GLOCK BEATS SIG: P320 The ONLY Pistol of 11 That FIRES When Dropped in Comprehensive Omaha Outdoors Test

The SIG Sauer P320 – scion of the Army’s new M17 MHS pistol – is the only handgun out of eleven different weapons to fail a comprehensive test released today by Omaha Outdoors. The testing protocol involved dropping the handguns at different angles with a primed case in the chamber (no bullet or propellant). None of the ten other handguns – which included four Glocks, two H&Ks, two S&Ws and a 1911 – tested after the P320 fired when dropped. The video released by Omaha Outdoors describing the tests is embedded below:

Besides the P320, ten handguns were tested. These were:

  • Glock 17 Gen 2
  • Glock 17 Gen 3 modified by Zev
  • Glock 22 Gen 4
  • Glock 43
  • Heckler & Koch VP9
  • Heckler & Koch VP9SK
  • Polymer80 PF940C Glock kit with all stock Glock parts
  • Smith & Wesson M&P9 M2.0
  • Smith & Wesson M&P45
  • Springfield TRP Operator 1911

The results of this test publicly confirm what many – like myself – already knew: The SIG P320 appears to have a particular weakness in drop testing not exhibited by virtually any other modern handgun against which it is competing. This weakness is almost certainly caused by a lack of a trigger safety: The inertia of the trigger itself is enough to cause it to move rearward and discharge the firearm. A simple, inexpensive piece of plastic on a hinge is enough to prevent this malfunction.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Alex A.

    Yet according to Sig there’s no problem and it’s already been resolved.

    • Rob

      There is no problem. We have an upgrade to fix the problem. Oceania is at war with Eurasia. They have always been at war with Eurasia.

      • Sandydog

        THAT, Sir, is doubleplusungood. I hope that you like rats. Report to Room 101.

      • Brett baker

        No, we are at war with East Asia, we have always been at war with East Asia.

  • Thomas Bennett

    Ron Cohen, CEO of Sig Sauer USA: “Drop safe, those two words don’t exist together. No gun is drop safe. It’s a function of angle, height and surface. If you build it completely drop safe, you legitimize mishandling. Inherently guns are not meant to be dropped, and are unsafe when dropped.”

    Not buying a Sig product while the same moron who ran Kimber into the ground, is heading that company.

    • flight27

      Yikes, by that logic we shouldn’t put seat belts and air bags in cars because, you know, it legitimizes bad driving.

      • noamsaying

        A sad fact is that you can be wearing your seatbelt and still die without a scratch on you if the g loads in the crash are too high. G loads will rupture your aorta. However, I always wear my seatbelt. If the g loads get me, it was my day to go.

        • drambus

          How many Gs does one experience in a normal car crash?

          NASCAR, F1, WRC, and the various GT and Touring series have crashes that blip into the 30 and even 40G range. If I recall correctly, in F1 last year there was a 46G crash. No torn aortas.

          Are you suggesting it’s the placement of the regular car’s seat belts that contribute?

          My understanding was the torn Aortas was from massive chest trauma, not from G forces, but from not wearing a seat belt and hitting the steering wheel. I’m pretty certain that seat belts actually reduce torn aorta occurrences.

          • iksnilol

            You’re more likely to die due to not wearing a belt tham to die because of it.

            I get annoyed when people use a statistical anomaly to justify not wearing seatbelts.

          • Kivaari

            She wore it wrong. Had she worn it right she would likely survive. Men tend to simply not wear the things.

          • Kivaari

            G forces, especially those that involve torque. A T bone crash has a high probability of causing a torn aorta. You see the effect of improper belt use on mostly women because they tend to wear the belt wrong (under the arm or behind the back). The torque tears the tissues between the ribs (seen at autopsy) and the aorta.

          • jcitizen

            I don’t know, but I do know that a friend of mine’s wife spent 3 months in the hospital recovering from the massive injuries she received from a standard lap/cross shoulder seat belt in an accident that also killed her infant son. He was in a baby seat next to her facing to the rear, when a tire in the truck bed broke loose of the regaining bolts in the accident, and came through the back of the cab and crushed the poor little guy in the seat. I doubt having a seat facing the other way, would have saved him. Racing cars have full harnesses like a parachute so the forces are spread out a little better across the chest. Sometimes I think accidents are all different, and chaos rules. Ironically her husband walked away without a scratch!!

        • L Cavendish

          half of all traffic deaths are due to people NOT wearing a seatbelt…HMMM

      • tCotUS

        WELL Stated flight 27 …All guns are capable of going off when dropped at certain angles.. I’ve seen revolvers going off when dropped, I’ve seen rifles go off falling over….Shotguns also… Test was STUPID, meant nothing…
        No I’m not a Sig fan, just a common sense fan..

    • PK

      From a legal perspective, with a case against Sig currently pending, I can understand that sentiment from the CEO.

      From a real-world perspective… that’s going to cost sales.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/76c5bc4d639c85be30f240bc3f141029208b2f69a7747fb01deb2556be4a806f.jpg

    • Giolli Joker
      • Anonymoose

        I lol’d heartily.

        • ostiariusalpha

          HK knows how to “No Comprise” waaay better than SIG. Hell, I bet their pistols didn’t go off because the cases were in backwards, as God and Vormgrimler intended.

    • rychastings

      what a moron

    • RightWingDeathSquad1939

      (((Ron Cohen)))

      • koolhed

        Such a Cohencidence!

    • Pedro Marcos

      “Ron Cohen, CEO of Sig Sauer USA”
      Cohen, is it? Makes sense…

    • captain obvious

      Yeah Mr. Cohen, except “drop safe” is pretty much the standard for service pistols these days. If Glock, or S&W or Ruger or Beretta or HK or, or, or any other name brand pistol went off when dropped we’d all be scream at them as well. The key thing in a negligence law suit is “known or should have known” the product presented a hazard.

  • NukeItFromOrbit

    Nice clickbait title there.

    • ostiariusalpha

      Except that it’s true also.

      • Bearacuda

        Technically true but almost political and mostly unhelpful–in this test SIG was surpassed by several pistols, not just Glock. I can understand his reasoning for the title but I still rolled my eyes when I saw it.

        • How on Earth is the title political!?

          Why is Glock front and center on the title? Because people care about Glock. Because Glock was Number 2 in MHS. Because Glock protested MHS. Because big friggin’ money is potentially on the line if this scandal disrupts MHS. This isn’t difficult to understand.

          • ostiariusalpha

            A bit playfully partisan? Maybe. But until SIG starts running candidates for office, calling it political is silly.

          • Did everyone just forget that I defended SIG re: MHS?

          • ostiariusalpha

            Yes.

          • OK lol.

          • Giolli Joker

            So you were dead wrong doing that.
            As usual.
            Like when you scientifically show the advantages 5.56×45… and the Army proves you wrong by choosing the vastly superior and SDAPAF* 7.62×51.
            Nathaniel Failures.
            😛

            *Super Duper Armour Piercing As F**k

          • I <3 Giolli. 🙂 *blush 8x*

          • Twilight sparkle

            This reply makes me feel like you’ve unironically said “rawr XD” before

          • &&hearts

          • And on a more serious note, yes I am feeling a little foolish for having stepped out and defending SIG when they had such a whopper of a scandal headed right for me. Oh well, it’s not like I could have known.

          • Sandydog

            Nor should you have known, or even suspected it. Ethical companies with ethical CEOs do not operate like this.

          • Bill

            I’d still defend SIG. The signal to noise ratio on this issue is off the charts, and SIG has taken roughly a week to stand up what is arguably an appropriate response and fix, which in corporate context is lightning speed.

            I’m not thrilled by having to send my pistol in, but this will go the way of the Gen 1 GLOCK recalls, cracking SIG slide rails, self-disassembling Berettas and the amazing exploding GLOCK .40 and any number of other firearms misfires, problems or not, pardon the pun.

          • jcitizen

            Oh well! I had to send my Springfield XD-S in on a factory recall, and it didn’t change my opinion of the pistol. I got a spare magazine out of the deal, and at that time they were selling high dollar on eBay!

          • Bearacuda

            Whoa, ease up. I said almost political. It certainly plays on a common division and it gives the impression that Glock was the only one that mattered. I’m just saying that when I saw the title I clicked on it inspite of it, not because of it. I was defending both sides of the above comments since I agreed partially with both.

            Side note, keep the army articles coming. I love that stuff, lol.

          • I think people might be more forgiving if they understood that Glock is like the single biggest subject in the gun world by about a factor of five. TFB’s most viewed article (beating the second most by 100,000 views) is from when Glock released photos of a G17 with no finger grooves. That’s how big of a freakin’ deal Glock is.

            More articles on the Army to come.

          • Bearacuda

            I totally get that. My life would be so much easier if my weird hands didn’t keep me from liking Glocks. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression–being both a P320 fan and a critic of the whole debacle has been trying to say the least so my diplomatic skills are probably subpar at this point.

          • Don’t apologize, you’re fine. I may have gotten T-R-I-G-G-E-R-E-D by the “P” word. 😉

            Honestly, I don’t really care about pistols. I’m a rifle guy. So whether Glock is in the title or not doesn’t matter to me. But I know it matters to other people.

          • nicholsda

            Rifle guy huh? M14 or M16? 😉 Wait that isn’t fair. One IS a rifle and the other is a pretender. BM59 or M14? 😀

          • ostiariusalpha

            Like Nathaniel, I’m a rifle guy (my handgun skills are something I’ve been working on), but I like a lot of things about the P320. My manager bought one, and I got to fiddle with it more than might be acceptable at a gun counter in a store. It was a good price, and I hope more manufacturers use chassis systems like it in the future (right, Glock?).

          • Giolli Joker

            Beretta uses the chassis system as well. I’m curious about full MHS results (including Beretta, FN, S&W) and drop test performance of the APX that is the closest (in technical features) competitor to the P320.
            If Beretta wanted a real slice of market and IF their pistol was safer in drop tests, they could use this scandal to boost sales.
            “chassis system – just safer” or some aggressive marketing strategy like that.
            They’re well behind Sig on availability of modular options so far, though.

          • Steyr should have won MHS. Muh cyberpunk chassis blaster!

          • Giolli Joker

            With the GB, of course.

          • XD

          • Giolli Joker

            I’d be fine with that.

          • Man, the RDB has some problems, but it’s reaaaally growing on me. Mostly because it just looks wicked rad.

          • neoritter

            I’d love to get it, if it wasn’t super hard to find.

          • Classic gets them in regularly for about $900.

          • Christian Enevoldsen

            RFB is superior… Just sayin. Or did you forget 7.62X51>5.56X45? haha

          • They are my favorite *feeling* bullpups, I must admit.

          • Joe

            Needs more suppressor, but that’s it. I shot the Steyr about 20 years ago and had surprising luck with it, should have bought one. I want the Survival model of RDB though, the streamlined rifle is more appealing.

          • I own zero suppressors. Gonna confess that I prefer electronic hearing pro tbh.

          • Brett baker

            I like,I like!

          • Kivaari

            Glocks system is so much simpler and less expensive than doing a chassis. Glock are simply the easiest service pistols I have ever worked on. An armorers course could be taught in under an hour.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Until you crack the frame, then you have to throw the whole damn thing away. The P320 chassis is not the most efficient set-up that is possible, you could take all the elements in a Gen 4 Glock and translate them to a chassis system that can switch between a G17, G15, or G26 grip module with respective slides, and it would all be the same registered firearm.

          • Kivaari

            The last time I needed a Glock 17 frame it cost $75. All the other internal parts were reusable. The frame crack from a double charge. Even with a cracked frame the officer was able to complete the qualification course and only found the cracked frame while cleaning the gun.

          • ostiariusalpha

            And how much did the armorer tools cost? You forgot to add that in. Changing out a chassis needs zero tools. And despite the Glock’s easy set-up, it can take 20 minutes to remove all the parts from a broken frame and reinstall them in a replacement; yet a mechanically incompetent novice can switch a module in less than 30 seconds. Should you need to do repairs on the trigger unit, you might need tools to do the work yourself, but even there, it’s easier to do that work with the chassis free of the module. It’s also easier to inspect & do maintenance. That $75 dollar frame doesn’t seem like a bad price until you realize that a new grip module costs half as much or less. There’s just no comparison, the old way of attaching parts individually to the frame is simply inferior to a well designed chassis.

          • Kivaari

            You don’t know Glocks. The particular frame was an early two pin model. So all it takes is a punch. No armorers tools just a punch or ink pen nose. It takes less than 3 minutes to remove the parts and two minutes to replace the parts.
            You start with a simple field strip.
            Then you shove out “first pin” (by the trigger).
            Then you shove out the pin at the rear of the grip.
            Then you lift out the module (it comes out intact).
            Since the new frame came with the magazine release and the take down spring in place nothing needed to be done there. But if you did need to do that add maybe 3 more minutes. No special tool required.
            Put your internal parts into the new frame.
            Replace the rear (second pin).
            Replace the “first pin”.
            Put slide on.
            The job is done.
            Armorers tools indeed. That tells me that you know nothing about Glocks.

          • ostiariusalpha

            LOL, I admit that that you are right. Even with the extra pin of the later gens, and fiddling with the slide catch, it doesn’t take much time to change out the parts. You could even push the pins out with a toothpick. Still, I’m saying the chassis doesn’t require any tool whatsoever, not even a toothpick, and it’s still faster than if you were skilled enough to do the switch in a minute flat. And imagine a chassis that only needs two pins out to disassemble with a pen tip or toothpick. That’s progress.

          • Kivaari

            Good. The thing is how often do you crack a frame? I’ve seen one personally in 30 years.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Double charge dumbness is common enough that it would be worth it to go with a chassis for that alone. Of course, people crack and gauge their frames doing all kinds of crazy stuff. Hopefully, I’ll be as fortunate as you, to see few to none of the kind of negligence that can necessitate a replacement.

          • Kivaari

            I sold a mint pre-70 Colt Government Model to a guy that brought it back a month later absolutely destroyed. Some people can simply ruin anything. I’ve seen more blown up M1911s than any other model. Everyone is a M1911 gunsmith and reloading for +P+ performance ruins guns. I have a great deal of respect for Glock. My issue M17 had over 30,000 rounds through it before the chief “forced me” to take a new M34. He said I had my choice a M17, M19 or M34. I liked that M34 as well.

          • nicholsda

            That guy must have been an Army Private. Issue them a hammer and an anvil and they will return both broken in many pieces. 😀

          • Kivaari

            But I always ask myself, Why would anyone want to convert one pistol into several when it makes sense to just buy several pistols. I see no value for ME to swap frames or calibers.

          • ostiariusalpha

            And it also might not make sense for you to have a pair or more of AR-15 uppers for one lower receiver, instead of several separate rifles, and that’s fine. But it makes plenty of sense to lots of other people.

          • Kivaari

            That makes more sense for some people. I always do complete rifles. If I had an upper, I built a lower for it. Or sold the upper.

          • Giolli Joker

            It’s good in countries that regulate the number of firearms/handguns you can own.
            I can understand that, unless you have noticeable saving, it would not play much of a role in most US states.

          • Kivaari

            Now even a couple states. But it seems like a joke to me. A gimmick. “Modularity” for the MHS is a non-critical gimmick that will not play a role in the service.

          • Kivaari

            Changing Glocks just is not practice. To convert a M17 to a M26, would require a new gun. A chassis for one simply could not work in the other. Even a M17 to M19 wont work. Let’s say they did have a single chassis, you would need every other part. May as well buy a new gun.

          • ostiariusalpha

            It doesn’t work with the current Glock models, because they never imagined the possibility of treating the pistol as a modular unit; that’s a new design paradigm. But there is nothing that makes it impossible to engineer a single chassis that would work in all three frame sizes. The grip modules would be cheap, with the barrel and slide being the only expensive component; though just a fraction of the cost of an entire pistol. And no need to bother with an FFL, which is a pretty substantial convenience.

          • Chris Lubowski

            Bingo. Intent is the only real issue here. If Glock deemed that design paradigm to be worth their time, they could have it done in no time.

          • JD

            Crack a frame? Huh because i have glocks with lots of rounds through them. A 21pushing 100,000 rounds and a 17 with 40,000 rounds. No cracked frames.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Frames are damaged by negligence, not by round count. Try using your head a little before you comment.

          • Chris Lubowski

            I concur. My G22 gen 3 has over 90k rounds on it, over 15k of which have been full power defense or duty loads. Various springs have broken or worn out, and I’m just now noticing the trigger pin wants to walk out to the right of the gun after a long session, but I see no signs of cracking or stress failure anywhere. I also have a G34 gen 3 with nearly 130k rounds and a G30SF gen 3 with about 21k rounds through it, and neither of those guns have given me any grief.

          • JD

            Well duh, where’s my thinking, I should’ve realized frames are damaged by using them to hammer nails! Another internet nitwit that can’t take being corrected.

          • ostiariusalpha

            LOL! Sure thing, bud, if that’s what it takes to make you feel good about yourself. I don’t mind a bit.

          • Barry Gaddis

            This will get it going. 1st all you whiners grow up and get off the backs of the writers. You don’t like what or how it’s written, don’t READ TFB! 2nd I have drop tested both the Taurus PT111 G2 9mm and the Honor Guard 9mm everyway possible and not one issue. Both excellent Handguns I would carry downrange anytime. And yep, both are not the “Kardasians” of Firearm makers (e.g. Sig, Glock, S&W or H&K). Imagine that…go figure. Semper Fi.

          • El Mac

            Who cares?

          • El Mac

            Glock was never a contender. Glocks are NOT modular. Glocks were a/the thing for a time. That time has come and gone.

    • Matt

      This entire blog is clickbait

  • SP mclaughlin

    Only the fifteenth article on this in the last five days!

    • ostiariusalpha

      People specifically asked that this test be done. There were no articles on TFB covering drop tests on other manufacturers’ pistols.

      • Sandydog

        TFB would then be ‘beating a dead horse’ in earnest. It’s been done.
        Consult The Book of Armaments (well, that’s actually ‘The Truth About Guns’), Chapter IV, Verses 16~21. Therein shalt thou find articles with videos of said drop tests of other manufacturers’ pistols.
        Guess what? Glocks don’t fire if you drop them.

        • int19h

          This was specifically about repeating the test that got SIG to fire. Since it was not a standard testing protocol for drop safety, this had to be done special for this occasion.

    • noob

      actually, beats some live pistols with a hammer.

    • Sandydog

      This is what is called ‘news.’ REAL news. It will continue to be news in our field of interest until completely resolved, right down to the dirty details of ‘what did they know, and when did they know it?’
      It is also heavily redolent of Schadenfreude. I LOVE Schadenfreude. Therefore, bring forth more SIG articles, I say!

      • koolhed

        Wen so, den so!

    • I’ve been kind of sick of the constant, nearly identical, Sig bashing articles, and I’m glad to see this one, especially since I’m one of teh peoiple who has wondered how other pistols would fare when tested at 45,000 different impact angles to try and find the specific one that they might fail at.

      While not achieving THAT goal, this is a step in the right direction, and a far cry from multiple “Let’s whack our pistol with a hammer!” videos. Unlike the previous rehash articles, this as least provides NEW data.

      • Kivaari

        SAAMI spec testing includes hammering the pistol with a hard leather or rubber hammer, “hard enough to drive a nail”.

    • Kivaari

      This is new.

  • Louis Bethel

    Zzzzzzzz.
    TFB has lost its way.

    • Indianasteve

      Why did you click

  • ostiariusalpha

    Nice job OO! Would have been a nice bonus to show if any of the striker pistols had a dead trigger after being dropped.

  • Giolli Joker

    I’m a bit disappointed they did not compare all the known MHS competitors.

    • I would like to see that, too. Maybe they didn’t have them?

      • noob

        and some specific MHS models will never be offered for general sale.

    • Sandydog

      Why bother? There were only two main competitors, and only one of those two main competitors doesn’t fire when it gets dropped. What else is there to discover?

      • Wrong. NEITHER of the main competitors fires when dropped. The M17 is NOT idenitcal to the P320 – the fix that gives it a better trigger pull is coincidentally the same fix that corrects this issue.

    • Sam Damiano

      You realize the 320 doesn’t have the MHS trigger and the trigger upgrade is the MHS trigger?

      • Just Say’n

        Bingo. The M17/P320 wouldn’t have fired for that drop test.

      • MSG1000

        This, whatever people think of this issue the M17 doesn’t have it or so people tell us.

        If the M17 trigger is the fix then this won’t affect the MHS contract but will be an uphill battle for SIG regarding the civilian and LEO markets.

    • Kivaari

      Where do you get them? SIG hasn’t sold them to the public. Glock has no intention of selling their submission to the public.

  • Michael Cullison

    I’m curious if my P250 has the same problem. The only real difference is the P250 has a hammer instead of a striker. Otherwise it’s the same gun. The Sig site has nothing on the P250 being part of this deal.

    • Ray

      It wouldn’t. You have to pull the trigger all the way to the rear to cock and fire the hammer, and it would fall on the decocked hammer, not allowing that to happen.

    • Verner

      “The only real difference is the P250 has a hammer instead of a striker. Otherwise it’s the same gun.”

      Uhm, no…

      There are a lot of differences between the actions of those guns. Things that make the P250 perfectly safe.

      Just because two guns look similar it doesn’t mean they are almost the same. The only interchangeable part between the two is the grip frame.

    • BeGe1

      That statement essentially amounts to “the only real difference is that it’s an entirely different and unrelated action” 🙂

      At this point I’d be willing to say all modern SIGs are in need of testing simply because of now lacking trust in SIG’s testing processes. However, your gun has no particular mechanical relationship to the P320 that means it has any more suspicion on it than any other modern SIG.

      • Great! Draft the test plan, post it here, and I’ll be happy to show you all the ways your test plan is wrong.

        Testing isn’t as simple as you think. You can waste a LOT of time and money on useless tests, while missing cirtical test requirements, unless you know what you’re doing.

        The drop test protocols that Sig used were adequate to catch almost all failure modes — but no test catches all, and this is a highly SPECIFIC failure.

        To do the level of testing you want will take about 40,000 guns from each and every model line. For just ONE drop test (and they actually run multiple different drop tests).

  • Will Shortly

    Back in the dark ages ( mid 1980s) I attended the Glock Advanced Armorers school, in Smyrna, Ga.
    There were some pretty strenuous tests performed to prove the Glock would not fire unless the trigger was pulled. I was impressed!!

    • Rem870

      The dark ages were when bubba clinton and again when barak hussien obozo tried to come after citizens owning guns.

      • Sandydog

        Speaking of Dark Ages, didja know that Glock actually offered a Hillary Lock for Glocks back in 2003? They called it the ‘ILS,’ it went into the debris cavity behind the magazine well, used a key, and both locked the trigger bar AND made it so the gun couldn’t be disassembled.
        No, really!

  • Still waiting for someone to tape the trigger up and drop it. and someone needs to test a MHS or is sig to scared for the truth?

    • Dave

      They already said the MHS doesn’t have this issue because it already has the upgraded trigger…

      • Shlom Shekelsteen

        SIG said. No one else did.

        • BeGe1

          Yup. At this point SIG statements about the existence/non-existence of P320 drop-safety are worth diddly.

    • OO fixed the problem by installing a lighter mass trigger. Sounds like a trigger issue to me.

  • BeGe1

    “This weakness is almost certainly caused by a lack of a trigger safety: The inertia of the trigger itself is enough to cause it to move rearward and discharge the firearm.”

    That seems quite premature to say with such (almost) certainty. There’s a couple videos that have at the very least cast doubt on that, and nobody has done any tests yet with the trigger secured forward.

    • Every test I’ve seen (including Patrick’s) either shows trigger movement or is ambiguous.

      I’m happy to take it back if I’m proven wrong.

      • George

        Someone needs to measure weight and inertia of the components but my eyeball BOTE was trigger bar moving forwards pulling the trigger along. But – the weights and moments of inertia ought to be definitive. And I haven’t got numbers.

        • Pretty sure OO did that for their first test.

      • BeGe1

        “either shows trigger movement or is ambiguous”

        i.e. on some you’re certain there was trigger movement…and on others you’re NOT certain there was trigger movement.

        That’s exactly what I’m saying. Not certain. That’s what ambiguous means. 🙂

        The fact that you need to say “or is ambiguous” for some tests means we really don’t have a high level of certainty without doing tests to specifically determine if it’s trigger movement.

        I’m not saying it’s not trigger. I’m saying we don’t have the empirical evidence to start stating it with that level of certainty yet.

        Testing half-way is what made this mess in the first place.

        And heck, let’s not forget that it’s not impossible for there to be MULTIPLE issues here. The trigger movement could be just ONE way to cause an ND in the P320, and some other tests could be hitting on other ways…but instead of recognizing that we’re just calling those ones “ambiguous”.

        We’ve obviously determined that SIG cannot be trusted to ID this issue on their own. We’re the ones pressuring the fix. So lets make sure we don’t let them off with just a trigger change if there’s actually more to it. Let’s do our due diligence…since they won’t.

        If we’re thinking it’s the trigger then we can tape the living heck out of a trigger into the forward position, drop it 10x as many times from 2x the height and hit it with hammers twice as hard to confirm no ND happens to actually GET that level of certainty that it is a trigger issue.

        • The first OO test showed that replacing the trigger solved the malfunction. No test has demonstrated a gun firing without trigger movement. So yes, I’m pretty sure that’s the problem.

          And, I beg to differ, SIG is what made this mess in the first place. None of the other major company’s guns have this problem.

          • BeGe1

            I haven’t seen any test like that and many other people have been asking for a trigger specific test too (on this and other P320 articles on TFB), so I’m apparently not the only one. That would be well worth including in these articles.

            I honestly have no idea what you mean by your second paragraph. Yeah…SIG tested half-way and put out a non-drop safe pistol.

          • By “SIG tested half-way” you mean, “Sig tested to and above all industry standard and military testing, but failed to hit THIS SPECIFIC ANGLE, despite bracketing both sides of it.”

            Fixed it for you.

            As a guy whose start in engineering was failure analysis in a production environment, who has had to put up with the Six-Sigma Cult, and whose job it is to review both test protocols for accuracy, applicability, and adequacy, and review and analyze in-service failures to see if we can design the failure out, I just love everyone screaming on teh bandwagon of “INADEQUATE TESTING!!!!OMG!!!ELEVENTY!!!” because they’ve never actually seen how very small changes can sometimes make very big differences… but you can’t afford to test to Six-Sigma in the Real World – not for anything much more complex than a paperclip.

          • Kivaari

            SIG wants the whole gun since the change involves machining the slide and changing the striker parts.

  • Friend of Tibet

    “If Sig did not pass the drop test, I bet other pistols couldn’t either.” —- Comments from 72 hours ago

  • Koh

    From some of the other testing people have been doing it is a combination of inertia with the trigger deactivating the striker block safety, and the frame flexing enough to allow the striker to fall.

    I am curious if the striker/sear release failure has anything to do with their co-called safe takedown that does not require dry-firing before removing the slide.

    As for the ““Drop safe, those two words don’t exist together.” I’d be willing to bet that a p226 at terminal velocity hitting concrete would break apart before it fired.

    • I may have missed some of those tests that illustrate frame flexing. There have been so many! Could you link me?

  • ARCNA442

    That is a test of 4 guns, not 11: 5 Glock variants, 2 M&P variants, 2 VP variants, and a 1911.

    • So if you own 3 Glocks, you only have one gun? OK.

      • ARCNA442

        So if you tested 99 Glock 19 Gen 4’s and 1 P320 your title would be “P320 the ONLY Pistol out of 100 That FIRES When Dropped”? Seems a little disingenuous but I guess it doesn’t torture the english language as badly as some of your other titles.

        • Who would test 99 Glocks against 1 P320, and why would I reblog it? None of the pistols tested are the same models, and I was completely honest about what was tested. Third sentence:

          “None of the ten other handguns – which included four Glocks, two H&Ks, two S&Ws and a 1911 – tested after the P320 fired when dropped.”

          So either you couldn’t be bothered to read more than two sentences in, or you are deliberately making a big deal out of nothing.

          • ARCNA442

            I’m tired of TFB pushing these P320 articles (and just look at the capitalization in your title) but I clicked on it anyways because I though I would see a comprehensive drop test of 11 common pistols – M9, P226, CZ, Walther, the list goes on. Instead I found a video of three relevant guns and a random 1911.

          • So you are offended by the capitalization of my article’s title, and offended by the fact that OO tested different guns than you wanted them to test (something I have no control over). And you, what, want your click back?

            I don’t usually tell people they have a sense of entitlement, but dude. Really.

          • Friend of Tibet

            P320 butthurt detected, evade…..evade…………No one force you to click on this article, and yes people were asking for this kind of test a lot in last few days.

          • Kivaari

            The tests involve striker fired pistols. The Beretta M9 and Sig P226 are hammer fired guns with great safety records. They tested what they had on hand. It is quite something to bash personal guns and store merchandise knowing you are beating them up and devaluing them.

          • ostiariusalpha

            The Beretta APX (AKA the Tactical Toblerone) was Beretta’s submission, I believe.

        • And if you’re about to say something about the title not reflecting that, well too bad. Titles are never the whole story, they can’t be due to length restrictions. Read the article.

      • FarmerB

        Yes, if you have a Ruger number 1, a Ruger American pistol, a Ruger RPR rifle, a Mark4 .22 pistol and a 10/22 you have only one gun.

        NOT.

        • Except, all of those guns are mechanically very distinct from one another. They all have entirely unrelated mechanisms and failure modes.

          Glocks are mechanically, well, Glocks. They’ve all got the same basic guts inside.

          • FarmerB

            You claim to be an uber-God in testing methodologies and you say “they’ve all got the same basic guts inside”? I guess she’ll be right mate!

      • SInce they’re all mechanically pretty much the same? A-Yup.

    • BeGe1

      4 guns…5 “Glock variants”?

      Who’s being disingenuous now?

      It’s obvious from this comment that you know that there’s multiple different models/generations of each brand being tested…yet you still imply that it’s 4 brands so it’s “4 guns”?

      I could see maybe considering a couple of the closely related ones as being “same gun”…but even then it’s very disingenuous to say only 4 were tested.

  • SIG USA is garbage The customer service department is garbage The quality is garbage. The management is garbage. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. I am in the NEVER buy a Sig USA firearm again camp.

  • Risto Kantonen

    A lot of cognitive dissonance going around, as expected. The fact that this subject and many other subject matters generate so much cognitive dissonance in people, is very concerning, because it demonstrates the intellectual capacity of people in today’s society.

    On the other hand, it also underlines precisely why these kind of debates and analysis are direly needed. People must learn to understand and accept, that facts do not change based on opinions or desires. Although i must admit that i would prefer one single long and very detailed technical article that explains the causality instead of many shorter ones. That being said, i understand that TFB might not have the means to produce such an article.

    TL;DR I appreciate your coverage.

  • Alexander

    A military p320 has several internal differences compared to a civilian p320.

    • LCON

      And External to in the form of a manual safety.

    • Sandydog

      Why? Did they know something, something that they weren’t about to mention to those stupid civilians?
      In Europe, Glock’s military-contract pistols are EXACTLY the same as the civilian guns, part-for-part–except military purchasers can get the ‘underwater’ striker-spring cups, of course. In THIS country, government Glocks are EXACTLY the same as the regular-market guns, part-for-part, except that they sell for less to government types, plus they can buy the full-size and compact .380s.
      Why would an ‘army’ SIG need ‘internal differences?’ Could it be. . . so they don’t accidentally shoot the soldiers carrying them?!

      • Sig figured out a modification that makes the trigger pull better (smoother and more consistent), without making it lighter. Sig submitted an ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) to deviate from the contract and deliver the better triggers at no cost to the taxpayers. The Army accepted.

        Part of the fix is a lighter weight trigger (not trigger pull – the actual trigger), which is pretty much the consensus opinion of what’s causing the failures here.

  • Twilight sparkle

    You know I wasn’t a fan of the 320 even before the drop safety shenanigans, but I think the m17 is still perfectly fine for the military especially considering how little it’ll get used

  • jonp

    Glock fanboi’s rejoice. you will get that contract if you keep trying

    • Palmier

      Screw that, I’m a beretta fan.

      • jonp

        That’s hardcore, right there 🙂

  • Herp

    I’m getting really sick of commenters sharing how sick they are of reading gun news on the gun blog.

    • 😀

    • DefleSShed

      It’s not news. It’s repetitive tabloid trash for views

      • Kivaari

        This is news addressed at those that said other brands need testing. Well other brands were tested and passed.

    • iksnilol

      And I’m getting really sick of commenters sharing how sick they are of commenters sharing how sick they are of reading gun news on a gun blag.

      • Sandydog

        “I think all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not! And I’m sick and tired of being told that I am.”

      • int19h

        I’m getting really sick of all the sick people. It’s time for single payer! ~

        • Esteban Cafe

          LOL, well played sir !

      • Esteban Cafe

        What a sickening comment ! 😛

  • iksnilol

    Y’all are lookin’ at it all wrong. It’s meant to be a cheaper and lighter version of the XM25. You throw it behind enemy cover, it pops the tangos whilst you sit all cozy-like behind your cover.

    • Mr._Exterminatus

      That’s a good one, I actually laughed out loud.

    • Sandydog

      You mean, like a Light Grenade? You just leave it lying there, and when somebody picks it up. . . it shoots them instead of making them disappear?

      • iksnilol

        No no no no, that’s what Glock .40s are for.

        P320’s are for throwing over enemy cover, then when it hits the ground it goes pew pew and shoots your enemies. It’s a cheap and reusable counter defilade weapon.

        • Sandydog

          I beg to differ. Glock .40s are designed to be similar to Light Grenades, but your enemy has to pick one up and attempt to fire it. It then blows up in their hand. When that happens, unlike with a Light Grenade, THEY remain, but both their hand and the Glock disappear.

          • Esteban Cafe

            citation please.

        • jcitizen

          GUFAW!! Good one iksnilol!

  • JohnnyCuredents

    I skimmed the article. It is what is referred to as a hit piece, a favorite tactic of the fake news industry composed of the alphabet soup TV networks…and of some gun enthusiasts, evidently. How do I know that without reading this screed carefully? By the headline that mentions the real news reason it was written in the first place, viz. to whine about Glock losing the military contract.

    • Yeah, the guy who wrote this article is clearly a Glock apologist. If you want to read something written by a real scholar, try this defense of SIG’s MHS win: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/09/mhs-failure-sig-vs-glock-depth-analysis/

      Here’s what he says:

      “Although I personally prefer Glock pistols to those made by SIG, and I believe Glock’s pistol was very likely the better of the two weapons, I am going to have to come down against the side that believes the competition should be retried. Doing so, I believe, would be a risky waste of time and money on what is essentially known quantity. Re-opening the problem would extend an already shamefully long effort to find a successor to the Beretta M9 handgun, as well as make the program vulnerable to a significant risk of cancellation. If the latter happened, there would be no new handgun at all, until a new program could be begun.”

      • SaturnRocketOfLove

        Yet during the entire article your bias is still evident. If that’s the best nonpartisan writing you got then you may have a guaranteed job at WaPo.

        • “I am going to have to come down against the side that believes the competition should be retried. Doing so, I believe, would be a risky waste of time and money on what is essentially known quantity.”

          Such pro-Glock bias. What am I even doing.

          • Sandydog

            Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.

    • john huscio

      “Muh glock fanboy conspiracy!”

  • Gary Kirk

    Bet none of them are microwave safe..

    • nicholsda

      1911 is. 😀

  • ozzallos .

    ♫ Dat P320 news gravy train… ♫

    • john huscio

      Without the discharge, there would be no gravy. 😉

      • B-Sabre

        That’s what she said.

  • Phillip Cooper

    Yes, it fires, with a completely different, since replaced, trigger assembly.
    Yawn. No news. This place sucks.

  • AndyHasky

    Yall cover this but not the Sig statement yesterday showing people with 320s what to do to get their sig fixed? OK thanks, I had to go to TTAG to get that information and i hate going there.

  • TechnoTriticale

    re: Besides the P320, ten handguns were tested.

    For those without the time or bandwidth for videos, it would be worth mentioning what configuration of P320:
    – legacy commercial
    – commercial with recent upgrade
    – actual MHS trials article or
    – M17 contract production

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Houston PD is replacing their pistols as of yesterday.

    • Jones2112

      “HPD firearms instructors and officials from the Houston Police Officers’ Union tested the weapons recently and found that the gun drop-fired four times in 30 drops — or more than 10 percent of the time.”

      WOW, it drop fired 10% of the time, I’d say that is a pretty big issue…

  • Tim b

    For crying out loud…. is this the firearms blog or the praise glock blog? Seriously, 11 gun test and you title it “glock beats sig?” I get it, you guys cover firearms stories…. but I’ve never seen a topic more beat to death by your staff and writers than this one with sig! Yes, the sig had a problem. The company is addressing it.

    All firearms mfrs, including glock have had problems in the past. At least sig is fixing their issue and not saying “uh…. welll… it’s a training issue, just be sure it’s empty before pulling the trigger to take down…”

    As posted in other articles, until someone tests all 50,000,000 possibly drop angles, I won’t be convinced that all the others might not fire either.

    Seriously TFB, you’ve reported on it. The world knows, now move the heck on!

  • Martin T

    Ahhemmm… not a malfunction sir. A clearly stated warning of this function comes with the pistol and a warning label as well.
    – Sig Sauer, figuring things out that were figured out in 1911.

  • drambus

    Total cop out by the CEO. While I understand somewhat the sentiment because with firearms personal responsibility is paramount, I think it is completely misplaced here. Having a gun that’s completely dead unless the trigger is specifically pulled by the operator is ideal. It doesn’t “legitimize mishandling”.

    Guns are certainly not meant to be dropped, but it happens. I don’t get into my car expecting or wanting to get into a crash, but despite my best efforts, it might just happen, so my car has air bags and seat belts. Those things don’t encourage bad driving. I don’t expect, or want to drop a gun, but despite my best efforts, it might happen.

  • Martin T

    Maybe Sig forgot how to build guns when they turned into a suppressor and optics company.

    • Sandydog

      Or maybe they forgot about quality when they left Switzerland and Germany. The P210, perhaps the world’s finest auto pistol, for example, is still built in Switzerland.

      • Paweł Malec

        In Germany and they are branded “SIG Sauer” P210 – remake of a Legend.

        Only SIG P210 were made in Swiss 😉

  • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

    As I’m in the military I don’t get to choose what I carry. I ‘m issued a Glock 17 Gen2 and I’m very happy with it.
    The thing it came to mind is that I used to have a lanyard on my pistol. Imagine dropping your gun and having it bounce around on the “telephone” wire and receiving multible shots from your own pistol…
    As for those complaining about Sig related articles, perhaps TFB could host some of their own articles if they can actually support and document their opinion

  • Marc

    Now I’m wondering in my FNH fns40 is drop safe; no trigger dingus on that pistol. If anyone reading this would like to do some testing on said pistol…….

    • Marc

      It does, however, have a hinged trigger much like the M&P. Mayhaps this feature makes it drop safe.

      • Sandydog

        If it has a hinged two-piece locking trigger (ie, one part of the trigger unlocks the other), AND if it has a striker safety plunger, AND if the design leaves the striker ‘half-cocked’ until the trigger is pressed fully to the rear, then yes, it’s probably drop-safe, because it’s a fargin’ GLOCK, fer crissake!
        Seriously, look at an illustration of the innards of your pistol; Compare it to those of a Glock. Your pistol has more parts, and more complicated parts, but it’s still at heart a Glock inside. It’s a better-made, better fit-and-finished Glock, though, granted, and no insult is intended. Glocks are NOT perfect; Their basic design is safe, cheap, and effective, but it’s not precise. Other companies have made it better, and more power to ’em.

    • FarmerB

      Well, isn’t the whole trigger dongle stuff completely the wrong issue? I mean, the doodle will stop the trigger being moved (within reasonable limits) without being engaged.

      But you could completely remove the trigger and if there is no effective and functioning firing pin block, then it will still fire.

  • Vitsaus

    Days without a SIG hit piece: 0

  • Joel

    Gosh there was a really impressive amount of misdirection on this topic. All Sig pistols are drop safe. There is no such thing as drop safety. Other pistols do it too. Sigs only go off at 30 degrees precisely, it would take 50,000,000 drops to find this. The real enemy, upon which all should focus, is trigger pulling during disassembly.

    Flares and chaff were deployed early and often and had the desired effect. They were especially effective when utilized in the closely related realms of Sig fanboyism and Glock hatred.

    • Emfourty Gasmask

      Welp we got 2, one which has left an officer injured.

      So your “50,000,000” drop number is pure conjecture at this point because we literally have 2 real world examples of this exact situation happening. Thankfully it didn’t result in a death, just an injury.

      The gun is not drop safe.

      • Joel

        It’s not my number. I was relaying the number from Sig management. The reason I outlined all of the misdirection was to bring attention to it. It’s irresponsible, at the least.

        In a comment to another post on TFB, I did say that the 50M number assumes that the pistol will fire at, for example minus 30 degrees, but not at minus 31, 32, 29, or 28. In other words, the 50M number is 360 cubed. I found this assumption ridiculous and yet another example of either Sig big mouth/ small brain or intentional misdirection. While I typically apply Hanlon’s Razor, in this case I tend to lean toward intentional misdirection.

        • OK, armchair failure analysts who have apparently never worked in teh field and are insisting “Sig should have tested well enough to find this!!!” don’t understand reality. The tests are designed to catch all but teh most extreme edge cases, at a cost (in time, money, manpower, and materiel) that is actually feasible. This is an edge case beyond that level.

          Here’s the lowdown — from a guy who started in engineering doing failure analysis and prevention in a production environment, and currently works (among other parts of my duties) evaluating (and sometimes writing) test plans and test results to ensure they are Applicable, Adequate, and Affordable, as well as reviewing Real World failures in service to determine What, How, Why, and how to fix it.

          What level of granularity should they test at? The fact is, a 10 degree difference in vector can make ALL the difference in this sort of test, so let’s start with that…

          A 10 degree mesh means 46,656 DISCRETE test angles you have to drop at. That’s for ONE test iteration…

          if I were writing the test protocols (regardless of what granularity I was looking for), I would *want* 10 iterations, but would probably settle for a minimum of 4 — 4 iterations will give you reasonable confidence in the results.

          That is 186,624 DISCRETE test drops. Now, obviously, if you bang a gun against concrete 186,624 times you won’t have a valid test, because the darned thing will have fallen apart by then.

          A *realistic* number of times you could *validly* use the same test article is no more than 5 drops. After that, the possibility of internal damage that gives false positives OR false negatives is unaccepatble. You’ll aslo have a few guns punk out early, because once chunks start flying off, you can’t trust the data for the next drop, really. That’s 40,000 test guns you will need — NONE of which can be delivered on final contract, nor will your lawyers let you sell. (Luckily, you’ll have plenty of material left over for most of your other destructive and environmental testing…)

          So, we’ve effectively rendered 40,000 guns unsaleable, and had to conduct 186,624 different test drops (assuming none of them have to be redone). For ONE test, out of HOW MANY that have to be done?

          Oh, and you have to repeat this drop testing – just to be sure – for EVERY basic model family you want to sell, and for any significant design change.within those model families. before you sell Gun #1.

          • Oh, and let’s say we expand the granularity by a little bit — say to 15 degrees.

            13,824 drop angles.
            55,296 discrete drop tests (4 full iterations)
            12,000 test guns effectively destroyed.

          • Pigspit

            Seems like it would be possible to make a test rig that could simulate the acceleration of a drop over and over while rotating the pistol through every conceivable angle, without destroying the pistol.

            If you think the only way to verify the drop safety of a pistol is to literally drop and destroy a test gun at every possible angle, well you must be Sig’s test engineer.

    • Sandydog

      You probably should’ve put quotation marks around a lot of that post; It’s easy to mistake SIG’s lyin’, obfuscatin’ BS for your own thoughts.
      “Yes, our pistol is safe, absolutely safe and positively safe. It takes 50 million random drops to make even one fire inadvertently. The Other Guy’s pistol, frighteningly, will actually fire if you pull the trigger with a live round in the chamber! Oh, the horror! Oh, the humanity!
      Now, look at this baby!”

  • txJM

    More of this bullshit?

  • Cyborg Fred
  • JMR

    You literally just said in your last sig post you guys were don’t posting about this.

  • Naw, I settled on “poodleshooterevangelist.com”

  • Uniform223

    Vindication for all the glock fanbois out there.

  • Andrew

    Jesus people. If you’re actually this concerned that a gun will go off because it’s dropped in a very specific way, you shouldn’t touch a gun. Stop freaking out over nothing.

    • DC

      A higher than average risk that a firearm goes off if dropped is enough risk for me not to be interested in the product.

    • John Paschke

      we’re not talking about you putting a scratch on the bumper of your beater car. The stakes are much higher with an AD.

  • Christopher Hartman

    It’s kinda sad when people are defending a gun that isn’t drop safe. I don’t understand the irrational brand love and brand hate that I think is at the root of it. There are about a million polymer wonder nines that all do the same thing you don’t have to settle for one that isn’t drop safe and saying that doesn’t make someone a Glock fanboy. If the fix works great if not move on. OH and the reason people are so interested in this is not Glock fanboyism but that fact that a major and respected gun manufacturer that just won a huge government contract has been selling guns that are not drop safe for a couple of years now and videos like this are a direct response to some of the excuses people have used to defend Sig Sauer namely that other guns would fail if drop the same way. They don’t and wondering how long they’ve know isn’t Sig bashing it’s being a good consumer.

  • tomah57

    Simply Marvelous ! But Glock failed the DOD mud test miserably .Soooooo no need to pump up glock fans hope up.

    • DC

      My understanding was that there was no mud test in the MHS program, this is one of the key points of Glocks arguments against the SIG pick.

      Did I miss something?

      • tomah57

        Possibly, It was in an article here on TFB that Glock failed the DOD mud test and highpoint of all things strange passed it . I believe the article was just a few months ago.

        • nicholsda

          A well worn 1911 or a new Highpoint can pass because they have a tolerance for the mud to be in. Take a tight fitting firearm and put it in mud and it will fail.

  • Kivaari

    Omaha Outdoors should be thanked for taking it upon themselves to do these tests. I wouldn’t beat up my personal guns like they are willing to do. There tests are quite valid. So are the hammer tests done by other videographers.

  • Adam D.

    Yet again, the truth is courtesy of Mr. Andrew Tuohy.
    I honestly envy the strength of this man.
    After the Fireclean scandal and the serious financial problems
    that erhm, company with questionable ethics caused to Tuohy,
    in his place, I honestly don’t know if I wanted to do such a test again.
    But I am damn sure happy that he has this kind of strength in him,
    so we can get to know the truth.
    Huge thanks to Andrew, Omaha Outdoors and all the guys (including TFB) for telling/showing the truth.

  • Chuck Mahon

    TFB – you guys are bringing discredit on yourselves (and lowering the value of your ad revenue stream) by this emotional single minded attack on Sig and the P 320. Stop it please.

    • I’ve written emotional articles before. This isn’t one of them.

  • Mike Cramer

    Guess what….Sig is still the Army’s new service pistol.

    • John Paschke

      The Army will be okay becuase 99.9% of those pistol will never leave the holster in anger.

  • Ardec

    I’m still trying to figure why everyone thinks glock was finalist in MHS. I’m surprised no one from HK or FN has chimed in. As they were the other two of the three finalists.

    And during this “drop safe” debacle we have yet to hear the Army comment. Perhaps that’s because the variant they selected is in fact “drop safe”.

    Nathaniel, for someone who has never served your writing seems to revolve around military programs. I take it you are a closet airsofter making up for your lack of credentials.

    And for a guy who claims to be a rifle guy you have spent an awful lot of time obsessing over MHS.

  • mazkact

    Thank you,Thank you,Thank you. I was about to go into with drawls from no Sig-320 videos 🙂 I do have a new sub on my yourtube, Omaha Outdoors, dang it you got to love trebuchets.

  • rugerno1fan

    Damn, a little late to the party on this. I wonder when HP White adds this drop test to their tests.

  • Geoff Timm

    But did they test the Taurus Millenium Gen 2? Geoff Who is curious.

  • TheChunkNorris

    For as much as I can’t stand this P320 saga… It was actually nice to see some of the other companies pass the “New Test” procedures that OO has been carrying out. Think the premise of this is simple and was mentioned in the video. In a new world of litigation and how quickly news spreads throughout the world due to social media, why are we here? I’m not a Sig US fan period, I feel that the consumer is the test bed for most of their stuff and that’s why there are soooo many small issues across their line (at one point or another).

    Think the damage has been done and they would actually be better off just doing the right thing and recalling them instead of giving 320 owners the choice for the “upgrade”.

  • Sigguy

    So, one thing I noticed is that all of your efforts here at TFB were to spew out negativity about Sig. Granted, it is warranted for their mistake. But the brand favoritism is clear, as you posted 2 articles a day for a solid week bashing the P320, yet you’ve not posted a single update or original article with information about their upgrade/recall.

    What this boils down to is that TFB is not an informative firearms site, rather you show clear favoritism, as is blatantly clear with headline grabbing titles like this article. TFB has not taken a neutral standpoint in any of these articles, and frankly it’s sad. Your staff plays gun politics, so your motto ‘Firearms Not Politics’ is very misleading.

    Frankly, I don’t care about any response. I’ve seen how yourself and Patrick reply to reader who share a differing opinion than your own in the comment sections. Lost me as a reader, but it’s obvious you care little for one (more) lost reader when you continue with these click bait articles and bash those who’d challenge your opinion.

    • Jason Bourne

      Wow! You wasted a ton of breath saying you aren’t going to read this website and that you didn’t care if the authors read it. That seems contradictory to post, “knowing” they don’t care and then say, “I don’t care you don’t care…” It would seem to indicate you do care after all… Have you ever emailed them directly? I have. They were very nice and considerate of my opinion, even though we disagreed. Don’t judge before getting the whole picture my friend. I don’t know of many people with whom I 100% agree every single time. It is good to experience a differing opinion every once in a while. Thus, if you can’t handle opinions you might aught to close any website you visit. Most are filled with the dangerous “differing opinions” that are so unfair and unkind and scary!!

  • Steve

    Considering Glock offered a weapon that was not close to being modular, among other things, all I see is more whining….

  • Tom

    Are you saying that soldiers drop stuff?

  • uisconfruzed

    AAARRRGGGGG!!!!!!!!
    You didn’t have drop all of them on concrete! Except maybe the S&Ws.

  • CJS3

    You whiney Glock fanboys really need to accept the fact that your wonder weapon lost, and move on.

    • John Paschke

      Glock owns the handgun market.

      • El Mac

        Only in your little world.

      • kcshooter

        They most certainly do not. Especially now that Sig has the MHS contract. They seem to lose more and more ground every day.

      • El Mac

        Sure. Sure they do.

  • jonp

    You know, I really don’t care for Glocks or have a 320 so don’t really have a dog in this fight but the “Sigs are going to kill you Glocks rule” stories a couple times a week sure are getting old

  • El Mac

    WGAF?

    The problem is now identified and Sig has moved to correct it. And thankfully it does not involve a stupid plastic lever on the trigger.

    Find another horse already TFB.

    • Mazryonh

      What’s stupid about the trigger safety again? It seems to have stopped Glocks around the world from suffering the same kind of malfunction as these SIG P320s did.

      • El Mac

        Hmm…and yet Sig has fixed the issue without one. Imagine that.

        • Mazryonh

          There should be tests done to see whether or not the lighter trigger is enough compared to the trigger safety. After all, “Glock leg” normally refers to someone unintentionally pulling the trigger as the Glock drops down someone’s pants from an unsafe method of carry, not normally because the Glock discharges when it hits the floor/ground.

          • El Mac

            Tests already have been done and the fix works quite well. The video of the new parts being is out there. I won’t you with the Glock issues.

      • nicholsda

        But Glocks still suffer from Glock Leg. A safety that is next to the trigger is not a safety.

    • John Paschke

      WGAF? You do. LOL

      • El Mac

        LOL, no, actually I don’t.

  • Bobby McKellar

    Blah blah blah..Glocks are awesome. Blah blah blah..Sig sucks. Blah blah blah..
    How many damn times is the same article gonna be written beating this dead horse?
    It’s REALLY not going to change anything, it’s NOT going to magically make the Army retest pistols (especially since the M17 model has the “fix” already incorporated) AND it’s not going to mean Glock will suddenly become the MHS.
    This horse is so dead that it’s MUMMIFIED.

  • kcshooter

    Hey, TFB, have you dummies gotten the hint now?
    Do you realize yet that your inability to stop talking about a minor problem which already has a solution, brought on by your fervent Glock fanboyism, is not only making you look foolish but also turning away most of your subscribers?

    • El Mac

      Evidently they haven’t. TFB = The Fan Boys. Home of Glock booger eaters.

      • John Paschke

        they’re only turning away bedwetters aka Sig fanbois – no loss

        • kcshooter

          Only the Glock clowns take these guys seriously anyway.
          Indeed, no loss.

  • Ghost930

    Number one, off the shelf commercial models of all these pistols are not the ones tested. The statement called for specific parts not included in the commercial model (ie, a manual safety for one). Number two, Glock fanboys, the statement called for a MODULAR handgun. Glock does not make one of those. Sorry. The Army would have had to buy two separate Glock models per unit to satisfy the modular interchangeably requirement of the tech specification. That was the main issue in the contract award. It’s called the Modular Handgun Program for a reason folks.

  • Richard Lutz

    Adopt Glock 19

    I keep telling people the P320 is dud prone to problems due to the ludicrous firing mechanism but nobody belives me. The US Army should ignore the result of the pistol trial and adopt the proven Gen3 variant of the Glock 19 that was adopted by the US Navy SEALs in 2015 (not the Gen4 variant which violates the KIS principle).

    • El Mac

      Bogus. Right there. Bogus.

      • Richard Lutz

        The truth hurts.

        • El Mac

          No. Not when it’s a bogus lie.

          • Richard Lutz

            So what would you rather bet your life and the lives of your loved ones on, a Glock 19 or a SIG P320?

          • El Mac

            I have my personal favorite. It is neither. That said, the G19 would not be my Glock of choice. That would go to the 17.

    • kcshooter

      Ignore the MHS trial results? That makes a lot of sense.

      Look at the first letter in MHS. “M” stands for modular. In what way is any part of a Gen3 Glock modular?

      Gee, I wonder why nobody believes you…..

      • Richard Lutz

        Wrong metric, wrong gun.

  • SemperFiMac

    A Sig hater story from The Firearm Blog. Yes, shocking, I know. Yawn. Delete. Next story…

  • A.J. Hodges

    You all, the author of this article included, must have missed Patrick’s TFBTV video where he struck the back of a P320 with a hammer while the gun was pointed downward, and it fired. It’s not trigger motion but something internal. That said the same problem is not present on certain more expensive variants which is why Sig is offering trigger upgrades. I look forward to seeing if that solves the problem or if it is shown to be something else.

    • El Mac

      That poor video has been explained. He didn’t clamp the gun in a vice. He held the gun…and it took him several tries and it was only when he moved the gun in one direction and the hammer in the opposite direction and brought the two together – the gun’s motion came to a screaming halt BUT NOT THE TRIGGER! At any rate, not only is Sig replacing the old trigger with a new lighter one, but lighter sear, lighter striker and modifying both the frame and the slide for the disconnect. And new video show their new set up works fine. Stop with the breathless hand wringing. Or send your application in to TFB.

  • Seth Hill

    “This weakness is almost certainly caused by a lack of a trigger safety: The inertia of the trigger itself is enough to cause it to move rearward and discharge the firearm.”

    Is it that simple though? That wouldn’t explain the gun firing when striking the back of the gun with a hammer.

    • El Mac

      Sure it does. Show me the video of that and I’ll tell you why it occurs.

  • Shawn M

    From the article:
    “The inertia of the trigger itself is enough to cause it to move rearward and discharge the firearm. A simple, inexpensive piece of plastic on a hinge is enough to prevent this malfunction.”

    And yet, the clown-in-charge at SIG, Ron Cohen just has to prove, at all costs (and there will be plenty of costs – settlements, upgrades, etc.) that HE was right and that Isaac Newton was wrong – that SIG guns are immune from the laws of inertia.

    This is a decision that Cohen will live to regret and that others will pay for – some with grievous and unnecessary bodily injury or even death.

    The SIG P320, like the Corvair, is “unsafe at any speed, at any angle, from any height.” Lightening the trigger and other components only increases the distance of the drop required, and even that is subject to spring weights and other variables. A positive block, such as a trigger safety tab will eliminate the problem and its variables. And, SIG already has one developed, as shown in its advertising, and yet they won’t make it standard.

    Unbelievable and unfortunate.

    Retail establishments should learn their lessons from past suits. Make SIG sign indemnification agreements before selling any SIG product. If every retailer took that simple step, SIG would change its tune.