Vickers Shoots the P320 AXG

[HCM]

My understanding of the problem (and I could be wrong) was that later production guns had much looser tolerances (or worse QC), and said looser tolerances would permit stacking such that unintended discharges were possible. An issue that early guns "probably" would not encounter without some serious gyrations to make it a problem (situations/events that could not occur in real life, unless people were actually jumping out of airplanes without parachutes, etc)

Again, that was my understanding, and it could be wrong; early guns were not nearly as susceptible to the issue as later ones were.

Negative. The original P320 design is different that the current design in a few respects, the most significant being the original lacked a disconnector (which is why you could do the clicky dry fire thing with the originals). Sig also changed the mass of the slide, reduced the weight of parts in the "firing chain" particularly the striker and the trigger, and changed the design of the striker block and the sear springs.

I would suggest taking a look at this thread:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....oncerns/page12

pay particular attention to post 111 by lwt16

This thread is also useful: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....l=1#post617443

[GJM]

That’s a lot of movement out of a 9mm. One of the things I love about the 229 is how cleanly it tracks (for me, at least). The muzzle rise is minimal and tracks straight up and down with less effort on my part than many other guns. Even the .40 S&W is nice to shoot.

That could just be Larry’s current grip strength, but the P320 compact top end has a lot more muzzle rise for me than a 229. Even so, I find the P320 compact at least moves in a consistent manner in recoil, unlike the full size. I guess I’ll just have to find an AXG Classic to try try… [emoji41]

If my grip allowed a metal frame to move that much, I surely wouldn't emphasize that with slow motion photography. Pretty low information review.

Wrong on the mag release being the same as a 320. Nothing on accuracy. Nothing on optics beyond there is a plate. I may be getting picky, but I expect more from a "SME."

[MGW]

Business decision.

The projected market for these was fans of the traditional P series guns (none of which have manual safeties) and competition shooters.

Plus SIG likely sells 50 standard P320s for every manual safety model. If you took out the collateral m17/M18 sales it would be closer to 1,000 for every manual safety model.

I hear what you are saying. But SAO classic series Sigs do exist and they have a safety on them. In my opinion, this is a SA pistol and should have a safety. Safety fire control modules, or whatever they call them, already exist. In my somewhat limited experience with the M17, the safety works really well. It would have been a very simple and relatively cost-free CNC change to make the frame compatible with a safety. This would have given the end-user the choice of having a safety or not having a safety.

I don't see it as a business decision. I see it as apathy by Sig.

[MGW]

If my grip allowed a metal frame to move that much, I surely wouldn't emphasize that with slow motion photography. Pretty low information review.

Wrong on the mag release being the same as a 320. Nothing on accuracy. Nothing on optics beyond there is a plate. I may be getting picky, but I expect more from a "SME."

All of Larry's pistol videos demonstrate a lot of movement during recoil. I've never understood why. And his reviews are really just cinematography and advertising.

[HCM]

I hear what you are saying. But SAO classic series Sigs do exist and they have a safety on them. In my opinion, this is a SA pistol and should have a safety. Safety fire control modules, or whatever they call them, already exist. In my somewhat limited experience with the M17, the safety works really well. It would have been a very simple and relatively cost-free CNC change to make the frame compatible with a safety. This would have given the end-user the choice of having a safety or not having a safety.

I don't see it as a business decision. I see it as apathy by Sig.

Gun companies exist to make……. Money.

SAO classic SIGs exist but are not big sellers.

Right or wrong the overwhelming majority of striker fired pistol shooters are not and will not run manual safeties.

In fact manual safeties are so unpopular that Seguin has gone the other way and offers commercial versions of the M 17 and 18 without the manual safety.

[JonInWA]

My understanding of the problem (and I could be wrong) was that later production guns had much looser tolerances (or worse QC), and said looser tolerances would permit stacking such that unintended discharges were possible. An issue that early guns "probably" would not encounter without some serious gyrations to make it a problem (situations/events that could not occur in real life, unless people were actually jumping out of airplanes without parachutes, etc)

Again, that was my understanding, and it could be wrong; early guns were not nearly as susceptible to the issue as later ones were.

As we've discussed at length before, there were actually several layers to the "fix," and SIG has been leass than transparent about the magnitude of the issue(s), the fixes, and the specific times/serials that are "good to go" after all the fixes.

I think there's huge potential to the P320 platform, marred by mechanical and manufacturing issues and a lack of transparency throughout.

Best, Jon

[MGW]

Gun companies exist to make……. Money.

SAO classic SIGs exist but are not big sellers.

Right or wrong the overwhelming majority of striker fired pistol shooters are not and will not run manual safeties.

In fact manual safeties are so unpopular that Seguin has gone the other way and offers commercial versions of the M 17 and 18 without the manual safety.

I'm not arguing that safeties lack popularity. I'm pointing out that it would have been easy and basically free to make the pistol compatible with a safety. After all, one of the selling points of the 320 series is its modularity.

[JCN]

I'm not arguing that safeties lack popularity. I'm pointing out that it would have been easy and basically free to make the pistol compatible with a safety. After all, one of the selling points of the 320 series is its modularity.

Most frames are compatible with a Dremel.

Notch it if you want to notch it. Easy peasy.

[HeavyDuty]

Most frames are compatible with a Dremel.

Notch it if you want to notch it. Easy peasy.

And then grind on the FCU? No thanks. I went out of my way to track down a black M18 with MS as the core of my P320 experiment. I suppose if you wanted to buy an AXG module and add it to a MS FCU equipped P320, you could - but that’s a high buck way of getting there.

I don’t understand why the new much ballyhooed P320 custom configurator doesn’t have MS options.

[HCM]

And then grind on the FCU? No thanks. I went out of my way to track down a black M18 with MS as the core of my P320 experiment. I suppose if you wanted to buy an AXG module and add it to a MS FCU equipped P320, you could - but that’s a high buck way of getting there.

I don’t understand why the new much ballyhooed P320 custom configurator doesn’t have MS options.

why would you need to grind on the FCU ? Just buy an AXG grip , cut the safety notch and drop your M18 FCU into it. Cost is similar to an AXG complete gun.

AB Prototype can do both grip shell and FCU cuts for manual safeties.