Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 215

Thread: New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

  1. #111
    Awesome. Thanks @vaspence

  2. #112
    I just want to thank everyone for this thread. I had tried to put my 320's away and move full time to my SP 2022, but I shoot them so much better that the transition never completely took. (The SP2022 is a great pistol, by the way, and I am so glad to be spending the time on it, because it is making this noob a much better shooter!!).

    So as a result of the non-political, data driven approach to this subject, from folks who share my love of the 320 platform no less, I have now finally moved off the dime, called Sig, and my 2016 manufacture pistols will soon be on their way back for the VUP.

    I'm very thankful for this forum, for the folks on it, and the wealth of information here which could never by amassed by a single individual, or purchased at any price.


  3. #113
    I was able to obtain our pistol that was related to our ND/AD and I took it down to the individual parts......which I had never done and this pistol was factory fresh with a build date of 10/2017. I entered the s/n into Sig's website "upgrade" checker and it came up good to go per Sig.


    Name:  searsig1.jpg
Views: 1291
Size:  25.0 KB

    Dual sear springs were crossed and not putting correct pressure up on the foot of the striker

    Name:  searsig2.jpg
Views: 1251
Size:  29.4 KB

    For lack of a better term, apparently this is an older style sear that lacks the nipples or posts that the springs slip over to keep them aligned.

    Name:  searsig3.jpg
Views: 1247
Size:  21.2 KB

    It has dimples instead....and apparently, whoever assembled this thing in 10/17 did so in a hurry.

    Name:  searsig4.jpg
Views: 1240
Size:  40.1 KB

    This is the spring that Sig no longer installs in recent builds. I feel certain that I now know why.

    This little spring, which is the spring that retracts the lever that lifts the striker block, was a little hosed up. My thoughts are that the striker block lever was "stuck" in the upward position, with a striker foot not held by proper dual spring tension, and when our guy holstered, when his pistol clicked down and seated, the striker slipped from the sear and fell forward....discharging the HST round.

    I have taken several apart from that same general time of year this one was build. They all have the newer style sear with spring posts instead of the dimples.

    I'm 90 percent sure this discharge wasn't his fault. We assumed garment on the trigger but now I'm leaning towards the gun. I plan on sending Sig a certified letter this week as I need a replacement sear for this gun as well as any others I come across that have the similar, older style sear.

    We have pulled them from duty and most have qualified on other pistols. We will see where it goes. I'd like confirmation from Sig that the fix is to simply remove that striker block lever spring from each copy and to ensure they have the most updated sear. If that's the fix to make them safe, I can do that for nothing for most of the guns we have.

    I also appreciate this thread and they way everyone conducted themselves.

  4. #114
    Good info, would appreciate an update when you hear back from them.

  5. #115
    Site Supporter JonInWA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Auburn, WA
    It's looking more and more that the crucial parts to the "uncommanded discharge" equation are a combination of the older sear with recesses holding the sear springs (later modified by providing suitably protruding posts to hold and position te springs, and the circular striker block spring (eliminated in later production P320s).

    And what appears to be some very sloppy assembly, and negligant QC-which coresponds to the QC concerns in the 40 P320s that Lwt16 personlly examined, where, as I recall, some 13 had assembly /QC issues that should have been caught and corrected before the pistols left SIG.

    It also corresponds to the testimony of the former CFO in the suit that hinted at rushed assembly processes with the P320.

    It appears to me that SIG is applying a design corrective to aid in the assembly and QC process, where, to my way of thinking, they need both the design/manufacturing mods plus INCREASED QC. Especially for a product where some penalty flags have been thrown.

    I think Larry has found the key causal factors.

    Best, Jon

  6. #116
    Regular guy. Cory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    I personally own a USGI Sig M17. It is part of the original run of pistols sent to the DOD, issued to the Army, which was subsequently returned to Sig and sold to the public.

    I would be happy to take any pictures of the internals that may add to this discussion, if desired.

    @lwt16 @JonInWA
    Formerly cor_man257

  7. #117
    Site Supporter RJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Tampa FL
    Knowing what y’all know, would you guys be comfortable with a P320 X Compact with a build date after “now”?

    I have a Mar ‘20 P365XL and a ‘17 early G19.5. I’m pondering trading the 19 in on a P320 Compact for USPSA, I like the XL so much.
    "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." --Ronald Reagan. USPSA#92555

  8. #118
    Site Supporter Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Dayton, Ohio
    Thank you Larry and Jon. Very enlightening. Unfortunately it reinforces my concerns with anything that says Sig on the side of it.
    Formerly known as xpd54.
    The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.

  9. #119
    While I am new to this site, I'm not new to firearms. I am however new to the P320 platform. I have an M18 waiting at my LGS until my paperwork comes through.

    I have a question about the 320 "family", and specifically the manual safety variants that I'm hoping a qualified gunsmith/armorer such as lwt16 can answer for me. The question is: has there ever been a reported instance, substantiated or not, of any unintended discharge of a P320 equipped with a manual safety on which the safety was known to be engaged before it discharged?

    I ask this because I don't know if the manual safety in an FCU so equipped prevents the striker from moving forward directly, or only prevents the trigger from being moved rearward and therefore indirectly prevents the striker from moving forward.

    Is an unintended discharge, for example as the result of a jarring, or drop of the weapon, possible on one of these guns if it is equipped with a manual safety and the safety is engaged?

    Thank you!

  10. #120

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts