Would you trust a P320?

[John Hearne]

I've been busy and haven't been able to write my thoughts on this. I recently sat through the P320 Armorer's Course for the second time and here are my thoughts in no particular order.

Complexity - Yes, the design is more complex than other competing designs. However, the design has features that other designs do not have. As a general rule - more functions = more parts. For instance, Sig seems to have solved the issue of NDs during disassembly of the striker fired pistol. They did this by requiring the slide to be locked open and the magazine removed from the pistol. This same process "de-energizes" the striker and allows tool less disassembly without pulling the trigger. For an agency with minimally trained people, this is a significant feature. In a perfect world, we wouldn't choose between a more complex pistol design and not having people shot unintentionally but here we are.

Shootability - I'm pretty sure that having the best out of the box trigger was another design goal. It seems to me that the fire-on-drop problems were the direct result of taking this goal too far. Did Sig handle the whole situation well? Certainly not the way we wanted but, Sig isn't the first to handle this stuff poorly and I bet the final decisions were made by the lawyers with the goal of bolstering their position in any lawsuits.

Modularity - I think people confuse what this means. I don't know anyone who is swapping slides or grip modules between on and off duty carry. Hell, the guns are cheap enough to have two - one for "on" and one for "off." The modularity comes in with the flexibility of setting up the guns for specific persons. First, a lot of places won't bother and wouldn't know how to fit a pistol any way - I get that. Second, if you put a little time into it, you can really come up with an ideal configuration. Back in the revolver days, hand fit was key and if a gun didn't fit well, you got rid of it and tried another gun. With semi-automatic pistols, we got stuck accepting whatever same from the factory. If you look at the range of grip modules, you can fit a lot of hand sizes with the P320. Do other designs allow that - yes, but not in combination with the above features.

Manual Safety - The P320 has the option, from the factory or via easy retro fit to add a well-designed manual safety. If I go down the AIWB route, I suspect I'll exercise that option.

Design - The design does seem to have some interesting choices. Sig now has a watch maker's love of small springs. I suspect that a lot of this was driven by keeping the FCU small. Sig does have some specific guidelines they are clear about. They recommend the striker assembly be replaced at 20,000 rounds (apparently live or dry). The assemblies are reasonably priced and having a few on hand if you're a high round count shooter isn't onerous.

Ejector - After almost going bankrupt trying to sell expensive to manufacture pistols, I'm betting manufacturing cost was a huge design consideration. By making the ejector part of the FCU, they made the pistol easier and less expensive to manufacture. Apparently, if you insert a magazine that was not intended for the grip module you are using, you can damage the ejector. I hate to be flippant but don't put the wrong magazine in the grip module. If you are going to run excessive length magazines, make sure that you have a base pad that is compatible with the practice. It's not hard, take the slide off, insert the magazine while holding the catch down, see how far up it goes. If it hits, don't use that magazine or use a different base plate.

Ejector - Yes, the ejector was replaceable in the classic Sigs. I carried and maintained classic Sigs for almost 20 years. How many ejectors did I replace in that time? If you guessed zero then you win. If I was the manufacturer and a part that was never problematic could be integrated and save money, I'd probably do it.

[Archer1440]

I've been busy and haven't been able to write my thoughts on this. I recently sat through the P320 Armorer's Course for the second time and here are my thoughts in no particular order.

Complexity - Yes, the design is more complex than other competing designs. However, the design has features that other designs do not have. As a general rule - more functions = more parts. For instance, Sig seems to have solved the issue of NDs during disassembly of the striker fired pistol. They did this by requiring the slide to be locked open and the magazine removed from the pistol. This same process "de-energizes" the striker and allows tool less disassembly without pulling the trigger. For an agency with minimally trained people, this is a significant feature. In a perfect world, we wouldn't choose between a more complex pistol design and not having people shot unintentionally but here we are.

Shootability - I'm pretty sure that having the best out of the box trigger was another design goal. It seems to me that the fire-on-drop problems were the direct result of taking this goal too far.

VP9 did the forced mag-drop/no trigger pull for takedown a year before the P320. Much better trigger than any of my 4 P320’s as well, including the two that were fettled by GG.

[lwt16]

I had one yesterday on my bench for inspection.....recent 10/2020 build. It was one of the better assembled copies I've serviced but it did have just a slight amount of brownish corrosion looking substance deep in the FCU on the sear pin. No biggie as it wasn't hard to remove but that is the first time I've seen corrosion in a new build.

There was MUCH less of the white grease packed in this pistol. This was one of the 15 round models similar to the one my son bought at the 400.00 mark (on sale pre panic days). Not sure what the owner of this one paid for his. Basic sights model.

[DpdG]

Seeing as Sig doesn't recommend even trained LE armorers attempt to disassemble and replace the tiny components in the FCU, I doubt there's much after market potential.

I did my LE armorer re-cert in October and Sig’s own maintenance schedule recommends compete disassembly and inspection (including FCU) every 3yrs/5000rds. It takes a little getting used to but it’s much easier than classic series Sigs.

[RJ]

@lwt16 Could I ask, what was the reason that P320 was completely disassembled for inspection, 2 months into ownership? Round count?

[Archer1440]

I did my LE armorer re-cert in October and Sig’s own maintenance schedule recommends compete disassembly and inspection (including FCU) every 3yrs/5000rds. It takes a little getting used to but it’s much easier than classic series Sigs.

Interesting. I have worked on both and found the P226/229 to be a lot easier to work on, personally. In turn, I find the 320 to be easier to work on than the 365, though the 365 chassis is actually a rather elegant design once one learns the correct sequences for disassembly and reassembly. One wonders if SIG would not be better off with an upsized 365 design base FCU for a future 320 scale replacement- including the easy ability to mount a manual safety.

[lwt16]

@lwt16 Could I ask, what was the reason that P320 was completely disassembled for inspection, 2 months into ownership? Round count?

No, the owner has not even fired the pistol. He wanted it checked out to ensure that it was good to go from the factory.

I highly doubt the corrosion I found inside it would have caused any sort of failure or malfunction....but he was glad he had it looked at and taken care of.

Regards.

[John Hearne]

Interesting. I have worked on both and found the P226/229 to be a lot easier to work on, personally.

Really? Even with the firing pin positioning pins and the funky pin they put in the E2 slide? I've taken apart a lot of classic Sigs and can say I find the P320 much easier overall. The parts in the P320 are smaller and possibly more psychologically intimidating but once you understand the right assembly/disassembly order, its quite simple. The class is worth it for the tips and tricks.

[GJM]

My wife has five Legion and X5 pistols, and the striker return spring was buggered in every single one of them.

[pangloss]

For me the question is "why would I need to trust a P320?" Reading over John Hearne's comments, it's obvious that the pistol has some advantages from an institutional perspective. However, very few of those are relevant to me as an individual (enthusiast?) with medium size hands who is happy with a Gen5 Glocks and gadgets (i.e. SCDs).