So it's bad enough that the Sig P320 is going off uncommanded. But what really turns me against Sig is the way they are trying to sue organizations who don't want to use their dangerous firearm anymore. That seems like something the liberal deep state does. How are you going to use the court system to try to force somebody to use your product? Sig considers themselves as a permanent fixture in government. Perhaps this attitude is what led them to put out inferior products with poor quality control. Just like any other government institution! Just my rant.
Sig is so wrong
1 reading
PayThePizzo
21 - 40 of 60 Posts
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
Good old Billiam, rolling in his graveYou forgot Ruger…
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
I have a 226 SAO that I have had for probably 12 years. I had to sell all my guns once to raise money and the Sig stayed. I’ll never sell it, even with numerous guns I own that cost way more, if war came calling, it would still get the call. Sig has been around a long time and they’ll survive this. It’s going to hurt though.
Joined
·
52 Posts
Honestly surprised it took this long for the backlash to really catch up with them.
Joined
·
45,701 Posts
Maybe but there are rumblings in the military over the new rifles.
Joined
·
3,557 Posts
What the heck are you talking about!!?!? My memory’s as short as….🤦‍♂️🤬
Joined
·
721 Posts
Admitting the problem and fixing it is the only way to end this. Yes, it will hurt, but the direction the toilet bowl is swirling now will be worse in the long run. SIG needs to own up to this and come up with a solution or they will end up on the marked for sale as a stripped entity for pennies on the dollar.........ask Remington.
Joined
·
117 Posts
I don't think they fully understand the problem yet.
I have heard that in the past, gun manufacturers had to refund the amount they were paid when a Government had a problem with the product after purchase. The agency kept the product. I do not know if this is fact.
If this is the case here, could this be an attempt by SIG to save money paid to them?
If this is the case here, could this be an attempt by SIG to save money paid to them?
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
I suspect this is the problem. I think Sig is scrambling and can’t figure it out, and won’t admit there’s a problem until they have a solution.
Metal Injected Molding Parts Lives Matter!
(puts on flame suit and body armor)
(puts on flame suit and body armor)
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
New York City has forgotten 9/11? You live there?
Mandami is the front runner for mayor. I don’t have to live there to see it. All anyone needs to see.
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
And Remington had 700 rifles with bad triggers that they were sued over.
That’s 100% not true when it comes to Police Departments and law enforcement agencies. Those are contracts. They made a written promise to use those firearms and it’s laid out in very, crystal clear terms in those contracts.
Sig might very well be in their rights to sue those agencies talking smack about their product or banning their use.
Full disclosure: I own zero Sigs.
Joined
·
9,355 Posts
Thanks for your response, it helps me understand your initial post. Regards.
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
I don’t have any of the complaints in front of me, but I don’t think Sig in fact sued for breach of contract.
Joined
·
752 Posts
Sig-Sauer
Our guns are so good, they practically shoot on their own.
Our guns are so good, they practically shoot on their own.
Joined
·
3,425 Posts
No contract can compel the purchasing agency to continue using a product once there is compelling evidence it's defective -- in this case, potentially lethally. Each agency is well within its rights to stand down on fielding the firearm and stating why.
SIG's just doubling down on moral bankruptcy by trying to lawfare its way through this.
21 - 40 of 60 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
