From a commercial point of view, isn't the marketing value of equipping a major Federal or DOD branch part of why they do it? How many 320s have been sold because it's "good enough for the Army"?Originally Posted by TGS
I don't know if Id' go as far to say major contracts are loss leaders but there's an element of it.
True, the task tho is sorting the wheat from the chaff. As witnessed in this thread people react differently to the information available. I understand why people wouldn't buy from Sig for the fiasco that was Drop Gate but the idea that any other major corporation is any better I don't get or that a pistol shouldn't be vetted with an appropriate number of rounds.
Last edited by hiro; 11-27-2019 at 02:21 PM. Reason: added a little...
At least 3 of the officers at one of my local agencies carry 19X so I think there's something to that.
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
@zepellitier thanks for the clarification. It did read differently to me.
No one started dropping these things until the discharge reports came out. I was aware of two I incidents before this became public. And when selecting duty pistols, yep, I dropped them, kicked them across pavement, rolled them in mud, spilled sodas and beverages on them and all manner of crap that could be reasonably expected to happen to them once issued to people who aren't dedicated gun handlers and shooters. And I agree with you on sig's handling of this situation 100%.
That’s what I mean, there were no drop test videos until there was suspicion of an issue. But I believe people should be able to trust a company and their products to the point that every single person who buys one doesn’t have to do extensive testing like mil/le agencies do because honestly most people won’t Out of curiosity, did you test every single gun that same way? I thought that when guns were tested there were a certain number tested and then if they passed the testing and were selected then more were purchased. For this to be possible, you would have to trust the company making them that each one would be made as well as the test batch. I don’t think SIG is trustworthy in that way.
Not every gun, just examples. And yes, you have to trust the company to do the right thing post selection. And like you, I dont trust Sig. And at one point I did, without reservation. That was pre Cohen.
I do when somebody pays me to do it
Along those lines if you shoot the P3 20 better than anything else I would trust an individual vetted sample but I don’t trust SIG as a company.
So far the GOV contract P320s I’ve seen have all been good to go but I’ve had light strikes / failures to fire with both an early (first month of production) commercial compact and a recent production 320 X carry.
My Agency requires us to order a DHS specific sku if we want to use a POW 320 on duty. They have also been good to go so far but that is a clue as to potential issues with commercial 320s.
They are allowing us to use commercially purchased p365s and I have seen a couple fail Armorer inspection even though they were purchased via SIGs IOP program.
It’s worth noting that she is pumping out all kinds of hot crap like SAS models without sites but two years on we still have not seen the size small in size large X grip frames that SIG is required to supply us with under the DHS contract. Wow you could points a finger at SIG or at our CO pTR, you would think SIG would want one of their largest non-military customers to be satisfied with their product.
Last edited by HCM; 11-27-2019 at 05:26 PM.
Milwaukee PD is the latest high profile agency to adopt the P320 for all personnel, help me understand why they are trusting it when none of the posters in this thread do?
Im betting it has a large part to do with the price point.
Definitely this. This is why Glock is as widespread across Law Enforcement agencies. Price. And Glock gives departments a hell of a discount if I’m not mistaken.
Reply With Quote