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

[TGS]

+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.

Any particulars on what constitutes "did even worse"? Mean rounds between failures, specific environments, parts breakages after a certain point, etc?

[Borderland]

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.

So the moral of the story seems to be this. The people who know aren't going to say and the people who don't know are going to continue to speculate about it until the cows (and maybe horses) come home.

[CWM11B]

More like seek and ye shall find.

[HeavyDuty]

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

Doc, I respect your knowledge but the way you’ve been stating it could be interpreted as a curmudgeonly thing. If you have additional information, that’s different.

[sickeness]

One thing specifically about Sig's press release and their comments about situation that stinks to high heaven for me is that it appears that they are using the holster as a blame vector for this.

As someone who carries a gun in a safariland on a daily basis and who has been known to put an M&P in a Glock RDS holster for training purposes, I don't see how in any way shape or form having a modified holster can contribute in any way to a ND or AD. I mean if the gun fits and locks in, how is anything other than your finger or the mechanism failing gonna make the gun fire?

Its pretty common practice that some models of safariland have cross compatibilty and function fine in similar model sometimes with no mods or very minimal fitting. Of course safariland will make a different holster for every specific variant of each gun so they can sell more holsters, my m&p 2.0 fits and function perfectly in all 1.0 models even though the 2.0 holster has a different part number.

This is all assuming the holster is a safariland.

[Chaswick]

Have there been any issues at ICE regarding the P320?

I know a few HSI guys have been waiting/hoping that the Glock Gen5s will be approved for POW carry, but apparently the Gen 5 samples keep failing the approval process. With issues popping up everywhere with the P320 and reading about it's apparently poor showing with other .mil/.gov orgs that have approved Gen 5 Glocks, it makes me wonder. I believe that ICE has/had a relatively well regarded testing process...

[HeavyDuty]

One thing specifically about Sig's press release and their comments about situation that stinks to high heaven for me is that it appears that they are using the holster as a blame vector for this.

As someone who carries a gun in a safariland on a daily basis and who has been known to put an M&P in a Glock RDS holster for training purposes, I don't see how in any way shape or form having a modified holster can contribute in any way to a ND or AD. I mean if the gun fits and locks in, how is anything other than your finger or the mechanism failing gonna make the gun fire?

Its pretty common practice that some models of safariland have cross compatibilty and function fine in similar model sometimes with no mods or very minimal fitting. Of course safariland will make a different holster for every specific variant of each gun so they can sell more holsters, my m&p 2.0 fits and function perfectly in all 1.0 models even though the 2.0 holster has a different part number.

This is all assuming the holster is a safariland.

Researching which warning label you’ve inspired...

I kid, I kid.

[HCM]

Have there been any issues at ICE regarding the P320?

320s firing due to mechanical or design failures? No.

NDs due to operator error - yes.

A couple broken trigger return springs at relatively low round counts (less than 5k).

A few deadlined guns due to bent ejectors resulting from over insertion of extended magazines. The ejector is part of the stamped FCU so bending it deadlines the gun.

The Gen 5 testing issue has been discussed extensively in the PF Gen 5 thread.

[JSGlock34]

Count me among those disappointed with the M17 selection process. I dislike how SIG has handled the drop safety issue, and their pattern of treating customers as beta testers. They should hire a different PR firm.

But at this point I want the M17/M18 to succeed. I have friends and family who may well end up carrying one into harms way. They don't get to choose something different. I've purchased a M17 not because I'm so enamored with the product but because I want to understand what makes the new service pistol tick. It isn't going away anytime soon. Personally I'm surprised at how fast SIG has delivered these pistols.

The P320 design has had problems, that is undisputed, but just dismissing SIG and telling folks that there are better options is not helpful. If post-upgrade guns have issues, we need to know.

[farscott]

Count me among those disappointed with the M17 selection process. I dislike how SIG has handled the drop safety issue, and their pattern of treating customers as beta testers. They should hire a different PR firm.

But at this point I want the M17/M18 to succeed. I have friends and family who may well end up carrying one into harms way. They don't get to choose something different. I've purchased a M17 not because I'm so enamored with the product but because I want to understand what makes the new service pistol tick. It isn't going away anytime soon. Personally I'm surprised at how fast SIG has delivered these pistols.

The P320 design has had problems, that is undisputed, but just dismissing SIG and telling folks that there are better options is not helpful. If post-upgrade guns have issues, we need to know.

I wish I could like this more than once. While I would have preferred another choice, DoD made their choice. As an American and a taxpayer, I want the men and women who use and rely on these pistols to have the best possible tool. I look at the SIG P320/M17/M18 as a design in process. The issues will be found and they will be resolved. At least they better be resolved for all of our sakes.