Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 108

Thread: Sig P320 issue (bent ejector)

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by GJM View Post
    FIFY
    Well played

    Quote Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
    If I understand what you're saying, and I may be too simple minded, so correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn't be able to carry longer/higher capacity mags or I'd have to be delicate with them in a worst case scenario.

    Another option would be to carry a pistol that will accept long mags without concern about failure.
    Correct, in general.

    Pistols with full length grips, or with front-facing magazine detents (HK P30, VP9, USP etc. for example) and Glocks (mags are notched to clear the ejector) are relatively immune to this sort of thing. Anything that you can physically override the mag lock on could smash the ejector. You could in theory hammer a SIG P226 mag into a P229 and have this happen, but as mentioned, much less likely with the strong carbon steel ejector of the 229.

    The 320 series ejectors are simply a spur machined into the (relatively soft) stainless steel FCU frame, which is stainless steel and not replaceable. The same modularity that is a strength of the system leads to this well known weakness when running a too-short grip module with a too-long magazine at slide lock. When the pistol slide is in battery, it rides directly on top of the ejector with zero clearance and provides support.

  2. #32
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    [QUOTE=Archer1440;1103940]
    Correct, TLDR...QUOTE]

    Next time I'll highlight sarcasm for you.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  3. #33
    [QUOTE=Hambo;1103948]
    Quote Originally Posted by Archer1440 View Post
    Correct, TLDR...QUOTE]

    Next time I'll highlight sarcasm for you.
    Do a better job with your sarcasm. It was hard to read your facial expression with your keyboard.

  4. #34
    Dawson makes a mag catch for 2011s to prevent over-insertion. (https://dawsonprecision.com/mag-rele...son-precision/)

    I wonder if something similar could be made for the P320.

  5. #35
    I've got an early 2015 production P320 with over 17k on it and the ejector is like new, but then I've never attempted to slam home an extended mag without a stopper on it, conversely the MP pistols were notorious for bent ejectors with the factory mags that came in the box with the pistol but nobody ever cried design flaw with those, I know PF loves it's P320 boogeyman threads but this one is simple user error.

  6. #36
    I concur with CanineCombatives. I am one of those USPSA fantasyland guys but I only have 3 mags on my belt, my slide stop works, and I do practice slide stop reloads. Carrying a ton of mags is primarily done in locap divisions where slide lock reloads aren't uncommon. Disabling your slide lock is mostly a thing in open or limited because of 2011 specific considerations.

    From what I have seen I don't expect to bend the ejector unless I use an undue amount of force to seat a mag, in which case I could have done the same to many other semi auto pistols generally considered to be "duty grade". I can hit a 1-1.2s slide lock reload with this thing so it's not like I'm moving delicately or cautiously, it's just a question of not hulk smashing the mag into the gun which is generally not an efficient technique anyways. I agree that it's shitty of SIG to not replace damaged FCUs for something like this.

  7. #37
    Site Supporter farscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dunedin, FL, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by CanineCombatives View Post
    I've got an early 2015 production P320 with over 17k on it and the ejector is like new, but then I've never attempted to slam home an extended mag without a stopper on it, conversely the MP pistols were notorious for bent ejectors with the factory mags that came in the box with the pistol but nobody ever cried design flaw with those, I know PF loves it's P320 boogeyman threads but this one is simple user error.
    I disagree. Unless SIG explicitly states to not use magazines longer than the grip frame, the magazine/pistol design should protect against over insertion as the action can be anticipated as common, especially on "tap, rack, bang" stoppage clearance drills and reloads on the clock. SIG has to expect that people running the pistol with longer magazines will be a bit brisk when reloading under time or situational pressure.

    Yes, other designs suffer from the issue, notably the 1911. I have snapped more than one ejector on 9x19 and .40 S&W 1911-pattern pistols due to being a bit too aggressive with a reload. I can forgive the 1911 because the idea of shorter or longer magazines was not a thing until more than fifty years after the design was released and I am running cartridges not considered in the original design. I am trying to use the design in a way that was never considered or intended when the pistol was being designed as there was one grip frame length and one magazine length in 1911. I have no experience with the M&P designs other than some time with the Shield 9, so I cannot comment on that design. SIG designed a modular pistol with the intent of supporting multiple calibers, magazines, and grip frame sizes, and this scenario should have been considered in the design.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by farscott View Post
    I disagree. Unless SIG explicitly states to not use magazines longer than the grip frame, the magazine/pistol design should protect against over insertion as the action can be anticipated as common, especially on "tap, rack, bang" stoppage clearance drills and reloads on the clock. SIG has to expect that people running the pistol with longer magazines will be a bit brisk when reloading under time or situational pressure.

    Yes, other designs suffer from the issue, notably the 1911. I have snapped more than one ejector on 9x19 and .40 S&W 1911-pattern pistols due to being a bit too aggressive with a reload. I can forgive the 1911 because the idea of shorter or longer magazines was not a thing until more than fifty years after the design was released and I am running cartridges not considered in the original design. I am trying to use the design in a way that was never considered or intended when the pistol was being designed as there was one grip frame length and one magazine length in 1911. I have no experience with the M&P designs other than some time with the Shield 9, so I cannot comment on that design. SIG designed a modular pistol with the intent of supporting multiple calibers, magazines, and grip frame sizes, and this scenario should have been considered in the design.
    If you tap and rack when the slide is forward, the ejector is backed by the slide and should be fine, AFAIK. For slide lock reloads, if people are breaking parts with the force of their mag insertions, something isn't right technique-wise IMO.

    As for whether SIG is to blame or not for not building in some feature to stop mags from over-inserting , I think that's a separate question. The gun has the same problem as other guns on the market. Overall, this is a rare issue for the pistols where it is possible to damage the ejector, regardless of brand. Nobody is saying SIG has impeccable business practices but if we are honestly evaluating the pros and cons of the pistol and not the brand, that's not the same thing.

  9. #39
    Site Supporter farscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Dunedin, FL, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Eyesquared View Post
    If you tap and rack when the slide is forward, the ejector is backed by the slide and should be fine, AFAIK. For slide lock reloads, if people are breaking parts with the force of their mag insertions, something isn't right technique-wise IMO.

    As for whether SIG is to blame or not for not building in some feature to stop mags from over-inserting , I think that's a separate question. The gun has the same problem as other guns on the market. Overall, this is a rare issue for the pistols where it is possible to damage the ejector, regardless of brand. Nobody is saying SIG has impeccable business practices but if we are honestly evaluating the pros and cons of the pistol and not the brand, that's not the same thing.
    While I see your view, I am not sure I agree. The modular nature of the design makes evaluating it more difficult because there are more states to be considered. Even with the slide in battery stopping the ejector from being bent, the magazine can still be driven into it. That means the ejector is being stressed and could be work hardened. Depending upon how the tolerances stack, the ejector may be bent a bit and then start to interfere with the slide travel if one swaps uppers.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by farscott View Post
    While I see your view, I am not sure I agree. The modular nature of the design makes evaluating it more difficult because there are more states to be considered. Even with the slide in battery stopping the ejector from being bent, the magazine can still be driven into it. That means the ejector is being stressed and could be work hardened. Depending upon how the tolerances stack, the ejector may be bent a bit and then start to interfere with the slide travel if one swaps uppers.
    Since I got mine in late 2019 I have been dry firing an average of 30 minutes per day, 5 days a week, and I do plenty of reloads. I am using the 21 round SIG mags with aftermarket basepads that give 1-2 rounds more capacity so there is no stop preventing overinsertion of the mag. I'm usually pushing down to 1s in each session when I do reloads so I'm not gingerly inserting the mags either. Just 1 anecdotal point but no issues so far. If anything I would be more prone to notice the ejector dragging on the slide as my recoil spring needs replacing and I'm shooting mild 134PF ammo.

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
  •