Sig Does it Again, P365 Not ready For Prime Time

[jtallen83]

It appears Sig has decided to continue to use its loyal customers as beta testers;

 

[shepp]

44 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

It appears Sig has decided to continue to use its loyal customers as beta testers;

 

I just about tagged you in his IG posts today

[jtallen83]

I’ve been watching this since the release. They stopped production early on and claimed to have fixed the pistol. Then watched as thread after thread on striker drag, broken striker, and reset failure poured in on the SIG forum. Cohen has managed to trash what was a stellar reputation, sad to see. I imagine they will get it sorted eventually, then I may just buy my first striker fired pistol.

[jtallen83]

 

[98Z5V]

18 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

... then I may just buy my first striker fired pistol.

I've had three of them now, completely reliable.  They all start with "Springfield..."    

[jtallen83]

Springfield's politics prevent me from buying anymore of their pistols........

[Matt.Cross]

12 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

Springfield's politics prevent me from buying anymore of their pistols........

Well heck, if enough people adopt that attitude, they won't have to ban or confiscate anything. Just throw enough political embarrassment on our manufacturers and we'll boycott them ourselves. Sounds to me like an anti's wet dream.

[jtallen83]

Just now, Matt.Cross said:

Well heck, if enough people adopt that attitude, they won't have to ban or confiscate anything. Just throw enough political embarrassment on our manufacturers and we'll boycott them ourselves. Sounds to me like an anti's wet dream.

They should be embarrassed, they abandoned the firearms community and paid off politicians to get cut out of a new proposed law instead of spending that money to lobby against the law, which eventually failed anyway! They brought it on themselves, they just never thought what they did would go public. I don't expect anyone to follow me on it, just choose not to spend my money there. Haven't bought a ruger since bill made the ten rounds comment while the clinton ban was being debated, plenty of other true 2A supporters out there to buy from, doubt I am hurting anyones bottom line but I feel better about it.

[Matt.Cross]

25 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

they abandoned the firearms community and paid off politicians to get cut out of a new proposed law

Unless they stopped selling to the firearms community, I don't see it as abandonment. The argument could just as easily be made that they were trying to stay in business for our benefit.

Unless you are actively boycotting the NRA for hiring and paying lobbyists to do the exact same in a broader sense, I don't buy into the legitimacy of the outrage. Businesses trying to grease politicians is nothing new to big industry or big government. Doesn't make the practice right, but if you aren't applying the principle across the board for other consumer products the premise is empty. 

[jtallen83]

16 minutes ago, Matt.Cross said:

Doesn't make the practice right, but if you aren't applying the principle across the board for other consumer products the premise is empty. 

Best I can, I apply it, I am a stubborn, opinionated, unforgiving arse. You would get tired before you finished reading a list of all the products I don't buy and the services I don't use, very few in  the firearms sector comparatively. Regretfully there are many areas that are so monopolized that I have no option but to hold my nose. As a libertarian I would never deny the right to spend one's money as one sees fit, but I will practice my free speech to explain why I don't participate with some.

[Matt.Cross]

34 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

Regretfully there are many areas that are so monopolized that I have no option but to hold my nose.

This is more or less where I'm coming from, albeit from a slightly different rhetorical viewpoint; I can plainly see enough being attempted to interfere with my rights and privileges, I don't need to impose additional ones on myself. The products I buy/use are necessarily useful for and best suited to the role for which I chose them. I don't buy them as an expression of agreement or disagreement with the politics of their respective manufacturers.

Furthermore, the companies in question are usually much larger in scale than just the board of directors responsible for the kind of decisions we're discussing. There are a lot of guys like me trying to feed their families and make their company an economic success irregardless of how they feel about the company's politics. I'm not going to contribute to their downfall just because there's a few slimeballs at the top of the corporate ladder.

[jtallen83]

12 minutes ago, Matt.Cross said:

There are a lot of guys like me trying to feed their families and make their company an economic success irregardless of how they feel about the company's politics. I'm not going to contribute to their downfall just because there's a few slimeballs at the top of the corporate ladder.

I know how you feel, I work for the federal government and have very little respect for what it has become. On the other hand I would happily cut off my nose to spite that face and have done so in the past when it got too deep for my conscious. I will survive no matter, been there done that but don't expect anyone to follow me there.

and even though I hate what Sig does to customers with their new product testing on the marketplace I will continue for now to buy their products, just after all the fanboys have had a chance to work out the bugs!

[Sisco]

1 hour ago, Matt.Cross said:

Unless they stopped selling to the firearms community, I don't see it as abandonment. The argument could just as easily be made that they were trying to stay in business for our benefit.

Unless you are actively boycotting the NRA for hiring and paying lobbyists to do the exact same in a broader sense, I don't buy into the legitimacy of the outrage. Businesses trying to grease politicians is nothing new to big industry or big government. Doesn't make the practice right, but if you aren't applying the principle across the board for other consumer products the premise is empty. 

To a CEO of a company trying to stay in business, keep his employees being paid and caring for their families, and keeping the shareholders off his or her back, Standing on principal can be a luxury at times.

Well said Matt

[jtallen83]

7 minutes ago, Sisco said:

, Standing on principal can be a luxury at times.

From that perspective then I intend on leading as luxurious a life as possible! 

[98Z5V]

4 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

They should be embarrassed, they abandoned the firearms community and paid off politicians to get cut out of a new proposed law instead of spending that money to lobby against the law, which eventually failed anyway!

That was all walked back, and you know it.  That hack of a rep did that on his own, and screwed both those companies.

That was not the intent of either of those two companies...  You know this...

[jtallen83]

7 hours ago, 98Z5V said:

You know this...

I do not know this, this is what they said and what I would fully expect they would say. I followed the events closely at the time and did not personally feel that it was unintentional due to the timing behind the hiring of the lobbyist, the payment of the money, and the results in the committee whose members received the money(combined with my prior political experiences). Do I think they learned a lesson, yes. Did it clear the bad taste from my mouth, no. 

 

11 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

Springfield's politics prevent me from buying anymore of their pistols........

I never called for anyone to join me, didn't rehash any accusations, just stated that Springfield was not an option for me. I seem to have hit a nerve with this position, sorry to all for causing discomfort.

[Matt.Cross]

7 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

I never called for anyone to join me, didn't rehash any accusations, just stated that Springfield was not an option for me. I seem to have hit a nerve with this position, sorry to all for causing discomfort.

We're all friends and fairly thick-skinned as well, I don't think anyone has been made uncomfortable to be honest. You have shared your perspective and we've shared some of ours, no biggie.

I look at it from this perspective:

Were everything to go sideways tomorrow, a real SHTF Zombie Apocalypse type situation, I would be conducting my own defense on two levels; my family and my community. As with any defense scenario, there's an order of precedence. I'm going to defend my family first and foremost, then the broader community when my family is secure.

A company is no different. When the government is prospectively threatening you, you protect your own first and the industry at large secondarily. There is no sensible reason to begrudge them their efforts to stay in business. Furthermore, it makes no sense to punish the entire company for decisions made by a select few, especially in the absence of communicating your reasoning with the responsible party or parties.

[COBrien]

22 hours ago, 98Z5V said:

I've had three of them now, completely reliable.  They all start with "Springfield..."    

Politics be damned, the one in the wife's purse and the one on my hip also live up to that reputation.

[jtallen83]

2 hours ago, Matt.Cross said:

There is no sensible reason to begrudge them their efforts to stay in business. Furthermore, it makes no sense to punish the entire company for decisions made by a select few, especially in the absence of communicating your reasoning with the responsible party or parties.

For me it was very sensible once I understood the tactics used, again, using my own judgment and sensibility. I understand they wanted to stay in business and don't begrudge that,the method they used to attempt to avoid the law I will begrudge. I don't want to see them out of business and never claimed such, if others want their dependable pistols I think it is an overall plus to have more weapons in the hands of citizens. I vote with my money and and my vote has been cast, my loss but I don't mind.

You better believe I communicated my displeasure to Springfield and informed them they had lost a loyal customer. They never responded and I didn't really care. 

Anyone here had a chance to handle or shoot the 365? 

[Matt.Cross]

54 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

the method they used to attempt to avoid the law I will begrudge. 

It was an unconstitutional law, they have a civic duty to avoid it by any means necessary. Will your means of avoiding the law be above reproach when further bans and confiscation begin? I don't think so. 

[jtallen83]

9 minutes ago, Matt.Cross said:

It was an unconstitutional law, they have a civic duty to avoid it by any means necessary. Will your means of avoiding the law be above reproach when further bans and confiscation begin? I don't think so. 

So you are saying the ends justifies the means........

I personally don't subscribe to the Machiavellian philosophy, but I do like most of my Sigs.

[Matt.Cross]

23 minutes ago, jtallen83 said:

So you are saying the ends justifies the means........

I said what I meant. I'm still curious if your methods of avoiding unconstitutional laws are going to be above reproach. 

1 hour ago, jtallen83 said:

They never responded and I didn't really care. 

You care enough to let folks that you could possibly influence know that you won't be bothering to buy from them. It's difficult to believe that you will offer this much justification despite whatever apathy you have about it.

[jtallen83]

3 minutes ago, Matt.Cross said:

I'm still curious if your methods of avoiding unconstitutional laws are going to be above reproach.

Not stupid enough to document something like that, suffice it to say my Libertarian values guide me to ensure my actions do not directly invade others space. Short of myself, a few close friends, and family I could give a fuk who's reproach I may be above or beyond.

4 minutes ago, Matt.Cross said:

You care enough to let folks that you could possibly influence know that you won't be bothering to buy from them. It's difficult to believe that you will offer this much justification despite whatever apathy you have about it. 

Well bite me, I never asked anyone to do anything, simply commented that I can't buy Springfield after they were suggested as a good striker fired option, didn't say they weren't a good option just not for me. Can't justify my position to you and didn't intend it to sound like that, just an explanation when accused of being an anti's wet dream. ( See my above reproach comment, extrapolate and apply )

 

23 hours ago, Matt.Cross said:

Well heck, if enough people adopt that attitude, they won't have to ban or confiscate anything. Just throw enough political embarrassment on our manufacturers and we'll boycott them ourselves. Sounds to me like an anti's wet dream.

Obviously I have struck a nerve (thou doth protest too much), didn't mean to start schit with anyone, sorry you are not as comfortable with my choices as I am. This is not an "attitude" but a firm personal conviction. You have assigned tactics and opinions to me that I don't feel I have espoused and want to clarify were not meant, that is the reason for my spirited rebuttals. I think no more or no less of a person that chooses to buy Springfield. 

I started this thread to discuss the situation with the 365 specifically and Sig's penchant for releasing weapons onto the market that have not been fully wrung out yet in general. Got any thoughts on that? I am bipolar, I love Sig weapons but hate the way they roll out new stuff. I'm sure my "attitude" on that subject needs some adjusting so have at it?

[Matt.Cross]

2 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

Not stupid enough to document something like that, suffice it to say my Libertarian values guide me to ensure my actions do not directly invade others space. Short of myself, a few close friends, and family I could give a fuk who's reproach I may be above or beyond.

I thought that might be the case. It's only reprehensible when others take the same attitude, ie. Springfield Armory. Got it.

2 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

Well bite me, I never asked anyone to do anything, simply commented that I can't buy Springfield after they were suggested as a good striker fired option, didn't say they weren't a good option just not for me. Can't justify my position to you and didn't intend it to sound like that, just an explanation when accused of being an anti's wet dream. ( See my above reproach comment, extrapolate and apply )

Can't is a world away from won't. I get that it's a matter of standing on principle, but I also get that you're holding them to a standard that you don't apply to yourself.

2 hours ago, jtallen83 said:

Obviously I have struck a nerve (thou doth protest too much), didn't mean to start schit with anyone, sorry you are not as comfortable with my choices as I am. This is not an "attitude" but a firm personal conviction. You have assigned tactics and opinions to me that I don't feel I have espoused and want to clarify were not meant, that is the reason for my spirited rebuttals.

It's not that I'm not comfortable with your choices, it's your perspective vs. your principles that has me puzzled. Spirited rebuttals are awesome, I'm completely cool with everything said so far. I'm just trying to suss out the inconsistencies between your perspective and mine. Don't hate me bro! 

[jtallen83]

5 minutes ago, Matt.Cross said:

I thought that might be the case. It's only reprehensible when others take the same attitude, ie. Springfield Armory. Got it.

Can't is a world away from won't. I get that it's a matter of standing on principle, but I also get that you're holding them to a standard that you don't apply to yourself.

It's not that I'm not comfortable with your choices, it's your perspective vs. your principles that has me puzzled. Spirited rebuttals are awesome, I'm completely cool with everything said so far. I'm just trying to suss out the inconsistencies between your perspective and mine. Don't hate me bro! 

What the hell, did I say they were “reprehensible “ fuk no I didn’t so why do you want to inflate what I said with your own rhetoric? Maybe you associate reprehensible with their actions, Freudian slip?

Suss out? Why don’t you “suss out”  what principal I am holding others to but not myself? Never mind that, find myself not giving a fuk. You damn sure ain’t gonna ever find me handing out money to a politician to favor me in proposed legislation. I would donate money in hopes of furthering the 2nd but I don’t bribe, pay kick backs, or purchase favors ( can’t count hookers). 

Perspective versus principals? Not following that, am I perfect? Fuk no I am a man, who among us is perfect. I do tend to sacrifice a good bit to maintain my principles and take it as an insult when someone that only knows a tiny slice of what my life’s perspective is questions my sincerity and insinuates I live a double standard. 

On 5/29/2018 at 5:03 PM, jtallen83 said:

Springfield's politics prevent me from buying anymore of their pistols........

That’s what led to this schit. Hate? Fuk no, I wouldn’t let you even get close to that button. Lost some respect, yeah don’t have the same respect for you I did.....

Now does ANYONE have an opinion on SIG or the 365?