Sig P320 issue (bent ejector)

[Archer1440]

There’s a lengthy thread on this very issue here: https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/2...aged-ejectors/

Gamers discovered this issue long ago.

[farscott]

It appears to be only an issue with the 21-round magazines, so it appears that magazine has a design issue. That being said, bent ejectors should have been a consideration during the design phase. With the DoD contract, changes to the FCU are going to be more difficult unless SIG has different tooling for the commercial and LE pistols. Or if DoD uses the 21-round magazines and starts returning pistols for service. If so, the FCU design could be updated to make the ejector replaceable. It would drive cost into the design, which is probably the reason the ejector is an integral part of the FCU.

The P320 design is still not mature, so these kind of issues are to be expected.

[RJ]

The issue is that with other guns if this happens you can replace the ejector and drive on.

You can bend the ejecfor back but it will never be quite the same unless you replace the FCU.

One of our local IDPA shooters has had this occur several times and SIG refused to replace the FCU.

To clarify, this is not a “IDPA Sux” comment but: HCM, are these failures associated with slide-lock reload? I’m not real IDPA knowledgeable, and I understand this (slide lock reloads) are common, as opposed to say USPSA, in which generally reloads are done on a closed slide.

[lwt16]

After purchasing my first P320 and then attending the P320 armorer's course, the lack of a replaceable ejector was always a concern of mine.

Now those concerns are coming to light. The last P320 I purchased was 400.00......so having to spend 200 to repair an ejector just doesn't make that much sense to me.

We have some aftermarket magazines with basepads that would allow over-insertion on an aggressive reload. We don't shoot our P320s much (and with current ammo prices, we don't tend to shoot much at all these days) but I will probably be ditching those baseplates out of an abundance of caution.

Regards.

[HCM]

To clarify, this is not a “IDPA Sux” comment but: HCM, are these failures associated with slide-lock reload? I’m not real IDPA knowledgeable, and I understand this (slide lock reloads) are common, as opposed to say USPSA, in which generally reloads are done on a closed slide.

Mostly.

Of course in the real world, (vs the USPSA fantasy world where people carry 9 magazines and intentionally disable slide locks) people do slide lock reloads.

[Greg]

You must have slammed that mag home because that steel is the finest Indian MIM you can..... uh.... nevermind.

This thread makes me appreciate that Glock built a magazine stop into the top left side of the magazine (before the taper).

[Texaspoff]

After purchasing my first P320 and then attending the P320 armorer's course, the lack of a replaceable ejector was always a concern of mine.

Now those concerns are coming to light. The last P320 I purchased was 400.00......so having to spend 200 to repair an ejector just doesn't make that much sense to me.

We have some aftermarket magazines with basepads that would allow over-insertion on an aggressive reload. We don't shoot our P320s much (and with current ammo prices, we don't tend to shoot much at all these days) but I will probably be ditching those baseplates out of an abundance of caution.

Regards.

Interestingly enough we discussed it during our armorers course as well. I was assured that in the event of a bent ejector, Sig would indeed replace the fire control assembly chassis. I know of at least one officer who bent his, and Sig would not replace it.

I do wish Sig would have designed the ejector to be replaceable, but alas, that would have increased costs. In the Armorers course, it was said, bent ejectors were never an issue with the P250.

The 250 was never widely used in LE or competition, so it would be easy to see why a possible design weakness wouldn't have shown up.




TXPO

[Archer1440]

To clarify, this is not a “IDPA Sux” comment but: HCM, are these failures associated with slide-lock reload? I’m not real IDPA knowledgeable, and I understand this (slide lock reloads) are common, as opposed to say USPSA, in which generally reloads are done on a closed slide.

Obviously if you’re at slide-lock on the street, you will want to reload in a hurry. This is certainly a concern on the street for anyone carrying one of these for defense or duty. Some of the discussions dating back to 2018 indicate it’s possible this can happen with a fully loaded magazine if the mag is slammed in hard, especially if the grip frame is worn, or the base pad is worn.

A design that potentially allows the gun to be tied up from a normal manipulation in the middle of a gunfight is a problem, no?

(I have no dog in this hunt, all of my 320’s just sit in the safe these days.)

[JonInWA]

So help me to understand: Is this an issue when using full-size (17 or 21 rd magazines) in a COMPACT grip module, or is it concurrently an issue when using 17 or 21 round magazines in a FULL-SIZE/CARRY grip module?

From my reading of this and the Brian Enos thread, it seems the problem occurs with the larger-capacity magazines (17 and/or 21 round) with a Compact module, or with 21 round magazines in a Full-Size grip module.

The issue of using larger magazines in a compact pistol isn't exclusive to the P320; Glock users exerienced issues when using full-size .40 magazines with .357 SIG cartridges in compact Glock 32s, which is one of the reasons Glock has a specific .357 SIG magazines (which is really just a modified follower in the .40 magazines); normally there aren't problems in using .40 G22 magazines for .357 SIG barrrels in G22s (assuming a Glock .357 SIG conversion barrel is used) (but the issues with the Glocks had to do with over-insertion, not ejector interference).

Best, Jon

[RJ]

Obviously if you’re at slide-lock on the street, you will want to reload in a hurry. This is certainly a concern on the street for anyone carrying one of these for defense or duty. Some of the discussions dating back to 2018 indicate it’s possible this can happen with a fully loaded magazine if the mag is slammed in hard, especially if the grip frame is worn, or the base pad is worn.

A design that potentially allows the gun to be tied up from a normal manipulation in the middle of a gunfight is a problem, no?

(I have no dog in this hunt, all of my 320’s just sit in the safe these days.)

Mostly.

Of course in the real world, (vs the USPSA fantasy world where people carry 9 magazines and intentionally disable slide locks) people do slide lock reloads.

Thanks, actually my question was more in contrast with the ejector design of the P365/XL. Since this is a P320 ejector question / issue, I'll take up the discussion over in the XL thread, to avoid derailing this one any further.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....=1#post1103485

@Gadfly sorry to hear about this issue, hope it gets resolved one way or another.