This.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Sig drop test fail (threads merged)
- Thread starter Gstag92
- Start date
This.
I will continue carrying my Sig P220 as my primary carry weapon....
Not a big fan of striker fired guns or plastic ones anyway (not to say I don't own a few). That new P320 is almost as ugly as a blocky glock.
Rosewood
Not a big fan of striker fired guns or plastic ones anyway (not to say I don't own a few). That new P320 is almost as ugly as a blocky glock.
Rosewood
I can agree with much of what you're saying, but I'm not agreeing with you fully. With all the striker fired pistols on the market, I wonder how many have been through the same testing. Apparently, the rubber mat testing ground that Sig used earlier wasn't good enough. I'd seriously like to know how other guns would perform well under the same angle hitting on a concrete floor. For example, my favorite guns are made by Cz, yet I don't know if the new striker fired p10-c has been tested the same way. Similar testing may be needed on all striker fired firearms.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
You make a good point. I would like to see the same testing done across the board on other manufacturers pistols of similar designs. It seems obvious that this drop test needs to be incorporated into standard national safety tests.
Sorry if that came across wrong.
They are not advocating that today... that was the language in the original manual that they claim confused the Dallas PD armorer into writing the memo that started all this. The SIG guy agreed with Gresham that you shouldn't carry a pistol empty-chambered, or have to, and that they removed that particular instruction when they updated the manual.
I do have to agree with you that I think they are handling this in a pretty arrogant way. Kind of a 'don't worry your pretty little head about this' kind of attitude.
The SIG rep was very condescending about the 'low level' bloggers who broke the story, and had nothing but praise for the 'more mainstream' publications that followed up (and of course basically published SIGs spin on this verbatim).
He also misrepresented the Omaha group's video by saying that all the guns had previously been torture tested and were simply broken from that. He ignored what that group said about one of the guns being brand new and still failing, or the other videos showing brand new guns firing when dropped or hit with a mallet in the right place.
The rep mentioned that if you do the math there are 46 million possible ways to drop a gun (1 degree in each of 3 dimensions). Yet in reality is seems like there would only be 6 that mattered. Slide-up, slide-down, muzzle-up, muzzle-down, left-side, right-side should pretty much cover it.
He also mentioned that most (but not all tests) only required a single drop. The rep stated that after a single drop the gun could be so broken that it would then fire on a second drop, and that SIG recommends a gunsmith check out any gun that has been dropped.
From an individual viewpoint I can see that. However from an engineering viewpoint I'd feel better if SIG had said they drop tested the same pistols over and over again to see what might fail if a gun is dropped.
On the same show they had a Ruger rep talking about a problem they were correcting on their Precision Rifle. It seems that some of the bolt shrouds were out of spec, and could interfere with the action causing light primer strikes.
Nothing safety related there, but their engineers figured out that it could lead to a case where the pin was being held back just enough to release when the bolt was opened.
He stressed that they had never been able to create this situation in testing, and even getting the light primer strikes to happen was extremely difficult, but the potential was there so they were recommending that anyone who had ever had a light primer strike with the RPR get the new shroud.
He stressed that while only a few shrouds had the issue, anyone who wanted one could call up and get the new part. In fact if you didn't want to pop it off the bolt yourself, they would send the box and paperwork to have it sent to Ruger for the fix.
Ruger could have ignored this. Their rep said that it was an almost mathematical impossibility. They could have simply said that there was an issue with function and never admitted the safety aspect or just treated it as a CS issue when someone complained.
Instead they proactively found the issue, came up with a solution, and gave their customers all the information.
That's customer-focus... not pooh-poohing customer concerns over a real safety issue because you got caught with your pants down or you don't approve of the news source that's reporting the issue.
I agree they should all be tested and any that fail or unsafe. However, there's not a chance in hell that Glocks have not been tested in this way. They have been being torture tested for decades and you can be sure that if this flaw existed we would have heard about it a long time ago.
Maybe so, but I wouldn't assume that for any weapon. Its a standard apparently. I own Glocks, Sigs, and many others. I will always regard them all with the upmost caution and respect when handling or training.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Ditto, but **** happens. Especially when you are pushing it in training.
Probably the scariest one I have seen was many years ago when I was doing a mandatory intro to IPSC. The instructor tripped while running from one shooting station to the next and his hot 1911 went tumbling along the ground perfectly aligned with him as he regained his balance. It swept him about five times while bouncing along.
