New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[kwb377]

The piece I circled in red is what deactivates the firing pin safety, and it is not under any spring tension. Yes earlier models did have a spring that did put this under tension, but it was not near enough to overcome the striker safety block tension. Sig removed this spring just as another layer and to say they did it.



The spring circled in red is the one Sig no longer puts in the 320 fire control. They deleted the spring sometime in 2019. I received an armorer update from them about this, I will see if I can dig it up.



TXPO

Just now reading through this entire thread and trying to catch up...

If the part circled in red in teh top pic is not under spring tension in my FCU, would that be an indication that mine is "probably" the updated version?

I have a mid-2018 manufacture X-Carry and that safety lever is free-floating in my FCU.

[lwt16]

Just now reading through this entire thread and trying to catch up...

If the part circled in red in teh top pic is not under spring tension in my FCU, would that be an indication that mine is "probably" the updated version?

I have a mid-2018 manufacture X-Carry and that safety lever is free-floating in my FCU.

Yes, that should tell you if I am understanding what you are saying.

You can actually see the spring in the older versions without taking the FCU apart. If I remember, I'll try to snap a pic later.

[kwb377]

You can actually see the spring in the older versions without taking the FCU apart. If I remember, I'll try to snap a pic later.

Looking again at the Updated Parts Reference fromk Post #175, my X-Carry definitely has the updated safety lever (minus spring) and sear. Just got home and checked my Dec. 2017 dated .45, and unfortunately it has the older safety lever and sear...the tail of the spring is clearly visible in the magwell side (forgot to snap a pic for reference).

Thanks again for all the info presented in this thread...it's been very eye-opening and informative.

[JonInWA]

Most of us want the P320 to be a viable, trustworthy, safe and reliable platform. It has a huge amount of promise, and the ergonomics and modularity are significant attractants. I believe that subsequent to May 31 2019 (and posssibly earlier in 2019) the intrinsic/design issues have been resolved, and that focus needs to be shifted to the on the assembly quality and QC provided by SIG prior to the guns being placed in the market stream. Probably more than any other contemporary pistol, if you have any qualms or concerns, it might be well worthwhile to have a qualified gunsmith or armorer go through your P320 FCU to ensure that the components are properly assembled, and that you have the newer sear where the springs attach via studs as opposed to being placed in recesses as was previously done-and that the springs aren't crossed when assembled.

I am very interested in the long-term viability/durability of the FCU, especially under hard use and/or higher roundcounts. The good news is that it's a replacable component, but I'm reluctant to consider it as inherently disposable; I expect more in a gun's durability, and prefer to consider a given platform in a holistic sense-my hope is for longevity and durability, not necessaily around disposibility, no matter how easy (or inexpensive). I don't want to be "that guy" who needs a new FCU/component replacement when the location or environment renders that difficult or impossible to expeditiously accomplish.

The reality today is that unless these issues have been successfully resolved (and successfully and objectively demonstrated as solved) by SIG, there are a host of contemporary competing platforms that are vetted and at similar price points and have similar modular flexibility.

Best, Jon

[shane45]

Are there any accounts of an M17/18 having an uncommanded discharge?

[jnc36rcpd]

And the hits just keep on coming...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spe...tols-1.5897942

[octagon]

I haven't read through the whole thread because I don't have a 320 but are there substantial differences between the 320 FCU and P365/XL FCU that allows the 365's to be drop safe and the early 320s to have issues? I'm curious why Sig doesn't switch to the 365 FCU and phase out the 320 FCU. This might not be easy or possible with military units without new testing but for new federal state and local agency purchase as well as civilian purchase it seems like an easy answer to avoid trouble and liability.

[Sammy1]

And the hits just keep on coming...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spe...tols-1.5897942

Not much info but for the gun to be pulled and it's a leg injury, I'm guessing it went off in the holster.

[Archer1440]

Not much info but for the gun to be pulled and it's a leg injury, I'm guessing it went off in the holster.

There is nothing in that CBC article that remotely comes close to supporting that guess. It doesn’t specify anything at all- drawing, reholstering, or anything else.

The number of “could haves” in this incident is legion (non pun intended). “Could have” had a finger on trigger while reholstering, “could have” been running a SIRT, “could have” ... long list, many of which have nothing to do with the pistol itself.

The vast majority of the article recounts the sharkpit of lawyers in the USA circling SIG over the alleged issues.

[RJ]

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.

I haven't read through the whole thread because I don't have a 320 but are there substantial differences between the 320 FCU and P365/XL FCU that allows the 365's to be drop safe and the early 320s to have issues? I'm curious why Sig doesn't switch to the 365 FCU and phase out the 320 FCU. This might not be easy or possible with military units without new testing but for new federal state and local agency purchase as well as civilian purchase it seems like an easy answer to avoid trouble and liability.

@octagon, @Sammy1 and I had that question a few posts up thread (see above) but I never did start a new thread to ask specifically about the P365/XL FCU vs. P320.

On the topic of the Canadian pulling their Sigs from service after this incident, I assume that since these were Canadian Forces, that they would have had .mil versions i.e. no "upgrade" would have been needed or done on these guns as was offered by Sig for the commercial US market?