Friday, August 20, 2010

Sigs Rejected

As Saysuncle noted earlier, the GAO rejected Sig Sauer's proposal to outfit ATF agents with Sig P250's chambered in .40 S&W.

Instead of saying "yeah, our P250's suck, maybe we should improve them" they resort to whining about the government testing standards. This portion of the GOA report jumped out at me.
"Sig Sauer also contends that ATF placed too great an emphasis upon reliability in determining which offers should continue to phase III. In this regard, Sig Sauer argues that reliability was only one of a number of elements to be considered in the live-fire assessment, and notes that reliability was not identified as having any more importance than the other elements."

Sig is whining about too much emphasis being placed on reliability? Seriously? It would seem to me that if that criteria isn't met then how the gun faired in the rest of the testing becomes a moot point. The shooters doing the evaluations felt that the P250's had reliability issues. The plain numbers from the tests show us that the Sigs had more stoppages than the other guns tested. An unreliable gun is worthless and frankly, the P250 has had reliability issues since it was first released.

Without question, quality and reliability at Sig has suffered in past few years. (Disclaimer, my newest Sig is from 2005, oldest is from 1979) Sig needs to quit the whining and get back to the "To hell and back reliability" they're known for. Maybe if Sig had put up something better than the craptastic P250 for testing they wouldn't be in this position?


Glenn B said...

I shoot an issued SIG 239 DAK. I think it is a medicore to fair pistol at best. The trigger travel, in my opinion, is horrendous as is the follow through to where the trigger resets, we are repeatedly reminded by range personnel about how extra clean this pistol has to be or it will experience stoppages, we are also repeatedly reminded how much oil it needs, the grip screws keep coming loose, the grip screws require a torx screwdriver to be adjusted (instead of a slotted which is much more readily available), the mag release is, I think, way to easy to activate while shooting and I have seen several mags fall out at the range (mostly when newer, probably some fouling on all of them now in there that has made it firm up a bit but all it required was a proper spring in the first place not to show the problem at all), the finish is quickly being worn off in places on the one I was issued. It cost way, way, way too much in my opinion.

The SIG 239 DAK is the pistol on which, by regulation, my life must depend unless I also carry a back-up. I cannot carry my personally owned Glock 26 unless as a back-up, I am not allowed to carry it as a primary sidearm. I am not a great fan of Glocks either but I never had any such problems with them for the well over 15 years I have carrried them. When I go out on an operation I almost always aloso carry the Glock, I just do not trust the SIG.

My hat has been tipped to the ATF panel on their rejection of the SIG because of reliability problems. Too bad my agency did not show as much respect for its own agents when they picked the SIG 239 DAK as an issue weapon. There are rumors as to why they picked it but I will not go into rumors. Just suffice it to say there probably were much better choices out there than the 239 - so it comes as no surprise to me about the latest offering from SIG being a failure.

By the way, all of the above, about the reiliability of the SIG or about its funtionality and so on,is my personal opoinion.

All the best,
Glenn B

Glenn B said...

Sorry, I forgot to spell check.

Dave Sohm said...

My SIG has run like a champ, but I got it in 2007. Sig needs to stop trying to make new pistols and just make really good pistols. If they need more people to build them, then hire them.

If these quality control issues keep occurring, they need to get back to their roots.