The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Handguns => Topic started by: billt on June 07, 2017, 09:08:51 AM
-
https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/05/18/sig-sauer-gun-malfunctions/
This is not the kind of advertising a gun company needs.
"A $2.5 million lawsuit has been brought against firearms manufacturer Sig Sauer by the New Jersey State Police....."
"The state police spent $1.7 million for 3,000 Sig Sauer P229s and another $865,000 on holsters from another company. The agency wishes to be reimbursed for both costs, which they are out of....."
"The state police ended up buying Glock 17’s with SafariLand holsters....."
-
Old news, came out about a month or so ago. In their counter suit, Sig noted that the PD had used different ammo than was specified when they sold them the guns. That and a training issue IIRC.
-
I think it was more than just ammo. It appears they never found a solution to fix the problem. Hence the big, "We want our money back", lawsuit. New Jersey had to find their own "solution" by purchasing Glock 17's. That's the part that got me the most. They don't seem capable of fixing it.
If it were a simple case of defective parts, and they rectified the problem by identifying and replacing them, then all is well and good. That can happen to any manufacturer of durable goods. How many motor vehicles get recalled and fixed every year? This however, seems like more of a case of, "Cash For Clunkers".
-
Another thing that got me was the cost of the holsters. $865,000.00 for 3,000 holsters divides out to $288.33 per holster. Nowhere near the $10K toilet seat, but enough to question, that's for sure. In Sig's defense, they shouldn't get stuck with that one. Do any of these people in government, who have the financial authority to procure this equipment, possess a single ounce of common sense?
And if they purchased more than 3,000 holsters, fine. I can't believe they actually expect Sig to pay for all the extras.
-
You would think that an agency spending tax payers $$ would do some extensive testing of a product before they spend $1.7 million
And if they did do that testing and it passed, what is different in the delivered samples?
If they did not do the testing, they have little grounds for wanting the holster cost reimbursed....but if they did do the testing, they would have a good case for that reimbursement.
-
The problem only occurred with training ammo, never with duty ammo.
It's all on NJ for buying shit ammo for training. Sig bent over backwards replaced extractors and ejectors then replaced the pistols with no change.
That's ammo, nothing else.
Probably shit reloads with out of speck rims.
Another thing Bill is missing is that Sig already did refund their money.
These anti gun douche bags are just trying to scam some more money like a "slip and fall" law suit.
-
Any bets on rather or not the cops get hollow points.
-
The problem only occurred with training ammo, never with duty ammo.
It's all on NJ for buying shit ammo for training. Sig bent over backwards replaced extractors and ejectors then replaced the pistols with no change. That's ammo, nothing else.
Did they say what brand of ammo was causing the problems? What exactly is..... "shit ammo"? I've fired pretty much everything there is that's brass cased in 9 MM, and never had any issues with any of my guns, Sig included. These guns should run well on any ammo....especially FMJ. Which is generally considered to be, "training ammo".
I just went to the range yesterday with my 2 new S&W's, and they ate everything I fed them. Even super cheap Serbian PPU. It was filthy, but it ran fine. Something doesn't pass the smell test here. According to the article.... "The firearms malfunctioned with both practice and duty ammo."
https://bearingarms.com/beth-b/2017/05/18/sig-sauer-gun-malfunctions/
-
If tgey were using low power reloads, it can cuase all kinds of probs. I have seen people "chase" the lowest power load that can cycle a gun. I know one guy that made it dow to 2.x grains for a 45acp
-
If tgey were using low power reloads, it can cuase all kinds of probs. I have seen people "chase" the lowest power load that can cycle a gun. I know one guy that made it dow to 2.x grains for a 45acp
I'll buy that. Low power reloads will for sure impede reliable cycling. But that can be fixed with something as simple as a change in powder, or charge weight. The guns wouldn't need new barrels, extractors, recoil springs, and God knows what else.
-
http://www.guns.com/2017/05/23/sig-responds-to-allegations-it-sold-defective-pistols-to-new-jersey-police/
-
http://www.guns.com/2017/05/23/sig-responds-to-allegations-it-sold-defective-pistols-to-new-jersey-police/
If all that's true, (and I'm not saying it isn't), and the problem was in fact ammo related, I can't believe Sig replaced so many parts. If your car doesn't start, you first look at the gas gauge before you even lift the hood.
-
its very hard to blame the customer... more so when they are flat out lieing too you.
happens all the time.
Sig isn’t the first gun maker to be accused of supplying defective firearms to a law enforcement department. For instance, in 2013, a Florida sheriff’s office determined Glock had supplied service pistols with faulty firing pins, so it abruptly ended its contract with the gun maker. While the problem had been limited to the one department, neighboring agencies took notice. Yet, Glock, similar to Sig’s determination, said an investigation revealed the root of the problem to be ammunition and not the gun.
from toms link.
-
You would think that an agency spending tax payers $$ would do some extensive testing of a product before they spend $1.7 million
And if they did do that testing and it passed, what is different in the delivered samples?
If they did not do the testing, they have little grounds for wanting the holster cost reimbursed....but if they did do the testing, they would have a good case for that reimbursement.
They did testing before they spent all that money but it says in the article, "The agency realized the models they received (P229 Enhanced Elite) and the models they tested (P229 Legacy) were different." It looks like that's where the problems started and continued to get worse.
-
They did testing before they spent all that money but it says in the article, "The agency realized the models they received (P229 Enhanced Elite) and the models they tested (P229 Legacy) were different." It looks like that's where the problems started and continued to get worse.
that really means nothing, with out seeing the contract.
-
Got to side with Tab on this one. Contract rules.
-
Like most problems that involve big, high dollar lawsuits, there are rights and wrongs on both sides here. Sig is claiming it's an ammo only problem. Yet by their own admission, they replaced many parts in these guns. Why would that be required if it was simply ammo related?
I think the state of New Jersey is trying to get out of this with as much money as possible. Hence the big lawsuit. They're idiots for trying to make Sig pay for over $800K worth of holsters. Lot's of blame to go around here on both sides of this fiasco.
-
3 reasons why they would replace parts...
1 they were being lied about the ammo( likely)
2 its easier/cheaper to try and fix stuff even when the customer is wrong( likely)
3 there were probs with the parts ( it happens.)
notice how 2 of the 3 are the customers fault?
its kind of like the arm debacle. the army said no too chrome lined barrels, changed the powder and preasure and did not send cleaning kits....
-
What if they were being lied to about the ammo? That's the first thing they themselves should check. It's the first thing we do when we have a gun that malfunctions. You try a different type of ammo. If that doesn't fix it, you try a different magazine. If that's not it, only then do you suspect parts as the problem.
Besides, Sig tests these guns with every make, type, and weight of ammo known to mankind..... Before they ever ship one. If ammo is a problem, they'll know which brand weight, and type to avoid. This all regardless of what the customer tells them. When you take your car into the dealer, they don't listen to you. They will diagnose the problem on their own, regardless of what you tell the service manager. That conversation never reaches the mechanic who ends up under your hood.
-
First, it's NJ! Who gives a phuque!
Second, a manufacturer will do what's required to correct an issue with the given facts. If the facts are skewed, phuque em..
Third, Sig makes guns for boatloads of agencies all over the planet with no issues that I've found In a quick search to anything similar..
Fourth, my 40 year old Sig P6 was designed around the NATO 9mm parabellum and has fed every JHP I've fed it over the years...
Fifth.. it's NJ, phuque em!
Six, I've had a few cocktails... but it's a fun read!
-
What if they were being lied to about the ammo? That's the first thing they themselves should check. It's the first thing we do when we have a gun that malfunctions. You try a different type of ammo. If that doesn't fix it, you try a different magazine. If that's not it, only then do you suspect parts as the problem.
Besides, Sig tests these guns with every make, type, and weight of ammo known to mankind..... Before they ever ship one. If ammo is a problem, they'll know which brand weight, and type to avoid. This all regardless of what the customer tells them. When you take your car into the dealer, they don't listen to you. They will diagnose the problem on their own, regardless of what you tell the service manager. That conversation never reaches the mechanic who ends up under your hood.
you are assuming its factory and made by sammi and/or the intn'l one I can't remember right now) it very well could be their own/some one elses reloads, or come from a none standard manufactor.
would not be the 1st time. hell I know some of the 'green" primers have shelf lives of only about 5 years. I have seen those for sale in large quanties on surplus site well past their shelf lives.
-
No factory firearm is guaranteed to work with reloads of any kind. They automatically void the warranty on ANY new gun. You can't possibly sue a gun manufacturer complaining that their weapons won't work with reloads. You would be laughed out of court.
-
that really means nothing, with out seeing the contract.
Without seeing the contract all we can do is guess, but the model they got for testing should have been the model they were buying. Why would Sig provide them with test guns that weren't even the same as what they were buying? Was it a bait and switch? See how good these pistols are? You're not getting them.
-
That does not mean they did not ask them for it... we don't know what the difference is, it could be sites or grip texture.f
-
Without seeing the contract all we can do is guess, but the model they got for testing should have been the model they were buying. Why would Sig provide them with test guns that weren't even the same as what they were buying? Was it a bait and switch? See how good these pistols are? You're not getting them.
There is just so much wrong here on BOTH SIDES. It's all but impossible to ascertain the truth.
1.) Different guns supplied, other than what the customer ordered.
2.) Alleged "bad ammo".
3.) Not even known if the supposed defective ammo was factory loaded, or departmental reloads. (No brand name has been provided. Or lists of ammunition that worked or didn't.)
4.) The manufacturer replacing parts on guns that there was supposedly nothing wrong with. Besides the allegation of using, "bad" ammunition.
5.) One side saying said weapons worked with duty ammunition. The other side saying they didn't.
Unless someone was in the courtroom, or has actual court transcripts that can decide who said what, this is all but impossible to decipher with any accuracy. Let alone place accurate blame.
-
We have warranty issues on equipment we build from others drawings. The client tells us what components to use and if those parts fail, we're still bound to correct the issue contractually. We demand the failed parts back prior to shipping new parts to determine if the components have been altered or damaged since install. Did Sig follow that protocol?
Dunno...
-
There is just so much wrong here on BOTH SIDES. It's all but impossible to ascertain the truth.
<snip>
Unless someone was in the courtroom, or has actual court transcripts that can decide who said what, this is all but impossible to decipher with any accuracy. Let alone place accurate blame.
It is what is in the contract first. Testimony is from the courtroom to collaborate either sides contentions and how they each adhere to the contract. A problem for SIG is if they gave them something outside the contract, for instance, extra help to address problems caused by the customer, then they could be screwed. A really big problem here is that the "state" in general has no problem paying lawyers ad infinitum so purchasing agents often get their way even when wrong.
-
State of NJ ?
Yeah, I'll believe them