Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Glock releases photos of their MHS submission

Indeed... it rivals the butt hurt which ensued when DOD ditched the 1911A1 in favor of "'That GD Eyetalian pea-shooter!!"

BREAKING: Omaha Outdoors Halts Sales of SIG SAUER P320 Pistols Following Failed Drop Testing

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...uer-p320-pistols-following-drop-testing/

damn but hurt glock boys trying to torpedo a damn fine pistol.

Well, I would call that smoke if not a fire. A real company lays its future on the line when it puts out a video that would be slander if wholly fictitious. It could explain Sig’s reluctance to go “all-in official” with its refutation. Refute the picky points in blog-ville while trying to figure out what’s going on.

It is not uncommon for products in any field to have some warts not discovered during R&D. The marketplace subjects things to testing that the companies themselves could never imagine. In the firearms field, we had the Beretta slides to the face and locking block issues, the Glock Kbs, the recent Springfield XD-s issues, etc. They all got handled and life went on. It is how a company deals with it that impacts its near future. Springfield got way out in front of the XD-s issue, to the point of aggravating customers by getting customer guns back to the mother ship before they had a fix. While that ruffled feathers (and made it harder for any manufacturer to pull that off in the future), the issue got handled.

We’ll see what happens. I have no vested interest in the outcome either way. I am all for new technology and innovation, if it works.

Oh no, say it isn't so.

But, I thought this was all over something that never happened? Some dummy misreading a manual or something.....

Cop who was shot by dropped 320 suing SIG
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ice-officer-shot-dropped-holstered-p320/

Guns aren't supposed to be dropped, why not sue the incompetence of the dropper?

So WTH is up with these tests and trials. Shouldn't that be something tested during the evaluations.

Was Sig "getting" the contract another political favor that came to fruition. I really seems that someone hates Glock. Don't finish the trials, toss Glocks law suit, release the Glock bashers, discredt them for being whiners, accuse them of being "butt hurt".

I can see it now. Get that contract signed before anyone finds out, if we have to fix it, we will suggest everyone wear a short lanyard.

Now I suppose Sig will throw an "army" of lawyers at the whistle blowers.

It will be interesting to see Sigs response and Glocks. As a matter of fact anyone that submitted a pistol to the trials should be bellyaching.

in the case of the sig does anyone know if the striker is fully cocked?

My dad always said if you cannot sell it you can always buy the order, so wasn't it $100 million less than the glock bid?

this is the way things work these days, you buy the order (counting on accessories or other sales at list that will be pulled along by the publicity for your revenue), then and only then you do your actual beta testing in the field with the released product by the actual customer, if they find any problem then circle back and fix it without saying a damn word to anyone, its funny how they responded with out using official letters etc to the first complaint (they knew there was a problem??). Anyone want to bet that the trigger pull wont go up considerably "after" the award has been made. The customer will double down and just suck it up wanting to avoid looking like they were stupid and did not test for everything. I hope no one that buys this gun will get killed by dropping it. It will in the end be an epic success, but it might take a while.

Oh look, Sig finally put something on its website about a "voluntary upgrade" to be explained on August 14, 2017. Link I guess it remembered it has a website.



Kevin’s link above has a purported Sig statement from August 4 that contains the following:



Now, we know that a cop claims to have been shot by one on January 5, 2017 (a couple of weeks before the army announcement, by the way), of which Sig was aware. So, while the wording of the statement may be 100% factually correct, it is seriously misleading. Let’s just say that Sig’s credibility has taken a huge hit in my book. It's not about the gun issue. Those come and go. It is about the way they handled this.

While I agree with the sentiment behind your comment, I can’t agree with the comment…I know where you’re coming from and I come from the same place. That is how you (and I) would teach a shooter to be.

However…

Any and all equipment has to take reasonable steps to ensure safety in the event of something un-planned. Within reason the design needs to account for impacts that can be expected within the course of duty of whomever is carrying that weapon. Generally it’s going to be the military, cops, and citizens who buys that weapon. Each of those, you can build a reasonable “profile” of what those people can/will do while armed with said pistol.

I don’t understand how you can look at what a soldier does and have the expectation that a handgun NEVER gets dropped while loaded under any circumstances. Certainly that’s the goal you strive towards in training, but to walk away and expect that a military of over a million members, most with what we would call a very minimum of handgun training; I just don’t see that as “reasonable” or realistic in any way.
I see engineering in extra safety into your pistol analogous to putting seat belts in a car. If everyone did their job right, we wouldn’t need seat belts. But that’s an expectation of perfection from a human being; and that’s an unreasonable expectation.

Most can envision a multitude of scenarios where someone could end up dropping a firearm while performing their duties…and it’s not always from negligence.

You will never make anything foolproof under 100% of all conditions. But you can take REASONABLE steps to protect against the most common of mistakes/circumstances.

We strive for perfection always, realizing it will never be attained…yet, that realization doesn’t get in the way of us trying anyhow.

Somebody screwed the pooch. Get the contract and worry about the short comings later, F that.

That's like buying a car that is supposed to meet spec.. Warning don't go over 65mph or it might blow up.

1- Do you believe that regulations call for soldiers to have a cartridge in the chamber of their pistol. 2- i wasn't talking solidness

I should of added I really don't care who got the bid, as long as it was legitimate. That's my biggest peeve. If they knowingly and then willfully submitted a product that they knew had potential problems, F them bastids. Time will tell.

The gun is marketed as drop safe. The implicit pitch is: "Buy our gun because you can drop it and it won't go off." Many people know that they aren't perfect, so they make consumer decisions that provide protections against their own mistakes. If a company markets such a product and it does not work as advertised under conditions that one can reasonably anticipate, it should not escape liability because the person dropped it in the first place.

The 1985 JSSAP trials wasn’t made open public knowledge for some time after the bid. The MHS full data on the whole program isn’t available yet either, so there are a lot of questions that I don’t think we’ll have answers to until someone files a FOI request and the whole program is made public.

Given the selection of the Sig. Personally when you look at the actual RFP of what they were looking for in a “Modular Handgun System”, the Sig 320 was a closer fit than the Glock. That’s not saying the Glock couldn’t do the job, just that the Sig 320 met the criteria a bit better.

Re: your comment of “Get that contract signed before anyone finds out” – There’s something there.
Look at the timing of the announcement. The contract was awarded literally days before James Mattis was sworn in as Sec Def. Most seem to think (and it makes sense to me) that they skipped the testing of the compact pistols and awarded the contract because they feared Mattis would step in and shut the program down. I haven’t seen anything else that makes much sense for why they went 90% of the way, then just decided to award…the timing vs. new Sec Def makes sense to me. And keep in mind what it was they skipped, only the testing of the compact pistol. The full size order is 280,000 pistols. The compact order is only 7,000 pistols…so keep that in mind. The part that wasn’t tested was a very small % of the total order.

What the fix in? There will always be those who will ALWAYS claim the fix was in. Sig did better meet the criteria, their bid was over $100 mil less than Glock’s, their plan for the ammunition was better, and their licensing agreement was preferable. Since they didn’t do the whole process all the way to the end, someone will always cry foul; but it’s not as if put together a half azz bid and won…they put together an extremely strong bid and won.

What has yet to be seen is the ACTUAL criteria used for the tests, and the full data package on how well each pistol did in those tests. Without that information, it’s hard to really make a sound judgment of whether the 320 full size was adequately tested or not.

The M9 was carried with a round chambered. I don't know that anyone knows if that will change with the M17, maybe it will, maybe it won't.

What the fix in? There will always be those who will ALWAYS claim the fix was in. Sig did better meet the criteria, their bid was over $100 mil less than Glock’s, their plan for the ammunition was better, and their licensing agreement was preferable.

didn't they have a failed gun the 250, that morphed into the 320? Look at it like this, they had a once in a lifetime shot at the contract so they bought the order, throwing in everything they could think of above and under the table. The ramifications go far beyond this underwater contract with .gov