So the first article is about Sig's response to the suit, and make it sound like it's a case of bad practice ammo; and doesn't mention really much of anything else.
This article, with a link to the court complaint tells a very different story:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...selling-defective-handguns-state-police/The big difference is that the issue was happening with both practice and service ammunition.
Sig did a lot of mechanical work on these pistols to cure the problem. If it was simply a case of bad ammunition, one would think they would address that issue rather than spend a lot of time mucking with the guns. If I were Sig, I would have HP White evaluate the ammunition for SAAMI compliance.
Some interesting quotes from the legal complaint (which is pretty well documented) that put a completely different spin on things.http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/New-Jersey-State-Police-Sig-Sauer-Complaint.pdf
First, the 229 Legacy is the pistol that won and was selected, yet the Enhanced Elite is the pistol that was delivered (doesn't say why that happened). In the court complaint it does state that the extractor system of the Legacy and Enhanced Elite are different.
In the filed court documents, Sig claimed a factory mold may have been the problem (doesn't state which mold...extractor perhaps), and then states the "coating" on the barrels was mis-applied, and they shipped NJ new barrels; problem persisted. A SIG armorer diagnosed the problem as extractor springs, changed out the springs and the problem persisted.
Eventually Legacy pistols were provided, but those pistols exhibited the same issues. To further frustrate the customer, only half of the total order of pistols was delivered.
25 random pistols were selected for QC inspection, of which 5 failed; that's a 20% failure rate...by any measure, that's horrible quality control.
After all QC was done on every pistol, five pistols were selected for live fire testing, of which 3 failed.
