VA State Police select the SIG P320

[HCM]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/07/19/virginia-state-police-select-sig-p320/


The Virginia State Police have a long history of using SIG pistols, moving to the P228 in the early 1990s and introducing the P229 (DAK) in .357 SIG in 2004. The VSP have just over 2,000 officers and the agency will begin issuing P320s in 2019. It isn’t clear if the VSP will continue to use their current .357 SIG chambering or transition to another.



28354

[LockedBreech]

The engraving certainly looks nice.

[Dave Williams]

Man the 320 is racking up agencies.

[John Hearne]

Man the 320 is racking up agencies.

The 320 gets a lot of hate but not for the gun itself but for how Sig handled their problems. But from an agency perspective the 320 checks a lot of boxes. I’m pushing 4000 rounds through my first sample and I’ve been very happy. My only gripe so far is that the factory sights shot high and right. I’ve finally received a $400 sight tool to make the adjustments but pre-zeroed would have been nice.

[Sero Sed Serio]

from an agency perspective the 320 checks a lot of boxes.

As disappointed as I am to see SIG's slide into the sub-par, and as disgusted as I was at how they handled the whole 320 drop thing, I have to agree with this. I've only shot a 320 once, but it was almost effortless to get pinpoint accuracy with. I suspect they'll see an increase in qualification scores coming from the DAK guns. I also like the modular concept because they can 1) have an officer work with different grip modules without having to issue him/her multiple weapons until they find the right fit, and 2) easily and cheaply replace a frame that is severely damaged, a not unusual occurrence in the LE world, without having to scrap an entire pistol.

The things that I don't like about the P320 system probably aren't going to cause huge issues as an issued gun for a large LE agency. I don't think the P320 is any more dangerous for carrying/handling than a Glock without a Gadget. I do have concerns about the guts of the fire control unit being small, fragile, and easily lost/damaged, but since individual LEOs are almost always forbidden from taking all the little sprockets out, this is more of an armorer-level problem, with plenty of armor-level spares floating around the shop. And while I have heard reports of degraded accuracy over high round counts, I suspect that 1) most officers won't get anywhere near these round counts, 2) that more than a few of the ones that do will go out and buy their own dedicated training gun to run hard, and 3) the lego-esque modular system makes for a cheap and easy fix of new/slide/barrel for guns that do start to show issues.

My gut feeling is that the recall upgrade has resolved the drop issues, but I hope the recall upgrade has created a robust-enough system to avoid the dead-trigger issue that Enel has convinced me is a significant weakness for most fully-tensioned striker systems.

So while for reasons technical and moral I would have gone a lot of different directions before a 320, objectively it's something I could live and work with if you stuffed one in my holster and told me to "Go do cop tricks, funny man."

[Doc_Glock]

My gut feeling is that the recall upgrade has resolved the drop issues, but I hope the recall upgrade has created a robust-enough system to avoid the dead-trigger issue that Enel has convinced me is a significant weakness for most fully-tensioned striker systems.

Please note: I was never able to mallet a P320 to drop its striker. Ever. I totally thought they were good to go until the drop tests came out and I was able to replicate that failure. They fired when dropped.

They are great shooting guns. Durability to be determined.

I think Sig is a reprehensible company and won’t have anything to do with them. This gun has already shot one cop in a drop and hopefully they have it fixed. We won’t really ever know and I don’t want anything to do with them.

It absolutely sickens me that they are getting any contracts at all for this firearm, especially the Army.

[BillSWPA]

My biggest concern is how the next issue will be handled.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nephrology]

I think Sig is a reprehensible company and won’t have anything to do with them. This gun has already shot one cop in a drop and hopefully they have it fixed. We won’t really ever know and I don’t want anything to do with them.

It absolutely sickens me that they are getting any contracts at all for this firearm, especially the Army.

This is my general feeling re: SIG and why I will probably never own a SIG firearm or product.

[Sero Sed Serio]

Please note: I was never able to mallet a P320 to drop its striker. Ever. I totally thought they were good to go until the drop tests came out and I was able to replicate that failure. They fired when dropped.

They are great shooting guns. Durability to be determined.

I think Sig is a reprehensible company and won’t have anything to do with them. This gun has already shot one cop in a drop and hopefully they have it fixed. We won’t really ever know and I don’t want anything to do with them.

It absolutely sickens me that they are getting any contracts at all for this firearm, especially the Army.

Thanks for the clarification re: the mallet.

I agree 100% with your position on SIG. I suspect the gun will meet VSP's needs, but wish they had gone a different route.

[JAD]

My biggest concern is how the next issue will be handled.

I think that's mooted by past performance. They are bad people, and people shouldn't give them money to begin with, my tax money in particular.

I live in a Glock / Glock / Glock city/state/county, so I guess we're all good here.

[GardoneVT]

I recall taking a class held through the PD of my alma matter. I asked their SWAT instructor what test they ran to validate their duty pistols. “Test?!! The City Manager got a deal to trade our Beretta .40s for new Glocks straight across, then Glock swapped our G22s for 17s gratis. “

The end. A handgun/rifle being mass adopted says more about the negotiating skills of the manufacturer then it does about the product quality. Hopefully Sigs marketing execs don’t move to Taurus anytime soon..

[lwt16]

I'm a P320 armorer and responsible for about 35 copies.

I'd say that more than half needed sight correction as either/both front and rear sights were not centered. Not a big deal if you are equipped (MGW Sight Pro and Rangemaster) with the 133 shoe and a dial caliper. Just sloppy assembly at the mothership.

I will say that some copies were out of spec.....one of which had a defective take down safety lever that was improperly machined.....apparently in India.....as the replacement part clearly said "Made in India" on the packaging. Most of the parts I have are the small springs and such and most of them are "Made in USA". This copy with the take down safety lever wouldn't field strip without a pull of the trigger........a quick parts swap fixed it. It clearly should have never left the factory and shows that there is little to no QC going on. Slapping them together and getting them shipped must be the name of their game.

And packing grease! Good grief at the packing grease. I could have lubed the ball joints on a fleet of cars with the grease pulled out of our copies.

Mine is reliable and accurate........I typically score in the high 280s on the FBI instructor course and can clean my department's course with ease with it. When I do my part, I can shoot low 90s on a ten shot 25 yard line B8. I'm somewhere around 2000 rounds with no issues as far as jams or stovepipes. The bore axis is sky high and it's big and clunky to me. Feels like cheap polymer and that polymer takes dings poorly. We haven't broken one but impacts leave dents and scratches........which is fine for a combat gun.

Magazine releases seem to rust easily....something that kind of shocked me. I figured that part too would have a good finish on it that prevented rust. Not so much.

As a group we have fired thousands of rounds and aside from some shooter induced issues, they ran smooth. From an armorer perspective, they are easy to work on once you know the tricks and have a good understanding of just how dinky some of the springs in the thing are.

Time will tell. If I break mine by shooting it, I'll let you know. If accuracy degrades, I'll report that too.

Regards.

[jnc36rcpd]

While I'm not an armorer, I can see the logic of the modular system to replace damaged parts. As a firearms instructor, I have my doubts about its utility for changing a pistol to account for assignments. In my outfit, detectives and street crime investigators have the option of carrying a compact version of the issue FNS-9. Since they may be assigned to uniform for special events or overtime details, they keep their standard duty pistol. I can't see swapping out weapon parts because a detective is tasked to uniform on the fireworks detail. It just seems easier to assign the officer two pistols.

I realize that some of the compacts could serve as uniform duty pistols. (Indeed, our county colleagues give officers their choice of a G-17 or G-19.) That said, our retired chief seemed to live in dread that he would be blamed if an officer volunteered to have less protection (which accounts for why we, unlike the county, don't give officers the option of Level II or IIIA armor.

[HCM]

I recall taking a class held through the PD of my alma matter. I asked their SWAT instructor what test they ran to validate their duty pistols. “Test?!! The City Manager got a deal to trade our Beretta .40s for new Glocks straight across, then Glock swapped our G22s for 17s gratis. “

The end. A handgun/rifle being mass adopted says more about the negotiating skills of the manufacturer then it does about the product quality. Hopefully Sigs marketing execs don’t move to Taurus anytime soon..


Anything is possible in small depts. the story relayed to you may or may not be true but it is not the norm.

Bigger agencies, especially state agencies, normally do some form of testing. It can be influenced by positive prior experience with a brand but you have to pass testing to bring those negotiating skills to bear.

For example, after nearly 3 decades with SIG, TX DPS attempted to adopt the S&W M&P under suspicious circumstances and then had serious issues with the first of the guns. Though DPS subsequently conducted a full and fair testing process resulting in three qualified candidates, they chose the SIG P320. Given their negative experience with S&W, choosing a vendor with a proven track record should not be a surprise.

Smaller agencies, or new agencies, with often adopt guns based on the influences and test results of larger agencies. This can be large metro PD’s or State Police. In smaller agencies with chiefs from bigger agencies the chief will often adopt what ever was used at his old Dept. If your chief is a retired DPS Trooper, you will likely be issued whatever DPS issues.

The biggest example I’m aware of was the FAMS adopting the P229 in .357 because the new FAMS management were all from USSS and that is what USSS carried. The gun was tested by USSS, It just wasn’t tested by the FAMS.

[John Hearne]

My agency has issued classic Sigs since ~1990. They've authorized a number of models - 220, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 239, and 245 in an effort to have pistols that will fit a variety of hand sizes and address concerns with wildlife (we have a fair number of entrenched 45 shooters in areas with bears). This solution requires that you have more pistols than you do staff since the on-hand inventory will never be exactly right. This creates the need to store all of the spare pistols and if you do a hands-on inventory twice a year, a lot of time just making sure guns haven't disappeared.

Due to the cost of the classic pistols, this has also meant that our fleet was "aging" as we couldn't afford to buy many new guns each year. With the P320, they are buying enough guns to replace 25% of the fleet every year, for the next four years. This year, almost every P228 will be replaced with a P320. The P228 is a great gun but have you tried to find parts for it? For the individual, they can pretty much buy a new pistol and still have money to think about buying a second for backup use.

Right now, the solution is for the agency to buy the 9mm Carry and authorize private purchase of everything else. As long as you want a 9mm or 40 &W (our most popular caliber) you can buy a grip module, slide assembly, and magazines and you have not increased the number of serial numbers you have to track. Oddly, our P320 policy does not allow the normal end user to remove the firing system from the grip module. If the policy is actually followed, then the gun will be placed in a particular configuration and left that way.

The only flaw I've seen with the P320 as an agency gun is that the platform does not use one system for 9, 40, and 45 like the P250 did.

[jnc36rcpd]

I'd been primarily thinking of "standard" policing, John, and hadn't considered agencies with responsibilities like your outfit. Do officers often change weapons with transfers? I'll be interested to see how the 320 works out for your agency.

Agreed on the 228. I've considered bringing mine out of the safe as an off duty and eventual retirement gun, but would hate to have to repair the thing.

[AMC]

We have been a Sig agency since the early 2000's, when we adopted the Sig 226R in .40 S&W. Originally we also issued the 229R as well to small handed shooters....which was so dumb it hurts. The previous Rangemaster recalled all the 229's because he wanted everyone with the same gun with the same trigger reach, same grips and the same sights....because reasons, and 'fairness' or something. Over the last year and a half, we've had a number of cracked frames, first in the older high round count guns with SWAT, and then in some newer guns. The frames all cracked in exactly the same spot...under the grips on the right side, where the metal is thinnest to accommodate the trigger spring. We're going to be converting to 9mm, and that leaves us with several options. One is an across the board switch out to 9mm 226's. Same holster, same manual of arms, no conversion course necessary. This will still not serve some of our smaller handed officers, however, who will never be able to shoot a 226 well fast. We are aggressively recruiting officers under 5 feet tall (that's not a typo), so we have to serve them somehow. The 320 offers modularity and simplicity that no one else can match (other than the aforementioned Armorer's headaches), so we're thinking of issueing that to new hires going forth, and converting existing stockpiles to 9mm 226's. Anyone wishing to convert to the 320 would have to attend a 2 day conversion course. At least that's the thinking right now.

[TGS]

The biggest example I’m aware of was the FAMS adopting the P229 in .357 because the new FAMS management were all from USSS and that is what USSS carried. The gun was tested by USSS, It just wasn’t tested by the FAMS.

What did they have prior to the 357 P229? Just curious.

[HCM]

What did they have prior to the 357 P229? Just curious.


USSS had P228 9mm. S&W .357 magnum revolvers before that.

The FAMS were tiny pre 9/11 I seem to recall they had a list of guns but that was long time ago.

[jnc36rcpd]

AMC, we had a similar problem with our .40 226's. While Sig treated us well (new frames, some new pistols, E2 grips), we never received a definitive answer regarding the cracks. Indeed, one would have thought we were the only agency in the world to experience this issue.

When we first issued the 9mm 226 in 1990 or so, we provided 228's to officers with small hands. While not a solution, it doesn't seem as stupid as issuing a .40 229R over a 226R. No matter what the circumference actually is, the 229R always felt chunkier in my hand. My aolution when I was firearms training coordinator was to issue 239's to officers who wanted them. While their shooting didn't improve as much as I hoped, they seemed more confident with the smaller gun. As I told the chief about my senior corporal at the time, I'd prefer she save my life with the first eight rounds than avenge my death with nine through thirteen. (OK, a bit of hyperbole, but it worked.)

[HCountyGuy]

We are aggressively recruiting officers under 5 feet tall (that's not a typo)

Why, so they can get their asses stepped on out on the streets?

[Gadfly]

Well, we got a glimpse of our 320s last week. 4 of them came to the field. All X frames. One full size, two compact carry’s, and one sub compact. All our agents are going to fire a few rounds through each, then pick which size we will request to be delivered. I don’t expect deliver for a long time. But these will be far more popular than the 229 DAK.

I like it, but still don’t know if I like it better than my POW Glock.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HCM]

Well, we got a glimpse of our 320s last week. 4 of them came to the field. All X frames. One full size, two compact carry’s, and one sub compact. All our agents are going to fire a few rounds through each, then pick which size we will request to be delivered. I don’t expect deliver for a long time. But these will be far more popular than the 229 DAK.

I like it, but still don’t know if I like it better than my POW Glock.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m Having the same dilemma.

[HCM]

We have been a Sig agency since the early 2000's, when we adopted the Sig 226R in .40 S&W. Originally we also issued the 229R as well to small handed shooters....which was so dumb it hurts. The previous Rangemaster recalled all the 229's because he wanted everyone with the same gun with the same trigger reach, same grips and the same sights....because reasons, and 'fairness' or something. Over the last year and a half, we've had a number of cracked frames, first in the older high round count guns with SWAT, and then in some newer guns. The frames all cracked in exactly the same spot...under the grips on the right side, where the metal is thinnest to accommodate the trigger spring. We're going to be converting to 9mm, and that leaves us with several options. One is an across the board switch out to 9mm 226's. Same holster, same manual of arms, no conversion course necessary. This will still not serve some of our smaller handed officers, however, who will never be able to shoot a 226 well fast. We are aggressively recruiting officers under 5 feet tall (that's not a typo), so we have to serve them somehow. The 320 offers modularity and simplicity that no one else can match (other than the aforementioned Armorer's headaches), so we're thinking of issueing that to new hires going forth, and converting existing stockpiles to 9mm 226's. Anyone wishing to convert to the 320 would have to attend a 2 day conversion course. At least that's the thinking right now.

You aren’t changing calibers, your P226s are having caliber reassignment surgery.

[AMC]

You aren’t changing calibers, your P226s are having caliber reassignment surgery.

Oh., well played.

[CajunMP357]

I'm happy that it's a SIG and not a Glock.