:30 mark in the video. The Sig engineer is explaining the modifications that are to take place, including a cut to the slide. He's explaining why Sig will require the entire gun to be sent in.

$$$$$$

[Lon]

That's a lot of slides, frames and FCUs to fix since some guys have multiples of each with 1 FCU.

[Lon]

The "FCU" is the frame module, the frame is the stamped metal part in the frame module that forms the rails. The thing you (and everyone else ) are erroneously calling the frame is the grip module. There are no grip module changes.

Gotcha. Thx for clarifying that.

[Lon]

Sorry for pedantry. The P320, due to its modular design, uses different terminology than many are familiar with and it leads to lots of confusion.

No need. I know very little about the 320. Never had one apart and no one I shoot with routinely has one so you're filling in gaps in my knowledge.

[Wondering Beard]

JHC, to expand on your very interesting line of thought: The facts of how and when SIG made these alleged fixes to the M17 design, and how SIG even knew that the M17 didn't have (or no longer had) the P320 problem could tell us a great deal about what SIG knew about P320 drop un-safety and how and when they knew it. To be able to say that the M17 does not currently have the problem(as I understand SIG has said) begs the question of how and when SIG determined that to be the case. Did SIG do its own 'minus 30 test' at some point in the past on the M17 in order to confidently say that the M17 didn't have the P320's problem? What prompted it to know it needed to do that 'nonstandard' 'minus 30' test?

It certainly will not be in SIG's interest for such info on M17 to surface because that info could expose when SIG discovered the P320 problem (and thus how long they've been sitting on that info without informing its customers), and I suspect DoD/Army will be reluctant to share such info as well. Depending on what SIG told DoD/Army about M17 safety fixes/upgrades, DoD/Army could potentially be accused of knowing a firearm (P320) being sold by the chosen source of the M17 was not drop safe while the maker was telling the public it was drop safe.

If a House or Senate committee got interested in this it could make it very embarrassing for DoD/Army to stonewall on this, and probably even compel the production of said info, if the will to do so was present among the right members on the Hill. Even the interest of a single Senator (say from Georgia or Massachusetts) or Congressman (ditto)in this issue could create a lot of trouble for SIG and DoD/Army. And the lawsuit filed on the 4th also could force the revelation of such info, assuming SIG is foolish enough to refuse to settle.

Softball questions. How about "Did you know about this drop safety issue before July 1st, 2017?" Or, "how many discharges from this failed safety are you aware of in LAW ENFORCEMENT guns?" Of course, the answer would have been, "no comment" or "our attorneys told us not to discuss when we actually found out" or some such bullshit.

The discovery process in the CT LEO's lawsuit will be diving into all that deeply. The questions can't easily be avoided there.

[RHINOWSO]

The discovery process in the CT LEO's lawsuit will be diving into all that deeply. The questions can't easily be avoided there.

Except with an out of court settlement and binding NDAs