And Yet Another 320 Lawsuit?

[JSGlock34]

Unfortunately, the OP can only buy a new Glock from 2 generations ago.

About 10 years ago, no one wanted a GEN4 Glock as they had early teething issues (I vividly recall ToddG's testing). GEN3s were considered more reliable and stayed in demand despite the introduction of the GEN4. It's worth noting that the GEN3 Glock remains prevalent in SOCOM use and probably represents the most combat tested Glock variant (the Mk27 is available as a GEN3 with MOS slide, which was never commercially offered).

I'm definitely impressed with the GEN5 testing performed by the FBI (and the 19X performance in the MHS trials), and considered them improved over past Glock iterations, but I'd have no qualms about carrying a GEN3 Glock. (I'd have no qualms about carrying a vetted GEN4 Glock either; my GEN4 G17 is the most reliable pistol I own)

[roboster2013]

It is also exposed when the slide is in the rearward position, which makes me wonder.

Indeed. Another thing that is at least interesting, is that with the P365 Sig went back to the plunger type striker block with the compression spring. Significant? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But, definitely interesting.

[RJ]

The P320 does have a striker block, but it is a completely different design than the rest of Sig's pistols. Most of Sig's semi-auto pistols have a plunger type block with a multi-coil compression spring, similar to what Glocks have. The striker block on the P320 is a 0.9mm thick piece of stamped metal with a bend that forms a tab at the top end which engages the striker. It utilizes a single coil torsion spring. So, could this different design have something to do with the discharges? Perhaps. We'll have to see as more information comes out related to all the litigation.

Very interesting. I’ll go have a hunt for a picture of this part, but if you (or anyone Sig-knowledgeable? @0ddl0t?) has an exploded parts diagram of a P320 FCU showing the striker block action, that’s be great.

[roboster2013]

Very interesting. I’ll go have a hunt for a picture of this part, but if you (or anyone Sig-knowledgeable? @0ddl0t?) has an exploded parts diagram of a P320 FCU showing the striker block action, that’s be great.

The following link is a Youtube video by SigGuy showing the disassembly of the striker assembly which gives you a very good view of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNx2UJNUCZ0

[olstyn]

Very interesting. I’ll go have a hunt for a picture of this part, but if you (or anyone Sig-knowledgeable? @0ddl0t?) has an exploded parts diagram of a P320 FCU showing the striker block action, that’s be great.

Hard to see how it functions from this exploded diagram, but at least it's a start:

https://www.gunpartscorp.com/gun-man...stols-sig/p320

Part numbers 44 and 45.

[Totem Polar]

...and can make any level of Quality the customer is willing to pay for.

I see what you did there, whether you meant to or not.

F Sig

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree with the trigger, I am surprised the trigger is quite crisp. I don't know the accuracy, I have no expectation. I don't expect any accuracy with this kind of pistols.

If it's not accurate, it's probably not the gun. Folks here and in institutional testing have found them quite accurate. See some 25y 10 shot groups in this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....Glock-26-Gen-5 and those are shot freehand. From a rest, sub 2" is pretty normal in institutional testing, IIRC.

[0ddl0t]

Very interesting. I’ll go have a hunt for a picture of this part, but if you (or anyone Sig-knowledgeable? @0ddl0t?) has an exploded parts diagram of a P320 FCU showing the striker block action, that’s be great.

I'm not intimately familiar with the 320. The 365 has a plunger striker safety but, inexplicably, its rounded body does not engage the rounded striker body like Glock or Kahr and only engages a piece of the sear-interfacing foot:



If you look closely, the rounded cutaway on the safety plunger is actually oval which is a shape that allows the striker body to pass even without the plunger being depressed:



This is disconcerting given that you can find cases in which that striker safety "foot" has failed:



It does make me wonder whether someone could design a different shaped plunger to add a bit more redundancy, but I can't see it being commercially viable...

[tlong17]

If that doesn’t cause a person to pause, and think hard about carrying it, then I don’t know what to say. Granted, what is the percentage chance of that happening? Especially in light of all the other things that could go wrong and are inherently dangerous whenever we are carrying implements of death.

[HCM]

Unfortunately, the OP can only buy a new Glock from 2 generations ago.



There have been sporadic reports of NDs like you'd expect from any gun selling hundreds of thousands of units. Example:


https://www.sigtalk.com/threads/bewa...myself.332076/

Hopefully everyone here knows to holster off the body with a soft holster (if you use one at all), but the aboge ND probably wouldn't have happened with a hammer fired gun, one with an external safety, or perhaps even one with a trigger dingus safety like glock.

Of course there have been Negligent Discharges due to user error but the question was whether there have been Accidental Discharges i.e. attributable to mechanical or design flaws - AFAIK there have been no AD’s with the 365/365XL.

The 365 is a different and IMHO superior design to the 320.

Whether SFA guns are suitable for carry vs other action types is an unrelated conversation.