New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[JRB]

Because the current (post June 2019) 320s don’t actually have uncommanded discharges.

They have a short light triggers that are easy to pull whether by finger, shirt tails drawstrings etc. even in a wide mouth WML holster. Every single one of these has been traced to something else, cops, fidgeting with their gun in the holster, guns loose in purses, shirt tails and draw strings, aftermarket parts, modified or improperly fitting holsters etc.

We have essentially normalized, carrying a single action trigger with no manual safety.

I’m not aware of any so called “uncommanded discharges” involving manual safety 320s with the safety engaged.

I don’t know what your unit does, but there are plenty of entities in the DOD that are carrying chambered rounds. One of those, probably the most prolific user of handguns in the DOD actually carries a round chambered and safety off as they did with the M9.

I didn't want to get down the rabbit hole of the exceptions, like MP's/CID/various QRF's/etc who do regularly carry with a round chambered. Many of those same orgs aren't 100% into M18's yet. I've seen a few CID guys still carrying M11's and I met one female CID Agent that was carrying a G43X (I'd have loved to see that Exception to Policy memo).
The significance IMHO is that's a relatively small number of users and weapons compared to the total number of M17/M18 handguns ordered and on unit inventories now. If there's a problem that affects, say, only one in every 5,000 guns, it might be rare or even unheard of with current regular 'loaded' users. But if we had a large en-masse mobilization that suddenly saw a lot of loaded M17's and M18's carried in holsters by tens of thousands of normies like me, those problems would likely become statistically relevant.

There's also the institutional standards that still have M9 anachronisms in them, I recall @jetfire sharing the USAF standards that, at the time, only utilized the manual safety during the proscribed clearing barrel process. Makes sense for an M9, makes no sense for an M18.
But that's another whole topic of conversation, I was asked to provide the 'PMI' familiarization training to an Army Medical Support Unit that just got new M17's, and I had to fight several of those battles explaining the significant differences in the M17.


That all said, if all the problems are with pre-2019 P320's that didn't get the 'upgrade' - does anyone know the vintage of these Indian River County Sheriffs' Deputy guns?

[HCM]

I didn't want to get down the rabbit hole of the exceptions, like MP's/CID/various QRF's/etc who do regularly carry with a round chambered. Many of those same orgs aren't 100% into M18's yet. I've seen a few CID guys still carrying M11's and I met one female CID Agent that was carrying a G43X (I'd have loved to see that Exception to Policy memo).
The significance IMHO is that's a relatively small number of users and weapons compared to the total number of M17/M18 handguns ordered and on unit inventories now. If there's a problem that affects, say, only one in every 5,000 guns, it might be rare or even unheard of with current regular 'loaded' users. But if we had a large en-masse mobilization that suddenly saw a lot of loaded M17's and M18's carried in holsters by tens of thousands of normies like me, those problems would likely become statistically relevant.

There's also the institutional standards that still have M9 anachronisms in them, I recall @jetfire sharing the USAF standards that, at the time, only utilized the manual safety during the proscribed clearing barrel process. Makes sense for an M9, makes no sense for an M18.
But that's another whole topic of conversation, I was asked to provide the 'PMI' familiarization training to an Army Medical Support Unit that just got new M17's, and I had to fight several of those battles explaining the significant differences in the M17.


That all said, if all the problems are with pre-2019 P320's that didn't get the 'upgrade' - does anyone know the vintage of these Indian River County Sheriffs' Deputy guns?

I don’t, but I do recall Indian River transition to 320s from p226 and were early adopters of the 320.

Given all the b******t around other claimed / debunked 320 issues and the lack of details regarding the Indian river incident I don’t find anything about it that makes it more significant than any of the other claimed issues.

Even the fact that the agency switched could be due to a legitimate issue, could be “caution” or as is all to common in law-enforcement, someone who never liked SIG, or always liked some other gun saw the opportunity to make a change they wanted to make anyway.

It comes down to this, the early P3 20 had real issues which were repeatable in testing. Even with multiple lawsuits and millions of dollars on the table, no one has been able to replicate the claimed issues with post July 2019 guns.

[JRB]

I don’t, but I do recall Indian River transition to 320s from p226 and were early adopters of the 320.

Given all the b******t around other claimed / debunked 320 issues and the lack of details regarding the Indian river incident I don’t find anything about it that makes it more significant than any of the other claimed issues.

Even the fact that the agency switched could be due to a legitimate issue, could be “caution” or as is all to common in law-enforcement, someone who never liked SIG, or always liked some other gun saw the opportunity to make a change they wanted to make anyway.

It comes down to this, the early P3 20 had real issues which were repeatable in testing. Even with multiple lawsuits and millions of dollars on the table, no one has been able to replicate the claimed issues with post July 2019 guns.

That tracks with my trouble-free anecdotal experience with issued M17's. Lord knows if there's any potential fault with something, Soldiers will find them!

I'm hoping that I can eventually stop worrying about 'P320 problems' entirely, because worrying about Soldiers getting the basics right will pay off far better dividends in the long run. But that root's planted deep given the number of incidents like this that seem to get a lot of headlines and screen time.

[jnc36rcpd]

https://www.news4palmbeach.com/local...oting-himself/

This article befuddles more than it enlightens. The sheriff's office training unit supposedly researched the 320 (I think the captain says). Problems with the 320 were a complete surprise to the sheriff's office which is not responsible for fixing the weapons. The weapon was not sent in for the upgrade, but unless the office bought old 320's, it wouldn't have needed the upgrade.

[Beretta Dawg]

It comes down to this, the early P3 20 had real issues which were repeatable in testing. Even with multiple lawsuits and millions of dollars on the table, no one has been able to replicate the claimed issues with post July 2019 guns.

Sorry to jump in here, but weren't the issues with the early 320's related to not being drop/impact safe? I don't recall any "spontaneous" discharges being proven at any time.

I'm not trying to make a point here. I'm just looking for clarification because it's easy to get lost in all of the 320 stuff that has come out over the years even though I've tried to keep up.

[HCM]

Sorry to jump in here, but weren't the issues with the early 320's related to not being drop/impact safe? I don't recall any "spontaneous" discharges being proven at any time.

I'm not trying to make a point here. I'm just looking for clarification because it's easy to get lost in all of the 320 stuff that has come out over the years even though I've tried to keep up.

Correct.

The problem with the original guns required an impact as a precipitating event, and it was something that was repeatable.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Because the current (post June 2019) 320s don’t actually have uncommanded discharges.

They have a short light triggers that are easy to pull whether by finger, shirt tails drawstrings etc. even in a wide mouth WML holster. Every single one of these has been traced to something else, cops, fidgeting with their gun in the holster, guns loose in purses, shirt tails and draw strings, aftermarket parts, modified or improperly fitting holsters etc.

We have essentially normalized, carrying a single action trigger with no manual safety.

I’m not aware of any so called “uncommanded discharges” involving manual safety 320s with the safety engaged.

I don’t know what your unit does, but there are plenty of entities in the DOD that are carrying chambered rounds. One of those, probably the most prolific user of handguns in the DOD actually carries a round chambered and safety off as they did with the M9.

I have not heard of any incidents with TX DPS and their 320's, but I may not have my ear to the right patch of ground.

[Navin Johnson]

[QUOTE=HCM;1534969]Because the current (post June 2019) 320s don’t actually have uncommanded discharges.

We have essentially normalized, carrying a single action trigger with no manual safety.

With single action, Sig type triggers, I can only imagine how many times gunpoint robberies are going to end up with victim shot because crack consumer is leaning on the trigger….

[GJM]

[QUOTE=Navin Johnson;1535069]

Because the current (post June 2019) 320s don’t actually have uncommanded discharges.

We have essentially normalized, carrying a single action trigger with no manual safety.

With single action, Sig type triggers, I can only imagine how many times gunpoint robberies are going to end up with victim shot because crack consumer is leaning on the trigger….

What is the difference in trigger pull and travel between an OEM 320 trigger and every other OEM striker trigger from Glock, HK, Walther, S&W, etc?

[HCM]

I have not heard of any incidents with TX DPS and their 320's, but I may not have my ear to the right patch of ground.

I haven’t either and I have ears in the right places.