New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[RJ]

...I'm guessing that a large number of those firearms are P320s...

Or P365s. I'm not trying to drift the thread further, but I still can't quite figure out whether the FCU in the P365 is a "mini-320", or a different design altogether. AFAIK there are no reports of UD from a P365. I should probably start a separate thread to try and get to the bottom of this. I traded my P365XL for a Glock 48, but my wife still likes her P365. I borrowed it this weekend and pocket carried it in a Desantis Nemesis; it is a great little package for 10+1.

[Sammy1]

Or P365s. I'm not trying to drift the thread further, but I still can't quite figure out whether the FCU in the P365 is a "mini-320", or a different design altogether. AFAIK there are no reports of UD from a P365. I should probably start a separate thread to try and get to the bottom of this. I traded my P365XL for a Glock 48, but my wife still likes her P365. I borrowed it this weekend and pocket carried it in a Desantis Nemesis; it is a great little package for 10+1.

Good point, I didn't think of the 365, it would be a large percentage of production. Last time I was at the Pro Shop someone was trying to buy a 40 cal and the clerk told him that they are concentrating on 9mm production at this time to keep up with demand. Also, I didn't see any traditional 22 series on the wall except for Legions.

[HCM]

https://www.psmagazine.army.mil/News...ting-sluggish/

M17/M18 MHS: Is Your Pistol Acting Sluggish?
| June 23, 2020

EMAILPRINT
NATO BG-P Soldiers train on EIB and ESB tasks
Photo by Sgt. Timothy Hamlin

Soldiers, is your M17/M18 pistol acting sluggish or the trigger won’t reset? According to TACOM Maintenance Action Message MA 20-031, a safety and function check must be performed using the guidance in TM 9-1005-470-10 (Mar 19).

If you do this and the trigger resets properly, your weapon is good to go.

If your trigger fails to reset and the trigger bar is stamped with revision number 01-04, request a replacement trigger bar, NSN 1005-01-665-0494, from TACOM. Using a new trigger bar eliminates the problem. You can see the stamped trigger bar at the link below:

https://tulsa.tacom.army.mil/Mainten...=RevNumber.pdf

All you have to do is complete the Trigger Bar Request Form and email it to the ILSC Individual Weapons (IW) mailbox at:

usarmy.detroit.tacom.mbx.ilsc-indivi...apons@mail.mil

Your unit’s 91F can replace the trigger bar using the guidance in WP 0011 in TM 9-1005-470-23&P (Jun 19).

Check out TACOM maintenance action message MA 20-031 for more info:

https://tulsa.tacom.army.mil/Mainten...=MA20-031.html

[HCM]

https://www.psmagazine.army.mil/News...unction-check/

M17/M18 MHS: New Slide Function Check
| June 12, 2020

EMAILPRINT
Soldiers from Task Force Carentan conducted pistol marksmanship training
Photo by Sgt. Justin Navin

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.

Start with the original striker assembly check in WP 12 of TM 9-1005-470-10 (Mar 19) or WP 10 of TM 9-1005-470-23&P (Jun 19). If your slide fails this function test, perform this new slide function test:

Apply slight forward pressure to the striker pin toward the muzzle end of the slide. The striker pin shouldn’t protrude from the breech face of slide.
Press in on the safety lock.
While pressing in on the striker safety lock, push the striker pin forward. The striker pin should move and protrude from the breech face of the slide.
While holding the striker pin forward, release the safety lock. The safety lock should still be held down.
Release the striker pin and push it back to the rear of the slide. The safety lock should reset. You should hear a slight click.
Apply slight forward pressure to the striker pin toward the muzzle end of the slide. The striker pin should not protrude from the breech face.
Check extractor tension by lifting up the extractor and releasing it. The extractor spring should produce resistance.
Note that a slide function test should be performed any time maintenance is performed on the pistol, as well as during PMCS. The -10 and -23 TMs will be updated with this info.

If you have any questions or need assistance, contact your local Army Materiel Command (AMC) Logistics Assistance Representative (LAR) or your State Surface Maintenance Manager.

For the full message go to:
https://tulsa.tacom.army.mil/Mainten...=MI20-029.html

[DrkBlue]

Those US Army maintenance posts are potentially damning in my mind. Understanding that any large scale fielding of a weapon system will find flaws and opportunities for improvements, these issues seem to reinforce the core of this thread.

In this case, these Army directives are presumably going to qualified small arms repairers, which have technical level training in the diagnostic process for malfunctioning or deadlined weapons. That level of formalized training puts the Army personnel at some advantage relative some law enforcement armorers and well beyond casual owners of many P320/other Sig SF pistols.

HCM et al - check me that I am interpreting these issues correctly:

1) Reproducible issues have been found in the M17/18 components that were product improved to address safety issues found in the MHS trials and rather short-fused development phase.

2) Changes in the manufacturing components are implemented in a manner that makes detecting version changes visually difficult. Whether the version changes were disguised or simply subtle would be a opinion, but relative the US Army PCMS the entire subassembly needs to be replaced based on performance/function tests.

[HCM]

Those US Army maintenance posts are potentially damning in my mind. Understanding that any large scale fielding of a weapon system will find flaws and opportunities for improvements, these issues seem to reinforce the core of this thread.

In this case, these Army directives are presumably going to qualified small arms repairers, which have technical level training in the diagnostic process for malfunctioning or deadlined weapons. That level of formalized training puts the Army personnel at some advantage relative some law enforcement armorers and well beyond casual owners of many P320/other Sig SF pistols.

HCM et al - check me that I am interpreting these issues correctly:

1) Reproducible issues have been found in the M17/18 components that were product improved to address safety issues found in the MHS trials and rather short-fused development phase.

2) Changes in the manufacturing components are implemented in a manner that makes detecting version changes visually difficult. Whether the version changes were disguised or simply subtle would be a opinion, but relative the US Army PCMS the entire subassembly needs to be replaced based on performance/function tests.

Unit level armorers are less well trained than your average/factory trained LE Armorer. As you mentioned the unit level armorers are only swapping sub assemblies.

The people you describe are not found until the depot level.

[JonInWA]

HCM and Lwt16, I'm very interested to hear your assessment of these M17/M18 issues; hetrofor, we've assumed that the DoD platform pistols were pretty much good to go, especially given their manual safeties....

We seem to be venturing dangerously close to wack-a-mole territory vis-a-vis the P320/M17/M18. And just when I thought SIG might really have sorted things out...

Best, Jon

[MGW]

I received a 4 hour block of “training” from TACOM on the M17. Our instructor was very pro Sig to say the least. When pressed about the drop issue with the 320 he was dismissive. He claimed the M17 is a “completely different” firearm from the 320 and that the M17/18 never had a drop safe issue.

[lwt16]

HCM and Lwt16, I'm very interested to hear your assessment of these M17/M18 issues; hetrofor, we've assumed that the DoD platform pistols were pretty much good to go, especially given their manual safeties....

We seem to be venturing dangerously close to wack-a-mole territory vis-a-vis the P320/M17/M18. And just when I thought SIG might really have sorted things out...

Best, Jon

I can’t get some of those links to open for some reason. I’ll try tomorrow on my Toughbook.

I’ve yet to see a M17/18 pistol on my bench so I’d like to refrain from commenting until I can at least see those links above.

We’ve not seen any trigger return issues other than in one of the early WC grip modules. I’m hesitant to share this with my cadre until I research it more. Both of the p320s at my home got Apex kits with trigger bars plus 10% extra power trigger reset springs (Galloway precision). Neither have the safety lever spring now even though one came with one.

My son loves shooting his and we both consider them range use only weapons.


Regards.

[MGW]

I took these photos during training. I’m not sure if they help but thought I would add them. Someone may find them useful.