New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[RJflyer]

True, but now I’m hearing complaints from OSI about their new Glocks not running reliably so….????

That's news to me. They're just stock Gen5 blue labels with no goofy features or modifications. Ours have been running fine.

[HCM]

That's news to me. They're just stock Gen5 blue labels with no goofy features or modifications. Ours have been running fine.

Regular ammo or the lead free frangible ?

I suspect the latter (and/or user errors). What I’m hearing centers on the Glock 26s so grip may be part of it.

[RJflyer]

Regular ammo or the lead free frangible ?

I suspect the latter (and/or user errors). What I’m hearing centers on the Glock 26s so grip may be part of it.

I've seen some issues that were very obviously limp wristing from a couple of agents whose only experience was with the old SIGs. But the guns themselves were in perfect working order.

Ammo is frang. Only govt issued rounds allowed in govt issued guns. Which is why I still carry a POW G19 despite having the exact same model issued to me. If the frangible ammo causes long-term issues for these guns, it will take a while to tell because the guns just don't get shot that much.

[HCM]

I've seen some issues that were very obviously limp wristing from a couple of agents whose only experience was with the old SIGs. But the guns themselves were in perfect working order.

Ammo is frang. Only govt issued rounds allowed in govt issued guns. Which is why I still carry a POW G19 despite having the exact same model issued to me. If the frangible ammo causes long-term issues for these guns, it will take a while to tell because the guns just don't get shot that much.

It’s not just the long term wear and tear. Some guns, and or shooters, which are reliable with standard ammo will not function reliably with frangible. For a gun that’s over sprung or a shooter with a marginal grip (or both) the different pressure curve of frangible could be just enough to affect the timing cycle of the gun.

[JSGlock34]

I have been part of three different units that have onboarded the M18. Every single unit has experienced a variety of problems with their guns, from fairly standard FTF due to heavy springs and light frangible training ammo, to more significant issues like out-of-battery detonation, rear sights flying off and causing issues, and some other fun stuff. There's been an ongoing back and forth between Sig and the Security Forces Center about the gun, but that's well above my pay grade.

What is an absolute, indisputable fact is that OSI, who was one of the driving forces behind us getting the M18 instead of the M17, ditched their M18s as soon as possible in favor of Glocks. So that's nice for them, I guess.

This seems a widespread problem and the Army's solution is apparently loctite.

Honestly, I'm mystified by the M17/M18 optic plate. It doesn't seem like optics compatibility was a requirement of the MHS solicitation - after all, the G19X was not a MOS model, and I don't think many of the MHS entrants had optics capability. Personally I think having the future ability to mount optics is desirable, but where did choosing the LPP footprint with the removable rear sight on the plate come from? Seems a terrible choice, and it isn't like SIG doesn't offer the 320 with an optics plate AND a dovetailed rear sight on the slide. Another issue endurance testing prior to the contract award might have revealed.

[HCM]

This seems a widespread problem and the Army's solution is apparently loctite.

Honestly, I'm mystified by the M17/M18 optic plate. It doesn't seem like optics compatibility was a requirement of the MHS solicitation - after all, the G19X was not a MOS model, and I don't think many of the MHS entrants had optics capability. Personally I think having the future ability to mount optics is desirable, but where did choosing the LPP footprint with the removable rear sight on the plate come from? Seems a terrible choice, and it isn't like SIG doesn't offer the 320 with an optics plate AND a dovetailed rear sight on the slide. Another issue endurance testing prior to the contract award might have revealed.

If I recall correctly the original 320s were irons only. Then the original optics ready versions used the M17 style plate. My original X carry purchased in late 2017 /early 2018 has the M17 style arrangement. The “MOS” style with optics in front of the rear iron sight didn’t come till later.

[Bucky]

I've seen some issues that were very obviously limp wristing from a couple of agents whose only experience was with the old SIGs. But the guns themselves were in perfect working order.

I guess that’s a matter of opinion. Handguns could be designed to fire regardless of grip. As long as the slide is not being slowed down, many guns can fire with a very weak wrist hold. However, some do not. I consider that a malfunction and not acceptable.

Weak ammo on the other hand, that’s not the guns fault.

[JSGlock34]

If I recall correctly the original 320s were irons only. Then the original optics ready versions used the M17 style plate. My original X carry purchased in late 2017 /early 2018 has the M17 style arrangement. The “MOS” style with optics in front of the rear iron sight didn’t come till later.

I'm pretty sure the 320RX preceded the X-Carry and had the plate and rear sight dovetail separate at least as far back as 2016, before the MHS award, but I don't doubt that the plate on the M17 was SIG's first solution to mounting a RDS on the 320.

My point is more that the Army seemed to say very little, if anything at all, about the desirability or implementation of an optics mounting system. Considering there appears no plan to issue optics for sidearms, I'd like to think that the Army input would at least have been, "Sure, go ahead and add an optics plate if you want, but it shouldn't have any bearing on the function or reliability of the firearm when used without an optic." As opposed to, "Yeah, go ahead and make the rear sight removable to accommodate an expensive optical sight that may never be issued to the force." It's not like the DPP is even an approved military sight, so not sure why that footprint would even be specified. I do understand the logic, to some extent, of why DPP footprint plates would seek to remove the rear sight, considering the DPP's built in ability to mount a rear BUIS. But I'm not even sure big Army has evaluated pistol red dot sights for broad issue; SOCOM's selection of the Type 2 Trijicon RMR for their Handgun Reflex Sight is the closest military award that I'm aware of, and SOCOM has the Glock MOS for that (even GEN3 slides).

[HCM]

I'm pretty sure the 320RX preceded the X-Carry and had the plate and rear sight dovetail separate at least as far back as 2016, before the MHS award, but I don't doubt that the plate on the M17 was SIG's first solution to mounting a RDS on the 320.

My point is more that the Army seemed to say very little, if anything at all, about the desirability or implementation of an optics mounting system. Considering there appears no plan to issue optics for sidearms, I'd like to think that the Army input would at least have been, "Sure, go ahead and add an optics plate if you want, but it shouldn't have any bearing on the function or reliability of the firearm when used without an optic." As opposed to, "Yeah, go ahead and make the rear sight removable to accommodate an expensive optical sight that may never be issued to the force." It's not like the DPP is even an approved military sight, so not sure why that footprint would even be specified. I do understand the logic, to some extent, of why DPP footprint plates would seek to remove the rear sight, considering the DPP's built in ability to mount a rear BUIS. But I'm not even sure big Army has evaluated pistol red dot sights for broad issue; SOCOM's selection of the Type 2 Trijicon RMR for their Handgun Reflex Sight is the closest military award that I'm aware of, and SOCOM has the Glock MOS for that (even GEN3 slides).

The only thing I can think of re: why DPP is there’s an Army element which has been using the Delta Point since before it “went Pro” and still runs DPPs.

The original SIG Romeo cut / plate system used screws mounting the optic from the bottom similar to the system on the original 365XLs. While having to detail strip the slide to mount an optic is a PITA, IME it’s been very durable and reliable. Probably why SIG brought it back for the new enclosed M17 optic.

[GJM]

A friend of mine blew up his 320 Legion on Saturday morning. It is now on the way back to Sig. It almost looks like one of those Glock cut out guns. You can still see the case, and it is slightly out of the chamber, suggesting and out of battery failure.