Army's new SIGs ejecting live rounds, can't handle standard ball ammo.

[croy]

I'll admit I did not read the entire thread. Wondering how many INGOers will be listing THEIR Sigs on Armslist? They can't dare list them on here, now that this thread exists.

This site has the most "suggestible" group of members I have ever seen.
On here and Armslist, the minute that it was news that the Military was adopting the Sig and leaving the Beretta 92, a bunch of 92's suddenly hit the classifieds.
In the past few years I have "dumped" all my Sigs but one. I have a very nice Sig P238.....That's it. I got rid of mine, because they are big and clunky with long trigger pulls and resets. And yes I got rid of mine long before the 320 was adopted.
After all these years, and as ugly as I always thought Glock's were/are. Outside of some Gen 4 issues, they still prove themselves time and again to be one of the most reliable mass produced hand guns.
I'm not sure I will ever look at Sig firearms again.

Which I don't see the point in. If you like it and its reliable stick to it. No PD or military will persuade me to buy a gun. If I like and jts reliable I'll buy it.

 

[Woobie]

Some people have spent time in the Army, have pretty extensive experience in training new and experienced shooters in a variety of weapon systems and also have experience in testing and evaluating firearms. Some may disagree that since something has always been ****ed up we should leave it that way to maintain the tradition. Some might also disagree that when selecting weapons to protect the country, maybe deciding against one because it’s “generic” or in favor of another because it’s cheap isn’t the best approach.

Those with opposing views have keyboards as well I reckon.

I'm not sure you understand me. Nowhere did I imply the process should stay screwed up, or that it is screwed up. My point was that despite the flaws of the systems that win the bids, by the time the Army is done with it, it's usually a pretty darn nice piece of kit. Colt poorly manufactured a rifle Stoner imperfectly designed. After all the mind numbing procedures, the U.S. had (and 50 years later, still has) one of the finest assault rifles ever issued to any military. The process is grueling, it sucks, but it works. But for the gun reporters and tavern generals looking from the outside in, it's just easier to say "they should have just bought my favorite pistol."


I don't think the Army could have been faulted with purchasing Glocks. They're decent pistols. But they also can't be faulted for purchasing a pistol that has a little more upside, especially since they have a proven track record of wringing the flaws out of weapon systems.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not sure you understand me. Nowhere did I imply the process should stay screwed up, or that it is screwed up. My point was that despite the flaws of the systems that win the bids, by the time the Army is done with it, it's usually a pretty darn nice piece of kit. Colt poorly manufactured a rifle Stoner imperfectly designed. After all the mind numbing procedures, the U.S. had (and 50 years later, still has) one of the finest assault rifles ever issued to any military. The process is grueling, it sucks, but it works. But for the gun reporters and tavern generals looking from the outside in, it's just easier to say "they should have just bought my favorite pistol."


I don't think the Army could have been faulted with purchasing Glocks. They're decent pistols. But they also can't be faulted for purchasing a pistol that has a little more upside, especially since they have a proven track record of wringing the flaws out of weapon systems.

What you say is true, but then again, is it really reasonable to buy a deficient piece of equipment resting on the reputation for being able to eventually work out the flaws by the second or third generation of the piece of equipment in question, therefore doubling or tripling the purchase costs rather than buying something that just works in the first place?

 

[Woobie]

Which I don't see the point in. If you like it and its reliable stick to it. No PD or military will persuade me to buy a gun. If I like and jts reliable I'll buy it.

Absolutely. But gun people are all co-dependent. We need confirmation. And when we don't get it, we get butt-hurt. Glock people were all sobbing in their oatmeal, and Sig people were thumping their chests when the contract was awarded. But now that flaws have been identified, the Glock people are lashing out and the Sig people are laying low.

You aren't the Army. Buy the pistol you want. But don't assume that your selection makes the most sense for a military. For instance, I think the Walther PPQ is hands down, categorically the best pistol in its class. But even if they had submitted an entry for this program, I doubt they would have gotten the nod. They don't have the production capacity, they tend to be a little more expensive than Glocks, and as far as I know, they don't have relationships in the Pentagon the way Sig and Glock likely do.

 

[Woobie]

What you say is true, but then again, is it really reasonable to buy a deficient piece of equipment resting on the reputation for being able to eventually work out the flaws by the second or third generation of the piece of equipment in question, therefore doubling or tripling the purchase costs rather than buying something that just works in the first place?

The problems weren't identified before the contract was awarded, IIRC. We're all assuming Glock would have made it through that round of tests without a problem. And they might have. But the Army didn't buy a system with known flaws, they bought a system and identified previously unknown flaws. All I'm saying is, now that we find ourselves in the middle of a process designed to expose flaws, everyone needs to put out the fires in their hair and let the process work like it's supposed to.

 

[halfmileharry]

In a perfect world we should hang Sig.
IF memory serves me even a little bit I seem to recall more than one weapon of our military that had flaws out of the box.
The P-51 Mustang was a real dog out of the box. It went through at least 5 variations before it was retired and we stepped into the jet age.
There are no John Moses Brownings today we can fully depend on.
The Army will make do with the Sig and get the bugs worked out eventually. It's their way.
I remember complaining about some of our gear in the USMC. I was flat out told to "Make do with what you got 'til you're issued something better".

 

[Woobie]

I would see it running in a complete opposite direction. The NDA shields underachievement which would seem to remove a large portion of the incentive for presentation of a quality product. As for the military/PD responsibility, I will have to stand by the position that if they are buying with our coin, they should be held responsible for sharing the results they find in the process of spending our money.

I would say that's exactly what they are doing. Until now, no one knew P320's were capable of ejecting live rounds. The Army didn't hold that back.

 

[IndyDave1776]

First, while I can speak only for myself, I am not comparing the SIG with the Glock or suggesting a binary choice. If the problems didn't manifest until after the comparative testing was finished, then the test procedures were flawed in unacceptable ways. If they surfaced and were ignored, then that is a different problem. The bottom line is that we have seen a flawed design adopted and that is not acceptable.

Second, it is true that the original P-51 was not really impressive. The eventual installation of the Packard Merlin (for the uniniated, a licensed copy of the Rolls Royce Merlin) and the bubble canopy made the definitive P-51D the incredible machine it was. A critical difference here is that during World War II, we needed the best we could come up with right the hell now, not tomorrow. By contrast, we are not in such desperate straits in our needs for a new handgun. We can afford to take our time to identify and adopt the best possible weapon for the purpose--one which is effective, reliable, and economical to purchase. We are not in an emergency where we need it yesterday and do not need to act as if we were.

Third, once again, we need to take a big step back away from this notion that there is nothing wrong with adopting defective weapons with the faith that we can eventually evolve them into acceptable equipment. When time is on our side, we need to place the burden on the suppliers to bring us a product that is ready to use now, not three upgrades over a decade or two or three in the future.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The problems weren't identified before the contract was awarded, IIRC.

The drop safety issue (the one Sig said wasn't real) was identified before the contract. So was the breaking of triggers.

I'd also point out the Army has until Sept of this year to decide to not go forward with Sig.

We're all assuming Glock would have made it through that round of tests without a problem. And they might have.

Glock Gen 5/M has yet to fail a selection process for any major entity, even those that eventually selected something else. Neither has H&K. Sig has repeatedly with the P250/P320, and not just in the US. If I had to lay money on who'd pass any given T&E, I know who I'd bet on...

...the Army didn't buy a system with known flaws, they bought a system and identified previously unknown flaws.

They actually did both. They did buy a system with known flaws, as well as finding previously unknown flaws.

During drop testing in which an empty primed cartridge wasinserted, the striker struck the primer causing a discharge.SIG SAUER implemented an Engineering Change Proposal(ECP) to correct this deficiency by implementing lightweightcomponents in the trigger group mechanism. This fix mayhave contributed to the splintering of two triggers during theIOT&E

You seem to keep trying to make this just a fanboi vs fanboi argument but there's a lot of reasons to be skeptical beyond brand identification.

 

[Trigger Time]

I predict Sig loses the contract

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I predict Sig loses the contract

Maybe. They eventually got the Osprey to work and stop killing flight crews, so nothing is impossible.

 

[Woobie]

First, while I can speak only for myself, I am not comparing the SIG with the Glock or suggesting a binary choice. If the problems didn't manifest until after the comparative testing was finished, then the test procedures were flawed in unacceptable ways. If they surfaced and were ignored, then that is a different problem. The bottom line is that we have seen a flawed design adopted and that is not acceptable.

Second, it is true that the original P-51 was not really impressive. The eventual installation of the Packard Merlin (for the uniniated, a licensed copy of the Rolls Royce Merlin) and the bubble canopy made the definitive P-51D the incredible machine it was. A critical difference here is that during World War II, we needed the best we could come up with right the hell now, not tomorrow. By contrast, we are not in such desperate straits in our needs for a new handgun. We can afford to take our time to identify and adopt the best possible weapon for the purpose--one which is effective, reliable, and economical to purchase. We are not in an emergency where we need it yesterday and do not need to act as if we were.

Third, once again, we need to take a big step back away from this notion that there is nothing wrong with adopting defective weapons with the faith that we can eventually evolve them into acceptable equipment. When time is on our side, we need to place the burden on the suppliers to bring us a product that is ready to use now, not three upgrades over a decade or two or three in the future.

To your first point, the rest have to be conducted according to the way the bid request outlines them. Perhaps they were poorly written, but you can't account for 10,000 variables in one round of tests.

Second point: you assume that these pistols are being fielded in mass quantities. What they are doing is exacly what you describe. They are testing before adoption. The first contract gets enough pistols in enough hands to get better testing. And don't think they are stuck with the entire contract either. If this doesn't get better, they have the ability to cut Sig off. But in order to move forward, you have to buy some pistols. No one is going to give you an endless supply of guns to test, no matter who you are.

Third point: I don't think this is an accurate characterization of how this works. They buy the best they can get, within the specifications of the bid, and then test that thing until they find its flaws. They aren't buying off the clearance shelf with the hopes they can make it work. They're buying the brand new Chevy instead of the Ford, breaking a few hundred of them, then engineering fixes for the recurrent issues. Maybe the Ford would have had no issues (the Ford guys will swear that's the case) but they probably would have just had different issues.

 

[223 Gunner]

Which I don't see the point in. If you like it and its reliable stick to it. No PD or military will persuade me to buy a gun. If I like and jts reliable I'll buy it.

That was the point I was trying to make. I don't let the Military of Police Dept. help me decide. I was just making the observation that this site seems to be inhabited by "suggestible" members. Meaning that they DO let others decide on what they should or shouldn't purchase.
I was in the gun hobby in 1982 when Glock first hit the market. I have never been a "Glock" guy until the past few years. Me getting rid of my Sigs, was just me taking them out and shooting them. And as Phylodog has stated just looking at actual facts.
Because at one time I was a "Sig" guy. But the more I fired my Glocks and Sigs and looked at them in an unbiased way, the Glocks won the day.
I now own 5 Glocks and 1 Sig. I kept the P238 because I still like 1911's, and it's cool. I really haven't fired it much at all, it is one of my safe queens. This coming spring and summer maybe I will get it out more and burn through some of my .380 ammo.

 

[halfmileharry]

Maybe. They eventually got the Osprey to work and stop killing flight crews, so nothing is impossible.

Yea, the Osprey really opened my eyes even more than the Harrier. The AV-8A was a crew killer and the Brits gave up on it. McDonnell Douglass redesigned it to become the AV-8B which we have today. Today's model works great. The "A" model not so much.

 

[Trigger Time]

Maybe. They eventually got the Osprey to work and stop killing flight crews, so nothing is impossible.

You're right. Still does

 

[Woobie]

The drop safety issue (the one Sig said wasn't real) was identified before the contract. So was the breaking of triggers.

I'd also point out the Army has until Sept of this year to decide to not go forward with Sig.



Glock Gen 5/M has yet to fail a selection process for any major entity, even those that eventually selected something else. Neither has H&K. Sig has repeatedly with the P250/P320, and not just in the US. If I had to lay money on who'd pass any given T&E, I know who I'd bet on...



They actually did both. They did buy a system with known flaws, as well as finding previously unknown flaws.




You seem to keep trying to make this just a fanboi vs fanboi argument but there's a lot of reasons to be skeptical beyond brand identification.

The drop safety problem was identified before the contract, but so was the fix. So that's kind of irrelevant, unless Sig missed a deadline to get the fix in place.

Passing a T&E is important, but so is getting what you want. Do you give the contract to the guys who have the pistol that fits the bid the best, and fix its flaws, or do you buy the pistol that has the best chance of passing T&E with the fewest hiccups and try to make it into what you really wanted? Which of those choices is most likely to meet with success? Which is the most expensive?

The reason I am making it a fanboi vs. fanboi argument is that's because 99% of this is exactly that. You're right that there are reasons to be skeptical, but that's not what is really brought out.

 

[Woobie]

I predict Sig loses the contract

I won't predict anything. And I don't want anything, really. I would like to have a P320, because it has more upside than Glock. But I would rather have a Glock than the Sig with its current downsides.


If Sig doesn't step up their game and come into compliance, they will lose the bid. And rightly so. If they fix their issues and make a great pistol, they will get bigger contracts. And rightly so.

 

[Ark]

IF memory serves me even a little bit I seem to recall more than one weapon of our military that had flaws out of the box.

A LOT of what the military uses was either problematic out of the box or shouldn't have been adopted in the first place. M14, junk. M16, sabotaged by bad ammo and chamber corrosion. M9, cracked slides and magazines that don't work in the sand. Everything about the Bradley. The F22 choking its own pilots. There's a million other examples out there. Put something in a grunt's hands and he will find ways to break it that you never even imagined, and that's IF the procurement process didn't deliver a broken product in the first place for political reasons.

Things happen. Fixes will be put out. Life will go on.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

M9, cracked slides and magazines that don't work in the sand.

The M9 is a little more complicated. Well, the magazines aren't. The military bought trash mags, and that's not really complicated. The slides, though, are a different matter.

There was a combination of ammunition much hotter than the weapon was designed for, failure to change recoil springs, and a design that didn't catch the slide if things failed catastrophically. The system failed, but it failed under abuse it wasn't designed for. Sort of like loading up .38 special to hot .357 mag loads and complaining your gun shot loose early. Well...yeah.

Beretta met the contract requirements, just the requirements didn't reflect what the real world use would be. Beretta made some changes and the slides were good to go until over the 70k mark. Stainless slide Sigs are usually good for 80k plus, for comparison.

I'm no fan of the M9, and I got stuck with those Pez dispenser magazines that fed 4 rounds than the follower stuck, but the slides cracking thing isn't entirely on Beretta.

 

[croy]

Between Sigs 320 and 365 issues it will take me a long tome before I consider a striker fired Sig. Or even hammer fired. (Shooting DA/SA is a training issue I don't want to deal with)

I'm pretty much a solid glock guy. But I don't care what the military uses. If S&W does a mag promotion I'll probably buy a m&p compact 2.0.

Once I get my glock collection settled my plan was to get a 320, m&p, and maybe a CZ. But for now I've ruled out CZ and Sig.