Poll: P320 Unintentional Discharge Issues

[TGS]

I understand there are pre-existing threads discussing the issue and the purpose of this thread is not to rehash that same conversation.

Looking for numbers on the P-F membership, hence the poll.

[HeavyDuty]

Voted safe, but not unilaterally - I am comfortable carrying a late production P320 with a manual safety.

[Noah]

Does the continued talk about unintentional discharges of the P320 that are possibly not user-induced effect your opinion on how safe the P320 is? Would it make a difference on your theoretical stance of buying a P320, whether you're actually in the market for one right now or not?


I haven't seen any hard proof yet that a post 2020 P320 has a risk of mechanical AD in the same way that a 2015-2017 P320 (yikes) or 2017-2020 (too questionable for me to be confident in).

If a current P320 was the only choice of carry gun I had, I'd carry it, but I'd take almost any other name brand gun over it if I was limited to single action striker fired pistols, based upon my own perosnal feelings on Sig's QC and the robustness of the design itself, like the firing pin safety lever.

I'd prefer a manual safety on a single action striker fired gun but I just have garbage range of motion in my right thumb and haven't found one I liked yet. Personal issue.

That said, after carrying single action striker fired guns 2015-2017 (320), 6 months with a Glock, then an M&P 2018-2019, then Beretta 92 2019-2021 then Glock, and an M&P for the first 6 months of 2022, single action fully pre cocked striker fired guns just aren't my personal preference anymore, when a Glock with extremely robust internal safeties and an SCD, and even better, DA/SA hammer fired pistols exist.

I've gone away from all the striker fired pistols except for my wife's G48 with an SCD, and only have DA/SA Berettas. After one last hurrah with the M&P where I planned to use the thumb safety but just hated it, I just think about the gun less and am more comfortable with the draw process and reholster process with a DA/SA, just living with the gun all day and carrying it while playing with my 1 year old daughter and such.

[Suvorov]

Voted safe, but not unilaterally - I am comfortable carrying a late production P320 with a manual safety.

^This - especially one equipped with a manual safety.

So I voted “No” but with this provision.

[Lon]

Totally misread the options. I voted no, but should have voted yes.

[LittleLebowski]

https://media.tenor.com/CNewh1WYwnkAAAAC/danny-devito-nope.gif

[Skywalker]

I have a Sept 2017 production X-Carry P320 and between safety concerns (esp carrying AIWB) and the mess of trying to figure out what optic cut is on it (the old one, of course), I kind of just want to get rid of it.

Which is a shame, because I like how it shoots, and I've been wanting to put my first RDS handgun together.

But at this point it's probably going to be a Glock, or a VP9 to use all my P30 mags.

[lwt16]

Certified Sig p320 armorer for a while now.

No way I will carry the one I own nor any other 320.

P365? Yep, carry at least one daily. Certified on 365s as well.

Regards.

[baddean]

Well, the Milwaukee Police Dept. seems to be done with them

https://apple.news/AvSDN_aKsQhKkF7wPpqe5iA

Oops. Missed LLs earlier post.

[JonInWA]

I believe that calls for a more nuanced discussion than a "Yes" or "No" option that the poll presents. I would not purchase, carry or authorize for duty a Pre-June 2019 P320, regardless as to whether or not it had gone through the SIG VUP program. Post-1 June 2019 I would, and in fact do.

That said, my preference in SFA pistols is toward Glock and HK, and I'm far more likely to carry and use them than my P320.

I recommend those with residual concerns about uncommanded discharges even with a post-1 June 2019 get a variant with a manual safety.

Additionally, for P320 carry I strongly recommend users be very familiar with the P320's triggerpull characteristics, as it's fairly short with a pretty soft wall/break. It will not tolerate inattention or unfamiliarity well, especially if utilized as a threat management tool.

Unless you're willing to put in some dedicated time in practice and training with a P320, I'll suggest that it's best venue is as a range/competition pistol, as opposed to EDC/duty.

So I voted "No" on the poll, but it's a "No" with the caveats as discussed.

Best, Jon

[JCS]

Certified Sig p320 armorer for a while now.

No way I will carry the one I own nor any other 320.

P365? Yep, carry at least one daily. Certified on 365s as well.

Regards.

Could you expand on why you would not carry a p320? I’m curious from an armorer’s perspective. I’ve done my own research but most of the opinions out there are from people who don’t intimately understand the platform. I assume you’re talking about not wanting to carry a post 2020 version?

[JCS]

I understand there are pre-existing threads discussing the issue and the purpose of this thread is not to rehash that same conversation.

Looking for numbers on the P-F membership, hence the poll.

Until recently I wouldn’t have carried one. But these helped me feel more comfortable. I’m still not 100% comfortable as say a Glock but it seems to me the newer ones are safe.


https://youtu.be/dPKMu47uWXQ

https://youtu.be/R0MpcFEXWhc

[lwt16]

Could you expand on why you would not carry a p320? I’m curious from an armorer’s perspective. I’ve done my own research but most of the opinions out there are from people who don’t intimately understand the platform. I assume you’re talking about not wanting to carry a post 2020 version?

Absolutely.

I have a plethora of pistols to choose from. Typically, I carry a 365X or a Glock 45….sometimes a G43X.

I’ve also had a shooter (SF and very competent shooter) have an uncommanded discharge with his P320 that had serious assembly issues and was factory fresh. I got to experience checking his lower extremities for wounds with another shooter ready to hand me trauma gear.

Another competent shooter had an out of battery detonation with his P320 which blew the extractor into orbit and split the grip module.

So….nope. Range toy only.

Regards.

[TGS]

Usually, bold red text that says someone isn't interested in rehashing other conversations shouldn't be quoted and taken as an invitation to rehash those other conversations.

But, cool, I guess.

[SpicyBrass]

Until recently I wouldn’t have carried one. But these helped me feel more comfortable. I’m still not 100% comfortable as say a Glock but it seems to me the newer ones are safe.


https://youtu.be/dPKMu47uWXQ

https://youtu.be/R0MpcFEXWhc

When a slide is attached there is only a fraction of contact to the sear. Those videos show the striker assembly impossibly close to the FCU.

[Noah]

Usually, bold red text that says someone isn't interested in rehashing other conversations shouldn't be quoted and taken as an invitation to rehash those other conversations.

But, cool, I guess.

Sorry, I was going off the initial posting which seemed to invite reasoning.

[JonInWA]

Usually, bold red text that says someone isn't interested in rehashing other conversations shouldn't be quoted and taken as an invitation to rehash those other conversations.

But, cool, I guess.

I think we're a sophisticated enough audience to provide explanations without reinventing the wheel to flesh out what appears to be a legitimate discussion, but with (in my opinion) were insufficient voting options on the poll provided, given the changes that have occurred to the P320 over fairly discernable timeframes throughout its production-which can (and, again in my opinion) should impact on your vote.

P-f historically hasn't been a fanboi type site, and intelligent and cogent discussions have been welcome to fully develop thread discussions.

Rant off!

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

Absolutely.

I have a plethora of pistols to choose from. Typically, I carry a 365X or a Glock 45….sometimes a G43X.

I’ve also had a shooter (SF and very competent shooter) have an uncommanded discharge with his P320 that had serious assembly issues and was factory fresh. I got to experience checking his lower extremities for wounds with another shooter ready to hand me trauma gear.

Another competent shooter had an out of battery detonation with his P320 which blew the extractor into orbit and split the grip module.

So….nope. Range toy only.

Regards.

Larry, we may have discussed it before, but were you able to ascertain the manufacture dates on the pistols involved?

Best, Jon

[Oldherkpilot]

Personally, I think all striker-fired pistols are the devil's spawn. 😁 However, I shoot with half a dozen cops (cops who are shooters) and 4 of the 6 shoot one variation or other of the 320. So I voted "no" in your survey. I do stand off to their left when its their turn to shoot, of course.

[TGS]

I think we're a sophisticated enough audience to provide explanations without reinventing the wheel to flesh out what appears to be a legitimate discussion, but with (in my opinion) were insufficient voting options on the poll provided, given the changes that have occurred to the P320 over fairly discernable timeframes throughout its production-which can (and, again in my opinion) should impact on your vote.

P-f historically hasn't been a fanboi type site, and intelligent and cogent discussions have been welcome to fully develop thread discussions.

Rant off!

Best, Jon

It's a simple question, there's no need to overthink it. Either you're okay to carry a P320 (in whatever manner of carry or configuration you prefer, I don't care), or you're skeeved out by the possibility of it discharging without your doing so. We can apply countless conditions and caveats to virtually any pistol ever made, as well...and that's not the point.

We aren't in 2015, so the question obviously isn't asking about an older P320. It also doesn't matter whether it must have a thumb safety, a SIG Rainbow TiNitride slide, been blessed with holy water in the Church of John Moses Browning, or any number of other features or combinations.

It's really not that difficult.

If the binary survey bothers you so much, you're eligible for a full refund.

[45dotACP]

Hard pass. Don't trust em.

Life is far too short to be shooting or carrying guns you hate or don't trust.

[JonInWA]

TGS, I'll partially buy your explanation and intentions, but the problem is that the devil is in the details (as are many things with the P320 arguably...). The poll as it is essentially conveys that a P320 is either good or bad. So in that sense, I guess the seeming intent can makes sense-chew on that, SIG Marketing Department...

However, even though we're not in 2015, unless a P320 user knows the manufacture date of their individual P320, we might as well be, since unless you have the case with the manufacture date sticker, or have specifically called SIG Customer Service (braving the wait times) to find out. There are no visible external clues that I'm aware of that give visual clues about the manufacture date.

So in that sense, nuances and more detailed explanations and poll voting options can matter. Otherwise, you're running the risk of getting knee-jerk, purely visceral reactions/votes, or are potentially unfairly tarring what may be a perfectly (well, at least reasonably, assuming decent manufacture and QC protocols...) safe gun. Additionally, the wording on the poll options is somewhat confusing, as to what constitutes "Yes" and "No;" you probably should have switched them on the poll questions, so the options would have read "No, I'm not confident in the P320's safety record" and "Yes, I believe the gun is mechanically sound"-but perhaps that's just me.

Not that SIG is particularly deserving of much credit on clarifying the potential issues and specific fixes and fix dates. Most of what we've found has been from members like Lwt16 and HCM, who have specific training on the platform, as well as larger than normal sample size exposures, and other p-f members who have contributed to the earlier thread(s) on the P320.

But thanks for the refund.

Best, Jon

[Dave Williams]

I love my 320, and everyone who shoots it loves it. P320 Spectre Comp FTMFW!
96907

[BK14]

I was/do carry a 320. However, it’s a post 6/2019 model. I don’t think it’d have issues. However, my agency just banned 320s. So, now I’m not willing to roll the dice, even off duty.

[JSGlock34]

The reports are troubling, and I have heard enough from trusted forum members to have concerns. My interest in the 320 is really limited to the M17, but if the elusive problem is buried somewhere in the internal fire control components, I don't see how the manual safety (which locks the trigger bar and does not affect the striker) would address that.

[TGS]

So in that sense, nuances and more detailed explanations and poll voting options can matter. Otherwise, you're running the risk of getting knee-jerk, purely visceral reactions/votes, or are potentially unfairly tarring what may be a perfectly (well, at least reasonably, assuming decent manufacture and QC protocols...) safe gun.

That's kind of the point, Jon. I mean, I'm not tarring the reputation of the gun...I'm asking people what their gut feeling is. If you don't like the result...that's too bad.

By any chance, are you currently sponsored by SIG, have been in the past, or in any way receive support or compensation from them?

[Kanye Wyoming]

Totally misread the options. I voted no, but should have voted yes.

Are you not unduly famished, although a plate of brisket would hit the spot?

YES, I am moderately sated but don’t tell me I couldn’t not eat some brisket.

NO, I wouldn’t think twice about not being hesitant to devour three plates of brisket.

:)

[Joe in PNG]

In general, I just don't have the same sort of warm fuzzy confidence in Sig that I had back in the 90's.

[Totem Polar]

The whole point of the 320 was, from a civilian market POV, to produce a SFA with a lighter, easier, nicer trigger than a Glock. Which is what they got. Pass on carrying that shit. Plus, I don’t think they really stepped up to deal with their initial issue. JMO.

[Texaspoff]

As a certified 320 armorer and an LE, I have carried the 320 and will continue to do so, until there is a proven flaw with them. Now with that I will also say, I do believe the design, IE, the larger trigger surface, and short take up and break, have contributed and will continue to cause ND situations, especially in LE.

I don't think the guns are just going off by themselves, but I do believe the casual handling of them by officers is causing a disconcerting amount of the reported ND issues. The guns are performing as they should, when the trigger is pulled, however, I don't believe there is enough tolerance built into to the design that allows anything but absolute discipline when holstering and in the holster from outside interferences, IE jackets, shirts, etc.

A duty weapon is exposed to these things daily and in certain situations it can be difficult to keep track of your jacket, pull tabs, shirts etc. As duty weapon should not be as sensitive to these outside forces as I believe the 320 is. IMO the standard 320 variant, is very much like carrying a 1911, with the safety in the off position.






TXPO

[gato naranja]

As a certified 320 armorer and an LE, I have carried the 320 and will continue to do so, until there is a proven flaw with them. Now with that I will also say, I do believe the design, IE, the larger trigger surface, and short take up and break, have contributed and will continue to cause ND situations, especially in LE.

I don't think the guns are just going off by themselves, but I do believe the casual handling of them by officers is causing a disconcerting amount of the reported ND issues. The guns are performing as they should, when the trigger is pulled, however, I don't believe there is enough tolerance built into to the design that allows anything but absolute discipline when holstering and in the holster from outside interferences, IE jackets, shirts, etc.

A duty weapon is exposed to these things daily and in certain situations it can be difficult to keep track of your jacket, pull tabs, shirts etc. As duty weapon should not be as sensitive to these outside forces as I believe the 320 is. IMO the standard 320 variant, is very much like carrying a 1911, with the safety in the off position.

Based on what I have personally been made aware of vis-a-vis the 320 - it is admittedly not extensive - this is a cogent and concise response.

I know two individuals who carry the scars caused by the combination of an unforgiving SFA design and a "perfect storm" of casual practices. One has returned to their old school SIG DA/SA's, the other is persisting in their choice but has scruples about it and is - rather amazingly, given their attitude - considering going with Beretta DA/SA's like I have chosen to do late in the game.

[Biggy]

As a certified 320 armorer and an LE, I have carried the 320 and will continue to do so, until there is a proven flaw with them. Now with that I will also say, I do believe the design, IE, the larger trigger surface, and short take up and break, have contributed and will continue to cause ND situations, especially in LE.

I don't think the guns are just going off by themselves, but I do believe the casual handling of them by officers is causing a disconcerting amount of the reported ND issues. The guns are performing as they should, when the trigger is pulled, however, I don't believe there is enough tolerance built into to the design that allows anything but absolute discipline when holstering and in the holster from outside interferences, IE jackets, shirts, etc.

A duty weapon is exposed to these things daily and in certain situations it can be difficult to keep track of your jacket, pull tabs, shirts etc. As duty weapon should not be as sensitive to these outside forces as I believe the 320 is. IMO the standard 320 variant, is very much like carrying a 1911, with the safety in the off position.






TXPO



I 100% agree on how you feel about the Sig P320 pistol and could not have said it better myself, so I won't.

[diananike]

I just got a P320 carry and was shocked at how light and short the trigger pull was in comparison to my Glocks.
I'm seriously reconsidering setting it up in an appendix holster like I intended.
I'm stuck with the gun now that the Govt of Canada has decreed a handgun transfer freeze.
It is a summer of 2022 manufacture so hopefully not plagued by the hands free unintentional discharge issues from 2019 and earlier.
Still doesnt seem feel like a safe trigger to me.

[HCM]

Are you not unduly famished, although a plate of brisket would hit the spot?

YES, I am moderately sated but don’t tell me I couldn’t not eat some brisket.

NO, I wouldn’t think twice about not being hesitant to devour three plates of brisket.

:)

Nah,

You've just spend too much time in an org where No means yes and yes means no.

[HCM]

The reports are troubling, and I have heard enough from trusted forum members to have concerns. My interest in the 320 is really limited to the M17, but if the elusive problem is buried somewhere in the internal fire control components, I don't see how the manual safety (which locks the trigger bar and does not affect the striker) would address that.

I agree with TXPOFF that the internal fire control component issues have been resolved in post June 2019 320s. You are correct in that the manual safety does not address any of that. Nor, as discussed in other threads would a tab inertia trigger safety due to peculiarities of the 320.

However, the 320 does have a short light trigger pull which approximates the single action trigger pull of hammer fired guns. The 320 is not the only striker fired gun with this issue. However, a manual safety does address operator error and foreign object ND issues, which are far more common than internal fire control issues.

Even with the older P320s which are susceptible to internal issues, operator error and foreign objects constitute the majority of issues making a manual safety worthwhile.

[Sammy1]

What exactly are the changes with the 2019 and higher P320s. I have a 2017 that's been back to the factory twice (extractor problems and broken trigger bar). Wondering if it was upgraded and if so, what would I look for.

[Noah]

What exactly are the changes with the 2019 and higher P320s. I have a 2017 that's been back to the factory twice (extractor problems and broken trigger bar). Wondering if it was upgraded and if so, what would I look for.

For a 320 to be safe it needs the most current (post June ish 2019) firing pin safety lock, and critically if your gun is a 2017, the most up to date sear spring cup design. There is an example on the forum of a 2017ish 320 having mixed generation of sear spring and sear spring cups causing an AD.

[Sammy1]

For a 320 to be safe it needs the most current (post June ish 2019) firing pin safety lock, and critically if your gun is a 2017, the most up to date sear spring cup design. There is an example on the forum of a 2017ish 320 having mixed generation of sear spring and sear spring cups causing an AD.

I have a feeling they replaced the broken parts and didn't upgrade anything.

[Noah]

I have a feeling they replaced the broken parts and didn't upgrade anything.

Do you happen to know if it is a VUP program gun or manufactured after that point? Did it come with the skinny trigger?

[Sammy1]

Do you happen to know if it is a VUP program gun or manufactured after that point? Did it come with the skinny trigger?

40 Cal carry redbox with the VUP. Unfired. If I had to guess, police trade-in for the VUP where the PD got new weapons and Sig did the VUP and sold them redbox.

[Kirk]

I just bought an M18 from a forum member before the Milwaukee thread and this thread, and thinking I’ll just end up trading it on another P365. I like that design better and feel safer with it. Judging from the poll results, it seems I’m in the majority there lol

[Noah]

40 Cal carry redbox with the VUP. Unfired. If I had to guess, police trade-in for the VUP where the PD got new weapons and Sig did the VUP and sold them redbox.

I have my own opinion, but I can only recommend you read the July 2020 Lawsuit P320 thread on the forum for some truly great info and decide for yourself whether it's worth it.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?43653-New-2-July-2020-SIG-P320-Lawsuit-and-P320-Concerns

[maximus83]

As a certified 320 armorer and an LE, I have carried the 320 and will continue to do so, until there is a proven flaw with them. Now with that I will also say, I do believe the design, IE, the larger trigger surface, and short take up and break, have contributed and will continue to cause ND situations, especially in LE.

I don't think the guns are just going off by themselves, but I do believe the casual handling of them by officers is causing a disconcerting amount of the reported ND issues. The guns are performing as they should, when the trigger is pulled, however, I don't believe there is enough tolerance built into to the design that allows anything but absolute discipline when holstering and in the holster from outside interferences, IE jackets, shirts, etc.

A duty weapon is exposed to these things daily and in certain situations it can be difficult to keep track of your jacket, pull tabs, shirts etc. As duty weapon should not be as sensitive to these outside forces as I believe the 320 is. IMO the standard 320 variant, is very much like carrying a 1911, with the safety in the off position.

TXPO

This is for me is the best concise summary I've seen of this entire issue. Says it better than I could--and with some credibility from somebody who's worked with the 320 internals.

I voted for the "yes" option: I'm NOT confident in the 320's safety record. But not mainly because of the magical uncommanded discharge issue. I'm agnostic on the question of whether the 2020+ 320's have had real uncommanded discharges. Human nature being what it is, and going with Occam's Razor and the simplest most plausible explanation, it seems likely these discharges are simple ND's where the user is unaware (or unwilling to admit) that their holster or handling caused an ND. It's hard to know, but the "uncommanded discharge" thing is hard to prove, and IMHO has not been proven with any confidence.

But what we know for sure is that as @Texaspoff (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=3184) says, there have been a "disconcerting amount of reported ND issues." THAT is what really gets me...regardless of the cause. Even if the entire cause of discharges in the 2020+ pistols is user-caused ND's, there's *still* the concern that the design of the short and light trigger makes the 320 less forgiving and more prone to ND's if users have anything less than "absolute discipline" in handling their pistol.

It's a risk and a headache that I, as a non-LE shooter who can choose my pistol, don't need. I liked my 2022 RXP full-size 320 in the brief time I had it: totally reliable not a single FTF, shot like a laser with the Romeo 1 Pro red dot, and had a nice trigger. But honestly, I didn't shoot any better with it than with my G45 with an RDS, and my 9mm 1911's can still run circles around them both. The RXP was good but not great, and with the trigger risk (whether the risk is ME handling it less than perfectly even one time, or some unknown mechanical discharge issue), I decided it wasn't worth it. Sold off my 320, it's Glocks going forward.

[titsonritz]

I won't own one, let alone carry one. There are too many other options out there to risk it. Sig has gotten along just fine without my business all there years, I suspect they will continue to do so.

[DocGKR]

Although they shoot well, the 320 is not a pistol I would desire to carry. The 365 seems more robust and reliable.

[GJM]

Wonder when Sig will offer a 365 variant that takes 320 magazines and optics with an RMR/Romeo 2 footprint?

[Rex G]

I am not confident in the P320’s safety record.

I carried P220 and P229 duty pistols, considered them to have been safe, and still do. If I still had money to burn, I might be shopping for a nice P226, which is my idea of the perfect classic SIG pistol. The P365 Macro has my attention; it just might have a long-enough grip frame to reach all the way to the “heel bone” of my hand, so, I want to handle one. (Compact nines vex my arthritis.)

[Sig_Fiend]

Considering the modularity of the platform, I'm a little disappointed that the aftermarket hasn't taken more advantage of it. A lot of the mods out there are superficial, cosmetic, and external. Almost no one makes internal parts for them, except for maybe the actual trigger. Where are the tool steel sears, for example? How about an entirely CNC'd FCU built for precision fitment (e.g. for one, flat FCU slide rails for perfect slide fit)? How about a custom FCU + grip module designed to take Glock mags, if only to troll the internet. ;) There probably couldn't be a better platform to enable this.

On the subject of safety, there are probably a number of modifications that could be done. Maybe double the height of the sear face. Also, double the width of the striker foot that engages the sear face. Overall creating a broader contact patch on the sear with more travel. Then, increase the length of trigger travel. I'd love to see the dual, little, sear springs replaced with a single and more substantial spring.

Also, I'd love to see a redesigned sear and trigger bar that physically prevents movement of the sear unless the trigger is pulled. Theoretically, in current form, inertia can still move the sear. This is true of many other striker-fired guns, such as the VP9. Whether it's an actual issue is debatable. Regardless, I'd like the peace of mind of a sear that can't physically move, similar in concept to Glock's drop safety ledge.

Also, redesign the striker housing and FPS so that the FPS is no longer a lever arm and is a more conventional block or cylinder that articulates linearly. How about a striker housing + striker with much tighter fitment since the stock unit feels a bit sloppy. Also a redesigned striker housing to eliminate that little striker return spring. Maybe none of this would do much of anything, but I think it would at least be interesting to see the aftermarket experiment with it. It's the possibilities like this that make me almost want to buy one of these again.

[psalms144.1]

On the subject of safety, there are probably a number of modifications that could be done. Maybe double the height of the sear face. Also, double the width of the striker foot that engages the sear face. Overall creating a broader contact patch on the sear with more travel.

Also, I'd love to see a redesigned sear and trigger bar that physically prevents movement of the sear unless the trigger is pulled. Theoretically, in current form, inertia can still move the sear. Whether it's an actual issue is debatable. Regardless, I'd like the peace of mind of a sear that can't physically move, similar in concept to Glock's drop safety ledge.

Also, redesign the striker housing and FPS so that the FPS is no longer a lever arm and is a more conventional block or cylinder that articulates linearly. How about a striker housing + striker with much tighter fitment since the stock unit feels a bit sloppy. Also a redesigned striker housing to eliminate that little striker return spring. Maybe none of this would do much of anything, but I think it would at least be interesting to see the aftermarket experiment with it. It's the possibilities like this that make me almost want to buy one of these again.I agree with all of this. ESPECIALLY the comments about the suicidally tiny engagement surfaces on the sear and striker.

Again, unfortunately, I doubt any of this will happen. Too big of a redesign for Sig to roll out without admitting the original design is fundamentally flawed, which we KNOW they'll never do (witness the VUP). And, doing these changes might make the trigger "not as nice" leading to complaints from shooters who don't care about safety.

I miss the days when you bought Sig products because you knew they were going to work, every time, out of the box. Not the best triggers, or lightest weight, or highest capacity, but reliability, quality and safety were built in, so the price was not objectionable.

[JCS]

Considering the modularity of the platform, I'm a little disappointed that the aftermarket hasn't taken more advantage of it. A lot of the mods out there are superficial, cosmetic, and external. Almost no one makes internal parts for them, except for maybe the actual trigger. Where are the tool steel sears, for example? How about an entirely CNC'd FCU built for precision fitment (e.g. for one, flat FCU slide rails for perfect slide fit)? How about a custom FCU + grip module designed to take Glock mags, if only to troll the internet. ;) There probably couldn't be a better platform to enable this.

On the subject of safety, there are probably a number of modifications that could be done. Maybe double the height of the sear face. Also, double the width of the striker foot that engages the sear face. Overall creating a broader contact patch on the sear with more travel. Then, increase the length of trigger travel. I'd love to see the dual, little, sear springs replaced with a single and more substantial spring.

Also, I'd love to see a redesigned sear and trigger bar that physically prevents movement of the sear unless the trigger is pulled. Theoretically, in current form, inertia can still move the sear. This is true of many other striker-fired guns, such as the VP9. Whether it's an actual issue is debatable. Regardless, I'd like the peace of mind of a sear that can't physically move, similar in concept to Glock's drop safety ledge.

Also, redesign the striker housing and FPS so that the FPS is no longer a lever arm and is a more conventional block or cylinder that articulates linearly. How about a striker housing + striker with much tighter fitment since the stock unit feels a bit sloppy. Also a redesigned striker housing to eliminate that little striker return spring. Maybe none of this would do much of anything, but I think it would at least be interesting to see the aftermarket experiment with it. It's the possibilities like this that make me almost want to buy one of these again.

If you watch these videos he demonstrates how difficult it is to move the sear and shows even if it does, the gun won’t fire because of the striker safety. Also in theory the sear has a second ledge that’s supposed the catch the striker if it slips off.
14 mins first video
7 mins second video

https://youtu.be/dPKMu47uWXQ

https://youtu.be/R0MpcFEXWhc

[JCS]

Hopefully someone will correct me if I’m wrong. But in its current configuration it seems a true ND is possible theoretically only if the striker safety return spring breaks and the sear slips AND doesn’t catch on the second ledge.

Or theoretically the striker leg breaks off and the striker safety return spring is broken.

From what I can discern it would take 2-3 failures simultaneously to have an ND.

[JSGlock34]

I can't help but think that the striker safety is flimsy and on the wrong end of the gun. I'd have far more confidence in the P320 if there was something analogous to Glock's firing pin safety piunger to physically block the striker.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

Those are interesting ideas Sig_Fiend, but I don't think any would be commercially viable by the aftermarket or make business sense for Sig:

CNC'd FCU: The FCU is the part that is legally a firearm, so producing one means you are producing firearms, which in and of itself greatly reduces the number of companies in this space that would be interested in such a project.

CNC'd or otherwise carefully machined internal parts: From what I understand the P320 FCU is fairly complex to disassemble, and if the purpose of this part is solely to improve safety and not performance, I imagine the market for individuals that are willing to pay for something like this (part+labor) is fairly small. This would also be an issue with an aftermarket FCU. Further, if it is marketed as addressing a safety issue, and the guns still AD due to something unrelated to the sear, the manufacturer might be opening themselves up to a lawsuit in that case. Even if the lawsuit is frivolous, having to fight one or two such lawsuits could negate any profits from selling the part.

SIG redesign to longer or more positive engagement surfaces: this would make the trigger less "good" and the number of people who would see that as a negative probably outweigh the number who would see the safety gain as a positive, given that this would need to be applied across the board to all new P320's.

SIG redesign to a more conventional striker safety: I think that such a redesign would be problematic for their military contract because the guns would no longer match the M18/M17 design as agreed upon by the contract with the US military. Didn't Beretta run into similar issues when they tried to update the locking block on the 92?
Nor would it make business sense to have a separate design for the M18/M17 and the commercial P320, they would lose advantages in economy of scale and it just looks like they are admitting failure in their design.

Redesign to physically block striker movement before trigger is pulled a la Glock: I do not think this is possible with any SAO striker fired design. Do any of the SAO striker fired designs have such a mechanism?

[SwampDweller]

SIG redesign to a more conventional striker safety: I think that such a redesign would be problematic for their military contract because the guns would no longer match the M18/M17 design as agreed upon by the contract with the US military. Didn't Beretta run into similar issues when they tried to update the locking block on the 92?


Yes, so the military M9s had to use the original locking block for all runs of .mil production, while the commercial/LE Berettas came with the updated locking blocks that were more durable and reliable (I think its the 3rd gen locking block).

Personally I think it would've been smarter for the military to take up Beretta's offer on the M9A3, they even offered a cheaper price than what they were currently paying for M9s. Either that or just go with the tried-and-true Glock.

[HCM]

Yes, so the military M9s had to use the original locking block for all runs of .mil production, while the commercial/LE Berettas came with the updated locking blocks that were more durable and reliable (I think its the 3rd gen locking block).

Personally I think it would've been smarter for the military to take up Beretta's offer on the M9A3, they even offered a cheaper price than what they were currently paying for M9s. Either that or just go with the tried-and-true Glock.

Are you basing this on personal experience as a shooter or on military or other institutional use of handguns by people who are not dedicated “gun people?”

I’m a big fan of Beretta 92 series guns, but the military was looking for a gun for the next 20, 30, or 40 years end and improved Beretta 92 was not that for a variety of reasons.

Military weapon systems have been moving towards modularity and flexibility to take advantage of changing technology for at least the past 30 years. The US military wanted a modular handgun and whatever the pros or cons of the Glock it was not a true modular handgun.

The US military also has manual safeties on almost all of their weapon systems. While Glock has produced, at least three types of manual safeties for military and government contracts which required them, all have been awkward afterthoughts. It’s not a matter of whether a manual safety is necessary on a Glock, it’s a matter of consistency for a group of about 1 million people, including national guard and reservists, most of whom are not “gun people.”

Outside of a few niche groups, handguns are an afterthought for the military and handgun training for conventional forces is …..lacking. Mass issue of a gun which requires pulling the trigger for field stripping creates its own set of problems.

[gato naranja]

Military weapon systems have been moving towards modularity and flexibility to take advantage of changing technology for at least the past 30 years. The US military wanted a modular handgun and whatever the pros or cons of the Glock it was not a true modular handgun.

When I first took a Nano (yes, I know...) apart I read the writing on the wall, yet it has taken longer than I imagined to get to the current state of the art, such as it is.

[SwampDweller]

Are you basing this on personal experience as a shooter or on military or other institutional use of handguns by people who are not dedicated “gun people?”

I’m a big fan of Beretta 92 series guns, but the military was looking for a gun for the next 20, 30, or 40 years end and improved Beretta 92 was not that for a variety of reasons.

Military weapon systems have been moving towards modularity and flexibility to take advantage of changing technology for at least the past 30 years. The US military wanted a modular handgun and whatever the pros or cons of the Glock it was not a true modular handgun.

The US military also has manual safeties on almost all of their weapon systems. While Glock has produced, at least three types of manual safeties for military and government contracts which required them, all have been awkward afterthoughts. It’s not a matter of whether a manual safety is necessary on a Glock, it’s a matter of consistency for a group of about 1 million people, including national guard and reservists, most of whom are not “gun people.”

Outside of a few niche groups, handguns are an afterthought for the military and handgun training for conventional forces is …..lacking. Mass issue of a gun which requires pulling the trigger for field stripping creates its own set of problems.
I'm not convinced that the modularity of the P320 series will even be used by the military. They only adopted the M17 and M18, where the Glock submission filled both roles. As I understand it, Glock's loss had nothing to do with modularity, as it met the requirements for entry.

I have a hard time imagining the military accommodating an individual soldier by letting them go into an arms room with boxes of different grip frames and slides to find what works best for them. This is underscored by the fact that the earliest M17/M18s had an "anti-tamper" device preventing the user from being able to use the pistol's potential modularity.

[HCM]

I'm not convinced that the modularity of the P320 series will even be used by the military. They only adopted the M17 and M18, where the Glock submission filled both roles. As I understand it, Glock's loss had nothing to do with modularity, as it met the requirements for entry.

I have a hard time imagining the military accommodating an individual soldier by letting them go into an arms room with boxes of different grip frames and slides to find what works best for them. This is underscored by the fact that the earliest M17/M18s had an "anti-tamper" device preventing the user from being able to use the pistol's potential modularity.

From your answer, I’m going to take that as a no.

There was a proposal for the M 17 to have an anti-temper device, because army people are generally not gun people. That proposal was never implemented, because the actual gun people in the army successfully argued that it would defeat the purpose of having a modular gun.

The army adopted the M 17 the Air Force Navy and Marine Corps adopted the M18.

There are two aspects to modularity, institutional and personal.

On the institutional side, elements of the Air Force have already bought conversion kits to convert M 18’s to a X compact format. SIG has also offered SOCOM elements an M18 upgrade kit, which includes the X style grip and deletion of the manual thumb safety. The way grip size modularity would work in most cases is everybody gets a medium and people who exhibit issues will be considered for a different size grip. That’s gonna be true of any sizable institution.

At an individual level, a service member can have their own grip shell, whether for reasons of size, texture, etc. install that for actual use then remove it so the weapon can be turned in in as issued condition. Individual units and circumstances are going to differ just like with M4s. Some units allow more latitude, other units, allow limited latitude as long as the weapon is returned to original condition, and others won’t allow it at all. In some cases a blind eye will be turned during an actual deployment where as it might not be permissible CONUS. All of that is common in any large institution.

Pistols are generally an afterthought for the military, but there are some instances such as low visibility operations where a pistol is a primary weapon. A pistol which can be made smaller and more concealable has real value. While we can just whip out a credit card, go to Cabela’s and buy a Glock 26 or Glock 43 if we need a smaller pistol, institutionally it is much easier to buy parts to convert something that is already in the system into a new configuration. The significance of the base weapon already being “in the system” is hard to appreciate if you haven’t dealt with large bureaucracies.

The same applies to operating in extreme environments where weight and space are at a premium.

[Sensei]

This thread caused me to ditch my early generation P320 full size and compact (both with the safety “upgrade”) in favor of this little guy:

97157

I’ve been trying to get rid of the dead wood in my safe and keep only guns that I shoot at least on a semi-regular basis. Those 2 P320s came back from Sig and just sat around taking up space because I didn’t trust them.

[HCM]

This thread caused me to ditch my early generation P320 full size and compact (both with the safety “upgrade”) in favor of this little guy:

97157

I’ve been trying to get rid of the dead wood in my safe and keep only guns that I shoot at least on a semi-regular basis. Those 2 P320s came back from Sig and just sat around taking up space because I didn’t trust them.

As much as I consider the current version, P3 20 good to go, I think you made the right choice.

[RevolverRob]

No P320s for me.

I don't have faith that SIG has gotten it right. They have demonstrated numerous times, in fact, that they had (have??) it wrong.

The recent issues of dead P365 triggers that go off when shaken doesn't inspire further confidence.

I'll go out on a limb and say this: Until proven otherwise I am viewing 'modular' handgun platforms with extreme skepticism from a safety perspective. So far only Beretta seems to have gotten it right.

[WDR]

I wouldn't buy or carry a 320. The early ND/trigger issues was enough to put me off the idea. The Sig reaction and fix cemented that feeling. I had already written off most of the Sig stuff back when they did diamond plate and rainbow finishes on their guns, and tossed QC out the window in the name of dollars. The magazine over-instertion issue wrecking the FCU's is pretty bad. The weird things they have done with optic cuts and changes to them is another reason I wouldn't try one. They appear to be very shootable pistols, but I have actually not shot one myself, as I don't see what they do that my pile of Glocks can't.

I've shot a few P365 variants, and they seem okay, and sorta fill a niche that Glock left open (before they played catch up with the 43X/48). They pack a lot of moving parts in a very small space.

[Sensei]

As much as I consider the current version, P3 20 good to go, I think you made the right choice.

Thanks. I took it to the range today. Granted, it took a back seat to another gun that I’m breaking-in. So, it only got 100 rounds through it - 50 of 124 grain AE and 50 of 147 grain HST. A couple of observations:

1) It’s got some snap. While it doesn’t rotate as much in my hand as a G48, it is noticeably less comfortable to shoot than a G26.

2) I much prefer the Glock trigger break but this gun has a shorter reset. This P365 has some take-up that isn’t all that smooth, a little shelf (almost like a 2-stage), then slightly more take-up before a looong rolling break. This was a problem for me for the first magazine. I was pull left until I found the optimal trigger purchase to account for the grip and trigger pull characteristics.

3) No reliability issues whatsoever. I’ll need to practice with it a lot more before it gets carried but I certainly feel better about it than my P320s.

[JonInWA]

No P320s for me.

I don't have faith that SIG has gotten it right. They have demonstrated numerous times, in fact, that they had (have??) it wrong.

The recent issues of dead P365 triggers that go off when shaken doesn't inspire further confidence.

I'll go out on a limb and say this: Until proven otherwise I am viewing 'modular' handgun platforms with extreme skepticism from a safety perspective. So far only Beretta seems to have gotten it right.

Interesting-this is the first time I've heard of this issue with a P365. Can you elaborate a bit?

Best, Jon

[TGS]

Interesting-this is the first time I've heard of this issue with a P365. Can you elaborate a bit?

Best, Jon


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljx9DpEMego

Jon, are you currently or in the past have been sponsored by SIG?

[Texaspoff]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljx9DpEMego

Jon, are you currently or in the past have been sponsored by SIG?


That it a tolerance issue. I have seen other pistol act this way, although it is usually because of aftermarket parts or fiddling with the triggers parts, IE home gunsmithing.

What is happening here is the trigger is being pulled, it moves the sear downward, but there is enough "slop" in the trigger and sear components, that there is just a hair of the striker hanging onto the sear keeping it from releasing, shaking it releases the striker.

This is defiantly defective as there should be enough clearance in the fire control parts for the pistol to fire consistently. There isn't enough clearance between these parts for them to interact reliably each and every time to fire the pistol. This could be from debris build up, or parts wearing out etc. but whatever the cause, it's a problem and should be sent back to Sig.

I do agree this is the first time I am seeing this issue with the 365. They have been pretty solid since the firing pin breakage and barrel peening problems were solved.

This problem can be created easily on a Glock with a Ghost Connector with the overtravel stop, and the overtravel stop not being taken down enough. It stops the trigger movement, just a hair before it releases. If you really muscle the trigger you can get it to release the striker, and sometimes if you pull up on rear of the slide you can get to release.

I suspect if this gentlemen held the trigger to the rear and then pulled up on the rear of the slide, it would exhibit the same result as him shaking it, the pistol would fire.




TXPO

[HeavyDuty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljx9DpEMego

I don’t follow shooting social media - P-F is the extent of it. Has anyone seen more about this, such as what is happening? The video is interesting but not really useful because it doesn’t give details of how the condition is reproduced.

Edit - Texaspoff posted while I was composing.

[HCM]

No P320s for me.

I don't have faith that SIG has gotten it right. They have demonstrated numerous times, in fact, that they had (have??) it wrong.

The recent issues of dead P365 triggers that go off when shaken doesn't inspire further confidence.

I'll go out on a limb and say this: Until proven otherwise I am viewing 'modular' handgun platforms with extreme skepticism from a safety perspective. So far only Beretta seems to have gotten it right.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljx9DpEMego

Jon, are you currently or in the past have been sponsored by SIG?

This video just came out, it is a sample of 1 out of over 1 million guns. Not plural.

The gun also is reported to have this issue right out of the box. The video claims the owner called Sigg customer service and tried to return it immediately and said customer service told him something to the effect of the gun needed to be broken in.

Having had mixed experience with SIGs customer service, I can believe that

We’ve also seen quality control issues in the form of batches of bad parts or we have failed commercially purchased 365 series guns during armorer inspections. Usually when we see a problem like the out of spec take down levers or the oversized rear sight dovetails we see a cluster pop up and then we don’t see that problem anymore. that indicates the problem is not a design issue. It is a QC issue.

If you make 1 million guns in a couple of years, you’re gonna have a few with QC issues, especially if you depend on third-party vendors from overseas for parts.

I can tell you that my agency has changed policy on sourcing for POW p365 series guns. previously, we buy commercial P365 series guns. Now they must be SIG LE/IOP program guns as denotes by the “W” prefix on the SKU. While there are reasons for that change, they are QC related, not related not design related.

97174

That said, you think the Beretta striker fired guns don’t have their own issues I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

[TGS]

I don’t follow shooting social media - P-F is the extent of it. Has anyone seen more about this, such as what is happening? The video is interesting but not really useful because it doesn’t give details of how the condition is reproduced.

You can watch his follow up video for more information.

[RevolverRob]

That said, you think the Beretta striker fired guns don’t have their own issues I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

I am unaware of any issues with the APX. I would definitely interested in hearing about them. We can either classic P-F and post off-topic stuff or a new APX thread or you can PM me.

[JonInWA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljx9DpEMego

Jon, are you currently or in the past have been sponsored by SIG?

TGS, this is the second time you've asked that-the first time I attributed to general snarkiness and figured it wasn't worthy of a response.

My primary sponsors are Check-Mate Industries and BH Spring Solutions, and other manufacturers, such as VCD Grips, Olen Holsters, Langdon Tactical, Wilson Combat, VZ Grips, Privateer Leather and Leupold have provided me components and/or kit to run. Check-Mate is a prime vendor for SIG, providing, among other things, 1911 and P320 magazines, so I've in the past coordinated with SIG to navigate past NDA's to allow Check-Mate to contribute the P320 magazines to our IDPA State Championship match prize table; in the process, for the past 2 years, SIG has also graciously contributed a P320 X5 each year to the price table. The sponsorship shooter slot that went commensurate with the prize table contribution was spread to another member of the Check-Mate Team each year, each of whom was shooting a P320 with the Check-Mate magazines.

Several years ago I coordinated a t&e opportunity for the Check-Mate 17 round P320 magazines with the Henning Group baseplates that I offered to interested p-f members, some 65-75 magazines all told were involved. That opportunity was was from Check-Mate, and the magazines have been performing swimmingly.

As anyone who has been on this forum for any amount of time and read any of my discussions, I am very straightforward about acknowledging any contributions, and am not in the least interested in providing anything other than dispassionate, objective analysis-which sometimes has resulted in manufacturer's changes/product and/or processes improvements. If you're attempting to infer that I'm slanting things or fronting for SIG in any way, I strongly suggest that you carefully read or re-read my comments on this thread and others pertaining to SIG, including the long thread initiated by me several years ago dealing with the issues inherent to the P320.

Since I notice that on your p-f profile you state that you're an instructor, I'll ask you the same question-Have you received any sponsorships, equipment or support from manufacturers or external agencies?

And exactly what is your motivation and agenda behind this ostensible poll thread? If you're affiliated with an agency, are you on the weapons selection board, or are you affiliated with someone/agency/entity that has experienced an "uncommanded discharge"? What is your personal and/or institutional experience with the P320 platform, are you issued one, approved for use for duty with one, qualified with the platform, or personally own one?

Best, Jon

[HCM]

I am unaware of any issues with the APX. I would definitely interested in hearing about them. We can either classic P-F and post off-topic stuff or a new APX thread or you can PM me.

Some of that is NDA but suffice to say there’s reasons they came out with an A1 version and they haven’t seen any major institutional use.

They do shoot nice though.

[TGS]

TGS, this is the second time you've asked that-the first time I attributed to general snarkiness and figured it wasn't worthy of a response.

I did ask a 2nd time, and it's because you didn't answer the first time. It's not snark. It's a fair question....you have a bunch of sponsorships, none of which are reported per the forum rules in your profile or signature.



Since I notice that on your p-f profile you state that you're an instructor, I'll ask you the same question-Have you received any sponsorships, equipment or support from manufacturers or external agencies?

And exactly what is your motivation and agenda behind this ostensible poll thread? If you're affiliated with an agency, are you on the weapons selection board, or are you affiliated with someone/agency/entity that has experienced an "uncommanded discharge"? What is your personal and/or institutional experience with the P320 platform, are you issued one, approved for use for duty with one, qualified with the platform, or personally own one?

Best, Jon

I have no sponsorships or affiliations other than my med instructor certs and my LE agency.

Motivation and "Agenda"? "Ostensible"? See dude, it's that shit right there that is super squirrely. We do poll threads all the time on P-F.com. You seem to think I have some axe to grind with the P320. I don't. I'm not on a selection board, and I'm not affiliated at all with the P320, have never been issued one. I was just curious on how people feel about it (ETA: and the results are surprising to me, personally), a question that you seem to not like people asking and gets you torqued up....which is weird, along with the fact you're torqued up about inquiries into your industry sponsorships which you aren't disclosing in accordance with the forum rules...and, ding ding ding, it turns out you have a relationship to some degree with SIG.

There's no reasonable explanation on why anyone would be this worked up that I asked a bunch of people if they feel safe with the P320 or not...and yet here we are, the one dude in the thread that is pissy I asked whether people feel safe around the P320 or not is also a dude that has navigated legal entanglements with SIG and is able to get them to give guns away for free.

[RJ]

97178

[TheNewbie]

JonInWA has always been professional, helpful, and transparent on this forum. He’s openly spoke of his reservations about the P320 platform. So regardless of who his sponsor may or may not be, I trust what he writes. Even if I don’t always agree with his conclusions.


I almost went down the P320/P365 rabbit hole recently. I’m glad I didn’t. While I would most likely have been among the masses that will never encounter serious issues with the platform, the risk was too high and I would have never felt at peace with them, reasonable or not.

Plus the trigger pull was just too light and short for my taste.

[pangloss]

Some of that is NDA but suffice to say there’s reasons they came out with an A1 version and they haven’t seen any major institutional use.

They do shoot nice though.Big sad!

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

[JonInWA]

I did ask a 2nd time, and it's because you didn't answer the first time. It's not snark. It's a fair question....you have a bunch of sponsorships, none of which are reported per the forum rules in your profile or signature.



I have no sponsorships or affiliations other than my med instructor certs and my LE agency.

Motivation and "Agenda"? "Ostensible"? See dude, it's that shit right there that is super squirrely. We do poll threads all the time on P-F.com. You seem to think I have some axe to grind with the P320. I don't. I'm not on a selection board, and I'm not affiliated at all with the P320, have never been issued one. I was just curious on how people feel about it (ETA: and the results are surprising to me, personally), a question that you seem to not like people asking and gets you torqued up....which is weird, along with the fact you're torqued up about inquiries into your industry sponsorships which you aren't disclosing in accordance with the forum rules...and, ding ding ding, it turns out you have a relationship to some degree with SIG.

There's no reasonable explanation on why anyone would be this worked up that I asked a bunch of people if they feel safe with the P320 or not...and yet here we are, the one dude in the thread that is pissy I asked whether people feel safe around the P320 or not is also a dude that has navigated legal entanglements with SIG and is able to get them to give guns away for free.

Well, you're poll wording was if not questionable, it was certainly confusing. Or leading to suppositions (or realities) of an undisclosed agenda. You inferred that one participant was out of line by his response content on the thread. My sponsorships have always been disclosed in the discussion threads where products are reviewed, so I'm not sure what you're alluding to with lack of compliance with forum rules. I have no commercial interests vis-a-vis my sponsorships; if any should develop in the future, of course I'll disclose them in accordance with p-f rules.

I don't like your attitude or tone. But that may be just me. If you have a specific beef with me, you and I need to hash it out, or feel free to go to the moderators. While you may have a legitimate intent with this thread, I don't like or appreciate how you're handling it. If nothing else, as I discussed before, the poll wording can easily be misunderstood and lead to erroneous voting.

Discussions on this forum have almost always been professional and courteous, and held to a higher standard than most other shooting forums. This seems to be one of the rare instances where it's veering the other way.

Best, Jon

[TGS]

Well, you're poll wording was if not questionable, it was certainly confusing. Or leading to suppositions (or realities) of an undisclosed agenda. You inferred that one participant was out of line by his response content on the thread. My sponsorships have always been disclosed in the discussion threads where products are reviewed, so I'm not sure what you're alluding to with lack of compliance with forum rules.

I don't like your attitude or tone. But that may be just me. If you have a specific beef with me, you and I need to hash it out, or feel free to go to the moderators. While you may have a legitimate intent with this thread, I don't like or appreciate how you're handling it. If nothing else, as I discussed before, the poll wording can easily be misunderstood and lead to erroneous voting.

Discussions on this forum have almost always been professional and courteous, and held to a higher standard than most other shooting forums. This seems to be one of the rare instances where it's veering the other way.

Best, Jon

Like I said earlier, if you don't like the poll, feel free to claim a full refund for that you've spent on it. There's no agenda, you're full of shit, you're the only person that has a stick up your ass about the poll, I don't give a shit how you feel about my attitude when you're the only one in here pitching a fit about the poll, and I never told anyone they were out of line...simply that I wasn't interested in rehashing other conversations that had already occured....because, get this...I'm not interested in beating a dead horse. I know, I'm a real asshole.

If the damn thread and my secret agenda of asking people whether they feel safe with the P320 bothers you SO much, just ignore the thread. There's nothing wrong with the thread or poll...it's only veering in "the other direction" because you are being a bitch.

[HCM]

Like I said earlier, if you don't like the poll, feel free to claim a full refund for that you've spent on it. There's no agenda, you're full of shit, you're the only person that has a stick up your ass about the poll, I don't give a shit how you feel about my attitude when you're the only one in here pitching a fit about the poll, and I never told anyone they were out of line...simply that I wasn't interested in rehashing other conversations that had already occured....because, get this...I'm not interested in beating a dead horse. I know, I'm a real asshole.

If the damn thread and my secret agenda of asking people whether they feel safe with the P320 bothers you SO much, just ignore the thread. There's nothing wrong with the thread or poll...it's only veering in "the other direction" because you are being a bitch.

Is it safe ?


https://youtu.be/kzw1_2b-I7A

[Kirk]

To state the obvious, I’m not an armorer, gunsmith, or engineer, and my understanding of those things is limited. On the P365 issue, it appears this is something that a manual safety would likely solve, correct? It limits the trigger from moving, thus eliminating the ability to shake fire it, right? I was unable to view the video.

[Noah]

To state the obvious, I’m not an armorer, gunsmith, or engineer, and my understanding of those things is limited. On the P365 issue, it appears this is something that a manual safety would likely solve, correct? It limits the trigger from moving, thus eliminating the ability to shake fire it, right? I was unable to view the video.


The shake fire is more of a hang fire after the trigger pull, so no. Trigger is pulled, gun doesn't fire, shake it, it fires.

Frankly I think that is just an example of a major tolerance stack where there is for too much sear to striker contact and when the trigger has been pulled, the sear is still holding the striker by 0.01mm and a little shake trips it.

[Clusterfrack]

JonInWA, TGS, I'm not sure what happened exactly, but I'm hoping y'all can leave it and move forward.

I didn't find the poll misleading or confusing. It's pretty interesting, actually.

Negotiating free guns for prize tables isn't a sponsorship. Sometimes matches are fully sponsored by a company. Either way, I wouldn't expect a match director to disclose either in their sigline here on P-F because there isn't typically financial gain related to match directorship.

[Joe in PNG]

The shake fire is more of a hang fire after the trigger pull, so no. Trigger is pulled, gun doesn't fire, shake it, it fires.

Frankly I think that is just an example of a major tolerance stack where there is for too much sear to striker contact and when the trigger has been pulled, the sear is still holding the striker by 0.01mm and a little shake trips it.

It sounds like an issue my old High Standard Durmatic has, where your grip can push the crossbolt safety in just enough that a trigger pull releases the striker, but the safety holds it. Until you release the safety and get an unexpected loud noise.

[GJM]

It sounds like an issue my old High Standard Durmatic has, where your grip can push the crossbolt safety in just enough that a trigger pull releases the striker, but the safety holds it. Until you release the safety and get an unexpected loud noise.

Similar to an improperly adjusted over travel screw. I had a USP with a match trigger do something similar when shooting support hand only. I pulled that screw out and threw it out on the tundra.

[Bucky]

IMO the standard 320 variant, is very much like carrying a 1911, with the safety in the off position.


… and a deactivated grip safety.

This is a very interesting analogy, and one I agree with. However, how many would advocate doing so?

[HeavyDuty]

IMO the standard 320 variant, is very much like carrying a 1911, with the safety in the off position.

TXPO


… and a deactivated grip safety.

This is a very interesting analogy, and one I agree with. However, how many would advocate doing so?

This is how I feel, too. The trigger is just too light for my personal comfort without a positive thumb safety, which is why both of my non-game P320s and both P365s have them. I’m even thinking about adding one to my X5 Legion range toy / possible game gun for commonality.

[Noah]

This is how I feel, too. The trigger is just too light for my personal comfort without a positive thumb safety, which is why both of my non-game P320s and both P365s have them. I’m even thinking about adding one to my X5 Legion range toy / possible game gun for commonality.

FWIW, my friend who carries and stipples 320s found modifying a TXG frame to fit a manual safety was no big deal.

[HeavyDuty]

FWIW, my friend who carries and stipples 320s found modifying a TXG frame to fit a manual safety was no big deal.

The frame is easy, and AB Prototype does the FCU cut. That’s what I did with my AXG.

[Clusterfrack]

…I don't believe there is enough tolerance built into to the design that allows anything but absolute discipline when holstering and in the holster from outside interferences, IE jackets, shirts, etc.

A duty weapon is exposed to these things daily and in certain situations it can be difficult to keep track of your jacket, pull tabs, shirts etc. As duty weapon should not be as sensitive to these outside forces as I believe the 320 is. IMO the standard 320 variant, is very much like carrying a 1911, with the safety in the off position.


I was at a fairly advanced NODS (night vision) carbine/pistol class last weekend. It was 15F and snowy, so in addition to full kit, I had a parka and heavier gloves. Holstering my handgun in full darkness required extra attention. I was very happy to be running a P-07, because I could verify it was decocked and thumb the hammer all the way into the holster. Often there was a lot going on when holstering was required (e.g. during a malfunction/transition/remediation drill). A strap, glove, or something could get in the trigger guard with no easy way to tell (no vision, weak tactile feedback). A SFA with no safety or gadget seems objectively less safe under those conditions

[mcgivro]

Moderator edit. This isn’t the kind of forum where you can troll.

[omega9]

Funny how these problems only seem to happen with cops…

97238

[mcgivro]

Mod here. Strike 2. Care to swing again?

[krav51]

I was at a fairly advanced NODS (night vision) carbine/pistol class last weekend. It was 15F and snowy, so in addition to full kit, I had a parka and heavier gloves. Holstering my handgun in full darkness required extra attention. I was very happy to be running a P-07, because I could verify it was decocked and thumb the hammer all the way into the holster. Often there was a lot going on when holstering was required (e.g. during a malfunction/transition/remediation drill). A strap, glove, or something could get in the trigger guard with no easy way to tell (no vision, weak tactile feedback). A SFA with no safety or gadget seems objectively less safe under those conditions

Great point! Environmental variables are almost never talked about but exist in the real world.

[Noah]

Great point! Environmental variables are almost never talked about but exist in the real world.

No joke, a few years ago, I had just traded my friend my Beretta 92 for a Glock. This was before I knew about the SCD, and with my schedule at the time almost all my range trips in the winter were in the dark between 6 and 9 pm. After my first range trip reholstering the hot Glock in the pitch black, trying to use a handheld flashlight to clear the holster, I traded him back hahaha

[CCT125US]

For several years, I would grow tired of sticking with the LEM. Then winter would roll around. Heavy jacket, gloves, loss of dexterity, the ability to see my trigger press, and block the hammer have kept me on the same gun.

I've heard the P320 described as the Serpa of pistols. They work great if everything is done properly.

[Clusterfrack]

For several years, I would grow tired of sticking with the LEM. Then winter would roll around. Heavy jacket, gloves, loss of dexterity, the ability to see my trigger press, and block the hammer have kept me on the same gun.

I've heard the P320 described as the Serpa of pistols. They work great if everything is done properly.

Yeah, and the analogy is really good if you are activating your WML SHO with your gloved index finger.

[EVP]

I was at a fairly advanced NODS (night vision) carbine/pistol class last weekend. It was 15F and snowy, so in addition to full kit, I had a parka and heavier gloves. Holstering my handgun in full darkness required extra attention. I was very happy to be running a P-07, because I could verify it was decocked and thumb the hammer all the way into the holster. Often there was a lot going on when holstering was required (e.g. during a malfunction/transition/remediation drill). A strap, glove, or something could get in the trigger guard with no easy way to tell (no vision, weak tactile feedback). A SFA with no safety or gadget seems objectively less safe under those conditions

Excellent points, I think a lot of people lose sight of administrative gun handling in these type of conditions were it is not a perfect and sunny day on the range.

[JonInWA]

Similarly, IDPA or like matches, especially those shot in cold or inclement weather can be a good litmus test for accessing draw, use and reholstering.

Best, Jon

[spyderco monkey]

Somewhat related, with the launch of the SIG Macro, and the coming SIG Macro Longslide, I wonder what the rationale will be to pursue the P320?

With the 365 Macro series you'll have better modularity, identical magazine capacity and ballistics, a slimmer and lighter handgun, and no history of accidental discharge.

https://i.ibb.co/XJqLzn3/Screen-Shot-2022-10-13-at-6-22-05-AM.png

[spinmove_]

Somewhat related, with the launch of the SIG Macro, and the coming SIG Macro Longslide, I wonder what the rationale will be to pursue the P320?

With the 365 Macro series you'll have better modularity, identical magazine capacity and ballistics, a slimmer and lighter handgun, and no history of accidental discharge.

https://i.ibb.co/XJqLzn3/Screen-Shot-2022-10-13-at-6-22-05-AM.png

That can’t possibly be SIG’s answer to the P320 discharge issues! I’m sure the P320 is just fine and the P365 Macro Longslide TotallynotaP320replacementforthecivilianmarketsowe canavoidbeingsuedintooblivion really and truly is meant for concealed carry on larger people that can get away with a longer grip and longer barrel. They totally won’t try to push such a platform into LE or Competition in the next 5 years to normalize it either so that they quietly remove the P320 from their lineup and still just maintain the M17/M18 for contracts…

[TGS]

The poll has closed. I'm surprised by the result, as I did not expect it to be such a land slide.

Question for the peanut gallery: if the gun is mechanically fine and all we are seeing is the result of a light, crisp trigger without a manual safety, then why have we not seen the same result with similar guns like the PPQ, VP9, etc? Granted they aren't used as in large numbers in the US as the P320, but they've also been out in the wild for quite a while, and surely we'd be hearing of the same events by now even if not as frequently.

[Texaspoff]

That can’t possibly be SIG’s answer to the P320 discharge issues! I’m sure the P320 is just fine and the P365 Macro Longslide TotallynotaP320replacementforthecivilianmarketsowe canavoidbeingsuedintooblivion really and truly is meant for concealed carry on larger people that can get away with a longer grip and longer barrel. They totally won’t try to push such a platform into LE or Competition in the next 5 years to normalize it either so that they quietly remove the P320 from their lineup and still just maintain the M17/M18 for contracts…

It's very hard to say what Sig will do. The 320 was initially the easiest place to start when they decided the wanted to enter the striker market. The pistol was already built, they just had to design a striker fire system to fit within the 250 parameters. As it turned out, they even had to redesign the original fire control assembly IE the VUP.

The 365 is it's own design, not something made out of something else. It's first issues, broken strikers and barrel peening were by products of designing as super small 9mm pistol, not functional design flaws, the drop fire problem. Those issues were resolved and the 365 is a solid performer now, with very few if any problems with the most recent production guns.

The 365 Macro is approaching the full sized duty pistol arena, and there is no reason Sig couldn't build an even slightly larger duty sized version of the 365. True they would have to keep the 320 around for contract fulfillment, but it would be interesting if they start pushing a new larger model of the 365 as the next generation striker pistol from Sig.



TXPO

[jh9]

The poll has closed. I'm surprised by the result, as I did not expect it to be such a land slide.

Question for the peanut gallery: if the gun is mechanically fine and all we are seeing is the result of a light, crisp trigger without a manual safety, then why have we not seen the same result with similar guns like the PPQ, VP9, etc? Granted they aren't used as in large numbers in the US as the P320, but they've also been out in the wild for quite a while, and surely we'd be hearing of the same events by now even if not as frequently.

I sold my last VP9 a little while back but IIRC the trigger is certainly lighter than a comparable Glock but I don't recall it being shorter. Is it? I never compared them side-by-side.

Is there actual data on the 80s/90s widespread adoption of the Glock and how much more frequent NDs were? The 320 could just be the next step in that direction and people eventually get used to the trigger and the ND problem goes away. Or it could be the right combination of too light and too short for the average human being. Nobody really knows where the line is so in the race for shorter and lighter someone is eventually going to step over it. Maybe that's Sig.

Like a lot of multivariable problems, you can sometimes change one thing by just a smidge and cause an almost comical set of cascading problems. In the end maybe Gaston just got lucky and Sig didn't.

[TGS]

I sold my last VP9 a little while back but IIRC the trigger is certainly lighter than a comparable Glock but I don't recall it being shorter. Is it? I never compared them side-by-side.

Is there actual data on the 80s/90s widespread adoption of the Glock and how much more frequent NDs were? The 320 could just be the next step in that direction and people eventually get used to the trigger and the ND problem goes away. Or it could be the right combination of too light and too short for the average human being. Nobody really knows where the line is so in the race for shorter and lighter someone is eventually going to step over it. Maybe that's Sig.

Like a lot of multivariable problems, you can sometimes change one thing by just a smidge and cause an almost comical set of cascading problems. In the end maybe Gaston just got lucky and Sig didn't.

I'm not sure on the trigger specifics. They're just both guns that I thought, "whoa, I don't think I'd want to carry that" when I first fired them.

As for the ND statistics, keep in mind that some of the departments that have seen these reported/alleged issues are coming from other SFA guns...most recently of big news being Milwaukee PD, which used both M&Ps and Glocks previously. So, that's a different situation than transitioning from DAOs to SFA and seeing NDs.

[jh9]

As for the ND statistics, keep in mind that some of the departments that have seen these reported/alleged issues are coming from other SFA guns...most recently of big news being Milwaukee PD, which used both M&Ps and Glocks previously.

Right. For the ND stats i was thinking in two parts:

1) 80s/90s transition from DA revolvers to Glocks. Do we know how much NDs increased by?
2) Recent transition from Glock to 320. Same question. I'd expect the number to be much smaller than the first.

But it could show a trend in that each step in the direction of shorter/lighter triggers increases NDs. Is that trend permanent? Do people "get used to" the lighter trigger and the ND issue abates somewhat? Or is the increase in NDs just kind of a new normal.

[Texaspoff]

I sold my last VP9 a little while back but IIRC the trigger is certainly lighter than a comparable Glock but I don't recall it being shorter. Is it? I never compared them side-by-side.

Is there actual data on the 80s/90s widespread adoption of the Glock and how much more frequent NDs were? The 320 could just be the next step in that direction and people eventually get used to the trigger and the ND problem goes away. Or it could be the right combination of too light and too short for the average human being. Nobody really knows where the line is so in the race for shorter and lighter someone is eventually going to step over it. Maybe that's Sig.

Like a lot of multivariable problems, you can sometimes change one thing by just a smidge and cause an almost comical set of cascading problems. In the end maybe Gaston just got lucky and Sig didn't.


I think the combination of the 320's shorter takeup, larger trigger guard and large trigger surface area have created kind of the perfect storm, especially when you look at the 320 from the standpoint of a duty pistol carried in a duty holster.

As an LE depending on where you work, can dictate how many times you draw and re holster you weapon. I worked for an agency where I would draw my pistol at least 10 times per shift. If you look at a large agency, with an area that may require drawing your duty pistol multiple times per shift, then those numbers become exponentially large.

With each draw, the weapon must be rebolstered, some of those times being done quickly, without much care, as you may be going hands on to handcuff someone, or just going hands on. When you start looking at all the current crap we are required to carry, combining that with external body armor, light bearing holsters, wider openings to allow clearance for lights, jackets, radio and body cam wires in some cases, you can begin to see all the shit that can find its way into a holster or trigger guard when a pistol is being re holstered.

Glocks had their fair share of ND incidents initially, as well, but those were more attributed to officers and the lack of finger placement discipline. When Glock first started coming on scene and the LE market, most officers were transitioning from DA/SA, some SA only, and some revolvers. The SA/DA and revolver guys didn't have to be as mindful of finger placement, because the DA pull on those pistol were very forgiving. Indexing wasn't being pushed near as hard back then as it is now. Guys were finger banging Glocks, and in some cases when re holstering, and tada instant ND.

IMO this is why we are seeing more ND reports with officers, rather than civilians. It because the pistols are exposed to far more outside influences, than the average civilian who is carrying their pistol holster throughout the day without having to draw it.
As I stated before, I don't believe the 320 design is flawed, I just believe it isn't as forgiving to outside influences as the Glock is an it's longer trigger movement. I think the one thing that makes the 320 easier to shoot well, it likely it's Achelies heel when it comes to LE carry.

Yes I believe Glock got lucky when it came to their ND reports, because there was no internet, the ND reports, and other issues took much longer to circulate, and by the time they were more widely known, they had been addressed, and or fixed.

The 320 riding on the heels of the 250, which was tainted from it's initial Fed test and failure, came out of the gate with the drop fire issue, continued reports of ND's and with information able to make around the world in a matter of an hour, the 320's fate may be sealed. They definitely have a much hard road to travel than Glock, and they may not make it to the end. The saying what burns twice as bright, burns half as long comes to mind here.



TXPO

[JonInWA]

My perception is that the P320 was heavily marketed to the LEO/.mil communities, while the Walther and HK SFAs were more oriented to the civilian (particularly civilian competition)/non-LEO/.mil communities. SIG got some great organizational "coattail" benefits from the M17/M18 selection, which was great for them, but a crucial difference is that the M17/M18s have manual safeties, the non .mil ones, not so much (although they are available as an orderable SKU)

Additionally, I suspect most issuing military organizations are pretty strict when a round is to be chambered, while most LEOs are carrying round chambered-and are much more likely to actually have to draw and use a weapon.

As Dagga Boy really developed in his discussions, SFAs can be great shooting weapons, but there are two edges to that sword.

And the P320, with it's short, light triggerpull and relatively light wall at trigger break point is a perfect storm waiting to happen, particularly without extensive and frequent user training and familiarization. As has been mentioned here, in many ways they're analogous to carrying a single action pistol cocked with the safety disengaged.

Several years ago, we had a good p-f discussion on the advisability of the HK VP for LEO departmental issue. In my opinion, while the VP is a superb shooting gun, it too has the potential for NDs, with a much softer trigger wall/break point than with a Glock. I personally have both a VP and a P30L LEM, and while I was qualified with both, the P30L was a far, far better choice as a duty gun. To the best of my knowledge, only one US LEO actually issues the VP, the relatively small Phenix City AL PD. It's received nominally more organizational issue success in Germany, but there are some differences in the German guns, and I suspect even more differences in the German LEO contract/issue guns.

Best, Jon

[Sammy1]

About twelve or so years ago many State and local agencies adopted the S&W M&P. The M&P was huge in my state, and it still being carried by the State Police. Other than LASO, I didn't hear of any widespread unintentional discharge reports. The P320 has a short and light trigger, no trigger safety, and some QC and "rolling upgrade" issues. Don't overlook the trigger safety. With any other striker fired pistol with a safety tab or hinge in the trigger, the trigger has to have much more contact and manipulation with a foreign object in the holster to release the striker.

[jnc36rcpd]

For those of an historical bent. I believe some FBI personnel were vocal in the media that the Glock was an unsafe design back in the day. This led to some pushback from the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia who were and are one of the major agencies to adopt the Glock (and also had numerous negligent discharges). After the Glock 26/27 came out, they proved so popular for off-duty carry, the Bureau authorized them...and the rest is FBI history.

Returning now to the twenty-first century.

[HCM]

The poll has closed. I'm surprised by the result, as I did not expect it to be such a land slide.

Question for the peanut gallery: if the gun is mechanically fine and all we are seeing is the result of a light, crisp trigger without a manual safety, then why have we not seen the same result with similar guns like the PPQ, VP9, etc? Granted they aren't used as in large numbers in the US as the P320, but they've also been out in the wild for quite a while, and surely we'd be hearing of the same events by now even if not as frequently.

As you mentioned, there are several times as many P320s in circulation as there are VP9, PPQ, etc. combined.

The other factor is a significant percentage of the P320s are in service use by law-enforcement meaning they are carried, handled, holstered and unholstered constantly. How many VP9, PPQ etc are in institutional use in the US? Of the commercial guns, how many are actually carried daily ? Or at all?

The VP9 and the P320 were both introduced in 2014.

The PPQ has been out since 2011, and there are still very few of them in circulation in the US.

I seem to recall during the mallet testing phase that followed the P320 revelations both PP cues and VP nines were failing those mallet striker drop tests.

The only mainstream fully cocked striker fired pistol which has been out “significantly longer” than the 320 would be the S&W M&P and we know there were spikes in NDs in depts switching to the M&P from DA/SA and DAO guns. Of that law-enforcement market, a fair percentage are agencies which transitioned from SIG DA/SA, DAO and DAK guns.

[HCM]

For those of an historical bent. I believe some FBI personnel were vocal in the media that the Glock was an unsafe design back in the day. This led to some pushback from the Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia who were and are one of the major agencies to adopt the Glock (and also had numerous negligent discharges). After the Glock 26/27 came out, they proved so popular for off-duty carry, the Bureau authorized them...and the rest is FBI history.

Returning now to the twenty-first century.

Not exactly. Since we’re doing the history thing.

The Miami Police Department was the first large metro agency to adopt the Glock largely on the basis of ATF designating it DAO. At the time Miami cops had DAO revolvers. DC Metro followed soon after.

There were, in fact, numerous unintentional, discharges, among cops issued early Glocks. Some of those were training issues involving cops used to and trained on double action, revolvers. However, some were due to the fact that the original Glock design (black internals) was not drop safe. Something Glock vehemently denied.

In late 1990 or early 1991, DEA tested Glocks for approval as an optional personally owned duty weapon. This test included a test known as the frisbee test. The gun would be held at chest height, approximately 5 feet and tossed like a frisbee onto a hard surface. The tests were done with both a loaded chamber, and no magazine and with a loaded chamber and a full magazine. If I recall correctly the early Glocks past with no magazine, but failed the test with a full magazine in place.

The failure in the DEA testing is what finally pushed Glock to introduce their “six part safety upgrade” in which existing guns had their black internals replaced with newly redesigned silver internals. The factory started putting upgraded silver internals in all Glocks in November of 1991..

This is the point where we point out that SIG’s P320 “it’s an upgrade not a recall” was a direct copy of a play from the Glock playbook.

The Glock 26 and Glock 27 were not released until 1996. The FBI adopted the 40 Cal Glocks in mid-1997 but the testing that led to that adoption was already in progress when the 26/27 came out.

The FBI initially issued Glock 23’s but due to a variety of issues dropped them and began issuing Glock 22s as standard. That helped reliability and qualification scores but was not popular among the plain clothes agents who had to conceal them. The G27 became very popular. With a mag extension, it was no more difficult to shoot than the G 23 but unlike the G 23 the G 27 actually ran reliably due to its double recall spring system.

It’s not an accident that double recoil spring system was carried forward into the GEN four guns as a fix for durability and reliability issues.

[HCM]

Right. For the ND stats i was thinking in two parts:

1) 80s/90s transition from DA revolvers to Glocks. Do we know how much NDs increased by?
2) Recent transition from Glock to 320. Same question. I'd expect the number to be much smaller than the first.

But it could show a trend in that each step in the direction of shorter/lighter triggers increases NDs. Is that trend permanent? Do people "get used to" the lighter trigger and the ND issue abates somewhat? Or is the increase in NDs just kind of a new normal.

I think you’re on the right track but many of the agencies that transitioned to the P320 were not Glock agencies. They were were long time SIG agencies who transitioned from SIG DA/SA or DAK guns to P320s.

Essentially these agencies made the same DA-striker transition from the 80s and 90s but they did it in the last five or six years.

[jnc36rcpd]

Thanks for the historical update, HCM. I heard the G-27 induced the FBI to reconsider Glocks from aa Special Agent I spoke with at an LGS. It seemed odd that availability of a convenient and effective off-duty pistol would trigger a weapons change by the Bureau. It makes much more sense if the Bureau was already testing the platform.

[HeavyDuty]

…but a crucial difference is that the M17/M18s have manual safeties, the non .mil ones, not so much (although they are available as an orderable SKU)

SIG makes it really, really hard to get a P320 with a manual safety.

Last year when I decided to try the platform for more than a range toy, I insisted on one with a MS. The only current manual safety equipped SKU at that time was the MA compliant Compact which is not cut for a RDS. I ended up tracking down a hard to find black M18 MS and changing out the grip module. Later on when I found a LE SKU AXG that I had to have, the only way of getting a manual safety was to invalidate the warranty by sending the FCU to AB Prototype for conversion and milling of the grip module.

SIG drives me nuts.

[zaitcev]

I think the combination of the 320's shorter takeup, larger trigger guard and large trigger surface area have created kind of the perfect storm, especially when you look at the 320 from the standpoint of a duty pistol carried in a duty holster.

In case of the latest guy with Youtube video, the trigger size and shape had nothing to do with it. I think it was a protrusion of the striker, which was just enough so that it didn't ignite as soon as the round was chambered, but crumpled the primer enough when the gun faced down in the holster and he made a few steps. One would think that regardless of any safeties, the main sear would forcefully withdraw a protruding striker as the slide goes into battery, but something prevented it from happening, in a remarkable coincidence.

This is not to debunk your treatise about cop's guns facing a harsher duty, history of Glock adoption, and all that, but I wish to point out that there's something else to the story - an additional facet, if you will.

[JCS]

In case of the latest guy with Youtube video, the trigger size and shape had nothing to do with it. I think it was a protrusion of the striker, which was just enough so that it didn't ignite as soon as the round was chambered, but crumpled the primer enough when the gun faced down in the holster and he made a few steps. One would think that regardless of any safeties, the main sear would forcefully withdraw a protruding striker as the slide goes into battery, but something prevented it from happening, in a remarkable coincidence.

This is not to debunk your treatise about cop's guns facing a harsher duty, history of Glock adoption, and all that, but I wish to point out that there's something else to the story - an additional facet, if you will.

How can the striker protrude and stay stuck out of the breech of a p320? I don’t find that theory even plausible.

[El Cid]

The poll has closed. I'm surprised by the result, as I did not expect it to be such a land slide.

Question for the peanut gallery: if the gun is mechanically fine and all we are seeing is the result of a light, crisp trigger without a manual safety, then why have we not seen the same result with similar guns like the PPQ, VP9, etc? Granted they aren't used as in large numbers in the US as the P320, but they've also been out in the wild for quite a while, and surely we'd be hearing of the same events by now even if not as frequently.

For me it's a preponderance of the evidence. The unintentional discharges have happened enough that I can't bring myself to trust Sig. Are some user error? Probably. But I stopped trusting Sig before the P320 fiasco, back when they went from making quality pistols to making the flavor of the month and having 10,000 sku's so Mr Cohen could make more money. Even their "flagship" Legion guns were coming from the factory with bent front sights and other issues. Personally I grew up shooting an early P220 (it had the heel clip magazine release) and always loved the ergos of it and the P226. I remember when Sig represented quality and performance. Now, they are trying to be everything to everyone. A company that IMO lost its way is now manufacturing handguns, long guns, suppressors, optics, ammunition, etc. This will make them weaker and less trustworthy in my book. A company that behaves as they have, and has a gun with a sketchy (at best) reputation... no way I'd carry that gun.

I've posted this before, but for me to trust a Sig it would need to say "Made in West Germany" on it.

[MDFA]

For what it's worth I'm currently in the School Guardian Academy for my new job. During this first week in 4 days of live fire we have fired 3000 rounds per day thru 7 Sig P320 pistols. That's a total of 12000 rounds. Now 7 Pistols is far from a large sampling of pistols, but other than about 10 ammo related Failure to Fire issues, there have been no problems. We have 5 weeks to go. I'll give an update at the end of the training.

[UNK]

For what it's worth I'm currently in the School Guardian Academy for my new job. During this first week in 4 days of live fire we have fired 3000 rounds per day thru 7 Sig P320 pistols. That's a total of 12000 rounds. Now 7 Pistols is far from a large sampling of pistols, but other than about 10 ammo related Failure to Fire issues, there have been no problems. We have 5 weeks to go. I'll give an update at the end of the training.

I think its only fair to point out you are getting a LE gun and armorer support. None of that is available to the average citizen.

[Texaspoff]

I think you’re on the right track but many of the agencies that transitioned to the P320 were not Glock agencies. They were were long time SIG agencies who transitioned from SIG DA/SA or DAK guns to P320s.

Essentially these agencies made the same DA-striker transition from the 80s and 90s but they did it in the last five or six years.


That's a good example, with Texas DPS being one of those. They were previously Sig DA/SA carriers and are now all 320. There hasn't been any reported ND's from them. As someone else pointed out, they are also pretty firearms training heavy, they shoot a lot more than your average agency and two things come from this.

One if the 320 design did still have a flaw in it's design, they should have found it by now. Two, they are well versed and trained in handling the 320, thus less likely to experience and ND from mishandling.

If DPS suddenly starts reporting ND with their then I will take notice.





TXPO

[HCM]

I think its only fair to point out you are getting a LE gun and armorer support. None of that is available to the average citizen.

SIG does claim to provide higher levels of QC to LE program guns.

However:

If the agency has an armorer, and the armorer is on site, the SIG 320 armorer school is only a 1 day detail stripping class. A pre-service armorer inspection of a 320 doesn't even involve detail stripping the FCU. The benefits are minimal other than the ability to swap broken parts or do PMCS.

You would get the same level of support from a local gunsmith or SIG customer service.

[UNK]

SIG does claim to provide higher levels of QC to LE program guns.

However:

If the agency has an armorer, and the armorer is on site, the SIG 320 armorer school is only a 1 day detail stripping class. A pre-service armorer inspection of a 320 doesn't even involve detail stripping the FCU. The benefits are minimal other than the ability to swap broken parts or do PMCS.

You would get the same level of support from a local gunsmith or SIG customer service.

How is sending a gun to Sig or a local gunsmith, if you can even find one who is 320 certified, even remotely the same as an agencies armorer?

Do agents mail their guns to the armorer and wait weeks to get it back? Do they have to pay for said service? Does a local gunsmith even if you can find a local gunsmith, much less one who is certified have the level of experience with the 320 as an agency armorer?
While it may be available its not the same level of support.
ETA And with problems found with guns direct from the factory what level of trust could an individual have that a service was done correctly at SIG?

[TGS]

I think its only fair to point out you are getting a LE gun and armorer support. None of that is available to the average citizen.


How is sending a gun to Sig or a local gunsmith, if you can even find one who is 320 certified, even remotely the same as an agencies armorer?

Do agents mail their guns to the armorer and wait weeks to get it back? Do they have to pay for said service? Does a local gunsmith even if you can find a local gunsmith, much less one who is certified have the level of experience with the 320 as an agency armorer?
While it may be available its not the same level of support.
ETA And with problems found with guns direct from the factory what level of trust could an individual have that a service was done correctly at SIG?

Armorer service typically isn't provided on the range for most agencies....or, rather, most field personnel within most agencies.

Generally, the standard is to bring spare guns. If the gun suffers problems during a range outing, you swap it out for a spare to complete training.

So, when you say, "Yeah but they had armorer support" as a reason why the P320 would not see any problems on a range outing....well, that doesn't really make any sense. Even if you had one on site...which you probably don't......there's nothing that an agency armorer on site would do that would make that P320 perform any different from a civilian's P320. Even if you had an agency armorer on site at a range day, the only difference is that you'd be able to fix problems on site if they were to occur. As MDFA noted they had no issues arise to begin with, so it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

[UNK]

Armorer service typically isn't provided on the range for most agencies....or, rather, most field personnel within most agencies.

Generally, the standard is to bring spare guns. If the gun suffers problems during a range outing, you swap it out for a spare to complete training.

So, when you say, "Yeah but they had armorer support" as a reason why the P320 would not see any problems on a range outing....well, that doesn't really make any sense. Even if you had one on site...which you probably don't......there's nothing that an agency armorer on site would do that would make that P320 perform any different from a civilian's P320. Even if you had an agency armorer on site at a range day, the only difference is that you'd be able to fix problems on site if they were to occur. As MDFA noted they had no issues arise to begin with, so it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

I never said anything about an armorer at the range to ensure function.
The poll was about do you trust the 320. My point is a LE gun with armorer support is not the same situation as a civilian purchased firearm.

[HCM]

How is sending a gun to Sig or a local gunsmith, if you can even find one who is 320 certified, even remotely the same as an agencies armorer?

Do agents mail their guns to the armorer and wait weeks to get it back? Do they have to pay for said service? Does a local gunsmith even if you can find a local gunsmith, much less one who is certified have the level of experience with the 320 as an agency armorer?
While it may be available its not the same level of support.
ETA And with problems found with guns direct from the factory what level of trust could an individual have that a service was done correctly at SIG?



You seem to have an unrealistic idea of what is available in terms of on-site support in the 2020s. The days of most departments having an on site armorer who actually repairs, tunes and trouble shoots guns like in the revolver days are long over for most agencies.

In most agencies of any size, anything other than routine issues like swapping grips, adjusting sides, etc. involves the officer being issued a replacement gun and the problem gun being sent to a centralized armory or the manufacturer.

Other than user level maintenance like recoil spring changes, guns are swapped out after 5-10 years or 10,000 rounds because it’s cheaper than the labor for an LE Armorer to do proper PMCS.

Having two or three copies of your hard use gun is pretty standard advice here, regardless of the make and model.

Repairs done by SIG will either be covered under warranty or not. But whether or not the officers have to pay is irrelevant for work on an issued gun that they’re not paying for in the first place.

For an officer using a personally owned agency approved duty weapon, sometimes the agency will cover maintenance and repair for the gun. Sometimes they won’t. For the eight years I chose to carry a personal owned Glock 17 in lieu of the issued 40 I always had an identical G17 (or two) in the safe as a back up at my own expense. There were two reasons for this, first I have sent people home with my gun because there’s was taken into evidence after shooting. We worked in a small office, had no spare guns on site, and the nearest spare guns for a 5 Hour drive away. Second, while my agency will perform maintenance and repair on a personally owned duty gun, they will only do so if they have the necessary parts on hand. If they don’t have the necessary parts, your gun may sit at the armory for six months or more until the next fiscal year when they get funding to buy another batch of parts.

[TGS]

I never said anything about an armorer at the range to ensure function.
The poll was about do you trust the 320. My point is a LE gun with armorer support is not the same situation as a civilian purchased firearm.

I guess I was confused by you responding to MDFAs range report and saying that it isn't the same thing as a civilian because they have armorer support.

In which case, it still stands. From a LE perspective, your stance makes no sense. This isn't the Cops'n'Robbers version of dungeons and dragons where being part of an agency and having armorer support gives you a +25 reliability modifier.

You have the same ability to keep your gun in serviceable condition as a LEO.

[UNK]

I guess I was confused by you responding to MDFAs range report and saying that it isn't the same thing as a civilian because they have armorer support.

In which case, it still stands. From a LE perspective, your stance makes no sense. This isn't the Cops'n'Robbers version of dungeons and dragons where being part of an agency and having armorer support gives you a +25 reliability modifier.

You have the same ability to keep your gun in serviceable condition as a LEO.

I do. Again my point is its not the same thing. Are we going to do this all day?

[TGS]

I do. Again my point is its not the same thing. Are we going to do this all day?

If you're going to make a point and either walk it back or resort to "doing this all day" when people point out your point doesn't make sense/isn't based in reality, you may want to do a better job at making your point.

[UNK]

If you're going to make a point and either walk it back or resort to "doing this all day" when people point out your point doesn't make sense/isn't based in reality, you may want to do a better job at making your point.

Ive made my points and I stand by my original simple statement. You are the one who misinterpreted it.

[AMC]

I do. Again my point is its not the same thing. Are we going to do this all day?

I will agree that it is not the same thing in one way: you have to pay for all of it. As others have mentioned, if it's an issued, agency-owned weapon, the agency is gonna pay for the parts and maintenance. That is a big deal if you shoot a lot and have to do small parts and spring replacement at regular intervals.

There are Armorers, and then there are 'armorers'. The latter are those dudes who attended a 1-2 day Factory Armorer Course, and are the agency "Gun Guy". They are often tinkerers, and frankly just as likely to fuck up your gun as fix anything. Most agencies, if they have anything, have someone who fits into this category. So "Armorer Support" is not the silver bullet that people think it is. I think that's the point the guys are trying to get across.

I was very fortunate in my former job to have two full-time, dedicated armorers working on my staff at the range. They were officers who tested for the position, attended factory armorer training for every weapon system we used (including some Master Certification and Instructor courses), and also underwent a six month in house apprenticeship. They've been in the job for years, and have extensive inside industry knowledge and contacts. They bring a level of skill and knowledge that a 1-2 day class on detail stripping just can't match. Ask Wayne Dobbs about the knowledge and competence of SFPD's two armorers.

All that said, this was the exception, not the rule, in our area. The support for most agencies was non-existent. We often fielded calls for help from other agencies' officers, especially for personally owned duty guns. My guys would stick around and meet those officers ON THEIR OWN TIME....because that's the kind of dudes they are. But again....exception, not the rule. Most other agencies send the guns back to the factory for a fix. Yes....they might have a spare gun to hand out (or likely not if it's personally owned). And yes, it's more expensive and inconvenient to have to do this as a private citizen (believe me I know now that I IS one). But heck....hasn't that been the general consensus on this forum for the last decade?

[HCM]

I will agree that it is not the same thing in one way: you have to pay for all of it. As others have mentioned, if it's an issued, agency-owned weapon, the agency is gonna pay for the parts and maintenance. That is a big deal if you shoot a lot and have to do small parts and spring replacement at regular intervals.

There are Armorers, and then there are 'armorers'. The latter are those dudes who attended a 1-2 day Factory Armorer Course, and are the agency "Gun Guy". They are often tinkerers, and frankly just as likely to fuck up your gun as fix anything. Most agencies, if they have anything, have someone who fits into this category. So "Armorer Support" is not the silver bullet that people think it is. I think that's the point the guys are trying to get across.

I was very fortunate in my former job to have two full-time, dedicated armorers working on my staff at the range. They were officers who tested for the position, attended factory armorer training for every weapon system we used (including some Master Certification and Instructor courses), and also underwent a six month in house apprenticeship. They've been in the job for years, and have extensive inside industry knowledge and contacts. They bring a level of skill and knowledge that a 1-2 day class on detail stripping just can't match. Ask Wayne Dobbs about the knowledge and competence of SFPD's two armorers.

All that said, this was the exception, not the rule, in our area. The support for most agencies was non-existent. We often fielded calls for help from other agencies' officers, especially for personally owned duty guns. My guys would stick around and meet those officers ON THEIR OWN TIME....because that's the kind of dudes they are. But again....exception, not the rule. Most other agencies send the guns back to the factory for a fix. Yes....they might have a spare gun to hand out (or likely not if it's personally owned). And yes, it's more expensive and inconvenient to have to do this as a private citizen (believe me I know now that I IS one). But heck....hasn't that been the general consensus on this forum for the last decade?

Your assessment of most agency armorers is spot on.

My local municipal PD has a great firearms training program, however, their armorer is a middle-age lady who seems to have gotten the position by being someone’s relative (not uncommon here). I assisted one of my task force partners in getting his personally owned rifle, set up and approved for duty use. The armorer inspection consisted of making sure it had a black or dark grey finish, measuring the barrel to make sure it was at least 16 inches, showing that he had at least 2 30 round magazines, and then measuring the trigger pull weight to ensure it was > 4lbs. That’s it. No function checks etc.

If an officer has an actual function issue with a rifle and the range staff can address it they usually send them over to SOLGW…..

[AMC]

Your assessment of most agency armorers is spot on.

My local municipal PD has a great firearms training program, however, their armorer is a middle-age lady who seems to have gotten the position by being someone’s relative (not uncommon here). I assisted one of my task force partners in getting his personally owned rifle, set up and approved for duty use. The armorer inspection consisted of making sure it had a black or dark grey finish, measuring the barrel to make sure it was at least 16 inches, showing that he had at least 2 30 round magazines, and then measuring the trigger pull weight to ensure it was > 4lbs. That’s it. No function checks etc.

If an officer has an actual function issue with a rifle and the range staff can address it they usually send them over to SOLGW…..

Even good programs and systems can fall apart when the Good Idea Fairy gets a seat at the table. There's been a push by certain specialized units in my old agency to have their own 'Unit Armorers'. This is mostly because they want to do and buy a bunch of really stupid shit without oversight. After I left, the powers that be seem to be listening. We're talking about a group of folks who have a history of ordering guns and accessories (in total violation of department policy) with mismatched and incompatible parts (rifles with Keymod rails and then.ordering M Lok parts....because it's all parts, right?). Or ordering a couple of Sig Rattlers in .223 (again in direct violation of department policy and my explicitly directives) because they need Body Armor penetration capability and an M4 or even a 11.5" Commando just won't fit in the lockbox in their trunks (which strangely fit a full size rifle with A2 stock). The fact that no ammo we used or could reasonable get would reliably penetrate body armor out of that 5" barrel? Irrelevant....its cool. But hey.....they know gun stuff. They saw the youtube commercials!

[MDFA]

For what it's worth I'm currently in the School Guardian Academy for my new job. During this first week in 4 days of live fire we have fired 3000 rounds per day thru 7 Sig P320 pistols. That's a total of 12000 rounds. Now 7 Pistols is far from a large sampling of pistols, but other than about 10 ammo related Failure to Fire issues, there have been no problems. We have 5 weeks to go. I'll give an update at the end of the training.

I know we don't usually quote ourselves, but in an effort to keep this updated... In an additional 3 days of training the round count is up to 21000 rounds total for the 7 pistols and shooters. No issues except for ammo related Failures to Fire. (Winchester White Box and Federal Red Box Training). 2 Shooters had the Grip Modules changed from Medium to Small by the on site Instructors/Armorers, other than that there has been no maintenance except for each shooter giving their pistol a quick clean and light lube each night.

The pistols are running fine. The Shooters could use some on site support however...;) My hands are talking to me, and they're not saying nice things...


97528

[jnc36rcpd]

I voted with my feet today by selling my pre-2019 at my local gun store. I'm sure I could have gotten a better deal by selling it privately[B]ut I didn't want to go forth wondering if a friend or colleague would have an uncommanded discharge. It is now just another used 320 for sale to anyone willing to purchase a used early model 320. I do have some regrets as I really like carrying and shooting the weapon. Had it been a current model, I probably would have kept the weapon and trained around the light trigger with short take-up.

Like many departments, I made this purchase based on my prior experience with the SIG 226 and other 22X models. I envisioned the weapon as an off-duty and retirement gun. Should I ever decide I really prefer a 320 over a Glock, I'll get a current model with an optics cut...or, better yet, a 365 XL or Macro.

[Warped Mindless]

I just purchased a new one that was made November of 2021.

To be clear, all the issues are 2019 and earlier, correct? I bought one because Ive been carrying the sig 365x and XL for a while now and wanted a bigger gun with the same grip angle and overall “feel” and I got a great deal on it.

[HCM]

I just purchased a new one that was made November of 2021.

To be clear, all the issues are 2019 and earlier, correct? I bought one because Ive been carrying the sig 365x and XL for a while now and wanted a bigger gun with the same grip angle and overall “feel” and I got a great deal on it.

June 2019 and earlier.

[JonInWA]

May 31st and earlier; June 1st and later should be fine.

Best, Jon

[mcgivro]

I think its only fair to point out you are getting a LE gun and armorer support. None of that is available to the average citizen.

Are you under the impression that LE gets special/different guns? Blue Label Glocks are exactly the same as “civilian” models.

[UNK]

Are you under the impression that LE gets special/different guns? Blue Label Glocks are exactly the same as “civilian” models.

According to LEOs on the forum Sig has a LEO only SKU and “Supposedly” special something Im really not sure what it is.

[WobblyPossum]

According to LEOs on the forum Sig has a LEO only SKU and “Supposedly” special something Im really not sure what it is.

It’s not just Sig. The SKUs for Blue Label Glocks are different from the SKUs for Red Label guns and White Label guns. That doesn’t mean the guns themselves are different. The only thing that differentiates a “W” SKU Sig from a non-“W” SKU gun is some additional QC checking. It’s the same gun except someone actually looked it over before sending it to a distributor.

[jh9]

It’s not just Sig. The SKUs for Blue Label Glocks are different from the SKUs for Red Label guns and White Label guns. That doesn’t mean the guns themselves are different. The only thing that differentiates a “W” SKU Sig from a non-“W” SKU gun is some additional QC checking. It’s the same gun except someone actually looked it over before sending it to a distributor.

Any of those additional checks include checking to make sure the small parts came from the right vendor or batch because they also got another level of QC before Sig took delivery?

I don't think it's an unreasonable suspicion to have, absent definitive proof to the contrary. Trust is easy to piss away. Given Sig's behavior they've got a long way to go before anyone should be expected to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It seems like an easy thing to tell institutional customers "yeah this just gets another pass by QA *wink wink nudge nudge*" because that info is eventually going to make its way on the internet. If you're Sig you absolutely do not want it to be an open secret that you're foisting rejects or substandard components on the commercial market because that will probably hurt sales. And yet if you're Sig that seems like the exact sort of thing you'd do because you're Sig.

There are enough 320 Legions and the like bouncing around CO division that it's clear Sig can make a commercial 320 that works. The question is do they do that up and down the line.

[rob_s]

There’s a couple of other, likely more common, responses:

1) I wouldn’t carry one or buy one anyway, so the perceived safety issues aren’t a problem
2) I already own one, and there’s no way I’m admitting it was a bad choice, so I’ve decided it’s a non-issue

[HCM]

According to LEOs on the forum Sig has a LEO only SKU and “Supposedly” special something Im really not sure what it is.

It was detailed in the prior posts here. It’s no mystery.

SIG claims their LE program guns (SKU numbers starting with “W”) get additional / more intensive QC checks. That’s it.

SIG has a SKU specific to DHS contract guns (SKU numbers literally include “DHS”). AFAIK the only difference between them and regular SIG LE program guns / W guns is the coating / finish on the internals of the FCU. SIG appears amenable to selling these to other LE agencies. At least large ones.

MHS contract M17/18 also have a different coating on the FCU internals vs their commercial equivalents.

This is not exactly unprecedented as the M model Glocks were just Gen 5 Glocks with DLC coated internals and Glock normally only sells (or sold) M model guns to agencies.

Some Glock employees have claimed their Blue Label guns get 6 additional QC checks. Do they ?

Unless it’s specified as part of a contract, what ever SIG or Glock choose do in terms of QC or parts selection is proprietary.

What ever they do or don’t do, every SIG or Glock put into service by a DHS or DOJ agency get inspected by an agency armorer before being put into service. It’s like anyone is rolling around in all the piles of “extra QC” like Scrooge McDuck because they trust SIG or Glock….


97891

[Texaspoff]

It was detailed in the prior posts here. It’s no mystery.

SIG claims their LE program guns (SKU numbers starting with “W”) get additional / more intensive QC checks. That’s it.

SIG has a SKU specific to DHS contract guns (SKU numbers literally include “DHS”). AFAIK the only difference between them and regular SIG LE program guns / W guns is the coating / finish on the internals of the FCU. SIG appears amenable to selling these to other LE agencies. At least large ones.

MHS contract M17/18 also have a different coating on the FCU internals vs their commercial equivalents.

This is not exactly unprecedented as the M model Glocks were just Gen 5 Glocks with DLC coated internals and Glock normally only sells (or sold) M model guns to agencies.

Some Glock employees have claimed their Blue Label guns get 6 additional QC checks. Do they ?

Unless it’s specified as part of a contract, what ever SIG or Glock choose do in terms of QC or parts selection is proprietary.

What ever they do or don’t do, every SIG or Glock put into service by a DHS or DOJ agency get inspected by an agency armorer before being put into service. It’s like anyone is rolling around in all the piles of “extra QC” like Scrooge McDuck because they trust SIG or Glock….


97891



I'm not sure I believe that at all. I have been able to check multiple shipments of LE guns to my local guy when he gets them, and quite often there is something qc related wrong with a lot of them. It has ranged from rear sight dovetails being cut uneven, finish issues with the slide, spots where the Nitron didn't adhere, among other things.

I have seen two that the FCU wasn't cut correctly and the trigger bar didn't have enough clearance on FCU causing inconsistent trigger breaks. Those two guns actually had to be send back to Sig as he couldn't sell them. I have seen banged up sights and tritium that was out, and even loose sights in their dovetails.

There is no way those would have made it past me if I was in QC, and if those received special attention, there is no way in hell I would purchase a commercial version.

When I purchased mine I was always able to pick out the best one if the group. A few times I was actually able to build one out of the best parts from several guns, the advantage of knowing folks.




TXPO

[HCM]

Any of those additional checks include checking to make sure the small parts came from the right vendor or batch because they also got another level of QC before Sig took delivery?

I don't think it's an unreasonable suspicion to have, absent definitive proof to the contrary. Trust is easy to piss away. Given Sig's behavior they've got a long way to go before anyone should be expected to give them the benefit of the doubt.

It seems like an easy thing to tell institutional customers "yeah this just gets another pass by QA *wink wink nudge nudge*" because that info is eventually going to make its way on the internet. If you're Sig you absolutely do not want it to be an open secret that you're foisting rejects or substandard components on the commercial market because that will probably hurt sales. And yet if you're Sig that seems like the exact sort of thing you'd do because you're Sig.

There are enough 320 Legions and the like bouncing around CO division that it's clear Sig can make a commercial 320 that works. The question is do they do that up and down the line.

SIG used to specify “made in Italy” mags (I.e. Mecgar) mags for LE program guns. Otherwise no re: parts. SIG is too busy cranking out guns for the minutiae you’re describing.

I believe you have their process backwards.

The QC level of any manufactured product is based on the amount of checks and where you set the reject rate. More QC checks cost more money. The higher the reject rate the more it costs.

SIG etc are doing extra checks to catch the issues in their “normal” supply chain before they go to LE customers for a variety of reasons. A big one being self interest. Agencies are large customers. Good performance now helps efforts to sell them other stuff (long guns optics etc) in the future. Unlike most commercial customers, agency’s stuff actually gets used so you want to set the stage for repeat business 10 years from now when it’s time to buy 15,000 new pistols.

[Texaspoff]

SIG used to specify “made in Italy” mags (I.e. Mecgar) mags for LE program guns. Otherwise no re: parts. SIG is too busy cranking out guns for the minutiae you’re describing.

I believe you have their process backwards.

The QC level of any manufactured product is based on the amount of checks and where you set the reject rate. More QC checks cost more money. The higher the reject rate the more it costs.

SIG etc are doing extra checks to catch the issues in their “normal” supply chain before they go to LE customers for a variety of reasons. A big one being self interest. Agencies are large customers. Good performance now helps efforts to sell them other stuff (long guns optics etc) and, unlike most commercial customers, agency’s stuff actually gets used so you want to set the stage for repeat business 10 years from now when it’s time to buy 15,000 new pistols.


There was a group of 320's my dealer received in 2019, LE guns that all had USA mags in them. So they didn't always come with Italian made ones.



TXPO

[HCM]

I'm not sure I believe that at all. I have been able to check multiple shipments of LE guns to my local guy when he gets them, and quite often there is something qc related wrong with a lot of them. It has ranged from rear sight dovetails being cut uneven, finish issues with the slide, spots where the Nitron didn't adhere, among other things.

I have seen two that the FCU wasn't cut correctly and the trigger bar didn't have enough clearance on FCU causing inconsistent trigger breaks. Those two guns actually had to be send back to Sig as he couldn't sell them. I have seen banged up sights and tritium that was out, and even loose sights in their dovetails.

There is no way those would have made it past me if I was in QC, and if those received special attention, there is no way in hell I would purchase a commercial version.

When I purchased mine I was always able to pick out the best one if the group. A few times I was actually able to build one out of the best parts from several guns, the advantage of knowing folks.




TXPO

Extra QC does not equal perfection.

Hence why everything still get checked again.

Our biggest issue with RDS/PMO transition hasn’t been optics but issues with BUIS coming loose and drifting on P320s. Wither the sights or the slide dovetails appear to be out of spec.

SIG previous had a bunch of P365s with rear dovetails that were cut too large. There were enough of them that SIG had a batch of oversized rear sights made to correct the issue rather than replace the slides.

I’ve long hand picked Blue Label Glocks to get the best lock up and best feeling trigger.

As for building from the best available parts….


https://youtu.be/4zc0r-gTxNw

[Texaspoff]

Extra QC does not equal perfection.

Hence why everything still get checked again.

Our biggest issue with RDS/PMO transition hasn’t been optics but issues with BUIS coming loose and drifting on P320s. Wither the sights or the slide dovetails appear to be out of spec.

SIG previous had a bunch of P365s with rear dovetails that were cut too large. There were enough of them that SIG had a batch of oversized rear sights made to correct the issue rather than replace the slides.

I’ve long hand picked Blue Label Glocks to get the best lock up and best feeling trigger.

As for building from the best available parts….


https://youtu.be/4zc0r-gTxNw



LOL exactly.




TXPO

[HCM]

There was a group of 320's my dealer received in 2019, LE guns that all had USA mags in them. So they didn't always come with Italian made ones.



TXPO

That’s why I said at one time. During the factory armorer’s class in either mid ‘18 or mid ‘19 the reps were advising LE to ensure their people were only using made in Italy mags for duty and that LE guns should come with Italian mags.

AFAIK there were QC issues with SIG’s original US mag supplier. Once they added Checkmate as the second US vendor that issue was resolved.

SIG is now making some 365 series mags in-house.

[Texaspoff]

That’s why I said at one time. During the factory armorer’s class in either mid ‘18 or mid ‘19 the reps were advising LE to ensure their people were only using made in Italy mags for duty and that LE guns should come with Italian mags.

AFAIK there were QC issues with SIG’s original US mag supplier. Once they added Checkmate as the second US vendor that issue was resolved.

SIG is now making some 365 series mags in-house.

Yeah they told us the same during our classes.

Sig seems to be all over the place with things as of late.






TXPO

[JonInWA]

There have been no issues with the Check-Mate 17 round magazines that I've either personally experienced or anecdotally heard of to date. Mine have been run predominantly with the OEM Henning Group superb basepads, but I've also regularly used the Gray Guns aluminum low profile pad, and the OEM SIG polymer pads. I'm utilizing the X-Carry grip shell with a Compact RX slide/barrel assembly. While statistically somewhat inevitably there will likely be some outliers, to date these seem to be very well made and performing. Check-Mate magazines also have a lifetime guarantee.

For my Compact grip shell, I have 4 of the OEM magazines Mec-Gar manufactures for SIG, they're excellent as well.

I'd also heard of issues with the previous non-Check-Mate US SIG magazine vendor.

Keep in mind too that there are essentially two series of magazines (earlier production and subsequent later production ones) for the P320, and there may be compatibility issues with basepads and/or grip shells.

And, as we've discussed in a previous p-f thread, running a higher capacity magazine then the grip shell is designed for can be a Major Bad Idea, as over-insertion can damage the FCU.

Best, Jon

[Wondering Beard]

As for building from the best available parts….


https://youtu.be/4zc0r-gTxNw

Thread drift.

Homage by John Wick.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB0A4pFIOA0

[GJM]

And back to the regular programming...

https://www.wisn.com/article/federal-law-enforcement-gun-is-4th-in-series-of-area-accidental-shootings/42117573

[Guerrero]

And back to the regular programming...

https://www.wisn.com/article/federal-law-enforcement-gun-is-4th-in-series-of-area-accidental-shootings/42117573

Must be something in the water here.

[Sig_Fiend]

I'm as pessimistic as any on the P320 platform's safety record. That said, I still haven't seen anyone lay out a specific case as to how these alleged holstered discharges are happening. I've wracked my brain trying to figure out what obscure series of failures could lead to it, if it is in fact a real thing as opposed to merely a low margin for error platform.

The only thing I can think of is some sort of tolerance stacking issue combined with a holster, pressure or torque applied to the holster, causing the slide and frame to torque independent of each other enough that the striker is able to be released. The firing pin safety would somehow have to be articulated in that process, and I'm not seeing how that could occur short of a component failure (FPS spring) or trigger pull.

[AMC]

And back to the regular programming...

https://www.wisn.com/article/federal-law-enforcement-gun-is-4th-in-series-of-area-accidental-shootings/42117573

This is still pretty fresh but....paging HCM for any inside baseball on this. Whenever cops are involved, my first thought is ND, especially with a striker fired handgun. This is almost certainly a DHS Sku gun, so the cause is important here. With everything that's been said, it's important to remember that LEOs have ND'd with DAO guns. It's a pretty unique talent born of a combined lack of training and complacency.

[TheNewbie]

I just can’t get a sense of peace that would enable me to carry one. Even if the AD issues are all NDs, I just can’t get comfortable with how that trigger feels and how light it is.


I do get why some people feel ok with them, and I hope they work for all who use them.

[HCM]

This is still pretty fresh but....paging HCM for any inside baseball on this. Whenever cops are involved, my first thought is ND, especially with a striker fired handgun. This is almost certainly a DHS Sku gun, so the cause is important here. With everything that's been said, it's important to remember that LEOs have ND'd with DAO guns. It's a pretty unique talent born of a combined lack of training and complacency.

News to me, but I 100% concur - when ever cops are involved my first thought is ND not mechanical issue. It’s like the medical diagnostic rule - “if you hear hoof beats, think horses, not Zebras.”

I also have seen ND’s with DAO, LEM and DAK guns as well as Glocks.

You’re still mixing cops, with all the qualities AMC mentioned, with a gun that has a short, light trigger pull.

So far the majority of 320 NDs I’m aware of have involved dawning or re-holstering. Mostly on the range but in one instance an LEO reholstering a 320 in office after drawing it to confirm serial number for inventory. I’m aware of one in Florida where an off duty LEO’s gun somehow fell out of a holster at a wine tasting event (which is, it self a problem). Appears they tried to catch the gun resulting in an ND that injured the LEO and a bystander.

97932

Remember the only thing cheaper than a cop is two cops. That means guys using cheap, crappy holsters or using P229R holsters cause they “kinda fit.”

Or no holster at all. Within the past two months I’ve had chats with LEOs to explain why it’s a bad idea to pocket carry a P365 without a pocket holster or carry a loaded P320 loose in a EDC back pack.

Speaking of, not every incident involving ICE /HSI is going to involve P320s. We authorize the 365 series guns as POW and it’s common for people to carry them when working in office or doing lower risk field work. We’ve also authorized POW Glocks for over 15 years. So no guarantee this WI incident or the FL incident involved p320s.

[HCM]

I just can’t get a sense of peace that would enable me to carry one. Even if the AD issues are all NDs, I just can’t get comfortable with how that trigger feels and how light it is.


I do get why some people feel ok with them, and I hope they work for all who use them.

And that is a legitimate for either not choosing a 320 or choosing a manual safety version.

The option for an SCD is another valid argument for Glock.

[HCM]

I'm as pessimistic as any on the P320 platform's safety record. That said, I still haven't seen anyone lay out a specific case as to how these alleged holstered discharges are happening. I've wracked my brain trying to figure out what obscure series of failures could lead to it, if it is in fact a real thing as opposed to merely a low margin for error platform.

The only thing I can think of is some sort of tolerance stacking issue combined with a holster, pressure or torque applied to the holster, causing the slide and frame to torque independent of each other enough that the striker is able to be released. The firing pin safety would somehow have to be articulated in that process, and I'm not seeing how that could occur short of a component failure (FPS spring) or trigger pull.

The article on the Milwaukee incident has a whole bunch of smoke but it does not actually say the gun went off in the holster.

Not to mention the “anonymous sources” are likely affiliated with MPD which seems to have a beef with SIG.

Cops being cops, and cops NOT being gun people: 1) NDs are, unfortunately, a regular thing and have been from the DA revolver days; 2) I’d bet one of GJM’s “P-F Dollars” this will wind up being an ND.

[AMC]

I just can’t get a sense of peace that would enable me to carry one. Even if the AD issues are all NDs, I just can’t get comfortable with how that trigger feels and how light it is.


I do get why some people feel ok with them, and I hope they work for all who use them.

Not at all criticizing your decision, but cops are NDing every platform they're currently carrying every day. And unless you're in a position to be reviewing or investigating such instances you're likely never going to hear about them. NDs with Classic line Sigs (P226s) were a 2 times a year thing for us.....as we're the 2-3 times a year NDs with personally owned Glocks.

ETA: "I don't like them" or "I prefer Glocks/CZs/M&Ps" are also both valid reasons to say no.

[GJM]

The article on the Milwaukee incident has a whole bunch of smoke but it does not actually say the gun went off in the holster.

Not to mention the “anonymous sources” are likely affiliated with MPD which seems to have a beef with SIG.

Cops being cops, and cops NOT being gun people: 1) NDs are, unfortunately, a regular thing and have been from the DA revolver days; 2) I’d bet one of GJM’s “P-F Dollars” this will wind up being an ND.

You mean someone who had a ND might try to blame it on Sig? Shocked.

[HCM]

You mean someone who had a ND might try to blame it on Sig? Shocked.

Yup.

Cops having NDs is not exactly outlier event either. They don’t always make the news but as any of the other posters here who’ve run a LE firearms program can attest cops having NDs is all too common.

[HCM]

Not at all criticizing your decision, but cops are NDing every platform they're currently carrying every day. And unless you're in a position to be reviewing or investigating such instances you're likely never going to hear about them. NDs with Classic line Sigs (P226s) were a 2 times a year thing for us.....as we're the 2-3 times a year NDs with personally owned Glocks.

ETA: "I don't like them" or "I prefer Glocks/CZs/M&Ps" are also both valid reasons to say no.

Along those lines, not every ICE /HSI LEO is carrying a 320 or carrying a 320 all the time. The 365 series is extremely popular as a POW option and many get carried in lieu of the 320 for in office or lower risk duties.

We’ve also authorized POW Glocks in 9mm for over 15 years. So it’s likely both recent WI and FL incidents involved something other than a 320.

[TheNewbie]

Not at all criticizing your decision, but cops are NDing every platform they're currently carrying every day. And unless you're in a position to be reviewing or investigating such instances you're likely never going to hear about them. NDs with Classic line Sigs (P226s) were a 2 times a year thing for us.....as we're the 2-3 times a year NDs with personally owned Glocks.

ETA: "I don't like them" or "I prefer Glocks/CZs/M&Ps" are also both valid reasons to say no.


Totally makes sense. Glocks are just on the edge of ok for me, and I add a NY1 and SCD. That probably is an over the top position, but despite my best efforts, I can’t shake it.

There are guys I see who do crazy things safety wise, that probably only get away with it because of DA triggers. DA triggers are a weak defense against constant negligence, but I would be even more concerned with them having something like a P320.

You have infinitely more experience in this arena than I do, so I would defer someone seeking advice to you, but I can’t get past my own hang up. Since there are other quality options, it’s not a major deal one way or the other for an individual, but that mindset may not apply to a large institution.

[GJM]

In aviation, about 85 percent of the crashes are pilot error. I would bet 5 of HCM's PF dollars that the percentage of ND's being human error tracks that 85 percent.

In my experience, based on liking all sorts of platforms and having hung around forums for some years, people advocating a particular platform because of its intrinsic safety often fall into these camps -- trying to justify their own choice, trying to explain to their wife why they need something new, or trying to sell you something.

[HCM]

In aviation, about 85 percent of the crashes are pilot error. I would bet 5 of HCM's PF dollars that the percentage of ND's being human error tracks that 85 percent.

In my experience, based on liking all sorts of platforms and having hung around forums for some years, people advocating a particular platform because of its intrinsic safety often fall into these camps -- trying to justify their own choice, trying to explain to their wife why they need something new, or trying to sell you something.

Between the complexity of aircraft vs firearms and other factors such as weather etc I’d say the human error factor in NDs is higher than 85%.

The pilot error rate is a good start for understanding the scope of the issue though.

[AMC]

Between the complexity of aircraft vs firearms and other factors such as weather etc I’d say the human error factor in NDs is higher than 85%.

The pilot error rate is a good start for understanding the scope of the issue though.

Yup. With NDs I'd frankly put it at 99+%.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

In my experience, based on liking all sorts of platforms and having hung around forums for some years, people advocating a particular platform because of its intrinsic safety often fall into these camps -- trying to justify their own choice, trying to explain to their wife why they need something new, or trying to sell you something.

Couldn't you replace the term "intrinsic safety" with literally any other aspect of a firearm (durability/ease of maintenance/accuracy/"feels right"/etc) and that statement would still be true?

[Warped Mindless]

Yup. With NDs I'd frankly put it at 99+%.

Yep!

I know a guy who swore for a long time that the bullet hole in his floor was a result of his glock just “going off by itself” as he unholstered it.

Said maybe “lint got into the extractor” (lol) or the “trigger malfunctioned” and gave lots of excuses.

Years later he finally admitted that he probably just had his finger on the trigger and wasn’t paying attention.

I suspect that 99% of the cases where “the gun just went off by itself” is similar. In the p320 cases you are combining a weapon with a large trigger guard and a very easy to pull trigger with people who handle them a lot but don’t have. A lot of quality training reps in with them. It’s not a good combo…

I carry a p320 in appendix quite often now and I’m not worried. That said, it was made after 2019. I dry fire 30 minutes every day and have made it a habit to reholster slowly.

[Bucky]

I just can’t get a sense of peace that would enable me to carry one. Even if the AD issues are all NDs, I just can’t get comfortable with how that trigger feels and how light it is.


I do get why some people feel ok with them, and I hope they work for all who use them.
There have been a few that have equated carrying a P320 (non manual safety) as to carrying a 1911 with the safety off. However, in that ladder scenario, there is still the grip safety. What’s more is, some that make this assessment, still carry a P320, and I wonder if they would carry a 1911 with the safety off?

[Sammy1]

The 365 is different internals/firing system than the 320. There have been allot of P365s sold and presumably carried but I haven't heard of any reports of the 365 going off in holsters.

[AMC]

Yep!

I know a guy who swore for a long time that the bullet hole in his floor was a result of his glock just “going off by itself” as he unholstered it.

Said maybe “lint got into the extractor” (lol) or the “trigger malfunctioned” and gave lots of excuses.

Years later he finally admitted that he probably just had his finger on the trigger and wasn’t paying attention.

I suspect that 99% of the cases where “the gun just went off by itself” is similar. In the p320 cases you are combining a weapon with a large trigger guard and a very easy to pull trigger with people who handle them a lot but don’t have. A lot of quality training reps in with them. It’s not a good combo…

I carry a p320 in appendix quite often now and I’m not worried. That said, it was made after 2019. I dry fire 30 minutes every day and have made it a habit to reholster slowly.

I just can't overcome my Heebie-Jeebies to carry any striker fired gun AIWB. When I did carry that way with a DA/SA gun, I liked it a lot. Definitely faster, and surprisingly comfortable.

[LittleLebowski]

I just can't overcome my Heebie-Jeebies to carry any striker fired gun AIWB. When I did carry that way with a DA/SA gun, I liked it a lot. Definitely faster, and surprisingly comfortable.

“SCD”

[AMC]

“SCD”

Very familiar. Recommend them to all my Glock friends. I just don't currently carry Glocks.

[TheNewbie]

Very familiar. Recommend them to all my Glock friends. I just don't currently carry Glocks.

Even with the SCD, I can't get comfortable AIWB a Glock. I really should just stick with DAO and TDA guns. lol I don't have too many issues AIWB my LCRx though.


The P320 will work for most people without issue, but the margin of error is less with them than say a P250. My friend, who is a BTDT guy, carries a P320, and I wish that he carried a P250.

[Sig_Fiend]

Even with the SCD, I can't get comfortable AIWB a Glock. I really should just stick with DAO and TDA guns. lol I don't have too many issues AIWB my LCRx though.

98007

;)

[wmu12071]

98007

;)

I really want a p365xl sized LEM with an RDO. That is pretty unlikely though.

[WobblyPossum]

I really want a p365xl sized LEM with an RDO. That is pretty unlikely though.

I’ve been wishing for a P365XL sized P250 that’s RDO/PMO capable. I’ve always preferred hammer fired guns and thought the P250 was a great idea.

[CCT125US]

I really want a p365xl sized LEM with an RDO. That is pretty unlikely though.

https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/sig-sauer-p365-xl-vs-heckler-koch-p2000-sk

98035

[wmu12071]

https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/sig-sauer-p365-xl-vs-heckler-koch-p2000-sk

98035

For me the slightly thinner guns really work better then the standard thickness guns. I may really like a P2000 with a RDO but it's hard to want to spend that much money and effort to get one and get it milled when I know thinner is better for me.

[TheNewbie]

98007

;)


A perfect AIWB gun for me would be a LEM with a thumb safety. I’m not saying it’s the most logical or practical shooting option, but it would give me that comfort level I really want out of a gun carried that way.

[TheNewbie]

We need to start a campaign.


“Make the P320 a P250 again.”

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

So the question I am left with is am I a fool for getting an M18 brand new at this point? I can't seem to tell if there's truly any 100% certain cases of discharge without pulling a trigger on these guns which are not pre-upgrade.

[Polecat]

Just scrap the stupid innards and make a bigger P 365!

[Warped Mindless]

So the question I am left with is am I a fool for getting an M18 brand new at this point? I can't seem to tell if there's truly any 100% certain cases of discharge without pulling a trigger on these guns which are not pre-upgrade.

I’d say you are safe.

My opinion is worth what you paid for it.

[HCM]

So the question I am left with is am I a fool for getting an M18 brand new at this point? I can't seem to tell if there's truly any 100% certain cases of discharge without pulling a trigger on these guns which are not pre-upgrade.

No, not at all. A post June 2019 320 with a thumb safety is the best possible 320 option with regard to safety.

[HCM]

We need to start a campaign.


“Make the P320 a P250 again.”

No.

Many of the negatives of the 320 are the result of adapting the P250 to a striker fired gun instead of starting from a clean piece of paper. No reason to compound the error.

[TheNewbie]

No.

Many of the negatives of the 320 are the result of adapting the P250 to a striker fired gun instead of starting from a clean piece of paper. No reason to compound the error.


It was a joke.


Though I would prefer a P250 style gun. A P250 with HK QC/parts quality. Why live in reality?

[Sig_Fiend]

No, not at all. A post June 2019 320 with a thumb safety is the best possible 320 option with regard to safety.

If I'm not mistaken, I don't think I've ever heard of a single manual safety P320 / M17 / M18 that's discharged with the safety engaged? I've read through dozens of pages of the other thread and also looked at some of the known court cases, and I can't recall a single MS variant being mentioned.

More and more it seems that there's likely no real AD issue with a post June 2019 P320, other than the reduced margin of error of the trigger due to the overall design. The MS variant, properly used and with the safety engaged in a proper holster would seem to practically eliminate that low margin of error.


It was a joke.


Though I would prefer a P250 style gun. A P250 with HK QC/parts quality. Why live in reality?

Man, if only I had infinite access to a CNC and actually knew how to use CAD software. I'd spend a bunch of free time figuring out how to invent an LEM-style 2-piece hammer for the P250. That would be rad. ;)

[jh9]

The 250 is a modern tragedy. Terrible gamer gun and exactly what the general public needed for actual carry. My early production 250 worked fine once sig replaced the extractor. Supposedly the unmarked "2nd gen" guns were good to go out of the box. At the time the local shop had a ton of them, used. And cheap. Mother-of-pearl before swine, I guess.

I have a couple LEM P2000s with the blue hammer spring and light FPB spring with whatever trigger spring the V2 comes with. That seems as close as anything in current production can get to being a high-capacity K-frame like the Beretta 92Ds and the 250s were.

[HCM]

It was a joke.


Though I would prefer a P250 style gun. A P250 with HK QC/parts quality. Why live in reality?

That’s called an LEM.

[UNK]

So many P320 threads not sure where to post this. If somebody wants to post it somewhere else feel free.

Troubled 'P320' linked to 6 unintended shootings in Wisconsin

https://www.wisn.com/article/troubled-p320-linked-to-6-unintended-shootings-in-wisconsin/42194667

[HCM]

So many P320 threads not sure where to post this. If somebody wants to post it somewhere else feel free.

Troubled 'P320' linked to 6 unintended shootings in Wisconsin

https://www.wisn.com/article/troubled-p320-linked-to-6-unintended-shootings-in-wisconsin/42194667

This article is just a regurgitation of the recent lawsuit and previously reported incidents in WI.

[John Hearne]

Has anyone come up with a legitimate theory on the P320 NDs? The upgrade added a second hook to the striker and there is a firing pin block system in place. I've been as big of a critic of Sig as anyone but I don't see how you overcome those obstacles to an ND without trigger actuation.

[HCM]

Has anyone come up with a legitimate theory on the P320 NDs? The upgrade added a second hook to the striker and there is a firing pin block system in place. I've been as big of a critic of Sig as anyone but I don't see how you overcome those obstacles to an ND without trigger actuation.

TLDR:

Most involve triggers being pulled, whether unintentionally buy the shoes, finger or by foreign objects.

A few involve the original pre-upgrade, design, guns, or guns that went through the upgrade and were not upgraded properly. Most of these involved some type of impact.

Some involved aftermarket trigger and internal parts or modifications. It’s my understanding that the gun in the recently released video from 2019 that went off when re- holstered at a match was not in stock configuration and had aftermarket trigger parts installed. We all know that there are aftermarket trigger kits for the Glock that disable the internal safeties, and make a Glock.no longer drop safe. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that some aftermarket trigger kits for the 320 could have similar issues. I’m not going to say which company’s parts were involved but the only aftermarket trigger parts. I would trust in a 320 would be Gray Guns or Apex.

[Tamara]

The 250 is a modern tragedy. Terrible gamer gun and exactly what the general public needed for actual carry. My early production 250 worked fine once sig replaced the extractor. Supposedly the unmarked "2nd gen" guns were good to go out of the box. At the time the local shop had a ton of them, used. And cheap. Mother-of-pearl before swine, I guess.

I have a couple LEM P2000s with the blue hammer spring and light FPB spring with whatever trigger spring the V2 comes with. That seems as close as anything in current production can get to being a high-capacity K-frame like the Beretta 92Ds and the 250s were.

Outside of the general shooting public hating double action autos causing a terminal marketing headwind, the biggest problem with the P250 is that the design of the lockwork transmits force back through the trigger as the slide overrides the hammer…what we call “trigger slap”.

It’s not noticeable in the .22LR. In the .380 it’s not really disqualifying. I’ve shot 200+ rounds in a session with the .380 Compact.

With the 9mm Compact, it’s noticeable enough to be annoying. I’m usually done after a hundred rounds or so.

With .357SIG, even with the full-size slide assembly, the pad of my trigger finger is visibly inflamed after fifty rounds of ammo. My trigger finger is too sore at that point to pick up a pen for the rest of the day.


EDIT: To this day, I think the P250 Compact in .380 is the best “non-gun-people gun” or “grandma gun” in the last thirty years. It’s super easy to cycle the slide, it has a fifteen round magazine, recoil is mild, and the trigger pull is long enough to mitigate unintentional discharges from “woobie checking” or bad trigger finger discipline but light enough to not make it hard to get reasonable accuracy.

Sig dropped the ball marketing the gun because “a gun for girls, novices, the infirm, and old people” is seen as the kiss of death when everyone wants to be an operator.

[jh9]

With the 9mm Compact, it’s noticeable enough to be annoying. I’m usually done after a hundred rounds or so.

I don't remember getting trigger slap but then I only shot it in a couple of IDPA matches before selling it. Maybe it's less noticeable when there's 30-45 minutes of milling around, pasting and BSing between bouts of shooting it ~18 whole rounds at a time.

[MDFA]

For what it's worth I'm currently in the School Guardian Academy for my new job. During this first week in 4 days of live fire we have fired 3000 rounds per day thru 7 Sig P320 pistols. That's a total of 12000 rounds. Now 7 Pistols is far from a large sampling of pistols, but other than about 10 ammo related Failure to Fire issues, there have been no problems. We have 5 weeks to go. I'll give an update at the end of the training.

The live fire training is done. 11 days of live fire with 6 pistols (1 student failed at the end of qualification). We shot 30,000 rounds with no issues with the pistols. The only issues were ammo related failures to fire. My issue pistol is a May 2018 build, and has been upgraded. While not a large sample, for what it's worth I'm confident in the gun.

[roboster2013]

@lw16, JoninWA, HCM,

What is your current take on the post May 2019 320, and post May 2019 M17 & M18? Good to go, or still problematic? If still problematic, what are the issues as you see them?

Thanks.

Rob

[JonInWA]

My thoughts are that a post May 2019 gun is mechanically safe and assuming that it's properly assembled is good to go. My subsequent hesitation to recommend it (particularly to a to a non-dedicated user) then shifts to the characteristics of the triggerpull, which is light, short, and with a relatively soft wall at the break point. Others on the forum have likened it to being like carrying a single-action pistol without a manual safety or a grip safety, and I think that's a fair analogy. While there are still some nagging concerns about SIG QC, currently I haven't heard much uproar from that aspect, so it sounds like SIG might have gotten a better handle on things assembly-wise.

They are very shootable, which is one of the reasons that they do so well in the gun game environment.. You'll have to judge for yourself if those characteristics are desirable in a general purpose duty/self defense gun, especially when you have to make split-second decisions in a high stress environment with adrenalin overload likely happening.

Ideally, in my opinion the best configuration for a P320 for duty/defensive use as currently set up would be the variants with a manual safety.

I have mine, which is an October 2019 production gun, with an upgraded Romeo1(provided by SIG after my OEM first one failed-the new Variant 5 one has been stellar since installed), and X Carry grip module, and Check-Mate 17 round magazine with OEM Henning Group basepads (and a Gray Guns thinner aluminum basepad for my carry magazine). Not a huge roundcount-1587 rounds to date on it. It's been exceptionally reliable and accurate gun, with very good ergonomics.

While from 2019-2021 it was one of my primary guns, now not so much. There are just other guns that have more ideal characteristics for me, although I don't plan on letting it go, and will occasionally use it.

Best, Jon

[roboster2013]

My thoughts are that a post May 2019 gun is mechanically safe and assuming that it's properly assembled is good to go. My subsequent hesitation to recommend it (particularly to a to a non-dedicated user) then shifts to the characteristics of the triggerpull, which is light, short, and with a relatively soft wall at the break point. Others on the forum have likened it to being like carrying a single-action pistol without a manual safety or a grip safety, and I think that's a fair analogy. While there are still some nagging concerns about SIG QC, currently I haven't heard much uproar from that aspect, so it sounds like SIG might have gotten a better handle on things assembly-wise.

They are very shootable, which is one of the reasons that they do so well in the gun game environment.. You'll have to judge for yourself if those characteristics are desirable in a general purpose duty/self defense gun, especially when you have to make split-second decisions in a high stress environment with adrenalin overload likely happening.

Ideally, in my opinion the best configuration for a P320 for duty/defensive use as currently set up would be the variants with a manual safety.

I have mine, which is an October 2019 production gun, with an upgraded Romeo1(provided by SIG after my OEM first one failed-the new Variant 5 one has been stellar since installed), and X Carry grip module, and Check-Mate 17 round magazine with OEM Henning Group basepads (and a Gray Guns thinner aluminum basepad for my carry magazine). Not a huge roundcount-1587 rounds to date on it. It's been exceptionally reliable and accurate gun, with very good ergonomics.

While from 2019-2021 it was one of my primary guns, now not so much. There are just other guns that have more ideal characteristics for me, although I don't plan on letting it go, and will occasionally use it.

Best, Jon


Thanks for the reply.

Rob

[JonInWA]

I'll let others more experienced on them comment on the M17 and M18 guns. My understanding is that subsequent to DoD mandated improvements they seem not to be subject to any uncommanded discharges. I'm curious if they (and particularly their FCUs) are subject to any increased QC as inherent to their contract(s).

Best, Jon

[roboster2013]

I'll let others more experienced on them comment on the M17 and M18 guns. My understanding is that subsequent to DoD mandated improvements they seem not to be subject to any uncommanded discharges. I'm curious if they (and particularly their FCUs) are subject to any increased QC as inherent to their contract(s).

Best, Jon

Thanks Jon. I ask because I have the commercial version of the M17 and M18. I prefer them to the standard P320 due to the fact that they have the manual safety.

Rob

[HCM]

Thanks Jon. I ask because I have the commercial version of the M17 and M18. I prefer them to the standard P320 due to the fact that they have the manual safety.

Rob

To answer your earlier question - Post Mid 2019 320s are good to go mechanically but it's still gun with a short light trigger. "Easy to shoot" is both it's strength and it's weakness. The manual safety addresses this issue.

At work we're in the process of swapping trigger springs due to some reported breakages though I've not seen or experienced that issue directly.

The other issue inherent to the 320 is the ejector being a bent piece of the FCU. You need to ensure mag baseplates / sleeves make contact with the end of the magwell to avoid over insertion issues. If a mag is over inserted and the ejector bent it deadlines the FCU and SIG will charge $200 to replace it.

[roboster2013]

To answer your earlier question - Post Mid 2019 320s are good to go mechanically but it's still gun with a short light trigger. "Easy to shoot" is both it's strength and it's weakness. The manual safety addresses this issue.

At work we're in the process of swapping trigger springs due to some reported breakages though I've not seen or experienced that issue directly.

The other issue inherent to the 320 is the ejector being a bent piece of the FCU. You need to ensure mag baseplates / sleeves make contact with the end of the magwell to avoid over insertion issues. If a mag is over inserted and the ejector bent it deadlines the FCU and SIG will charge $200 to replace it.


Thanks for the reply.

Rob

[cheby]

The other issue inherent to the 320 is the ejector being a bent piece of the FCU. You need to ensure mag baseplates / sleeves make contact with the end of the magwell to avoid over insertion issues. If a mag is over inserted and the ejector bent it deadlines the FCU and SIG will charge $200 to replace it.

I think it only happens with 21rd mags with TT base pads or similar doing slide lock reloads. If you run 17rd mags with something like Henning basepads or stock 21 rd mags with the stock basepads it should not be a problem.

I broke an ejector on my 2011 Limited gun once overinserting the mags hard. Kinda similar problem except I only needed to replace the ejector on the 2011.

[GJM]

I think it only happens with 21rd mags with TT base pads or similar doing slide lock reloads. If you run 17rd mags with something like Henning basepads or stock 21 rd mags with the stock basepads it should not be a problem.

I broke an ejector on my 2011 Limited gun once overinserting the mags hard. Kinda similar problem except I only needed to replace the ejector on the 2011.

At a recent match, I groaned watching a newish shooter insert a mag into a Legion at slide lock and try to make it auto forward. How unique is the Glock design in terms of limiting over insertion?

[WobblyPossum]

I think it only happens with 21rd mags with TT base pads or similar doing slide lock reloads. If you run 17rd mags with something like Henning basepads or stock 21 rd mags with the stock basepads it should not be a problem.

I broke an ejector on my 2011 Limited gun once overinserting the mags hard. Kinda similar problem except I only needed to replace the ejector on the 2011.

I’ve been told of two of our agency’s SRT guys bending their ejectors with the OEM 21 round magazines. I remember Gadfly also bent the ejector on a 15 round gun when reloading with a 17 round mag.

[cheby]

At a recent match, I groaned watching a newish shooter insert a mag into a Legion at slide lock and try to make it auto forward. How unique is the Glock design in terms of limiting over insertion?

I don't know but I am pretty sure you can bend the ejector on CZ as well if you use a mag long enough for it. It does not happen because the only long magazines (170mm) for CZ are made for Czechmate and nobody is doing slide lock reloads in Open. Sig's 21rd mag with TTI basepads is a different story

[cheby]

I’ve been told of two of our agency’s SRT guys bending their ejectors with the OEM 21 round magazines. I remember Gadfly also bent the ejector on a 15 round gun when reloading with a 17 round mag.

I should have specified that I was talking about the 17rd grips. Yes, if it a carry size gun (15rds for example), 21rd or 17 stock magazines are long enough to hit the ejector.

[WobblyPossum]

I should have specified that I was talking about the 17rd grips. Yes, if it a carry size gun (15rds for example), 21rd or 17 stock magazines are long enough to hit the ejector.

The SRT guns referenced are full size 17 round frames, not compacts. It's possible to over-insert an OEM 21 round magazine into an OEM 17 round frame and bend the ejector. It's not just an aftermarket mag extension issue. I only brought up Gadfly's experience as a third example but it wasn't directly related to these two full size guns.

[cheby]

The SRT guns referenced are full size 17 round frames, not compacts. It's possible to over-insert an OEM 21 round magazine into an OEM 17 round frame and bend the ejector. It's not just an aftermarket mag extension issue. I only brought up Gadfly's experience as a third example but it wasn't directly related to these two full size guns.

I will need to check it out with different grips/mags when I get home. You could be correct. There could be some combination of full size grips/mags/base pads that allows for over insertion.

One theory is the original P320 grip modules had the cut out that accommodated the portion of the base pad that ran up each side of the magazine slightly. Those pieces mated together and prevented over insertion. The X grips don’t have the same cut out, and the portion of the base pad is beveled now to work with the X grips. Might be why we’re seeing some over insertion issues, and resulting damage to the ejector.

[HCM]

I think it only happens with 21rd mags with TT base pads or similar doing slide lock reloads. If you run 17rd mags with something like Henning basepads or stock 21 rd mags with the stock basepads it should not be a problem.

I broke an ejector on my 2011 Limited gun once overinserting the mags hard. Kinda similar problem except I only needed to replace the ejector on the 2011.

One of our local IDPA shooters has had this happen twice. I don’t recall exactly which magazines and magwell he was using but they were 17 or 21 round magazines with the full length grip.

As WobblyPossum noted, during our agency’s last field test of red dots before general issue, we had three full size P320s with factory magazine wells and factory 21 round round magazines which were dead lined in this manner.

[HCM]

I don't know but I am pretty sure you can bend the ejector on CZ as well if you use a mag long enough for it. It does not happen because the only long magazines (170mm) for CZ are made for Czechmate and nobody is doing slide lock reloads in Open. Sig's 21rd mag with TTI basepads is a different story

You can bend the ejector via over insertion on lots of guns but unlike the 320 the ejectors on most other guns are replaceable.

[Lon]

Is the bent ejector/mag over insertion thing covered in the armorers course?

[lwt16]

Is the bent ejector/mag over insertion thing covered in the armorers course?

It was in my second 320 class, if I remember correctly. Basically, you might could bend it back once but after that, it would break off.

I’m wanting to say it was a 200.00 repair since it’s part of the FCU.

Regards.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

I don't know but I am pretty sure you can bend the ejector on CZ as well if you use a mag long enough for it. It does not happen because the only long magazines (170mm) for CZ are made for Czechmate and nobody is doing slide lock reloads in Open. Sig's 21rd mag with TTI basepads is a different story

Doubt.

When this issue came up originally I tried to damage my P07 ejector by aggressively overinserting mags and couldn't cause any problem. I posted about it here. If someone somehow did its a sub $10 part. By contrast I know someone who bent the ejector in his Flux setup, and he wasn't trying to cause any damage.

[MDFA]

Checked my M17 and M18 with both factory 17 round grip modules and Wilson Combat 17 round grip modules. Both 17 and 21 round factory mags barely touch the ejector. I could see that once the magazine base plates got worn with an aggressive slide lock reload it would make contact. Checked my issued bone stock P320 with the same results.
Something to be aware of for sure.

[Texaspoff]

At a recent match, I groaned watching a newish shooter insert a mag into a Legion at slide lock and try to make it auto forward. How unique is the Glock design in terms of limiting over insertion?

We had one of our officer tweak his ejector with a hard reload with a 21 rounder in a wilson frame. It wasn't to bad, but was due to the 21 base sides being heavily worn.

As far as Glock, they have a shelf on their mags and on the inside of the magwell, that stops the magazine from over insertion. Even in the event you did bend a Glocks ejector, you can swap the part out.



The tab on the magazine.
https://i.imgur.com/uOBV6mwl.jpg

The tab on the frame.
https://i.imgur.com/0zxPWNDl.jpg



TXPO

[GJM]

We have been spoiled by that design feature of the Glock. I don't have a M&P 2.0 handy, does it also have a similar design to prevent over insertion? Pretty sure with the P10, you can over insert,

[ST911]

If one wanted to duplicate the bent ejector issue in a controlled way...

How many reps does it take? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
How much aggressive but non-abusive force?
Do certain mags have more potential (17, 21, etc) than others?
Any difference between commercial 320 and mil M17/18?
Quantity of ammo in the magazine matter?
Problem detected visually or functionally first?
Other considerations?

[Bucky]

As far as Glock, they have a shelf on their mags and on the inside of the magwell, that stops the magazine from over insertion. Even in the event you did bend a Glocks ejector, you can swap the part out.


That was brilliant of Glock to do this.


We have been spoiled by that design feature of the Glock. I don't have a M&P 2.0 handy, does it also have a similar design to prevent over insertion? Pretty sure with the P10, you can over insert,

The only other platform I know that has this is the Beretta APX.

[GJM]

That was brilliant of Glock to do this.



The only other platform I know that has this is the Beretta APX.

Sig includes different spacers with 365 magazines to avoid over insertion. Of course, that means you can't use the same magazine, from say a 17 round Macro in a 12 round 365, without the risk of an issue.

Am I correct that this is only an issue with slide lock reloads, and with slide forward reloads even a vigorous insertion won't cause an issue?

[claymore504]

I guess I do not fully understand how this is happening. I have an M2.0 9mm 5 inch, P320 M17, CZ P01 Omega, CZ SP-01 Tac, CZ P10C, CZ P07 and CZ P09 that I checked. With the standard capacity mags and OEM baseplates that those handguns come with, only the M&P mags just barley touches the ejector when fully inserted and being pushed up on. All mentioned CZ handguns are not even close. With the standard length mags, the base plates prevent the mags from going any farther once it contacts the bottom of the grip. Now if I use a P09 mag on the P07 I guess I could slam it in the hard enough to possibly make it past the mag release and hit the ejector....maybe. Not going to try.

So, I assume this is happening with the P320 with mags that are longer than the grip? Also, I guess I can see this happening with the X series grip mudule since it is flared. Not sure as I have not owned an X series P320 in years and don't remember. I guess the big difference is with the M&P and the CZ handguns I mentioned above, the ejector can be easlily replaced. The P10 would be the most involved I guess as the rear insert has to be replaced.

I have never inserted a mag hard enough to bend an ejector in the many brands I have used. I must be doing something wrong....:confused:

[GJM]

I guess I do not fully understand how this is happening. I have an M2.0 9mm 5 inch, P320 M17, CZ P01 Omega, CZ SP-01 Tac, CZ P10C, CZ P07 and CZ P09 that I checked. With the standard capacity mags and OEM baseplates that those handguns come with, only the M&P mags just barley touches the ejector when fully inserted and being pushed up on. All mentioned CZ handguns are not even close. With the standard length mags, the base plates prevent the mags from going any farther once it contacts the bottom of the grip. Now if I use a P09 mag on the P07 I guess I could slam it in the hard enough to possibly make it past the mag release and hit the ejector....maybe. Not going to try.

So, I assume this is happening with the P320 with mags that are longer than the grip? Also, I guess I can see this happening with the X series grip mudule since it is flared. Not sure as I have not owned an X series P320 in years and don't remember. I guess the big difference is with the M&P and the CZ handguns I mentioned above, the ejector can be easlily replaced. The P10 would be the most involved I guess as the rear insert has to be replaced.

I have never inserted a mag hard enough to bend an ejector in the many brands I have used. I must be doing something wrong....:confused:

In USPSA, most competitors use 140 mag extensions, and many to most of those extend below the mag well and don't bottom on the grip.

[Texaspoff]

I guess I do not fully understand how this is happening. I have an M2.0 9mm 5 inch, P320 M17, CZ P01 Omega, CZ SP-01 Tac, CZ P10C, CZ P07 and CZ P09 that I checked. With the standard capacity mags and OEM baseplates that those handguns come with, only the M&P mags just barley touches the ejector when fully inserted and being pushed up on. All mentioned CZ handguns are not even close. With the standard length mags, the base plates prevent the mags from going any farther once it contacts the bottom of the grip. Now if I use a P09 mag on the P07 I guess I could slam it in the hard enough to possibly make it past the mag release and hit the ejector....maybe. Not going to try.

So, I assume this is happening with the P320 with mags that are longer than the grip? Also, I guess I can see this happening with the X series grip mudule since it is flared. Not sure as I have not owned an X series P320 in years and don't remember. I guess the big difference is with the M&P and the CZ handguns I mentioned above, the ejector can be easlily replaced. The P10 would be the most involved I guess as the rear insert has to be replaced.

I have never inserted a mag hard enough to bend an ejector in the many brands I have used. I must be doing something wrong....:confused:


The 320 ejector is actually quite fragile when compared to some others. It really doesn't take much force to bend any part of the FCU. I know it is supposed to be hardened steel, but it is sure easy to bend. I had an extremely loose fitting trigger in one of mine and found the open side of the FCU where the trigger goes was angled out more than my others.

For shits and giggles, I figure I would try and bend it back a little, at least to where the others were measurement wise. All it took was a pair of pliers and a moderate amount of force, and the tab bent very easily.

I hate to say it but the single piece FCU is a the cheapest way to make it. If they would have designed and built it to have a replaceable ejector, that would have increased the price and lessened the profit margin.



TXPO

[JonInWA]

I realize that this is probably apostasy to some, but to me the easiest solution is simply to just use magazines in grip modules designed for them. Using larger magazines than the module was designed for with extended basepads to lever things even further seems fraught with disaster-or at least the necessity for a new FCU.

It is what it is. While it might have been nice to have had replaceable ejectors for the FCU, the problem would still remain-it would just be simpler and less expensive to ameliorate.

Best, Jon

[WobblyPossum]

We have been spoiled by that design feature of the Glock. I don't have a M&P 2.0 handy, does it also have a similar design to prevent over insertion? Pretty sure with the P10, you can over insert,

The M&P doesn’t have an over insertion feature within the gun like the Glock. It uses sleeves on the larger magazines to prevent over insertion.

Besides the simple parts count and the east maintenance that comes with that, the way Glock designed the over insertion tabs on the mags and frame is my favorite feature of Glock handguns. Spare mags can much bigger than the one in the pistol without you having to worry about dead lining the gun. You don’t have to give it even a second’s thought.

[HCM]

I realize that this is probably apostasy to some, but to me the easiest solution is simply to just use magazines in grip modules designed for them. Using larger magazines than the module was designed for with extended basepads to lever things even further seems fraught with disaster-or at least the necessity for a new FCU.

It is what it is. While it might have been nice to have had replaceable ejectors for the FCU, the problem would still remain-it would just be simpler and less expensive to ameliorate.

Best, Jon

In the case of our deadlined SRT guns they were using OEM mags in an OEM grip / magwell designed for them. The sleeve on the OEM 21 round mags is supposed to prevent this. But it doesn’t.

Not only are the ejectors non replaceable but at TXPoff noted they are particularly vulnerable.

I strongly suspect it’s part of the reason the 365 used a different FCU design

[AMC]

In the case of our deadlined SRT guns they were using OEM mags in an OEM grip / magwell designed for them. The sleeve on the OEM 21 round mags is supposed to prevent this. But it doesn’t.

Not only are the ejectors non replaceable but at TXPoff noted they are particularly vulnerable.

I strongly suspect it’s part of the reason the 365 used a different FCU design

FWIW, in the last conversation I had in late 2021 with a Sig Vice President in the LE Division, he acknowledged the existence of the problem with the factory 21 round mags and said they had redesigned the baseplate for those to prevent over-insertion into the fullsize frame. I have not seen those redesigned baseplates, and now that I am a a peon in the nation of Panem..er, California, I am not allowed to purchase any. Sig has redesigned their standard 17 round mags, however...which I believe are produced in house. 17 witness holes in the spine and an orange hiviz follower. Maybe those of you in Free America could check a recent production 21 round factory mag to confirm this?

[GJM]

Before I forget, a caution on new Sig OEM 21 round magazine tubes. My buddy just bought six new ones, to use this year in CO. When he put the Taran base plates on and checked them with the gauge, not a single one was within the 140 mm limit. These tubes have a little A etched on to them.

[cheby]

Before I forget, a caution on new Sig OEM 21 round magazine tubes. My buddy just bought six new ones, to use this year in CO. When he put the Taran base plates on and checked them with the gauge, not a single one was within the 140 mm limit. These tubes have a little A etched on to them.

Over insertion and the issue with the 140mm limit is why I am using Hennings baseplates with 17rd mags now

[JonInWA]

In the case of our deadlined SRT guns they were using OEM mags in an OEM grip / magwell designed for them. The sleeve on the OEM 21 round mags is supposed to prevent this. But it doesn’t.

Not only are the ejectors non replaceable but at TXPoff noted they are particularly vulnerable.

I strongly suspect it’s part of the reason the 365 used a different FCU design

Good to know-thanks for clarifying. I fortunately haven't had issues with either my X Carry grip with OEM Check-Mate 17 rounders, primarily with the Henning Group basepads, or with the 15 round OEM Mec-Gar magazines with my Compact grip.

Best, Jon

[Texaspoff]

In the case of our deadlined SRT guns they were using OEM mags in an OEM grip / magwell designed for them. The sleeve on the OEM 21 round mags is supposed to prevent this. But it doesn’t.

Not only are the ejectors non replaceable but at TXPoff noted they are particularly vulnerable.

I strongly suspect it’s part of the reason the 365 used a different FCU design

I would agree with that completely. Even though the 365 still has the ejector as part of the FCU, it is solidly designed and the way it is built into the design, it would break off before it bent.

Note how the ejector is reinforced
https://i.imgur.com/ck31EzTl.jpg


TXPO

[sickeness]

The M&P doesn’t have an over insertion feature within the gun like the Glock. It uses sleeves on the larger magazines to prevent over insertion.

Besides the simple parts count and the east maintenance that comes with that, the way Glock designed the over insertion tabs on the mags and frame is my favorite feature of Glock handguns. Spare mags can much bigger than the one in the pistol without you having to worry about dead lining the gun. You don’t have to give it even a second’s thought.

The good thing about the m&p in this regard is that the ejector is an easily replaceable part that costs $10. It's not even molded into the housing like with the glock.

[HCM]

The good thing about the m&p in this regard is that the ejector is an easily replaceable part that costs $10. It's not even molded into the housing like with the glock.

The Glock ejector is usually sold as an assembly for convenience same but it is not “molded in” it is removable and replaceable.

I’ve swapped a bunch of 336 ejectors in Gen 3 guns for 30274 ejectors at work to address function issues. Usually it involves pulling the ejector out of the Gen 3 housing and pulling the 30274 ejector out of a Gen 4 housing assembly (30275) because it’s hard to find the 30274 ejector by itself.

[Kirk]

Dang, I did not realize that I could also destroy my ejector since I use 21 rounders frequently. I just checked and it can barely touch the top of the ejector at max. Is this a common breakage for competitive shooters? I focus on steel matches so I don’t do many reloads in training, but I figured with all of the P320s in USPSA, this would be much more common of an issue if it were a big problem. Do the Henning base pads eliminate this risk?

[HCM]

Dang, I did not realize that I could also destroy my ejector since I use 21 rounders frequently. I just checked and it can barely touch the top of the ejector at max. Is this a common breakage for competitive shooters? I focus on steel matches so I don’t do many reloads in training, but I figured with all of the P320s in USPSA, this would be much more common of an issue if it were a big problem. Do the Henning base pads eliminate this risk?

No idea. The guys who broke the ones at work are literal Gorillas. Nor would it surprise me if they were intentionally slamming the mags in trying to get them to auto forward. They were also using them in conjunction with the factory mag well, which may play a part.


Henning on a 17 round body should be ok. I have one gamer mag, which is a Henning +3 on a 21 round mag body with a gram follower but I try not to use that for reloads for this reason.

[AMC]

No idea. The guys who broke the ones at work are literal Gorillas. Nor would it surprise me if they were intentionally slamming the mags in trying to get them to auto forward. They were also using them in conjunction with the factory mag well, which may play a part.


Henning on a 17 round body should be ok. I have one gamer mag, which is a Henning +3 on a 21 round mag body with a gram follower but I try not to use that for reloads for this reason.

Guys on our SWAT team several times broke slide catch springs and mag baseplate doing the 'Gorilla Load" to cause the slide to auto forward. They believed this was the 'tactical way'. Very hard to break the notion that "harder" I somehow "faster" for some folks.

[ECVMatt]

This is an interesting observation:

https://www.psmagazine.army.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3258814/m17m18-mhs-help-stop-extractor-pin-damage/

It looks like the extractor can only be removed or installed by a Small Arms/Artillery Repairer because the extractor pins are being damaged. It also looks like you need a tool to rotate the extractor pin to correctly install it. They specifically state that the end use should not remove the extractor pin and by extension then the extractor.

Coming from the Glock world this seems odd and overcomplicated. I have stated before that I am too old to switch platforms at this point, but everytime I read something like this it makes me feel not so obsolete.

There are too many flies on this pie for me. I will stick with my original vote of Yes, not confident for growing reasons.

[DpdG]

This is an interesting observation:

https://www.psmagazine.army.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3258814/m17m18-mhs-help-stop-extractor-pin-damage/

It looks like the extractor can only be removed or installed by a Small Arms/Artillery Repairer because the extractor pins are being damaged. It also looks like you need a tool to rotate the extractor pin to correctly install it. They specifically state that the end use should not remove the extractor pin and by extension then the extractor.

Coming from the Glock world this seems odd and overcomplicated. I have stated before that I am too old to switch platforms at this point, but everytime I read something like this it makes me feel not so obsolete.

There are too many flies on this pie for me. I will stick with my original vote of Yes, not confident for growing reasons.

I’m not defending the P320 as a whole, but the extractor pin shown is not the one used in the civilian guns. I thought the .mil had decided not to implement the “tamper proof” extractor pin, but looks like they chose something other than the normal P320 part. As far as damage, the only way one could do the damage shown on a civilian model would be to hammer the backplate on without depressing the extractor pin (which is what retains the backplate). It might not be soldier proof, but you’d really have to disregard some pretty obvious signs of doing it wrong.

[ECVMatt]

I’m not defending the P320 as a whole, but the extractor pin shown is not the one used in the civilian guns. I thought the .mil had decided not to implement the “tamper proof” extractor pin, but looks like they chose something other than the normal P320 part. As far as damage, the only way one could do the damage shown on a civilian model would be to hammer the backplate on without depressing the extractor pin (which is what retains the backplate). It might not be soldier proof, but you’d really have to disregard some pretty obvious signs of doing it wrong.

That is good to know and shows my ignorance for the platform!

Thank you for clarifying this.

[HCM]

I’m not defending the P320 as a whole, but the extractor pin shown is not the one used in the civilian guns. I thought the .mil had decided not to implement the “tamper proof” extractor pin, but looks like they chose something other than the normal P320 part. As far as damage, the only way one could do the damage shown on a civilian model would be to hammer the backplate on without depressing the extractor pin (which is what retains the backplate). It might not be soldier proof, but you’d really have to disregard some pretty obvious signs of doing it wrong.

You’re correct that extractor pin not used in civilian guns.

However, what the .mil chose not to implement the tamper proof takedown leverwhich would have required a specialized tool to remove the takedown lever and by extension, required a special tool to remove the FCU from the grip shell to swap grip sizes. In other words, it would have eliminated the modularity of the modular handgun system which is not supposed to be an Armorer task.

In general for the military, anything involves roll pins or a torque value is reserved as an armorer level task.

while disassembling a Glock slide is routine in places like PF it’s not something most institutional end users of Glocks are permitted to do by their organizations.

[karandom]

This thread was the reason for me trading my 2017 manufactured P320 Compact in for a P365. I bought an XL a few months back and wanted the slightly smaller version for certain concealment situations and having another FCU in the lineup. The 320 had been sitting mostly unused for long time. Even though it had the upgrade done by Sig, I just didn't trust it. It would only come out to give newer shooters time with a double stack striker and I didn't trust it if one of them were to drop it.

[jd950]

Not sure if this is the most useful place for this, but most recent lawsuit filed against Sig RE the P320. It is interesting because it summarizes various reports made over several years, and in this case includes numerous LE plaintiffs from various agencies. It is also interesting to me because I was unaware that Sig itself cautions users in the instruction booklet that "acute conditions" such as shock or vibration can cause the P320 "safety mechanisms" to fail and cause unintentional discharges. Cop guns get exposed to shock and vibration pretty routinely. Sig suggests a gun exposed to shock or vibration should be checked by an armorer. That isn't practical.

https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2022-11-30-Complaint.pdf

Of course, it just a Complaint, and thus just allegations. I like the P250 and I would really like to have faith in the P320, but I just can't get there. I wish there could be some meaningful third party engineering studies of the gun by a legit testing entity. As it is, I am uncomfortable about the reliability of the thing. I try not to do ""uncomfortable about reliability" when it comes to carry guns.

[HCM]

Continuing to be afraid of the gun after it’s been fixed by the manufacturer is just plain dumb. Sell it if you’re scared.

That presumes it was fixed / fixed properly. The so called “upgrade” was not properly executed in all examples of older P320s, hence the recommendations that only post June 2019 guns are actually mechanically safe.

lwt16 posted a detailed breakdown in a prior 320 thread about a “post upgrade” P320 he examined which had a discharge due to a mechanical failure which resulted from “upgrade” parts improperly installed at the factory.

[HCM]

Not sure if this is the most useful place for this, but most recent lawsuit filed against Sig RE the P320. It is interesting because it summarizes various reports made over several years, and in this case includes numerous LE plaintiffs from various agencies. It is also interesting to me because I was unaware that Sig itself cautions users in the instruction booklet that "acute conditions" such as shock or vibration can cause the P320 "safety mechanisms" to fail and cause unintentional discharges. Cop guns get exposed to shock and vibration pretty routinely. Sig suggests a gun exposed to shock or vibration should be checked by an armorer. That isn't practical.

https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2022-11-30-Complaint.pdf

Of course, it just a Complaint, and thus just allegations. I like the P250 and I would really like to have faith in the P320, but I just can't get there. I wish there could be some meaningful third party engineering studies of the gun by a legit testing entity. As it is, I am uncomfortable about the reliability of the thing. I try not to do ""uncomfortable about reliability" when it comes to carry guns.

Check your PMs.

[lwt16]

Yes, but you were doing that for your church security team, so you have the Mandate of Heaven and enlightenment of lord.

As a fellow 320 armor, I pray every time I have to take a part one of those FC use with all the tiny little pieces.

“Verily I say unto thee, as you walk through the valley of teeny springs and tolerance stacking, fear not as thy trauma kit layeth nearby. Be ye seekers of striker return springs launched into shag carpeting, and thou shalt be pleasing to the all knowing sales reps of the wilderness. “

[mmc45414]

I don't have a M&P 2.0 handy, does it also have a similar design to prevent over insertion?
Since I most frequently carry a 2.0 Compact 15rnd gun but just keep 17rnd mags for reloads (without the supplied little sleeves) so I do not have to switch when I am carrying one of my 17rnd guns, this prompted me to go downstairs and check. I doesn't seem to have any ledge like the Glock, but it sure seems to come to a positive stop, but I couldn't easily see why. It comes to a solid stop at the same time the mag body hits the ejector, but seems like it is being halted by something more sturdy, though the ejector does seem to be pretty sturdy. I guess I have to conclude that I didn't exactly conclude anything. :cool:

Back to the question of Are you uneasy about carrying a P320 due to the unintentional discharge issue? it is just one thing I use to help convince myself to keep shooting the pistols (M&Ps) I am already happy with and already have a bunch of and already have a shitload of gear for, though the 320 modularity combined with those sweet Wilson grip frames have tempted me to consider straying.

ETA: I am just a civilian joker (that shoots a fair amount), if I was part of some agency that chooses for me I would carry one, but since I get to choose I choose not to go off and spend probably ~$1500 to go try something that is pretty much like something I already have 5-6 of, only that might have some issues.