Canadian Special Forces pulls P320s from service after soldier injured by misfire

[Archer1440]

Don't go off on a tangent; the problem is not the holster, it is the pistol.

For all we know, the problem was with the shooter’s finger discipline. There’s no evidence here, just inference.

[DocGKR]

Media is so often correct....

Again, it is not the holster, not finger discipline--it is the pistol.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

SIG 320s have a history of mechanical drop safety problems (ADs) however that does not make P320's exempt from the handling errors (ND) that all pistols, Glocks, M&Ps, 1911s etc are subject to.

There is an old expression associated with the medical community to the effect that when one hears hoofbeats, they should think horses first, not zebras.

Right now the only public facts are:

A solider with CANSOF had an unintended discharge with a 320.

CANSOF suspended use of 320s pending an investigation.

When the gun was sent to SIG, the holster included was a modified P226 holster and SIG could not attribute the UD to the holster.

At this time, there are no public facts supporting either the holster or a design flaw in that particular 320 aka "zebras." Rather, publicly we are still at the logical starting point, operator error aka "horses."

I'll just point out that the bolded phrase used in this post is exactly correct.

As of this morning, no operators had been pulled from the team. An ND is an automatic out. Ergo, a soldier with CANSOF was involved, which is different than a CANSOF operator, obviously. But easy to forget the difference, at least for non-military guys like me. I haven't talked with anyone who was there when it happened, but my circle includes a few ex-ops; it won't be long before I hear the full story.

But everyone I have talked to so far that's connected to the team is saying the same thing...Canada's pretty cold for zebras and nobody is expecting to find any.
Although here, of course we pronounce it "zedbras."

[DocGKR]

Last time I am going to post here--it is not a problem with a "horse". The problem is with the pistol.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

The problem is with the pistol.

I'm sorry but I can't tell from your posts if what you are saying is that in this instance you know from people directly involved in this incident that the gun fired on its own as the result of some mechanical failure, or if you are saying that the 320 has issues that make it problematic. Your wording makes it sound like the latter, that's why there's some debate.

[CWM11B]

My money is on Doc having knowledge of this through his various channels. I know he's got more inside intel than my source. That along with my personal experiences with Sig, seeing one go bang when dropped in a controlled setting, the way they handled this from the outset, and the numerous documented issues with the platform, this pistol is (once again) a confirmed hard no for me. And were I in charge of procurement for an agency, Sig wouldn't get an appointment to speak with me. To many other optioons out there with less baggage.

[jnc36rcpd]

Roberts definitely gets more insider knowledge than most of us. That said, some of us may be in positions where we have to argue against the adoption of a SIG 320 by our organization. Quips that the problem is the gun rather than the holster or the operator are not helpful. While I don't doubt Dr. Roberts' knowledge and expertise, I don't think his input in this thread will provide much weight if the department director really wants SigSauer weapons for the troops. Instructors and pretty much anyone considering a 320 need some specifics.

While I want to love and marry the safe queen that resides four feet behind me, I suspect it might somehow load itself in the gun locker and then shoot me in the back. Given the 320's characteristics, I could see an uncommanded discharge occurring if it were stuffed into a 226 holster. I would not expect that to happen with a 229, but we're issuing striker fired weapons in this decade.

[Polecat]

Who was responsible for the design of the P320, 250, 365. Same person or diff folks? Though I am sure there is plenty of collaboration.

[JHC]

Sig won the MHS contract exclusively on price per unit. Think about that for a minute - Sig underbid Glock while promising to produce a pistol with double the parts and an extremely more complicated assembly process. Sig is in the business of making money - they're banking on the press from the MHS to bring LE and civilian buyers into the fold. "Well, the Army tested this thing and selected it..."

+1
In the portion of the MHS testing that did occur, the Glock entrant beat the hell out of the Sig (Glock was more accurate and more reliable in the published but redacted GAO report, apparently not $100M worth). I have it on good authority the Sig did even worse in separate technical testing by a SOF subset of the Army. It's a sad situation.

[CWM11B]

Roberts definitely gets more insider knowledge than most of us. That said, some of us may be in positions where we have to argue against the adoption of a SIG 320 by our organization. Quips that the problem is the gun rather than the holster or the operator are not helpful. While I don't doubt Dr. Roberts' knowledge and expertise, I don't think his input in this thread will provide much weight if the department director really wants SigSauer weapons for the troops. Instructors and pretty much anyone considering a 320 need some specifics.

While I want to love and marry the safe queen that resides four feet behind me, I suspect it might somehow load itself in the gun locker and then shoot me in the back. Given the 320's characteristics, I could see an uncommanded discharge occurring if it were stuffed into a 226 holster. I would not expect that to happen with a 229, but we're issuing striker fired weapons in this decade.

I'm one of those guys. Made those arguments for the agency I retired from and do the same for two organizations that contract me now. While you are correct that a "quip" in a post is not helpful in making those arguments, I'd argue that relying on an internet gun forum (no matter how much we may enjoy it, or how good it may be) as a primary resource for the argument is both foolish and lazy. Many specifics cannot be published on an open forum for a variety of reasons, but they are available for authorized persons who do their due diligence. In the case of Doc, reaching out to him and providing verifiable creds is a great way to get pointed in the right direction. Also, with verifiable creds, the FBI Firearms Training Unit is your friend. As are many, many other resources. You just have to knuckle down and do the leg work.

As for Joe gun buyer, IME the average member of that group goes by instagram, you tube vids, flashy marketing, gun store lore, and price
when making their decisions. The dedicated private citizen purchaser will typically do a deeper dive, but those individuals are the exception rather than the rule.

Expecting someone to disclose information in a public/open forum that may violate the conditions of release is neither a fair or reasonable expectation.