New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[ST911]

I live in an area where M17s and M18s are heavily issued and shot by SF, and everyone I get to ask has said they are unreliable pieces of junk that break frequently.

You mention AF, so do you mean security forces? Then, is this occurring when using pool guns or their individual, during CATM events or unit sustainment fire? That info adds perspective.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to take notes as I was on-and-off having to multitask. One that stuck out was several M18s having the grip frame straight up break. I think he said between the grip and the trigger guard? Also something about the takedown lever breaking on the inside and the slide just fell off. Again, I wasn't able to take notes. If I see him again I'll try to get him to repeat to write it down. He also reported frequent experiences in his unit of rear sights flying off. This is something I've heard universally reported over the past 3 years. What's weird is that I hear negative reports on the M17/M18 all the time from people issued them. They all wish they were issued Glocks like certain units are. my coworker's son is in the Marines and has similar complaints. To me it all adds up to impress upon me that the P320 is not an adequate hard-use service weapon. There are other well-vetted service-grade pistols that perform very well and don't have that question mark hanging over them.

Sights loose/falling off is normal. Instructors should have a torx driver and threadlocker nearby. Doesn't repeat once installed correctly and not an issue when all the guns eventually get touched.

Suspicious of frame fracture, depending on the details above.

M17/18 reliability is good with mil ammo, and the folks you appear to be talking about typically use a lot of Mk254 and some M882. It works.

I'm no fan of the 320-type, but M17/18 > P320 and there's a measure of fairness here.

I wonder what the high-time M17/18 in that unit is.

[Beat Trash]

Human nature is a funny thing. I regularly shoot with and am friends with a number of CBP guys. They are issued a Glock 47, compete with something else and carry something else on their own time. I wonder what percent of people like their issued firearm.

In my experience both as a young Marine and later with 3 decades of LE experience, if they're not bitching, it's because they're not breathing.

[JSGlock34]

How would those reliability complaints compare to what they said about the Beretta 92?

The M9 was deeply unpopular with the troops. It's a moment in time and almost 20 years ago, but the Center for Naval Analysis published Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat in 2006. The M9 was the most unpopular service weapon among respondents, followed by the M249.

I was able to do a little digging on some of the last Berettas that were breaking in Air Force use here and even sourced some broken locking blocks. Some of the parts, I found, were from 3rd party subcontractors. That combined with the fact that many of these Berettas were coming up on 30 years in active use make me suspect the issues were not with the Beretta design or quality itself, but by the spare parts subcontractors’ quality, old guns, and fixing broken guns with parts from other deadlined guns.

The Army used numerous 3rd party subcontractors to source parts including barrels (produced by FN), locking blocks, and magazines (produced by Checkmate). The latter in particular were notorious for failing in desert conditions due to the original crackle finish, which was an issue considering deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll add that in my experience, the Army pistols were often "rode hard and put away wet" - and not well maintained. All of this did much to malign a fine sidearm.

There are a lot of Beretta 92 fans on this forum - I'm one of them. But soldier negative perceptions of the M9 were not completely unfounded or unjustified.

Whether similar issues are the reason for the M18’s reliability/durability issues, I do not know. It just seems like altogether there’s enough question marks over the P320 to pass for something with less drama and questionability.

I haven't seen any reports that indicate the military has procured 3rd party produced parts. I'd be curious to hear @jetfire experience with longer term use of the M18.

That's not to say though that parts replacement has not already occurred. Here's a 2020 Army Preventative Maintenance Magazine article about M17/M18 striker assemblies...

Soldiers, do you know the M17/M18 modular handgun system (MHS) has two different striker assemblies? One is called the current striker assembly and the other is the original striker assembly.

Both will operate with or without the reset spring and are mission capable as long as the striker is retained by the safety lock and passes all other function checks.

There’s no need to replace the original with the current unless it fails the function checks.

How do you know which striker assembly is in your MHS? Only by performing a slide function check.

[SwampDweller]

You mention AF, so do you mean security forces? Then, is this occurring when using pool guns or their individual, during CATM events or unit sustainment fire? That info adds perspective.



Sights loose/falling off is normal. Instructors should have a torx driver and threadlocker nearby. Doesn't repeat once installed correctly and not an issue when all the guns eventually get touched.

Suspicious of frame fracture, depending on the details above.

M17/18 reliability is good with mil ammo, and the folks you appear to be talking about typically use a lot of Mk254 and some M882. It works.

I'm no fan of the 320-type, but M17/18 > P320 and there's a measure of fairness here.

I wonder what the high-time M17/18 in that unit is.

I will try to get more context when I'm able to speak with those using them extensively and take notes. Frankly I cannot answer the question of when/how this is occurring.

I'll also try to find out more about the circumstances surrounding the grip module breakage. From what it sounded like though, it wasn't a one time thing. Again, I'll try to collect more information and get back.

Regarding the Beretta, I did ask him about how he liked the Berettas before the M18 came along and he said while it didn't fit him well and he didn't like the double action trigger, they worked reliably.

[jetfire]

I haven't seen any reports that indicate the military has procured 3rd party produced parts. I'd be curious to hear @jetfire experience with longer term use of the M18.

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.

[gato naranja]

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.

"Mistakes were made..."

[jetfire]

"Mistakes were made..."

True story: when we were selecting which of M17/18s we'd get, the reason we went with the M18 that was publicly stated was because OSI needed a more compact pistol for concealment in plainclothes. It drove me nuts, because hey why not then get the M17 for general issue and give OSI the M18, since for YEARS general issue troops got the M9 and OSI got a Sig P228. But no, we all had to get saddled with the worst possible version of this gun, only for the driving force behind it to realize it was ass and be like "oh we're federal agents we should get Glock 19s and 26s for backup."

/sigh

[gato naranja]

But no, we all had to get saddled with the worst possible version of this gun, only for the driving force behind it to realize it was ass and be like "oh we're federal agents we should get Glock 19s and 26s for backup."

/sigh

But... but... they said it would be different this time! For whatever reason(s), I was not sanguine about the whole thing from the get-go... feeling as I did (and still do) that there was no particularly legitimate reason why a product-improved Beretta or Glock could not be made available to cover the various bases. A little more time and I might remove the Fuddite/Luddite rod from my colon and add a P365-based option to the other two, but I am still not there yet.

I have no crystal ball, nor do I claim any superior insights. I just happen to believe "That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun." Same old procurement fiascoes, same old money going to the "right" hands, same old nobody being responsible, same old being no better armed than before. The tragedy of this is that the people responsible for this flock of turkeys won't themselves have to rely on a working M17/M18 at crunch time; they will provide themselves with "exceptions," because consequences are for little people. They will not suffer financial or career pain for it, nor will they even be required to learn anything from it.

All just my humble opinion.

[Suvorov]

True story: when we were selecting which of M17/18s we'd get, the reason we went with the M18 that was publicly stated was because OSI needed a more compact pistol for concealment in plainclothes. It drove me nuts, because hey why not then get the M17 for general issue and give OSI the M18, since for YEARS general issue troops got the M9 and OSI got a Sig P228. But no, we all had to get saddled with the worst possible version of this gun, only for the driving force behind it to realize it was ass and be like "oh we're federal agents we should get Glock 19s and 26s for backup."

/sigh

I’m curious as to why you consider the M18 inferior to the M17 for general issue (assuming I’m reading you correctly)?

Sight radius?

[HCM]

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.

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

Based on my experiences with Glocks and older SIGs via FLETC, lead free frangible ammunition doesn’t run well and accelerates wear and tear.