New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[RJ]

A couple of thoughts:

...

Component durability and ease of maintenance (to include detailed disassembly and reassembly) is more of a concern to me in "wilderness" use. In that case, it'll be a Glock, due to ease of doing, well, pretty much everything-and doing it in a cap if necessary.

The P320 just has a bunch of fiddly little components in the FCUs-to the point of without formal armorer training I'm very hesitant to do much more than field-stripping and switching grip modules with a P320. That doesn't necessarily augur well if I take a spill in a canoe in a muddy. silty stream...

Jon - Thanks for your thoughts. That makes a lot of sense.

[LockedBreech]

Component durability and ease of maintenance (to include detailed disassembly and reassembly) is more of a concern to me in "wilderness" use. In that case, it'll be a Glock, due to ease of doing, well, pretty much everything-and doing it in a cap if necessary.

The P320 just has a bunch of fiddly little components in the FCUs-to the point of without formal armorer training I'm very hesitant to do much more than field-stripping and switching grip modules with a P320. That doesn't necessarily augur well if I take a spill in a canoe in a muddy. silty stream...
.

Best, Jon

This exact logic is why my woods gun for years has been my cheap first-gen M&P .40 with Speer Gold Dot 180-grain in the first magazine and Federal American Eagle FMJ in the reload. (I'm more worried about 2-legged threats and the FMJ reload lets me swap for greater penetration if I think a critter is going to get fresh with me). The trigger sucks ass, the grips are too slippery (Though I swapped in an M&P .45 M2.0 backstrap, which helped), but it's simple, tough as hell, reliable, and field maintainable. Same reason the only possible upgrade I've contemplated is a Gen 5 G22. Not MOS, either, as I have yet to see a pistol red dot that I REALLY have faith in surviving a beating/dunking.

[LowLead]

I remember Sig’s ad. You don’t need a trigger dingy to be drop safe. I’ve never seen them recant that ad, though it’s hard to find these days.

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx2depSlQ...OqmaPMxoVX8klT
Normally the concern is the weight of the trigger bar moving rearward. The P320 trigger bar moves forward when pulled. Apparently nobody at Sig Sauer factored in the weight of the trigger shoe when you recycle a DAO P250 part.

That actually highlights my bigger issue with Sig Sauer which is a lack of maturity in their platforms. They remind me a lot of Samsung. In the year 2021, Samsung was making 41 different models of cellphones. I’d bet half of them have already reached end of life support. Sig Sauer seems to be capitalizing on the highly convenient MHS program name and in turn selling people tungsten infused, gold barreled, ported, flat triggered guns that say VTAC on the sides of them. Form over function. It certainly appeals to a certain demographic on Reddit, but it leads to these very easy to avoid issues for switching to the ‘throw everything at the wall to see what sticks’ approach. RIP to the P250 series, P290, P290RS, P320 SC, Caliber XChange Kits, M18X…

Still, I can’t articulate ways for a P320 to discharge when dropped post upgrade, let alone without being dropped.

[Bucky]

Tab safeties on pistol and rifle triggers are inertia drop safeties, due to the way the trigger bar on the P320 moves a tab safety is not effective on the P320. Even the manual safety, on the manual safety model P320 which physically locks the trigger bar does not make the older guns drop safe. That’s not the issue.

The VUP is BS but straight out of the early 1990s Glock playbook.

In fact, given the variations in how the VUP has been executed I would not trust even a post VUP P320 for duty.

Based on the slow motion video of the P320 drop firing, I believe a tab safety would have prevented the gun from firing. Inertia was pulling the trigger, regardless of which way the trigger bar moves. A light tab with enough spring to keep inertia from overcoming it would have blocked movement.

Regardless, this simple mention of that ad totally overshadows the point of the post, which is -

1. Gun is advertised as drop safe.
2. Upgrade is voluntary.

Can an individual be held liable for not completing a voluntary upgrade? I guess it would depend on what knowledge that person had, and how much could be proven.

[CarloMNL]

Based on the slow motion video of the P320 drop firing, I believe a tab safety would have prevented the gun from firing. Inertia was pulling the trigger, regardless of which way the trigger bar moves. A light tab with enough spring to keep inertia from overcoming it would have blocked movement.

Would a Manual Safety fire control unit (M17/M18) mitigate the issue? I've shot a P320 X5 two or three times but that's about as much experience I have with the P320 design. I'd love to get one just to be familiar with the current US .Mil service pistol but incidents like this make me pause and think, "Do I really want to do this now, or should I wait a few years before the P320 evolves the way the M9 did?"

[98z28]

Would a Manual Safety fire control unit (M17/M18) mitigate the issue? I've shot a P320 X5 two or three times but that's about as much experience I have with the P320 design. I'd love to get one just to be familiar with the current US .Mil service pistol but incidents like this make me pause and think, "Do I really want to do this now, or should I wait a few years before the P320 evolves the way the M9 did?"

No. The manual safety blocks the movement of the trigger bar only. The trigger/trigger bar movement was never the issue, despite the apparent relationship from the initial slow-motion videos. The sear housing block moving to or being stuck in the "upward" position and the sear releasing the striker independent of trigger manipulation are the issues. These can happen independently of the trigger and trigger bar motion with the P320 design.

As Jon said, anyone interested in the details of this would do well to read through the entire thread. It's a mess, but we have some good answers at this point.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....oncerns/page12

[OlongJohnson]

As Jon said, anyone interested in the details of this would do well to read through the entire thread. It's a mess, but we have some good answers at this point.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....oncerns/page12

Unfortunately, much of the best content on this topic was deleted by the former site owner when he disappeared himself from the internet. He is a very smart engineer.

[Bucky]

No. The manual safety blocks the movement of the trigger bar only. The trigger/trigger bar movement was never the issue, despite the apparent relationship from the initial slow-motion videos. The sear housing block moving to or being stuck in the "upward" position and the sear releasing the striker independent of trigger manipulation are the issues. These can happen independently of the trigger and trigger bar motion with the P320 design.

As Jon said, anyone interested in the details of this would do well to read through the entire thread. It's a mess, but we have some good answers at this point.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....oncerns/page12

The slow motion video clearly showed the trigger movement during the drop. Are you saying that even if the trigger did not move (blocked by trigger safety, thumb safety, taped in place), that the gun would have fired anyway? It would be interesting to see someone film a test on a non drop safe gun with something wedged behind the trigger to keep it from moving.

[98z28]

The slow motion video clearly showed the trigger movement during the drop. Are you saying that even if the trigger did not move (blocked by trigger safety, thumb safety, taped in place), that the gun would have fired anyway? It would be interesting to see someone film a test on a non drop safe gun with something wedged behind the trigger to keep it from moving.

That is my understanding, yes. Much like the striker being released on a PPQ or VP9/40 with a mallet strike to the back of the slide, except the striker block could also be defeated on the original P320 design. The 2019 update appears to address this issue.

I didn’t realize that Tom had deleted his posts. That was some great info. Dang.

[psalms144.1]

That is my understanding, yes. Much like the striker being released on a PPQ or VP9/40 with a mallet strike to the back of the slide, except the striker block could also be defeated on the original P320 design. The 2019 update appears to address this issue.

That is my understanding as well. I do not believe, based on what I've seen and heard, that the 2019 VUP resolves the issues related to parts quality, engagement tolerances, and production QC, all of which, as I've been told, can lead to unintentional discharges without the trigger moving.