- Thread starter oda175365
- Start date
I purchased mine about 30 days ago, and the recall accepted my serial #. Based on my phone call this morning, my understanding was Sig has not determined the complete range of serial numbers affected.
I wouldn't assume just yet that every rifle will need to go back. We know that Nutnfancy had one with issues. But still don't know if it was an odd defect, or a manufacturing issue common to a specific production run.
I think the immediate notification was Sig just trying to get out in front of it, find out which customers have one and also minimize any potential legal liability by the public notification.
Unfortunately as long as consumers keep lining up to pay their overpriced MSRP's for awesome marketing and poor QC, you can hardly blame Sig for continuing the practice, I'm sure their profits are great. It's not a coincidence that Sig is going down the same path Kimber did since the same guy is steering the ship. The difference is now Sig has mil contracts and they had a much higher reputation and customer base than Kimber did so it's going to be much harder to hurt Sig even with poor performance.
Same. Not enthused about it but hopefully the return process is reasonable and I can go ahead and get it sent off and returned quickly.
I didn't watch the clown show, can somebody give me the cliff notes version of how his delayed firing happened? Did it fail to fire then discharge when he flicked it to safe or something like that?
From what I saw the rifle would not fire when the trigger was pulled and then they did have a discharge when releasing the trigger, after a few attempts. They also had the same issue dry firing the rifle, but once they toggled the safety and recocked it, the rifle dry fired.
I just entered in my 6.5cm serial# and got the message that they will be contacting me to send it in...hopefully its a decently quick turnaround. I never even got to fire mine yet.
I will wait to hold judgement until we see more cases of this issue in more Cross rifles. Bit your overpriced MSRP’s is a little off. The price point of the cross and most of their handguns are within reason for fair market value of other competitive products. The MPX/MCX items are a little high but, for the Cross, it’s a great value for the features, quality (to be decided), and price for what you get.
IIRC, Bolt charges on bolt lift, no control from FCG, bolt fires on bolt close
(check out the vid, can use timestamp upthread to skip before/after)
Last edited:
3 questions:
Does anyone have a Cross and a Q Fix to compare the two?
Does the rear stock attach like the MPX, via a pic rail?
Can anyone tell me the shortest LOP setting available?
Interested in one of these (or a Fix) for a general purpose rifle assuming Sig fixes the trigger issues and wobbly stocks.
Does anyone have a Cross and a Q Fix to compare the two?
Does the rear stock attach like the MPX, via a pic rail?
Can anyone tell me the shortest LOP setting available?
Interested in one of these (or a Fix) for a general purpose rifle assuming Sig fixes the trigger issues and wobbly stocks.
@Snafu_again how does that pad attach and what did it run you?
It has overlapping Velcro straps under the riser. They’re $40, your choice of banding color.
That sucks! Was thinking the .308s were released first, lower serial numbers? Mine is in the low 200 range.
I find it kinda odd that in 50min of video, he couldn’t find the time to show him forcing dirt into the open action. The guy is a joke and pretty dishonest on top of that.
Sig called the owner of the rifle this morning (according to his friend on TOS) to tell him about the recall/give a rundown of what is going on and told him they found an ass of dirt inside the action. Gotta give credit to Sig for taking this seriously and not just saying that the rifle was abused and doing the whole “nothing to see here” routine.
The cross itself I'd agree with is priced pretty well, heck I'd even say the Kilo 3000 is a deal, but the MCX/MPX is significantly overpriced MSRP. The P210 is street pricing at $1400 and for another $200-300 you can get a CZ TSO. The worst offender might be the 716 DRM with an MRSP ~$3200, and street prices close to $3000, higher than a Seekins SP10 and getting very close to a GAP-10 G2 pricing. Their parts are even more ridiculous, $500 for a MCX/MPX stripped upper, $300-$500 for a recoil/bolt assembly for either. $1400 for a striker fired 320 with an AL handle.
Yes some of their plane jane offerings are priced fairly competitively, but other stuff is ridiculous. Their MSRP is so bad they won't even list them on the product spec sheets for firearms anymore.
Meh... big deal. I knew I was likely a beta tester when I bought it. I'll send it to them after hunting season and I'll have them fix the stock that doesn't stay extended at the same time.
That said, I'm going to hope that by January, they actually know what caused it and can correct it.
That said, I'm going to hope that by January, they actually know what caused it and can correct it.
Ease up on Sig things happen. They are trying to be innovative with new products, that is what we want isn't it. They have been working on this rifle for years and I am sure they would have not put this rifle out if they seen this problem. I give them props for stepping up and trying to make sure its right. Before everyone jumps on Sigs throat let this play out, use your best judgment when using your rifle if you choose too. Just my 2 cents.
The only reason the AXG is $1400 is thats what people will pay for it. Street price is $999, that is what I bought mine for @ LGS.
Read the thread on the other site and the guy is a bigger douche bag than I thought if he did this to someone else’s gun. It also reminded me of the shit storm he started with Mark LaRue years back over an AR upper that he took a part and fucked up. I have the same upper and couldn’t make sense of what he was claiming in that case either. It does sound like a case of “nothing to see here” and to get his YouTube view count up even though people have grown tired of his protracted drivel long ago.
Still plan to hunt with mine this weekend and feel bad for the folks at Sig that had their holiday interrupted by stupid shit like this...
Fuck that, Sig has had recalls or major functional issues on almost every new firearm they’ve come out with. 556R, 556xi, P365, P320, MCX, MPX, they couldn’t even make a 2 stage AR trigger without fucking it up. Sig does not know how to properly vet a design.
Certainly true, they can have a lot of problems, but people still like them and buy by the boat load.
SIG won't request rifles back until there are parts on the shelf to make repairs.
Sooooo if I purposely open the action of a rifle, and it fills with cement, off camera, and it prevents the rifle from operating properly, that's a defect and I can get ton of youtube views to my channel?
Wow. Sorry if that's a bit critical of the situational review of things but....wow.
Wow. Sorry if that's a bit critical of the situational review of things but....wow.
If the manufacturer inspects it and calls for a recall, than yes.
Awesome! I’m going to give them a call on Monday
I am thinking the sequence of events was Sig saw the video, and realized this could be a major safety issue. So they started the recall process, and wanted to obtain a list of owners.
It would of taken a couple of days to get the rifle, confirm the issue and take it apart. If a bunch of dirt was present around the trigger, regardless how it got there. That certainly would explain the sticky sear and delay fire.
No talk yet of a defect or manufacturing problem. So it might become more a question of how to clean the trigger. Maybe Sig just updates the manual with a section on trigger cleaning and removal.
A post on another forum mentioned that unsold inventory was being returned to Sig. But absent a defect, what do you fix and how do you have a recall?
Last edited:
Sounds like damage control by Sig. Get the list of current owners while they figure out what’s going on in the video. Best case, they provide a recommendation not to dump sand in the action to the owners and add another page of warnings to the manual.
There has always been talk that nutnfancy isn't exactly honest in all his reviews. Too bad. A high profile manufacturer has very few options on stuff like this even if it is totally fraudulent. They just have too much to lose.
That would actually be an impressive turnaround for Sig, considering with the 320 drop issue the military identified and forced them to fix it on their contract guns with new sear/trigger, yet Sig never made a change to their civilian models for a year and only did something when the public found out and they earned a ton of bad PR. Even that didn't get Sig to do a recall. Maybe they learned their lesson and are being more proactive this time around.
I really doubt Sig is having all unsold inventory returned across the entire country if they didn't already verify it's an issue. If it was me the first thing I'd do is pull inventory in house and inspect them, that's the first thing we'd do at Lockheed as soon as we suspected an QC issue. Nothing in Sig's history with issues, has ever made them pull guns off shelves that I'm aware of. Not MPX's with broken firing pins, stripped barrel screws, cracked bolts. Not P210's breaking recoil rods. Not P365's failing to function with springs coming unhooked locking up the gun, and broken firing pins. Not even the 516/716 recall. So if they are pulling guns off shelves, I'd bet it's already a verified significant issue.
The response time based on the initial single complaint does seems to be impressive for Sig.
I re-read the safety notice, which mentions they have found something notable enough to correct. Hopefully details will be made available soon. Stating a modification is needed, implies understanding the root cause.
"This gun has been returned to Sig Sauer and upon evaluation it has been confirmed that the rifle exhibited a delayed discharge after the trigger was pulled. Sig Sauer has decided to issue a safety recall in order to implement a modification to the firing action to address this potential safety concern."
Last edited:
the difference is that there were hundreds of thousands of P320 pistols on the market with extensive LE use and a pending Military adoption. They couldn’t act as quickly due to the scale and potential legal issues. They likely had to tip toe around in order to not risk the contract at the expense of LE and consumer.(not that it is right but from a business perspective the correct choice)
With the incredibly small amount of Cross rifles in the wild it was much easier to nip it in the bud.
Second, with the shit show that was the P320 upgrade they probably learned quite a few lessons. Chiefly, bad news does not age well...
Had anyone included in the recall actually heard back from Sig yet? I've not heard a word from them yet....
Nope not one thing. Talked to my buddy, who owns manages the local gun store, and they haven't heard anything either. Disappointed with Sig that they rush to tell everyone to stop using the rifle immediately, but then provide us no timeline or info.
It would be nice if Sig listed a weekly update on their safety page. But realistically it's going to take several weeks before we are given shipping information.
They most likely have a couple different modifications to try. Prototypes will need to be made and then a bunch of testing done on pre and post mod rifles to see if they can duplicate the failure.
That process is going to take some time. It not as if they had a bunch of failures that came in over months and now have updated parts in stock. They have had only one failure reported a week ago.
Once they verify a solution to the problem, next they need to get the new part into production and build updated triggers. When they have a sufficient supply on hand they will start retrofitting stock and asking people who registered for the recall to return their rifles.
They most likely have a couple different modifications to try. Prototypes will need to be made and then a bunch of testing done on pre and post mod rifles to see if they can duplicate the failure.
That process is going to take some time. It not as if they had a bunch of failures that came in over months and now have updated parts in stock. They have had only one failure reported a week ago.
Once they verify a solution to the problem, next they need to get the new part into production and build updated triggers. When they have a sufficient supply on hand they will start retrofitting stock and asking people who registered for the recall to return their rifles.
Yea, I don't find the stock trigger to be terrible but if trigger tech or Timney made a 1-2lb single stage for the cross I would definitely be in for one
I plan on bringing up the overtravel when I send it in for the recall.
I bought a slightly-used Cross from a Hide member a few weeks ago. The rifle was in like-new condition and fully functional when purchased, so no issues with the seller. I did a quick field strip to verify cleanliness and lubrication, and everything looked great.
This past week, I was dry-firing it during a conference call, and suddenly something felt "off" with the bolt lift. A bit of inspection showed that the cocking piece (to use the classic term) wasn't traveling fully forward upon each pull of the trigger. And then I found this when I pulled the bolt and attempted to drop the cocking piece by twisting the shroud:
The cocking piece has two steel rollers to minimize friction - one at the its tip, and one roughly in its middle. The roller at the tip has left the building, and the pin that is supposed to retain it catches on the shroud and prevents full forward travel of the cocking piece.
The cocking piece has a small peened section that appears to be intended to capture the roller axle pin. Unfortunately, if the feature fails to do its job, that pin can move, potentially bind the cocking piece, and prevent full firing pin travel.
It appears that the other roller and axle pin are captured during assembly of the striker mechanism and has a lower likelihood of moving after assembly (so long as its peened feature is intact; if that feature fails, the pin could potentially prevent bolt travel).
I gotta say that this is an unsatisfactory condition; we've added four pieces to the assembly to reduce bolt lift effort, and the result is a potential loss of primary function. This might be an American rifle, but its German heritage is evident
(Meanwhile, every mentor I've ever had in my engineering career is snickering at the fact that I've become the grumpy old guy who complains about shit being too complex.)
Anyways, now that I know more about what's going on in the striker assembly, it's no surprise that someone found a way to foul it up with some fine dirt/dust/cement/whatever and create enough drag to delay the firing process. And if indeed we're complicating that problem with parts not staying where they should, then I think we're witnessing the result of multiple root causes. Someone's gonna get beat over the head during the 8D process (assuming that Sig has one - evidence does not support this hypothesis).
If anyone at Sig is reading this, I'll be happy to show up and lead your guys through a full DFMEA at my normal consulting rate, but only if you promise that next time, you'll do the same before the product is launched
This past week, I was dry-firing it during a conference call, and suddenly something felt "off" with the bolt lift. A bit of inspection showed that the cocking piece (to use the classic term) wasn't traveling fully forward upon each pull of the trigger. And then I found this when I pulled the bolt and attempted to drop the cocking piece by twisting the shroud:
The cocking piece has two steel rollers to minimize friction - one at the its tip, and one roughly in its middle. The roller at the tip has left the building, and the pin that is supposed to retain it catches on the shroud and prevents full forward travel of the cocking piece.
The cocking piece has a small peened section that appears to be intended to capture the roller axle pin. Unfortunately, if the feature fails to do its job, that pin can move, potentially bind the cocking piece, and prevent full firing pin travel.
It appears that the other roller and axle pin are captured during assembly of the striker mechanism and has a lower likelihood of moving after assembly (so long as its peened feature is intact; if that feature fails, the pin could potentially prevent bolt travel).
I gotta say that this is an unsatisfactory condition; we've added four pieces to the assembly to reduce bolt lift effort, and the result is a potential loss of primary function. This might be an American rifle, but its German heritage is evident
(Meanwhile, every mentor I've ever had in my engineering career is snickering at the fact that I've become the grumpy old guy who complains about shit being too complex.)Anyways, now that I know more about what's going on in the striker assembly, it's no surprise that someone found a way to foul it up with some fine dirt/dust/cement/whatever and create enough drag to delay the firing process. And if indeed we're complicating that problem with parts not staying where they should, then I think we're witnessing the result of multiple root causes. Someone's gonna get beat over the head during the 8D process (assuming that Sig has one - evidence does not support this hypothesis).
If anyone at Sig is reading this, I'll be happy to show up and lead your guys through a full DFMEA at my normal consulting rate, but only if you promise that next time, you'll do the same before the product is launched
I am not an engineer, but I do appreciate when attached parts stay attached.
This is a reasonable request from the end user.
I think the only steps Sig uses in D8 is 0,1,and 8
Last edited:
I bought a slightly-used Cross from a Hide member a few weeks ago....This might be an American rifle, but its German heritage is evident
Had the same reaction..german engineering meets american marketing
