Sig P320 issue (bent ejector)

[Gadfly]

So, on a p320 compact (15 round mid size), if you jam in a 21 round full size mag hard enough, you can bend the ejector up enough to drag on the slide and lock up the gun. Ask me how I know.... (that has been bent back down some. It was up at a steeper angle).

I have no ideal how I managed to do that. I am not beating the mag into the gun.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200826/ee2e4765a1b7efa2e779ebc912a30233.jpg


I did a tap rack, and the slide would close about 3/4 of the way. I smack the back of the slide into battery, fire, and it repeats. Smack the back of the slide, fire, and it repeats. I lock the slide back, change mags and try to remedy. But it keeps going.

I step of the line, strip the gun and notice the bent ejector.

Strangely, I don’t see any dent on the mag, which is thinner metal. So how did I manage this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Archer1440]

This is a well known vulnerability of the P320 FCU, and is perhaps a reason SIG should have engineered the system with a replaceable ejector. If it fails, you’re kind of screwed.

If you aggressively load a too-long mag into the pistol that doesn’t hard-stop on the grip frame, this WILL happen. You don’t have to “beat it in”, all that’s needed is a properly brisk mag load.

[HCM]

So, on a p320 compact (15 round mid size), if you jam in a 21 round full size mag hard enough, you can bend the ejector up enough to drag on the slide and lock up the gun. Ask me how I know.... (that has been bent back down some. It was up at a steeper angle).

I have no ideal how I managed to do that. I am not beating the mag into the gun.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200826/ee2e4765a1b7efa2e779ebc912a30233.jpg


I did a tap rack, and the slide would close about 3/4 of the way. I smack the back of the slide into battery, fire, and it repeats. Smack the back of the slide, fire, and it repeats. I lock the slide back, change mags and try to remedy. But it keeps going.

I step of the line, strip the gun and notice the bent ejector.

Strangely, I don’t see any dent on the mag, which is thinner metal. So how did I manage this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a disposable pistol.

This can happen with any mag that doesn't have a hard stop base plate. Several IDPA shooters in my area have had the same issue.

[Gadfly]

I am pretty damn disappointed in this.

I have carried a g26 for years with 17rnd reloads, never an issue. I know the Glock has a notch built in to the mag to prevent this. I assumed the Sig had some way to prevent it.

It’s a shame, as I like the Sig trigger better, and I shoot tighter groups. But I TRUST the Glock more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HCM]

It’s a shame, as I like the Sig trigger better, and I shoot tighter groups. But I TRUST the Glock more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is exactly where I'm at on the 320. In my case I also have issues with my grip unintentionally activating the slide stop, locking it back with rounds on the mag. I've had this occur with both the med and large X grip. The only time I've ever had that occur with a Glock is with the factory extended slide stop.

The 21 round mag has a base pad which extends upwards and acts as a stop in a 17 round length grip. You need to use mags with a base pad that acts as a stop.

[Gadfly]

You need to use mags with a base pad that acts as a stop.

Which defeats the whole modularity thing I wanted it for to begin with.

If we approve the gen 5, I will probably jump back to the Glock. Maybe a 19FS MOS, and call it a day. I will keep the 365 as my back up. It’s just too neat and disappears in my waistband.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mike C]

Gadfly, I am not trying to downplay your experience and by no means trying to defend Sig but I have seen this even with the venerable HK and their ejectors are not crap. I have both personally experienced this and seen this first hand probably 8-9 years ago and I believe this can happen with just about any gun when stuffing a longer mag into the gun without a, "spacer" or "mag body sleeve" to prevent the magazines from being over inserted. I would just suggest ensuring that if you are going to carry a longer mag than the gun is designed for as a reload ensure it has the proper, "sleeve" to help prevent this issue. Since tone is difficult to derive I just want to say that I respect you and the knowledge you bring to this forum and in no way do I mean this condescendingly.

ETA: even though I am digging the P365 series right now. Glock, especially a Gen5 model is really freaking hard to beat. I wish all agencies allowed for officers/agents to carry what they want but with lowest common denominator and all I feel for you.

[HCM]

Gadfly, I am not trying to downplay your experience and by no means trying to defend Sig but I have seen this even with the venerable HK and their ejectors are not crap. I have both personally experienced this and seen this first hand probably 8-9 years ago and I believe this can happen with just about any gun when stuffing a longer mag into the gun without a, "spacer" or "mag body sleeve" to prevent the magazines from being over inserted. I would just suggest ensuring that if you are going to carry a longer mag than the gun is designed for as a reload ensure it has the proper, "sleeve" to help prevent this issue. Since tone is difficult to derive I just want to say that I respect you and the knowledge you bring to this forum and in no way do I mean this condescendingly.

ETA: even though I am digging the P365 series right now. Glock, especially a Gen5 model is really freaking hard to beat. I wish all agencies allowed for officers/agents to carry what they want but with lowest common denominator and all I feel for you.

The issue is that with other guns if this happens you can replace the ejector and drive on.

You can bend the ejecfor back but it will never be quite the same unless you replace the FCU.

One of our local IDPA shooters has had this occur several times and SIG refused to replace the FCU.

[Mike C]

The issue is that with other guns if this happens you can replace the ejector and drive on.

You can bend the ejecfor back but it will never be quite the same unless you replace the FCU.

One of our local IDPA shooters has had this occur several times and SIG refused to replace the FCU.

I absolutely was not trying to downplay Gadfly's issue, I was just offering the best advice I could to avoid issues in the future. Having been in his shoes there is no argument, and that is some seriously shitty CS. Sounds like Sig is winning hearts and minds all over again.

[gato naranja]

Sounds like Sig is winning hearts and minds all over again.

I don't comment much on SIGs, having given up on them being able to make a pistol that plays well with the grabbers I was issued... but that is spot on.

As for an ejector being integral with the serialized chassis, I just shake my damn head.

[Archer1440]

There’s a lengthy thread on this very issue here: https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/269368-p320-damaged-ejectors/

Gamers discovered this issue long ago.

[farscott]

It appears to be only an issue with the 21-round magazines, so it appears that magazine has a design issue. That being said, bent ejectors should have been a consideration during the design phase. With the DoD contract, changes to the FCU are going to be more difficult unless SIG has different tooling for the commercial and LE pistols. Or if DoD uses the 21-round magazines and starts returning pistols for service. If so, the FCU design could be updated to make the ejector replaceable. It would drive cost into the design, which is probably the reason the ejector is an integral part of the FCU.

The P320 design is still not mature, so these kind of issues are to be expected.

[RJ]

The issue is that with other guns if this happens you can replace the ejector and drive on.

You can bend the ejecfor back but it will never be quite the same unless you replace the FCU.

One of our local IDPA shooters has had this occur several times and SIG refused to replace the FCU.

To clarify, this is not a “IDPA Sux” comment but: HCM, are these failures associated with slide-lock reload? I’m not real IDPA knowledgeable, and I understand this (slide lock reloads) are common, as opposed to say USPSA, in which generally reloads are done on a closed slide.

[lwt16]

After purchasing my first P320 and then attending the P320 armorer's course, the lack of a replaceable ejector was always a concern of mine.

Now those concerns are coming to light. The last P320 I purchased was 400.00......so having to spend 200 to repair an ejector just doesn't make that much sense to me.

We have some aftermarket magazines with basepads that would allow over-insertion on an aggressive reload. We don't shoot our P320s much (and with current ammo prices, we don't tend to shoot much at all these days) but I will probably be ditching those baseplates out of an abundance of caution.

Regards.

[HCM]

To clarify, this is not a “IDPA Sux” comment but: HCM, are these failures associated with slide-lock reload? I’m not real IDPA knowledgeable, and I understand this (slide lock reloads) are common, as opposed to say USPSA, in which generally reloads are done on a closed slide.

Mostly.

Of course in the real world, (vs the USPSA fantasy world where people carry 9 magazines and intentionally disable slide locks) people do slide lock reloads.

[Greg]

You must have slammed that mag home because that steel is the finest Indian MIM you can..... uh.... nevermind.

This thread makes me appreciate that Glock built a magazine stop into the top left side of the magazine (before the taper).

[Texaspoff]

After purchasing my first P320 and then attending the P320 armorer's course, the lack of a replaceable ejector was always a concern of mine.

Now those concerns are coming to light. The last P320 I purchased was 400.00......so having to spend 200 to repair an ejector just doesn't make that much sense to me.

We have some aftermarket magazines with basepads that would allow over-insertion on an aggressive reload. We don't shoot our P320s much (and with current ammo prices, we don't tend to shoot much at all these days) but I will probably be ditching those baseplates out of an abundance of caution.

Regards.


Interestingly enough we discussed it during our armorers course as well. I was assured that in the event of a bent ejector, Sig would indeed replace the fire control assembly chassis. I know of at least one officer who bent his, and Sig would not replace it.

I do wish Sig would have designed the ejector to be replaceable, but alas, that would have increased costs. In the Armorers course, it was said, bent ejectors were never an issue with the P250. :p

The 250 was never widely used in LE or competition, so it would be easy to see why a possible design weakness wouldn't have shown up.




TXPO

[Archer1440]

To clarify, this is not a “IDPA Sux” comment but: HCM, are these failures associated with slide-lock reload? I’m not real IDPA knowledgeable, and I understand this (slide lock reloads) are common, as opposed to say USPSA, in which generally reloads are done on a closed slide.

Obviously if you’re at slide-lock on the street, you will want to reload in a hurry. This is certainly a concern on the street for anyone carrying one of these for defense or duty. Some of the discussions dating back to 2018 indicate it’s possible this can happen with a fully loaded magazine if the mag is slammed in hard, especially if the grip frame is worn, or the base pad is worn.

A design that potentially allows the gun to be tied up from a normal manipulation in the middle of a gunfight is a problem, no?

(I have no dog in this hunt, all of my 320’s just sit in the safe these days.)

[JonInWA]

So help me to understand: Is this an issue when using full-size (17 or 21 rd magazines) in a COMPACT grip module, or is it concurrently an issue when using 17 or 21 round magazines in a FULL-SIZE/CARRY grip module?

From my reading of this and the Brian Enos thread, it seems the problem occurs with the larger-capacity magazines (17 and/or 21 round) with a Compact module, or with 21 round magazines in a Full-Size grip module.

The issue of using larger magazines in a compact pistol isn't exclusive to the P320; Glock users exerienced issues when using full-size .40 magazines with .357 SIG cartridges in compact Glock 32s, which is one of the reasons Glock has a specific .357 SIG magazines (which is really just a modified follower in the .40 magazines); normally there aren't problems in using .40 G22 magazines for .357 SIG barrrels in G22s (assuming a Glock .357 SIG conversion barrel is used) (but the issues with the Glocks had to do with over-insertion, not ejector interference).

Best, Jon

[RJ]

Obviously if you’re at slide-lock on the street, you will want to reload in a hurry. This is certainly a concern on the street for anyone carrying one of these for defense or duty. Some of the discussions dating back to 2018 indicate it’s possible this can happen with a fully loaded magazine if the mag is slammed in hard, especially if the grip frame is worn, or the base pad is worn.

A design that potentially allows the gun to be tied up from a normal manipulation in the middle of a gunfight is a problem, no?

(I have no dog in this hunt, all of my 320’s just sit in the safe these days.)


Mostly.

Of course in the real world, (vs the USPSA fantasy world where people carry 9 magazines and intentionally disable slide locks) people do slide lock reloads.

Thanks, actually my question was more in contrast with the ejector design of the P365/XL. Since this is a P320 ejector question / issue, I'll take up the discussion over in the XL thread, to avoid derailing this one any further.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?36663-SIG-P365-XL-SIGs-answer-to-the-G48&p=1103485&viewfull=1#post1103485

Gadfly sorry to hear about this issue, hope it gets resolved one way or another.

[Gadfly]

So help me to understand: Is this an issue when using full-size (17 or 21 rd magazines) in a COMPACT grip module, or is it concurrently an issue when using 17 or 21 round magazines in a FULL-SIZE/CARRY grip module?

From my reading of this and the Brian Enos thread, it seems the problem occurs with the larger-capacity magazines (17 and/or 21 round) with a Compact module, or with 21 round magazines in a Full-Size grip module.



It was a 21 round mag inserted into a 15 round compact X frame, during a slide lock re load. I did not jam it in that hard to begin with, but once I malfunctioned I kept “tap racking”, and I am sure my “tap” was a damn firm tap.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200826/947a7d35a43b228a7ad850e631684fa4.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gadfly]

Looks like the chain of command want the pistol shipped back to our national firearms unit, and they want Sig to replace it. So I will have to wait until after the Hurricane to handle this.

I will let you all know if I get the same gun back, or if Sig balks. This is a personal purchase duty gun, but since our agency bough 20,000 p320s, I assume we have some stroke with SIG corporate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Archer1440]

It was a 21 round mag inserted into a 15 round compact X frame, during a slide lock re load. I did not jam it in that hard to begin with, but once I malfunctioned I kept “tap racking”, and I am sure my “tap” was a damn firm tap.



Yeah, a classic cause of problems. I suppose you could do the same thing to, say, a P229 with a 226 mag. However, the 229 ejector is strong, and replaceable. Not so much on the 320 FCU.

Glad it didn’t happen to you when you NEEDED it to go bang.

[farscott]

Looks like the chain of command want the pistol shipped back to our national firearms unit, and they want Sig to replace it. So I will have to wait until after the Hurricane to handle this.

I will let you all know if I get the same gun back, or if Sig balks. This is a personal purchase duty gun, but since our agency bough 20,000 p320s, I assume we have some stroke with SIG corporate.

If fed.gov cannot get SIG to replace your pistol, no one can. I am pleased the national firearms unit is taking the issue seriously.

[olstyn]

Mostly.

Of course in the real world, (vs the USPSA fantasy world where people carry 9 magazines and intentionally disable slide locks) people do slide lock reloads.

I'm not sure I've even seen a single stack shooter with *9* mags, but 6-shot revolvers, all bets are off. :)

That said, I've definitely done slide lock reloads in production division. Sure, you try to avoid it, but sometimes you take extra shots, sometimes the stage plan just works out that way.

As others have said, this issue is common to a lot of pistols - my personal experience is that Walther actually went so far as to make a slight change to the design of P99/PPQ mags in order to lessen the chance of it happening - there's a little cutout at the top of the mag right where it gets closest to the ejector. It probably wouldn't completely save you if you really slammed a full size mag into the compact gun sans sleeve, but I imagine it greatly reduces the incidence of actually breaking things.

[ECVMatt]

Not at all trying to stir the pot but I found this informative:

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/08/20/no-you-cannot-over-insert-a-glock-magazine/#:~:text=Let%20me%20say%20it%20clearly%3A%20you%20 cannot%20over-insert,base%20plate%20was%20not%20there%20to%20sto p%20over-insertion.

I really, really want to like the 320 but am glad that I am an old curmudgeon and resisted change. I see so much potential in this platform but it is outshined by documented problems.

[Hambo]

Looks like the chain of command want the pistol shipped back to our national firearms unit, and they want Sig to replace it. So I will have to wait until after the Hurricane to handle this.

I will let you all know if I get the same gun back, or if Sig balks. This is a personal purchase duty gun, but since our agency bough 20,000 p320s, I assume we have some stroke with SIG corporate.


Hopefully SIG will replace yours, but it doesn't bode well for anyone who doesn't have large agency juice. I have an irrational desire to try a 320, but reasons not to keep cropping up.

[Archer1440]

Hopefully SIG will replace yours, but it doesn't bode well for anyone who doesn't have large agency juice. I have an irrational desire to try a 320, but reasons not to keep cropping up.

The simple solution is not to slam a too-long mag into the pistol at slide lock. Once one knows about the consequences, it’s easy to avoid.

[Hambo]

The simple solution is not to slam a too-long mag into the pistol at slide lock. Once one knows about the consequences, it’s easy to avoid.

If I understand what you're saying, and I may be too simple minded, so correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't be able to carry longer/higher capacity mags or I'd have to be delicate with them in a worst case scenario.

Another option would be to carry a pistol that will accept long mags without concern about failure.

[GJM]

FIFY


The simple solution is not to slam a too-long mag into the pistol at slide lock, in an attempt to make it auto forward.

[Archer1440]

FIFY

Well played ;)


If I understand what you're saying, and I may be too simple minded, so correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't be able to carry longer/higher capacity mags or I'd have to be delicate with them in a worst case scenario.

Another option would be to carry a pistol that will accept long mags without concern about failure.

Correct, in general.

Pistols with full length grips, or with front-facing magazine detents (HK P30, VP9, USP etc. for example) and Glocks (mags are notched to clear the ejector) are relatively immune to this sort of thing. Anything that you can physically override the mag lock on could smash the ejector. You could in theory hammer a SIG P226 mag into a P229 and have this happen, but as mentioned, much less likely with the strong carbon steel ejector of the 229.

The 320 series ejectors are simply a spur machined into the (relatively soft) stainless steel FCU frame, which is stainless steel and not replaceable. The same modularity that is a strength of the system leads to this well known weakness when running a too-short grip module with a too-long magazine at slide lock. When the pistol slide is in battery, it rides directly on top of the ejector with zero clearance and provides support.

[Hambo]

[QUOTE=Archer1440;1103940]
Correct, TLDR...QUOTE]

Next time I'll highlight sarcasm for you.

[Archer1440]

[QUOTE=Archer1440;1103940]
Correct, TLDR...QUOTE]

Next time I'll highlight sarcasm for you.

Do a better job with your sarcasm. It was hard to read your facial expression with your keyboard.

[jbrimlow]

Dawson makes a mag catch for 2011s to prevent over-insertion. (https://dawsonprecision.com/mag-releases-sti-2011-by-dawson-precision/)

I wonder if something similar could be made for the P320.

[CanineCombatives]

I've got an early 2015 production P320 with over 17k on it and the ejector is like new, but then I've never attempted to slam home an extended mag without a stopper on it, conversely the MP pistols were notorious for bent ejectors with the factory mags that came in the box with the pistol but nobody ever cried design flaw with those, I know PF loves it's P320 boogeyman threads but this one is simple user error.

[Eyesquared]

I concur with CanineCombatives. I am one of those USPSA fantasyland guys :rolleyes: but I only have 3 mags on my belt, my slide stop works, and I do practice slide stop reloads. Carrying a ton of mags is primarily done in locap divisions where slide lock reloads aren't uncommon. Disabling your slide lock is mostly a thing in open or limited because of 2011 specific considerations.

From what I have seen I don't expect to bend the ejector unless I use an undue amount of force to seat a mag, in which case I could have done the same to many other semi auto pistols generally considered to be "duty grade". I can hit a 1-1.2s slide lock reload with this thing so it's not like I'm moving delicately or cautiously, it's just a question of not hulk smashing the mag into the gun which is generally not an efficient technique anyways. I agree that it's shitty of SIG to not replace damaged FCUs for something like this.

[farscott]

I've got an early 2015 production P320 with over 17k on it and the ejector is like new, but then I've never attempted to slam home an extended mag without a stopper on it, conversely the MP pistols were notorious for bent ejectors with the factory mags that came in the box with the pistol but nobody ever cried design flaw with those, I know PF loves it's P320 boogeyman threads but this one is simple user error.

I disagree. Unless SIG explicitly states to not use magazines longer than the grip frame, the magazine/pistol design should protect against over insertion as the action can be anticipated as common, especially on "tap, rack, bang" stoppage clearance drills and reloads on the clock. SIG has to expect that people running the pistol with longer magazines will be a bit brisk when reloading under time or situational pressure.

Yes, other designs suffer from the issue, notably the 1911. I have snapped more than one ejector on 9x19 and .40 S&W 1911-pattern pistols due to being a bit too aggressive with a reload. I can forgive the 1911 because the idea of shorter or longer magazines was not a thing until more than fifty years after the design was released and I am running cartridges not considered in the original design. I am trying to use the design in a way that was never considered or intended when the pistol was being designed as there was one grip frame length and one magazine length in 1911. I have no experience with the M&P designs other than some time with the Shield 9, so I cannot comment on that design. SIG designed a modular pistol with the intent of supporting multiple calibers, magazines, and grip frame sizes, and this scenario should have been considered in the design.

[Eyesquared]

I disagree. Unless SIG explicitly states to not use magazines longer than the grip frame, the magazine/pistol design should protect against over insertion as the action can be anticipated as common, especially on "tap, rack, bang" stoppage clearance drills and reloads on the clock. SIG has to expect that people running the pistol with longer magazines will be a bit brisk when reloading under time or situational pressure.

Yes, other designs suffer from the issue, notably the 1911. I have snapped more than one ejector on 9x19 and .40 S&W 1911-pattern pistols due to being a bit too aggressive with a reload. I can forgive the 1911 because the idea of shorter or longer magazines was not a thing until more than fifty years after the design was released and I am running cartridges not considered in the original design. I am trying to use the design in a way that was never considered or intended when the pistol was being designed as there was one grip frame length and one magazine length in 1911. I have no experience with the M&P designs other than some time with the Shield 9, so I cannot comment on that design. SIG designed a modular pistol with the intent of supporting multiple calibers, magazines, and grip frame sizes, and this scenario should have been considered in the design.
If you tap and rack when the slide is forward, the ejector is backed by the slide and should be fine, AFAIK. For slide lock reloads, if people are breaking parts with the force of their mag insertions, something isn't right technique-wise IMO.

As for whether SIG is to blame or not for not building in some feature to stop mags from over-inserting , I think that's a separate question. The gun has the same problem as other guns on the market. Overall, this is a rare issue for the pistols where it is possible to damage the ejector, regardless of brand. Nobody is saying SIG has impeccable business practices but if we are honestly evaluating the pros and cons of the pistol and not the brand, that's not the same thing.

[farscott]

If you tap and rack when the slide is forward, the ejector is backed by the slide and should be fine, AFAIK. For slide lock reloads, if people are breaking parts with the force of their mag insertions, something isn't right technique-wise IMO.

As for whether SIG is to blame or not for not building in some feature to stop mags from over-inserting , I think that's a separate question. The gun has the same problem as other guns on the market. Overall, this is a rare issue for the pistols where it is possible to damage the ejector, regardless of brand. Nobody is saying SIG has impeccable business practices but if we are honestly evaluating the pros and cons of the pistol and not the brand, that's not the same thing.

While I see your view, I am not sure I agree. The modular nature of the design makes evaluating it more difficult because there are more states to be considered. Even with the slide in battery stopping the ejector from being bent, the magazine can still be driven into it. That means the ejector is being stressed and could be work hardened. Depending upon how the tolerances stack, the ejector may be bent a bit and then start to interfere with the slide travel if one swaps uppers.

[Eyesquared]

While I see your view, I am not sure I agree. The modular nature of the design makes evaluating it more difficult because there are more states to be considered. Even with the slide in battery stopping the ejector from being bent, the magazine can still be driven into it. That means the ejector is being stressed and could be work hardened. Depending upon how the tolerances stack, the ejector may be bent a bit and then start to interfere with the slide travel if one swaps uppers.

Since I got mine in late 2019 I have been dry firing an average of 30 minutes per day, 5 days a week, and I do plenty of reloads. I am using the 21 round SIG mags with aftermarket basepads that give 1-2 rounds more capacity so there is no stop preventing overinsertion of the mag. I'm usually pushing down to 1s in each session when I do reloads so I'm not gingerly inserting the mags either. Just 1 anecdotal point but no issues so far. If anything I would be more prone to notice the ejector dragging on the slide as my recoil spring needs replacing and I'm shooting mild 134PF ammo.

[Gadfly]

So, with my 320 sidelined, my 365 is my only “approved” pistols for duty. And of course I got deployed to Hurricane Laura response in Lake Charles, LA.

Well, we rolled out, and I carried the 365 IWB (Bravo Concealment Kydex) for 4 days of 100% humidity, sweat, no showers or power. And boy did we sweat.

I am not impressed with sigs finish. Mags were rusted too, on the side against my body.

59641

59642

59643

Between the bent ejector and the rust-o-Rama that is the 365, I am asking myself why I jumped off the Glock train? I do shoot the Sig a little better. But can can grab any Glock and know if I roll into a destroyed town for days of sweat, rain, heat, and mud, that I have no worries about the Glock. It will run. With Sig, look like I have to clean it every few days... Glock spoiled me.

[GJM]

My wife has had recurring problems with surface rust forming on her spare 365 mag, carried IWB.

[lwt16]

Gadfly

Make sure you address that magazine catch corrosion. I have seen P320s with corrosion so bad, the mag catch would stick and fully loaded magazines would drop free once slammed into the receiver.

I pulled all 320s in for maintenance and treated that part with Eezox and to date...haven't had one corrode any further. One was so bad I just replaced it (owner is a profuse sweater) and at last check, he said his is still good to go.

Several on this forum warned me of the Eezox toxicity/carcinogen stuff but once dried on, it seems to really help pistols like the Sig that rust easy. I did several magazines and sights of folks with 365s and none have come to me with complaints of rust.

[John Hearne]

I've been carrying Sigs since 1997ish. Light surface rust is just life with Sigs. Especially on small parts like magazines catches, slide catch levers, sights, etc.

My Sig P320 has been carried for multiple Mississippi summers and is just now starting to show some surface rush.

FWIW, after seeing what blued finishes do in Mississippi summers (carried a P245 in an on-the-vest holster for a week and the gun had to be refinished) I've been happy with the Sig's performance.

[HCM]

Well played ;)



Correct, in general.

Pistols with full length grips, or with front-facing magazine detents (HK P30, VP9, USP etc. for example) and Glocks (mags are notched to clear the ejector) are relatively immune to this sort of thing. Anything that you can physically override the mag lock on could smash the ejector. You could in theory hammer a SIG P226 mag into a P229 and have this happen, but as mentioned, much less likely with the strong carbon steel ejector of the 229.

The 320 series ejectors are simply a spur machined into the (relatively soft) stainless steel FCU frame, which is stainless steel and not replaceable. The same modularity that is a strength of the system leads to this well known weakness when running a too-short grip module with a too-long magazine at slide lock. When the pistol slide is in battery, it rides directly on top of the ejector with zero clearance and provides support.

The 320 FCU, including the ejector is a stamping and I agree it is relatively soft compared to some other designs.

[Archer1440]

The 320 FCU, including the ejector is a stamping and I agree it is relatively soft compared to some other designs.

Yes. The machining I refer to with regard to the ejector refers to the top surface of the spur, which is shaved to match the inside of the slide. It’s relatively thin and weak against vertical loading, but is fine within its design parameters (linear force).

By way of comparison, look at the ejector of an arguably more robust design, for example, an HK P30. It’s also built into a stamped modular housing, but it is stronger, with more conservative dimensions and made of carbon steel.

And replaceable for less than $30.

[Zman001]

Gadfly

Make sure you address that magazine catch corrosion. I have seen P320s with corrosion so bad, the mag catch would stick and fully loaded magazines would drop free once slammed into the receiver.

I pulled all 320s in for maintenance and treated that part with Eezox and to date...haven't had one corrode any further. One was so bad I just replaced it (owner is a profuse sweater) and at last check, he said his is still good to go.

Several on this forum warned me of the Eezox toxicity/carcinogen stuff but once dried on, it seems to really help pistols like the Sig that rust easy. I did several magazines and sights of folks with 365s and none have come to me with complaints of rust.


Yup.


https://youtu.be/idxJNmtwOE8

[KevH]

Between the bent ejector and the rust-o-Rama that is the 365, I am asking myself why I jumped off the Glock train? I do shoot the Sig a little better. But can can grab any Glock and know if I roll into a destroyed town for days of sweat, rain, heat, and mud, that I have no worries about the Glock. It will run. With Sig, look like I have to clean it every few days... Glock spoiled me.

Dude, you know the answer!

I've fought it for twenty years, momentarily getting distracted by something else, but every time I keep coming back...GLOCK

The damn things just work and work and work!

[TheNewbie]

Dude, you know the answer!

I've fought it for twenty years, momentarily getting distracted by something else, but every time I keep coming back...GLOCK

The damn things just work and work and work!

This is me with the CZ P-07. They just work for me.

The gun is not perfect, I find it even more boring than a Glock, but it checks more boxes than most guns do for me. If I couldn’t use the CZ, I would go with the Glock.

[03RN]

AFAIK. For slide lock reloads, if people are breaking parts with the force of their mag insertions, something isn't right technique-wise IMO.


Thats a very naive statement

[Clusterfrack]

This is me with the CZ P-07. They just work for me.

The gun is not perfect, I find it even more boring than a Glock, but it checks more boxes than most guns do for me. If I couldn’t use the CZ, I would go with the Glock.

P-07 Ejector $8.00
https://czcustom.com/cz-parts-all/p07-p09-parts-from-diagram/p07-ejector.html

[03RN]

I dont mind having to bust rust on carbon steelwith blued or parkerized finishes. Its just the way of life. In fact im nostalgic for sitting under my poncho in the Philippines scrubbing my SAW right now.

But on a modern polymer duty gun that is unacceptable.

I carried a g19 at sea for 10 years and i definetly had to clean off rust but it was a weekly afair and minimal.

I dont believe any gun is rust proof but some should be a little more rust resistant.

[Eyesquared]

Thats a very naive statement

Care to elaborate or do you just want to look down your nose at me? I've already said it before but I can stick a 1s reload without having to smash the mag into the gun. More strength =/= better

[Clusterfrack]

While the perfect reload uses just the amount of force required to seat the mag, there are a number of reasons people use enough force to bend a p320 ejector, ranging from being amped up, to inserting a mag that's longer than stock, to simply doing a tap-rack malfunction clearance. Being able to permanently damage the gun by doing a relatively normal function like inserting an extended magazine is a no-go for me. It's just bad engineering.

[HCM]

Care to elaborate or do you just want to look down your nose at me? I've already said it before but I can stick a 1s reload without having to smash the mag into the gun. More strength =/= better

What you can do under ideal conditions in your living room or on a flat range =\= what one might do in a fight under stress, adrenaline etc. A slide lock reload in a fight is already a bad day. It’s an unacceptable and unnecessary risk for a piece of life saving equipment.

[Eyesquared]

What you can do under ideal conditions in your living room or on a flat range =\= what one might do in a fight under stress, adrenaline etc. A slide lock reload in a fight is already a bad day. It’s an unacceptable and unnecessary risk for a piece of life saving equipment.

So you're saying you won't use any pistol that could potentially break an ejector, when reloaded with a longer-than-grip mag, that isn't using an extension that would stop the mag from being overinserted? That is a very specific use-case that could be easily avoided with better mag selection by using extensions or flush fitting mags. Furthermore it crosses a lot of commonly used service pistols off the list. If we're talking about gunfights one of the bigger and totally legitimate gripes, that SIG won't replace the FCU, isn't even relevant anymore as it's not like any of us will swap out a busted M&P, 2011, or 1911 ejector in a gunfight.

I am as reluctant as anyone else to buy a SIG product in 2020 and I have come close to buying another SIG multiple times only to decide not to. But this doesn't seem like a remotely intellectually honest complaint as people keep moving the goalposts further and further to make a relatively small issue seem bigger than it is. Most of us own guns susceptible to this exact problem that don't have the SIG logo on the slide.

[Clusterfrack]

Interestingly, I don’t trust any of the guns you’ve listed: p320, M&P, 1911, 2011.

[Eyesquared]

Interestingly, I don’t trust any of the guns you’ve listed: p320, M&P, 1911, 2011.

I don't disagree but if I recall correctly I'm pretty sure you can still do this to a P07 if you carry a P09 mag. I'm not 100% sure on that one. My point that it's a very specific and narrow set of circumstances (that can be avoided with some forethought) that can cause an issue stands.

To expand on the original thought some more, I believe you can bust a P30SK or a HK45C ejector by using a longer mag so not even HK is immune. I believe the same is true of Walther but they nipped the issue in the bud by not making a gun with a fullsize grip. :rolleyes:

[Clusterfrack]

I don't disagree but if I recall correctly I'm pretty sure you can still do this to a P07 if you carry a P09 mag. I'm not 100% sure on that one. My point that it's a very specific and narrow set of circumstances (that can be avoided with some forethought) that can cause an issue stands.

To expand on the original thought some more, I believe you can bust a P30SK or a HK45C ejector by using a longer mag so not even HK is immune. I believe the same is true of Walther but they nipped the issue in the bud by not making a gun with a fullsize grip. :rolleyes:

This is a good example. The P-07 mag catch is very robust, and I have countless reloads using 17 round Shadow2 mags. But you are right, if you get past the mag catch, you could bend feed lips and/or ejector. But it’s an $8 part.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200909/db15ebeabdcf344f0331ceca30863484.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200909/17b35b918e2be498c36ec7fa6473bda2.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200909/153b163b6fe57065c080cf07d7b43008.jpg

[shane45]

I have a bone stock M18 and I am using the factory 17 rounder that came with it. It absolutely comes into enough contact with the ejector that it actually kicks the mag over to the side. The underside of the ejector is angled and thats what its riding up. I took a vid and if your patient as i try and juggle holding the phone, holding the pistol, and pushing up with my pinky you will see it kick over. I didnt get a chance to do this with any of my other pistols except a 1911 which did not exibit this behavior or any contact at all actuly. Ill see if i can link it from my phone.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/UcKvp4h3XbdGHGmg9

[Caballoflaco]

“Let’s take one of the more highly stressed parts of a handgun and make it an integral part of the “serialized firearm” so that if it breaks or wears out you have to replace the entire serialized FCG”

Somebody should have read that out loud to the engineers designing the gun so they could have heard how stupid it sounded before the thing went into production.

[Eyesquared]

I have a bone stock M18 and I am using the factory 17 rounder that came with it. It absolutely comes into enough contact with the ejector that it actually kicks the mag over to the side. The underside of the ejector is angled and thats what its riding up. I took a vid and if your patient as i try and juggle holding the phone, holding the pistol, and pushing up with my pinky you will see it kick over. I didnt get a chance to do this with any of my other pistols except a 1911 which did not exibit this behavior or any contact at all actuly. Ill see if i can link it from my phone.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/UcKvp4h3XbdGHGmg9

Yes, but that is the case contacting the ejector and not the feed lip which is what will do real damage. I don't have the original P320 baseplates, just Hennings, but with them there isn't enough travel for the feed lip to
grossly deform the ejector like in the original post.

[Clusterfrack]

“Let’s take one of the more highly stressed parts of a handgun and make it an integral part of the “serialized firearm” so that if it breaks or wears out you have to replace the entire serialized FCG”

Somebody should have read that out loud to the engineers designing the gun so they could have heard how stupid it sounded before the thing went into production.

Even worse engineering than designing a gun (M&P) that requires removal of the rear sight to access the striker safety plunger.

[Eyesquared]

This is a good example. The P-07 mag catch is very robust, and I have countless reloads using 17 round Shadow2 mags. But you are right, if you get past the mag catch, you could bend feed lips and/or ejector. But it’s an $8 part.


Fair enough but in the heat of a gunfight neither of us will care if it's a $8 part or a $100 FCU because if we bust either ejector we're hosed. In my living room or on the flat range (as HCM said) I have seen no evidence that it's going to be an issue for me either way.

This is all a bit academic for me because ironically I carry a Glock. I bought them first and only picked up the P320 specifically for competition, and I haven't felt the need to replace the Glocks with SIGs. But at the end of the day SIG is far from alone if we are concerned about people using the wrong mags and breaking ejectors in gunfights. From what I can tell Glock is really the exception and not the norm for having an overinsertion stop built into all the mags.

[Clusterfrack]

Fair enough but in the heat of a gunfight neither of us will care if it's a $8 part or a $100 FCU because if we bust either ejector we're hosed. In my living room or on the flat range (as HCM said) I have seen no evidence that it's going to be an issue for me either way.

It's a good reason to use mags that fit.

[shane45]

Yes, but that is the case contacting the ejector and not the feed lip which is what will do real damage. I don't have the original P320 baseplates, just Hennings, but with them there isn't enough travel for the feed lip to
grossly deform the ejector like in the original post.

Negative. It is the mag making contact. Ill do another vid on an empty mag when i can.

[Gadfly]

(*posted this in the “are we good with Sig” thread by mistake... copying to here.)

So, after a few phone calls, I Find I am NOT the first gun this has happened to in the agency. But I am the first one to do it like I did it. Apparently, we issue the full size, tricked out 320 to our SRT teams. Those guns have mag funnels and 21 rounds mags standard. And the funnel combined with the 21 round mags can flex enough to let the mag get over inserted. I could not get a full answer, but either three other guns have had this issue, or I am the third. Considering the thousands we have in service, the odds are pretty low.

But our issued guns are not allowed to swap frame sizes. I bought a personal purchase duty gun, so with a personal gun I was able to use a compact frame instead of the compact carry frame. The vast majority of agents are not allowed to swap frames lengths, so this won’t be an issue.

Pic of issued SRT gun for reference.

60112

[03RN]

Care to elaborate or do you just want to look down your nose at me? I've already said it before but I can stick a 1s reload without having to smash the mag into the gun. More strength =/= better

Do that 1 reload covered in blood and dirt with friends screaming and mortor rounds going off overhead.

Smashing mags home gets them seated no mater how much shit rotor wash blew into your gun.

[HCM]

So you're saying you won't use any pistol that could potentially break an ejector, when reloaded with a longer-than-grip mag, that isn't using an extension that would stop the mag from being overinserted? That is a very specific use-case that could be easily avoided with better mag selection by using extensions or flush fitting mags. Furthermore it crosses a lot of commonly used service pistols off the list. If we're talking about gunfights one of the bigger and totally legitimate gripes, that SIG won't replace the FCU, isn't even relevant anymore as it's not like any of us will swap out a busted M&P, 2011, or 1911 ejector in a gunfight.

I am as reluctant as anyone else to buy a SIG product in 2020 and I have come close to buying another SIG multiple times only to decide not to. But this doesn't seem like a remotely intellectually honest complaint as people keep moving the goalposts further and further to make a relatively small issue seem bigger than it is. Most of us own guns susceptible to this exact problem that don't have the SIG logo on the slide.

For a competition or range gun, rock on....

As a guy who had broken an HK USPC and was responsible for over 1,000 pistols, rifles and shotguns I'm well aware of the fact guns break.

I also view duty / carry guns as disposable and I know the low end of my bell curve will do dumb things like use extended and aftermarket mags even though I both tell them not to and explain why not. Ask Gadfly how many unauthorized parts (especially Hello Kitty back plates) he has taken off personally owned duty Glocks...

Shooting people and people shooting at me aren't abstract concepts for me. My current choices for serious use are SIG or Glock. This is one of the reasons I choose Glock.

[Eyesquared]

Good thing I'm not getting mortared or having rotor wash blow dust into my gun. Nor am I in charge of anyone's guns except my own, so no least-common-denominator to worry about. Like I said before, the goalposts keep moving further and further afield and now it sounds more like we're choosing a pistol for Soviet conscripts fighting in Afghanistan rather than a personally maintained carry gun for a serious shooter, in the US. To me, it seems a little hyperbolic to say that no gun with this issue is suitable for carry when tons of issued service pistols aside from the Glock have had this potential problem for decades. For example, inserting a fullsize HK45 mag into a HK45C, a P226 mag into a P228, fullsize M&P mag into a compact M&P, etc.

However I am not a seriouser-than-thou tactical faceshooter, so YMMV. I just don't see why we feel the need to assume the problems faced by institutions or the military will be faced by literally everyone else. Disagree all you want but I think the most common sense approach for someone interested in their equipment is to take the mag they intend to use, insert it into the gun with the slide locked back, and see if the ejector will be contacted when the mag is inserted, regardless of who makes the gun. That might not work for an LE agency but I am not a LE agency. If my mags and gun passed this test (which they do, with the exception of the 140mm mags I use for Carry Optics) I would stop worrying about it, regardless of whose logo is on the slide.

[03RN]

Good thing I'm not getting mortared or having rotor wash blow dust into my gun. Nor am I in charge of anyone's guns except my own, so no least-common-denominator to worry about. Like I said before, the goalposts keep moving further and further afield and now it sounds more like we're choosing a pistol for Soviet conscripts fighting in Afghanistan rather than a personally maintained carry gun for a serious shooter, in the US. To me, it seems a little hyperbolic to say that no gun with this issue is suitable for carry when tons of issued service pistols aside from the Glock have had this potential problem for decades. For example, inserting a fullsize HK45 mag into a HK45C, a P226 mag into a P228, fullsize M&P mag into a compact M&P, etc.

However I am not a seriouser-than-thou tactical faceshooter, so YMMV. I just don't see why we feel the need to assume the problems faced by institutions or the military will be faced by literally everyone else. Disagree all you want but I think the most common sense approach for someone interested in their equipment is to take the mag they intend to use, insert it into the gun with the slide locked back, and see if the ejector will be contacted when the mag is inserted, regardless of who makes the gun. That might not work for an LE agency but I am not a LE agency. If my mags and gun passed this test (which they do, with the exception of the 140mm mags I use for Carry Optics) I would stop worrying about it, regardless of whose logo is on the slide.

Ok

I actually dont know what your point is.

If you choose to insert mags a way in which they can never ever damage the gun then fine. Great. Rock on.

[HCM]

Good thing I'm not getting mortared or having rotor wash blow dust into my gun. Nor am I in charge of anyone's guns except my own, so no least-common-denominator to worry about. Like I said before, the goalposts keep moving further and further afield and now it sounds more like we're choosing a gun for soviet conscripts rather than a gun for a serious shooter.

"serious shooter" doesn't mean what you think it means. You are talking about "technically proficient" shooters aka gun nerds.

That is the staple here at PF but it isn't most people who carry a gun for a living, even the most skilled shooters such as those in LE SWAT Type assignments can "tell time" but can't "tell you how a watch works". I hate to break it to you but even in so called "high speed" units there are plenty of guys who can seriously shoot yet know very little about guns. The Pat Mac's, Mike Pannones and SeanM's are the gun nerds of those units the other cool guys go to with gun questions.

Some of us are part of choosing guns for people who are not into guns but need them for work because people sometimes try to kill them. When you recommend a gun for someone, install sights for them and next time you see that gun it's in an evidence bag with blood on it, that serious.

[Eyesquared]

Ok

I actually dont know what your point is.

If you choose to insert mags a way in which they can never ever damage the gun then fine. Great. Rock on.

My point is that none of the considerations you raised are relevant to me in the context of concealed carry. If that makes me naive for not expecting the mortaring and rotor wash then so be it. I have had great success inserting mags in a controlled manner rather than being sloppy and using an excessive amount of force. However, my setup would be fine even if I smashed the mags in, because the feed lips don't contact the ejector with my particular mags.

[Eyesquared]

"serious shooter" doesn't mean what you think it means. You are talking about "technically proficient" shooters aka gun nerds.

That is the staple here at PF but it isn't most people who carry a gun for a living, even the most skilled shooters such as those in LE SWAT Type assignments can "tell time" but can't "tell you how a watch works". I hate to break it to you but even in so called "high speed" units there are plenty of guys who can seriously shoot yet know very little about guns. The Pat Mac's, Mike Pannones and SeanM's are the gun nerds of those units the other cool guys go to with gun questions.

Some of us are part of choosing guns for people who are not into guns but need them for work because people sometimes try to kill them. When you recommend a gun for someone, install sights for them and next time you see that gun it's in an evidence bag with blood on it, that serious.

Fair enough. I am talking about my personal gun. It's not my job to choose anyone else's gun. Like I said before, this particular issue would be a non-issue in my case because I have vetted my mags and gun and I don't get feed-lip to ejector contact even if I bash my mags in. So far as I am concerned ejector damage is not exclusively a P320 issue, as some seem to think. It is a "almost every pistol that's not a Glock" issue, if people choose to use any form of extended magazine.

[03RN]

My point is that none of the considerations you raised are relevant to me in the context of concealed carry. If that makes me naive for not expecting the mortaring and rotor wash then so be it. I have had great success inserting mags in a controlled manner rather than being sloppy and using an excessive amount of force. However, my setup would be fine even if I smashed the mags in, because the feed lips don't contact the ejector with my particular mags.

Forceful is not sloppy

When you reload under real-world stress with that same control please get back to me.

Im currently more worried about bears and porcipines but have no illusions that if I need to draw and shoot with my son screaming or what ever that ill not be reloading as forcefully as possible.

It's not sloppy to be forceful. Real life fighting is forceful

[03RN]

I have vetted my mags and gun and I don't get feed-lip to ejector contact even if I bash my mags in.

So its not a problem

[HCM]

Fair enough. I am talking about my personal gun. It's not my job to choose anyone else's gun. Like I said before, this particular issue would be a non-issue in my case because I have vetted my mags and gun and I don't get feed-lip to ejector contact even if I bash my mags in. So far as I am concerned this is not exclusively a P320 issue, as some seem to think. It is a "almost every pistol that's not a Glock" issue, if people choose to use any form of extended magazine.

My first exposure to the P320 over insertion / bent ejector issues was a local IDPA shoot who had the issue with two different P320 X5s with the magwell and 21 round factory mags.

He didn't have a 17,000 gun contract behind him and SIG refused to repair the FCU's or replace them unless he paid for new FCUs.

While the potential to damage the ejector is not exclusive to the P320, it's the only modern service pistol I can think of where the ejector is integral to the frame and not a replaceable part. As @Clusterfack has mentioned, it's just bad engineering.

[shane45]

I didnt see anyone say exclusive. However, I am in fact saying that the contact of the factory suplied mag and the disconector in my stock factory 320 is far more than any other pistol i have owned, ever. Would that make it much more prone to damage? I think it absolutely would.

[shane45]

Eyessquared, I have to ask. Is your personal pistol a 320?

[Eyesquared]

My first exposure to the P320 over insertion / bent ejector issues was a local IDPA shoot who had the issue with two different P320 X5s with the magwell and 21 round factory mags.

He didn't have a 17,000 gun contract behind him and SIG refused to repair the FCU's or replace them unless he paid for new FCUs.

While the potential to damage the ejector is not exclusive to the P320, it's the only modern service pistol I can think of where the ejector is integral to the frame and not a replaceable part. As @Clusterfack has mentioned, it's just bad engineering.

Yeah, I get it. Like I said, for range use and competition use I use a setup where I could potentially damage the ejector. I've accepted up front the cost of replacing a FCU if needed, which I doubt will happen to me. The flip side of the coin is that for USPSA my P320 is competitive out of the box and cost 2/3rds the price of a comparable setup from another company. I can break a few FCUs before it's a wash.

[HCM]

Yeah, I get it. Like I said, for range use and competition use I use a setup where I could potentially damage the ejector. I've accepted up front the cost of replacing a FCU if needed, which I doubt will happen to me. The flip side of the coin is that for USPSA my P320 is competitive out of the box and cost 2/3rds the price of a comparable setup would from another company. I can break a few FCUs before it's a wash.

By that logic, it makes sense. I've stated several times I shoot the 320 a little better than the Glock but the durability / reliability risk isn't worth the slight performance reward for me.

[Eyesquared]

Eyessquared, I have to ask. Is your personal pistol a 320?

I already mentioned this before in this thread. I bought multiple Glocks for carry. I bought a P320 specifically for competition. I would be fine carrying either but the 320 I own is too heavy to lug around at 43oz unloaded and has no backup ironsights to the red dot. Didn't feel the pressing need to buy more P320s to replace the Glocks, nor do I feel a pressing need to get rid of my P320.

[KevH]

Having a non-replaceable ejector integrated into the FCU body is just plain dumb. Ejectors can and do bend and break. Essentially having to replace the pistols (because that is what the FCU is) is unbelievable shortsighted.

Regarding over-insertion...

I learned long ago with 1911's that there had a to be a mechanical means on the base of the magazine to prevent over insertion otherwise bad things would happen. The Wilson 10 rounders have the metal tab on the front that should keep them from being over inserted, but they wear and break over time and have to be re-tacked on. I won't use Wilson ETM's with plastic base pads because of major over-insertion issues under normal use in training where there was just enough flex for the mag body to come up high enough and lock the gun up. Put on a steel base pad which acts as a stop and it totally solves that issue. I've also broken the plastic base pad on 47D's under normal use. Consequently, any new type of gun I purchase, or any magazines I use, I look for a mechanical stop. The exception are Glocks which have spoiled me silly. Just a damn good design.

Eyesquared

The P320 is primarily marketed towards LE and military. LE and military break guns...frequently. They abuse the ever-loving crap out of them sometimes through negligence and stupidity, sometimes through environmental wear (humidity, salt exposure, heat, sand, etc.) and often through just normal use. This is nothing new, it has always been the case. I've talked to plenty of old timer armorers who had to deal with the absolutely moronic things that officers did to S&W 19's and 66's and there are plenty of stories about stupid things soldiers did to their guns in WW1 and WW2.

I have no idea what you do for a living or why you are so seemingly offended by people that use guns for their work and have to maintain them talking about the issues they see in a design. I personally find it enriching. I had exactly ZERO experience with the P320 in the first couple years it was out, but was able to learn about issues others were having from this forum. I would rather learn from other's misfortune than experience it myself when I can. Under stress and with fatigue mags get slapped into guns...it's just a fact of life. I had to go to a week long SWAT training extravaganza (not a lot of sleep at night, scenarios and shoot all day sort of thing) some years back. By day four on the range there were a plethora of weapons malfunctions, mostly operator error due to fatigue. I saw four broken plastic baseplates that day...two CMC Powermags, a Wilson ETM, and a Wilson ETM. When you get tired, you tend to do things more forcefully.

I'd rather have a gun that's inherent design prevents as many potential pitfalls as possible. Besides the real world, this forum is a great place to learn where those pitfalls might lie.

[Eyesquared]

I have no idea what you do for a living or why you are so seemingly offended by people that use guns for their work and have to maintain them talking about the issues they see in a design. I personally find it enriching. I had exactly ZERO experience with the P320 in the first couple years it was out, but was able to learn about issues others were having from this forum. I would rather learn from other's misfortune than experience it myself when I can. Under stress and with fatigue mags get slapped into guns...it's just a fact of life. I had to go to a week long SWAT training extravaganza (not a lot of sleep at night, scenarios and shoot all day sort of thing) some years back. By day four on the range there were a plethora of weapons malfunctions, mostly operator error due to fatigue. I saw four broken plastic baseplates that day...two CMC Powermags, a Wilson ETM, and a Wilson ETM. When you get tired, you tend to do things more forcefully.

I'd rather have a gun that's inherent design prevents as many potential pitfalls as possible. Besides the real world, this forum is a great place to learn where those pitfalls might lie.
I am not offended by anyone discussing issues they have experienced. I am annoyed when people don't read what I posted before, making me repeat myself, when they make snide "drive by" remarks about my naive civilian worldview rather than actually making a coherent point, or when they erroneously assume I am arguing out of some bias. We are having a civil discussion and it's not my intent to shit on people for presenting useful information. If I have been uncivil, I hope I have directed that appropriately to people who have been rude to me, and if anyone feels wronged then I'm sure they can let me know. The main reason I am posting is because I felt there were obvious logical holes in the arguments being made by others around this issue which is that this issue can happen with many firearms including those not made by SIG. Furthermore for concealed carry I'm not convinced this is an issue for anyone who wants to vet their equipment. Obviously SIG charges you more to get it fixed if you bust an ejector which bothers me.

[HCM]

Having a non-replaceable ejector integrated into the FCU body is just plain dumb. Ejectors can and do bend and break. Essentially having to replace the pistols (because that is what the FCU is) is unbelievable shortsighted.

Regarding over-insertion...

I learned long ago with 1911's that there had a to be a mechanical means on the base of the magazine to prevent over insertion otherwise bad things would happen. The Wilson 10 rounders have the metal tab on the front that should keep them from being over inserted, but they wear and break over time and have to be re-tacked on. I won't use Wilson ETM's with plastic base pads because of major over-insertion issues under normal use in training where there was just enough flex for the mag body to come up high enough and lock the gun up. Put on a steel base pad which acts as a stop and it totally solves that issue. I've also broken the plastic base pad on 47D's under normal use. Consequently, any new type of gun I purchase, or any magazines I use, I look for a mechanical stop. The exception are Glocks which have spoiled me silly. Just a damn good design.

Eyesquared

The P320 is primarily marketed towards LE and military. LE and military break guns...frequently. They abuse the ever-loving crap out of them sometimes through negligence and stupidity, sometimes through environmental wear (humidity, salt exposure, heat, sand, etc.) and often through just normal use. This is nothing new, it has always been the case. I've talked to plenty of old timer armorers who had to deal with the absolutely moronic things that officers did to S&W 19's and 66's and there are plenty of stories about stupid things soldiers did to their guns in WW1 and WW2.

I have no idea what you do for a living or why you are so seemingly offended by people that use guns for their work and have to maintain them talking about the issues they see in a design. I personally find it enriching. I had exactly ZERO experience with the P320 in the first couple years it was out, but was able to learn about issues others were having from this forum. I would rather learn from other's misfortune than experience it myself when I can. Under stress and with fatigue mags get slapped into guns...it's just a fact of life. I had to go to a week long SWAT training extravaganza (not a lot of sleep at night, scenarios and shoot all day sort of thing) some years back. By day four on the range there were a plethora of weapons malfunctions, mostly operator error due to fatigue. I saw four broken plastic baseplates that day...two CMC Powermags, a Wilson ETM, and a Wilson ETM. When you get tired, you tend to do things more forcefully.

I'd rather have a gun that's inherent design prevents as many potential pitfalls as possible. Besides the real world, this forum is a great place to learn where those pitfalls might lie.

Your post reminded me this isn’t the first time SIG has had an seemingly minor issue that could deadline a frame /gun.

For some reason the grip screws on the P229s Had very little thread engagement and came loose on a regular basis. IME this was never an issue with other classic P-Series guns, just the P229. Blue Loctite helped and SIG started putting it on the threads of P229 grip screws from the factory but it was still a constant maintenance issue.

On the P229 the steel grip screws thread directly into the aluminum frame. There is no removable or replaceable bushing and due to the limited thread engagement it was very easy to strip out the grip screw holes in the aluminum frame. While it was possible to drill out the stripped screw holes and insert a bushing the labor required exceeded the government contract cost of a new gun/frame. If someone stripped out the grip screw holes they basically dead lined the gun.

Apparently this was a common enough occurrence in some agencies such as the North Carolina Highway patrol that it was cited as part of the justification for moving to a different platform. In response to these lost contracts SIG developed the E2 style grip which did not require grip screws.

Along those lines maybe we will see a P320 version 2.0 featuring a replaceable ejector.

[Caballoflaco]

For you guys on the institutional side of things what’s the labor cost for the paperwork of having to replace a serialized firearm vs an $8.00 piece of stamped metal that isn’t a serialized firearm?

[KevH]

HCM

SIG has had other past faux-pas like the extractor issues on the P220ST's (I owned one...then sold it), P220 slide-lock issues, and numerous other things, both pre and post Cohen era.

Honestly, I wish SIG would re-think it's business model for how they treat their customers, especially LE, and how products are released. I miss the company from pre-2006 and will admit I was a bit of a fanboy back then and still have my P226, a P228, and a P239. I shoot the P320 really well, especially the X5 Legion which is just too damn easy to shoot really well (especially with an optic) and purchased a P320 Pro Carry since I have so many dudes in my own department and other local departments running them.

I admire Bruce Gray and think the P320 and the P365 are both very innovative, but I'll be damned if they aren't completely half-baked designs and roll-outs. It feels like they totally rushed it and truly used the consumer, especially LE, as the test bed for what should have occurred long before any guns ever left the factory. Mix all the garbage that has happened with the P320 (the recall that wasn't, lawsuits of guns firing themselves, poor quality control, 58 billion ever changing variations) along with revolving door of LE reps and you have what adds up to a general bad taste left in the mouth. I want the P320 to work. I just don't trust it or the company at all.

[KevH]

For you guys on the institutional side of things what’s the labor cost for the paperwork of having to replace a serialized firearm vs an $8.00 piece of stamped metal that isn’t a serialized firearm?

I haven't had to send anything back to SIG in years (thankfully), but I have had to send plenty of guns back to the factory recently (typically to S&W, H&K, or Glock).

For me in a municipal department, it's just a pain in the butt. I'd much rather just swap out a part in ten or fifteen minutes, do a function check and/or test fire, and hand the gun back to the guy. Super easy.

Sending the gun back means I have to get the user another gun and do the paperwork (electronically) to issue it to him and then go qualify him with it. Then I need to sit on hold or wait for an e-mail to get and RMA from the manufacturer, record it leaving our possession, package the gun up, drive to our shipping department (about two miles away) and fill out their paperwork to send it out. Then I have to wait for it to return and make sure that whatever the issue was that caused it be sent out is fixed (usually through a function check and/or trip to the range). Then it needs to be re-logged into inventory and either re-issued or placed into storage.

Figure you're looking at 90 min of my time in total, give or take, and at my hourly rate I cost a whole lot more than an $8 part.

[TheNewbie]

I haven't had to send anything back to SIG in years (thankfully), but I have had to send plenty of guns back to the factory recently (typically to S&W, H&K, or Glock).

For me in a municipal department, it's just a pain in the butt. I'd much rather just swap out a part in ten or fifteen minutes, do a function check and/or test fire, and hand the gun back to the guy. Super easy.

Sending the gun back means I have to get the user another gun and do the paperwork (electronically) to issue it to him and then go qualify him with it. Then I need to sit on hold or wait for an e-mail to get and RMA from the manufacturer, record it leaving our possession, package the gun up, drive to our shipping department (about two miles away) and fill out their paperwork to send it out. Then I have to wait for it to return and make sure that whatever the issue was that caused it be sent out is fixed (usually through a function check and/or trip to the range). Then it needs to be re-logged into inventory and either re-issued or placed into storage.

Figure you're looking at 90 min of my time in total, give or take, and at my hourly rate I cost a whole lot more than an $8 part.

What kind of issues did you send the HKs, SWs, and Glocks back for?

[KevH]

What kind of issues did you send the HKs, SWs, and Glocks back for?

S&W
Recently had a cracked slide on an M&P 40 (I took pics of it which I think I posted here somewhere...it was weird). I had one M&P that wouldn't hold zero to save it's life and they ultimately replaced it (poor girl who kept failing to qualify with it kept getting blamed and having to remediate..it was actually the gun). When we first went to the M&P we had a bunch of them that had rust issues on the slide which S&W replaced.

Glock
The last Glocks were a Gen2 G19 that was missing a chunk of frame on the right side near the magwell where it finally gave way after being banged on a metal patrol car console by its owner for 30 years and a Gen3 G35 that had the frame worked over (thinned) about 15 years ago and cracked at the magwell (Glock replaced the frames on both for free).

H&K
Sent back a guy's personally owned USP to be converted to LEM because I didn't feel like doing it :D

[Bart Noir]

maybe we will see a P320 version 2.0 featuring a replaceable ejector.

Agree about poor engineering on that ejector, but even an electronics engineer can brainstorm some improvements. Just watch, as Rocky would say.

It is long and spindly. Make it less spindly by redoing the shape, so the steel is tougher and less likely to bend.

It is soft metal. Use some heat-treating or work hardening techniques on just that portion of the FCU, so the steel is tougher and less likely to bend.

Bart Noir

[Archer1440]

Agree about poor engineering on that ejector, but even an electronics engineer can brainstorm some improvements. Just watch, as Rocky would say.

It is long and spindly. Make it less spindly by redoing the shape, so the steel is tougher and less likely to bend.

It is soft metal. Use some heat-treating or work hardening techniques on just that portion of the FCU, so the steel is tougher and less likely to bend.

Bart Noir

It’s 316 stainless, or similar. It therefore cannot be heat treated, and work hardening will embrittle it. Making it from a 17-4 PH stainless would improve it, but would complicate bending the frame rails to shape and add cost.

SIG has produced a relatively inexpensive blanked and formed stainless part that sells for a very favorable margin, and is arguably “good enough” for 99.9% of users. Until it isn’t.

[John Hearne]

“Let’s take one of the more highly stressed parts of a handgun and make it an integral part of the “serialized firearm” so that if it breaks or wears out you have to replace the entire serialized FCG”
Somebody should have read that out loud to the engineers designing the gun so they could have heard how stupid it sounded before the thing went into production.

Since Sig loves pinching the pennies, I see it as a deliberate design choice to minimize manufacturing costs and reduce complexity. Not saying it's right but it depends on your priorities.

[lwt16]

For me in a municipal department, it's just a pain in the butt. I'd much rather just swap out a part in ten or fifteen minutes, do a function check and/or test fire, and hand the gun back to the guy. Super easy.



That's key. As an armorer, I like to keep parts on hand should the need arise to replace something. Break your gun, bring it to me, I fix broken part, hand you your gun back.

No paperwork, no need to re-qualify or vet reliability, etc. I couldn't tell you how many times I've done work on the hood of the patrol car in minutes.

As far as the P320 and it's built in ejector, if Sig would just say "hey, you cover the shipping to us and we will cover the repair....even if we have to replace the chassis" I'd feel a whole lot better about the two copies sitting at the house.

Two hundred? Come on.

[HCM]

That's key. As an armorer, I like to keep parts on hand should the need arise to replace something. Break your gun, bring it to me, I fix broken part, hand you your gun back.

No paperwork, no need to re-qualify or vet reliability, etc. I couldn't tell you how many times I've done work on the hood of the patrol car in minutes.

As far as the P320 and it's built in ejector, if Sig would just say "hey, you cover the shipping to us and we will cover the repair....even if we have to replace the chassis" I'd feel a whole lot better about the two copies sitting at the house.

Two hundred? Come on.

They could charge the actual cost of the FCU and just call it a "service fee."

It's a deliberate choice to put profit over performance.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

I don't disagree but if I recall correctly I'm pretty sure you can still do this to a P07 if you carry a P09 mag. I'm not 100% sure on that one. My point that it's a very specific and narrow set of circumstances (that can be avoided with some forethought) that can cause an issue stands.

To expand on the original thought some more, I believe you can bust a P30SK or a HK45C ejector by using a longer mag so not even HK is immune. I believe the same is true of Walther but they nipped the issue in the bud by not making a gun with a fullsize grip. :rolleyes:

I posted this in the P07 thread instead of the P320 thread since I didnt want to join in the pile-on. But since you mentioned it, I was curious after reading this thread and literally tried to F up the P07 and failed to do so. No damage or loss of function to ejector or mag lips or anything else, and that's with repeatedly using stupid amounts of force. See post #631 at the top of this page:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12944-New-CZ-P-07-Mind-Blown/page64

[Clark Jackson]

Good thing I'm not getting mortared or having rotor wash blow dust into my gun. Nor am I in charge of anyone's guns except my own, so no least-common-denominator to worry about. Like I said before, the goalposts keep moving further and further afield and now it sounds more like we're choosing a pistol for Soviet conscripts fighting in Afghanistan rather than a personally maintained carry gun for a serious shooter, in the US. To me, it seems a little hyperbolic to say that no gun with this issue is suitable for carry when tons of issued service pistols aside from the Glock have had this potential problem for decades. For example, inserting a fullsize HK45 mag into a HK45C, a P226 mag into a P228, fullsize M&P mag into a compact M&P, etc.

However I am not a seriouser-than-thou tactical faceshooter, so YMMV. I just don't see why we feel the need to assume the problems faced by institutions or the military will be faced by literally everyone else. Disagree all you want but I think the most common sense approach for someone interested in their equipment is to take the mag they intend to use, insert it into the gun with the slide locked back, and see if the ejector will be contacted when the mag is inserted, regardless of who makes the gun. That might not work for an LE agency but I am not a LE agency. If my mags and gun passed this test (which they do, with the exception of the 140mm mags I use for Carry Optics) I would stop worrying about it, regardless of whose logo is on the slide.

Ha! Those were entertaining one-liners.

[RJ]

Not sure, but this post today from another forum seems to be the same/similar issue of damaged FCU/ejector, related to magazine insertion.

https://sigtalk.com/p250-p320-p320-x-5-pistols/396180-what-heck-sig-thinking-beware-legion-owners.html

[BigT]

I have had great success inserting mags in a controlled manner rather than being sloppy and using an excessive amount of force.


So um

You ever been shot at?

[shane45]

I could live with the design oversight and wouldnt be to worried about it if there wasnt so much mag contact with it!

[Gadfly]

Got an Return authorization number and a FedEx label a few min ago from SIG.

The say they are “fixing it”. Which I was told means replacing. If it is just bending it back, I can do that myself. But so far, it looks like they mean to replace it. I will keep you posted.


SIDE NOTE:
According to our Nation Armory, I am the 4th gun out of 12k currently issued pistols to have this issue. (We have a contract for Up to 20k total, just 12k in the field so far) So pretty minimal chances.

We have also had two extractor launch themselves from slides in one week. Factory ammo, no blown case head. So I dont know how this was possible. I was not present for either event, so I did not get to diagnose or do a post mortem. When I ask questions like, “so there was still brass in the chamber, and you had a double feed? Was the brass in the chamber bulged or split? Any primer flattening or flow?” I just get a blank stare. An instructor used a multi tool to get the spend brass out of the chamber. Shooter said he thought he saw a piece on the ground that could be part of the gun, but was not sure. He went to the range the next day and found the perfectly intact extractor on the ground.

Strange thing is, shooter had this happen... they Pulled his pistol, issued him a new one the next day, he goes to the range to qual with the new pistol and managed to have the extractor self remove on a second pistol! The chances of a coincidence are astronomical. Neither extractor “broke”, and they could both be popped back into place and continued to function. No visible cause could be fund. I 100% believe the shooter that he has never detail stripped the pistol (he is not a gun guy).

[JonInWA]

I'm wondering if there's a systemic manufacturing/assembly/component issue-especially if both pistols were from the same production lot/timeframe. Best, Jon

[DpdG]

I’d be suspect of the assembly of the extractor plunger assembly. The extractor is retained by a shelf on the plunger and it can technically be assembled with the plunger rotated incorrectly. Extremely unlikely that two in a row would be assembled incorrectly, but that’s the only explanation I can think of for a non-catastrophic cause.

Edit- this failure mode was specifically mentioned in my factory armorer class on 8/31/20.

[ST911]

We have also had two extractor launch themselves from slides in one week. Factory ammo, no blown case head. So I dont know how this was possible.

Not only possible, but has occurred elsewhere.

[Steven T]

I cleaned my P320's slide including the extractor and reassembled it incorrectly. When I loaded at a match the extractor popped out, fortunately the R.O. observed it and I was able to retrieve it. I put it back together correctly and have about 5-600 rounds through it since without issue. Entirely my fault. So I am somewhat inclined to believe that incorrect assembly may be a culprit here.

[Gadfly]

Not only possible, but has occurred elsewhere.

Details? PM if not appropriate for public...

[Gadfly]

So, I got the gun back from SIG yesterday. Same slide/barrel/grip module, new FCU.

The good:
Sig Customer service guy was very polite, and promptly responded to all my emails and calls. Zero complaints, and one of the better customer service experiences I heave had.
No cost to me for all the shipping and work.
I asked SIG to sell me a “PRO” cut slide since my agency is beta testing RDS for the troops, and they gave me a good deal.

The Meh:
It took a while. But SIG is a big company and I am far from the only customer with an issue.
I sent in just the pistol, and was near expecting they would send it back with a complimentary mag inserted. Nope.
(Not a huge deal or ding on SIG, but let’s just say when my M&P .40 went back to Smith, it may have come back with a free mag)

The OCD nitpick side of me that has nothing to do with the repair:
I am a guy who always wants the original box and papers with a gun. I sent in my old gun(Serialized FCU), and asked to make sure I got back a box with the new FCU’s serial number and bar code, so I would have it for the “new” pistol. They complied.... but they stuck the label on a cardboard shipping box, not on the black plastic box a pistol normally comes in. I can’t get the sticker off to put on the spare black plastic Sig box I have. Totally irrelevant to my original issue. Just a nit pick because I am strange like that....


I have not fired it yet, but I am sure it will run fine just like before, I just have to be wary of using the right mags for the frame I instal.

[KevH]

Gadfly

I'm glad that the experience was good with their CS getting your gun fixed and back.

I still think it is completely unacceptable that a part that takes about 3 min or less to change on a Glock, 20 min on a Browning Hi Power or SIG P226, or an hour or so to fit on a 1911 took over a month to fix on a SIG and required a new serialized part.