I should have kept mine. There is less metal on the dust cover on the newer metal k frames. I enjoyed hearing that you carried one as a bug and did so for a long time. If you don’t mind me asking, where did you carry / hide it? My current bug is a Walther PPS M2 carried in a front pocket.Originally Posted by Trooper224
At this point a P320 is a hard, hard pass for me. Frankly, anything Sig is a pass for me. Cancel culture generation I guess. I can't stand how they have/are/continue to handle the P320 issues. If I was issued a P320 I'd leave it in the armory, go straight to the report room and write a memo citing all the lawsuits and potential mechanical defects/safety issues with the gun design and articulate why I won't carry one. Now my concerns are on paper. Good luck municipality if my gun ND/AD/MD/xD and injures me.
ETA: I think the issue is the sear/striker engagement with an inadequate striker block device. However, I believe the issue is not the FCU/slide assembly design, but the way the FCU interfaces with the plastic frame. Those frames are Injection molded parts with some degree of dimensional variation. The FCU does not have a rear pin to hold it in place like the Beretta APX. If those tolerances are not perfect, and sear/striker engagement is already minimal, I see a recipe for disaster.
The Beretta APX is a much better modular FCU style design. The trigger is pretty good too. And, those guns like to go bang.
You may have a point on the tolerances of polymer frame and how the FCU is secured in it. However the FCU also has the front and rear slide rails so the distance to the slide is maintained between the slide and FCU regardless of how it fits in the polymer frame. There could be excess tolerance in the slide to FCU rail fit since the FCU is a bent sheetmental style design but I don't think the polymer frame securing design is the key element to the failures and ND/ADs.
I carried it in an Alessi ankle rig, on the inside of my left ankle. I used that set up for almost twenty five years and I could probably get another twenty five out of it. That holster made me a believer in the "buy once cry once" mantra.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
So does the P320 apparently, it's just not as selective about it.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
We’re talking pretty small dimensions. Within the slide rails/frame rails there is still a tolerance between those two parts to allow the slide to freely reciprocate efficiently. If these potential dimensional discrepancies cause or don’t cause the issue remains to be seen, but it could explain why some guns perform a uncommanded discharge when jostled, dropped, bumped, etc., and others do not. I think it is worth further inquiry. I also think the striker and striker block design should be closely examined.
Another possible failure point could be excessive/accelerated wear. Perhaps some of the critical components (striker, sear, striker block) are prone to uneven, excessive, and/or accelerated wear and are prone to becoming out of tolerance. Perhaps the manufacturing tolerances of these parts aren’t controlled well enough. There are a lot of questions about these guns, their design, and why they are or aren’t failing. I think there is enough evidence to suggest there is potentially an inherent design/manufacturing/maintenance issue that simply adding a disconnector will not resolve all issues.
I don’t think we can trust Sig to be forthcoming and honest regarding uncommanded discharges with regards to their examinations of problem pistols and subsequent findings/probable cause for the incident.
It may be tolerance stacking or possibly the slide rails wear and/or get bent through an impact and change the distances between the rails and the slide thus altering the distance between the FCU and slide components.
The fact that the 365/XL doesn't appear to have the same issues with AD/NDs and is similar should be enough for Sig to start figuring it out. The 365/XLs do use cast or MIM FCU instead of pressed sheet metal. Steyrs also use the same module design for fitment into the polymer frame and haven't had similar issues.
I do think there is a design issue. Whether that has already been fixed, been attempted to be fixed but isn't 100% or not remains to be seen. I don't trust Sig and don't now or plan to own a P320 but there are a lot out there with more to come. For soldiers,LEOs and all citizens I think it is important to address it fully. Having outside source properly verify the guns are sound would be best. Some group that doesn't have a vested interest with money or ownership or a purchase agreement would be best.
The striker block device is located towards the rear of the slide, and is exposed when the slide is retracted. This part does not seem very robust and has appeared prone to damage (note the Army instruction on replacing the striker assembly). I can't help but wonder whether this placement contributes to the problem.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
What you did there, we saw it.
I do believe the P365 utilises a rear frame pin to secure it into the plastic frame. Perhaps your thought about slide wear/damage contributes to this issue. There has to be a tolerance issue. If it was a pure design issue we'd see every single P320 perform uncommanded discharges when jostled, etc., similar to the trigger weight issue uncovered by Omaha Outdoors. The fact that some do and some don't leads me to believe the gun design may be prone to tolerance issues through wear or damage. Both those issues are not something that a gun like the P320, allegedly designed to perform under extreme stress and unfavorable conditions should experience.
Perhaps some portion of the trigger bar is disengaging the striker block due to wear/damage, etc. Something similar to what some aftermarket Glock triggers do. Maybe the gun is sprung too light and all those devices are failing due to wear caused by usage. Sig was chasing the ultimate out of the box striker fired trigger.
Reply With Quote
