JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Article that accompanied pointed out they were using primers only (3 different brands).
Sig Sauer P320 Fails Drop Test

Ultimately I'd say this shouldn't look bad for Sig, but it should look bad for the various official drop test standards.

That's what I was thinking,from how he explained it,no gun is dropped that way in testing.so how many guns would go off if dropped like in the video.
 
As you might expect there does seem to be some controversy over all this so it will likely take some time to get sorted. The below was posted by Bruce Gray of Grayguns over on the Sig Talk forums. He's a pretty reputable source in general but particularly when it comes to the P320. It's post #80 in the linked thread...

FBI fail drop test?? - Page 6 - SIG Talk

Reality and facts matter.Full disclosure: Grayguns has developed patent-pending fire control parts for the P320, to enhance these actions for competition and elite users while maintaining full mechanical safety values. Some of this work was done in cooperation with SIG SAUER, and much independently.

I can state with assurance that I may be considered a SME on this platform.

I speak only for myself here:

We have dropped, thrown and banged on P320's for three years, working on our long-term and very in-depth R&D project. Some of our attempts well exceeded accepted specifications for such drop and jar tests. I include throwing a P320 against our shop wall in that category.

I've never experienced an instance in which an example with intact striker lock and reasonable sear and springing values would fire when dropped, much less a proper factory-spec gun.

I have quietly searched for and looked into online reports of any claimed malfunctions or safety issues, including drop-safety failures.

In three years, have yet to verify a single proven instance in which a proper, factory-spec P320 has fired when dropped.

Individual pistols and parts can break, of course. Were that to happen, SIG SAUER will correct it and revise any component which may benefit from it, as has already been the case with the extractor, for example. This is absolutely to be expected from the world's premier gunmaker.

But that's not the issue. Because there isn't one, in my informed opinion.

However, every bit of my 43 years of gunsmithing and design experience, and my special knowledge of this platform, have convinced me beyond any reasonable doubt that the P320 has no inherent flaw or fault whatsoever in it's safety systems or fire control mechanism.

I've read the memo, followed discussions, communicated with some of the personalities involved and chatted online with one of the authors of a recent blog on the DPD's decision.

I am here to tell you that there is nothing there to justify pulling the P320 from duty.

Nothing at all, as far as I am able to see. And believe me, I have skin in the game, and I am looking.

I fully expect this decision to be rescinded shortly once the light of day and sensibility are brought to bear. What SIG might due in response to the rumourmongering which passes as online journalism these days is not for me to speculate upon.

In fact, speculating about these things at all seems bad form. For my part, I can and will back my statements.

-Bruce Gray

Originally Posted by southswede1 viewpost.gif
There is this guy who just might know a thing or two about the P320. His name is Bruce Gray. Here is what Bruce has to say:


Friends,

Nothing being discussed here appears to be based in fact from what my informed sources tell us. I can't go into details, but I can comment on some of what's been "reported".

I've personally drop-tested a bunch of P320's in various conditions and in excess of ANSI/SAAMI protocol, and cannot get them to fail.

The so-called P320 drop test video referenced by many is an outright fraud intended to damage SIG SAUER and the P320, in my opinion. I can perhaps replicate what it portrays, only by removing a bunch of springs and the striker lock first. I defy the makers of that video to come forth and prove they can make a stock P320 fire like that in my presence, under controlled conditions. They can't.

In any event I predict this decision by someone in DPD will not pan out to be objectively reasonable or justifiable, and will be reversed.

-Bruce
 
One of the nice things about scientific testing is that it should be well documented and repeatable in multiple test sites. I see a mention of height but is this angle that gives a problem listed anywhere? I can't watch the video as I'm at work.

I have a p320 I'd be willing to drop using a primer only.
 
So The Truth About Guns apparently conducted their own testing of the P320 and they were able to replicate the unassisted discharge of the weapon. However, they have subsequently pulled the post down but no mention as to why. Hopefully it's just a technical problem and they repost it shortly.

However, the post, was captured before they took it down and screen shotted on the SigForum...cause the interwebz is forever. You can read it at the link below. It's about half way down the page, LOTS of screen shots. It's the biggest post on the page, you can't miss it. But take it for what it is...they may have pulled the post down for a more significant reason...like a problem with their testing or something...

DFW PD 320 Recall? - Topic
 
Thanks, L84. I liked the pictures with the guys wearing body armor but no other PPE. I would think the other risk in this testing, besides the obvious "what if it shot you in the face," would be lead exposure from the primer firing.

Very interesting stuff.
 
There is no good way for this story to end. Either a bunch of good people are lying about it failing, or Sig and Bruce Gray, whom I've met and respect is lying.

Either way, this is going to turn into a giant bubblegum show. Makes me sad.
 
There's a reason there's dinguses or hinges on all of the other short stroke striker fired pistols out there. Those doohickeys, in part, serve to prevent inertial rearward travel of the trigger so that the trigger cannot deactivate the striker block, allowing inertial popping of the primer by the striker protruding past the breechface at impact.

The end result of the P320 being able to unintentionally inertia fire is going to be a similar trigger doohickey being made mandatory.

Forget about the hazard to owners. I don't want some noob bubblegummer dropping one near me either.

A recall is likely.
 
There is no good way for this story to end. Either a bunch of good people are lying about it failing, or Sig and Bruce Gray, whom I've met and respect is lying.

Either way, this is going to turn into a giant bubblegum show. Makes me sad.

Perhaps Bruce is telling the truth. According to these other guys, it requires a drop directly on the rear site top ridge.
 
As you might expect there does seem to be some controversy over all this so it will likely take some time to get sorted. The below was posted by Bruce Gray of Grayguns over on the Sig Talk forums. He's a pretty reputable source in general but particularly when it comes to the P320. It's post #80 in the linked thread...

FBI fail drop test?? - Page 6 - SIG Talk

Well, Bruce Gray may indeed to be very knowledgeable about SIG guns. But he also has financial ties to both SIG the company, as well as the SIG handgun market. He is one of their official trainers, for training that is available on the SIG website. He has appeared at numerous industry expositions with SIG.

Not to mention that his gunsmithing services offer highly specialized services specifically for SIG pistols. And he markets and sells numerous add-on accessories for various SIG pistols. Heck, he has 4 different trigger enhancement kits for the SIG P series alone, that vary in price from $50 to $320. So Bruce Gray has a clear financial interest in the P320 being successful in the market. The more pistols they sell, the more potential customers he will have for his business.

Consequently, Bruce Gray has a definite and significant financial conflict, when it comes to talking about SIG pistols. That is something that people should be aware of.

ggi-slider-bruce.jpg

.
 
Last Edited:
Hmm, didn't click but don't you think the military tested this pistol before they adopted it?
It seems suspect when non-standard tests are then claimed to make it fail by people who stand to directly benefit from said failure, as per @Lance Jacobs observation.
 
Looking at this from a broader aspect, the situation now practically begs another series of empirical repeatable tests. This would demand some testing organization NOT connected in any way with SIG or the after market.

Until that is done everything else does not mean that much. And ... even an outside format would also raise questions. So on and so on. That is how good real Science works. You always end up not quite knowing fur sures.

To do the science correctly would be exhaustive and expensive. Thus todays problems with science in general and good science in particular. Someone or something must pay for it all. That alone affects the data base.
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Replies
1
Views
477
Replies
0
Views
177
Replies
3
Views
285

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top