Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
I sent back a brand new P320 when the recoil spring assembly failed. The service was excellent and done at no cost. Except: The cost of ammo expended to beta test a gun that fails right out of the box. And to re-test and establish that the gun is fixed right. I am thinking of sending Sig an invoice for the ammo. End of Earth: 2 Miles Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles | |||
|
| Member |
Recently bought a S&W 9M Shield 2.0. Was reliable outta the box, but didn;t shoot where aimed...Low Left. I chalked it up to me. Had an Apex Trigger system installed and my 'Smith needed a few tries to get it right...along with S&W sending a replacement striker. The front site was finally replaced by S&W....with almost a month turn-around, and a few weeks later the replacement tritium tube fell out. I got a Triji set and had it installed fine. 3 months later the S&W Replacedment front sight showed up and I haven't needed it. The Shield works great and finally shoots where it's aimed. The Apex Trigger is a vast upgrade...and helps me reach acceptable accuracy levels. Getting a good performing firearm outta the box is a crap shoot. Takes patience and good customer service to get the issues resolved. I did get lucky with an H&K P-30SK outta the box...amd factory 15 rounders are readily available. But the H&K is a lot more $$$$ and is like comparing Ford to Porsche, imho. Never a dull moment. | |||
|
| Frequent Denizen of the Twilight Zone  |
| |||
|
Member |
I have two P365s: Mfg date 2-17-18, S/N 66A002XXX, Xray sights, relief cut on barrel, "Gen 2" pistol?, original striker as in rockchalk's pic. Striker markings top line: 020 I, middle 4, bottom 07. Picked up today- Mfg date 6-17-18, S/N 66A066XXX, "Gen 3" pistol?, new design striker as in rockchalk's pic. Striker markings top line: 020 T, middle 4, bottom 07. The old pistol sent a pencil about 6" above the muzzle, when pointed toward the ceiling. Pull was fairly smooth and fairly light with a solid striker impact. The new pistol sent a the pencil about 2 feet above the muzzle, when pointed toward the ceiling. The pull was kind of rough and heavier than my first pistol. The striker impact felt kind of mushy, like the 320s post upgrade. I switched the striker assemblies between the two slides and repeated the exercise. The performance of each striker assembly was the same, regardless of which slide it was in. The spring compression appears higher on the new pistol. Maybe this is in response to the "striker swipes" on the primers of earlier pistols. From my non-scientific tests, it appears the new slide has not had any modifications done to the striker channel. Each striker appears to work properly in either slide.This message has been edited. Last edited by: 10-7 leo, Sic Semper Tyrannis If you beat your swords into plowshares, you will become farmers for those who didn't! Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be Manners-George Carlin | |||
|
Res ipsa loquitur |
I’ve been as critical of SIG as any over the last while for poor work at their custom shop on my W German P228 and their lack of support for the 556 and now the P239. But, who really expects a complex piece of machinery to be initially perfect anymore? Would you buy a new generation truck or car or wait a year or two? How many times do we have threads regarding problems with Apple or Microsoft’s newest generation of software? How about the recoil spring issue on the HK VP series the claims with the G4 Glocks, the extractor on the Beretta Nano or the original problems with the Beretta M9? I guess I’m like the boss, I won’t buy a new rifle/shotgun/pistol anymore. I’ll let the beta testing play out before I drop my $$$ on a new platform. As much as I like my Nano, I’m really interested in the P365. I imagine I’ll pick one up next year sometime if all things proceed with updates and changes like I expect because by then, it will be a solid platform. Until then, is anyone really surprised there are teething issues with the P365? It is, IMO, a cutting edge design change and hiccups are to be expected. __________________________ | |||
|
Prepared for the Worst, Providing the Best |
I have a relatively new (born date 6-5-18) P365. If the photo on page one is to be believed, mine has the old style striker. I just got it last week, and have a couple hundred rounds through it. While it does exhibit significant drag on the spent primers, it hasn't broken, and I'm not terribly concerned. I'm honestly not a huge fan of the gun. Apart from two failure to return to battery malfunctions, both of which were easily corrected with a quick palm bump to the rear of the slide, it has been reliable. Both of these were early on, and I attribute them to break-in. The grip is too small for my hand, and the (very mushy) trigger bites my finger something fierce. It honestly doesn't do much that my G26 doesn't do, and the G26 does everything better, without biting my finger in the process. All that to say I'm no P365 fanboy. But I don't understand the attitude of some members here, who read the OP, and are now swearing off the gun. If you have it, you like shooting it, and it works, what's the problem? Do you trust internet rumor over your own experience? If you're concerned, don't leave it on the shelf...go shoot the crap out if it. It's good training, will help improve your marksmanship, and build confidence in the gun...not to mention it's fun. If it breaks, then send it back to Sig and tell them to either fix it or go to hell...your choice. But if it's working fine, why deprive yourself of the use of something you own and enjoy just because some guy on the internet has a problem with his? Also, I'm not getting the outrage about Sig modifying the striker. Don't we want companies to be responsive to customer feedback and make improvements to their products? Or would you prefer that they just left the design alone, because you bought yours before the improvements, so screw everybody else? Companies have been doing this forever, and not just gun manufacturers. From what I see, the broken strikers are a very tiny percentage of total sales, and I'm sure Sig is taking care of those customers under warranty. There's not enough to warrant a recall, nor is Sig responsible to share every proprietary design detail or revision of their product with the public. | |||
|
| Member |
I read of one 6/18/18 being gen 3. All hearsay at this point. | |||
|
Member |
This is the striker from my May 29th 365, so any update happened after that.  But it looks like the striker's forward motion is stopped by the leg that protrudes through the striker channel, not the front shoulder. If they just moved the front shoulder back, I don't see why the new striker would not work in an old slide. <><><><><><><><><><><><><> "I drank what?" - Socrates | |||
|
The guy behind the guy |
I’ll try to answer your questions. If you are having significant primer drag, as I am, your gun has a flaw and the striker will eventually break. Why would I carry a gun for self defense that is flawed and will break? If I’m not going to carry that gun, why bother training with it and sending rounds down range with it? I love shooting my custom big ass heavy CZ’s, but I don’t carry them. However, I shoot them because they are a joy to shoot and are rediculously accurate. A small pocket carry gun isn’t a pure joy to shoot, so there is no reason to shoot it if it’s not practice for carrying. If you want to carry a gun that has a potentially fatal design flaw, that’s your choice, but it shouldn’t make you wonder why others don’t want to carry said gun. As for Sig “fixing” the flaw (we’ll see if it indeed fixes it or not in time), of course we want gun manufacturers to improve their guns and more importantly correct flaws. The issue is that they tell us the flawed guns are fine when they clearly aren’t. If they owned up to the flaw and did a recall, I’d have no problem with it. It’s part of being a beta tester. Telling me it’s normal to have primer drag and my striker isn’t going to suddenly snap when it obviously will eventually is unforgivable. If you buy their BS that’s up to you, but I’m not. The broken trigger spring is still an issue that they’re silent on too. This gun even with a new striker (assuming it works) still isn’t ready to be in a holster until the trigger spring issue is solve. My mags have the scratches like MAC’s had. It’s not that’s they fixed it, it’s that they lie right to our faces and tell us it’s ok to carry a flawed gun just so they don’t lose money. Nope, not me, I’m not playing that game. | |||
|
Member |
| |||
|
| Member |
I have a new style striker replaced by Sig and my original slide from Mid March. The fun functions perfectly. | |||
|
| A day late, and a dollar short  |
As much as I liked the feel of this pistol, I said I would wait a year before I bought one. Now I seriously doubt I will ever buy one. Shame on you Sig. ____________________________ NRA Life Member, Annual Member GOA, MGO Annual Member | |||
|
E tan e epi tas |
I think the real story with that MAC video is he won the Taurus lottery and got a good one.  "Guns are tools. The only weapon ever created was man." | |||
|
| The Constable |
Got mine yesterday, 10 MAY 2018 date on the end label, it has the new striker design. | |||
|
Unflappable Enginerd |
I'm not convinced the "new design striker" shown on page 1 represents anything other than a one-off fix SIG made to repair a defective gun. Or perhaps repairing out of spec OEM parts(striker) to produce operable guns. I've looked around quite a bit and haven't seen any other strikers that look like that particular example, there may be others, but not a lot. It looks like they turned it on a lathe to change a few dimensions. I do however believe they are changing the dimensions on the striker and making "rolling changes" to the design. I'm also not convinced the "new slide" assertion is completely accurate either. SIG is unceremoniously tweaking the design without releasing actual details to the public. Posting a picture of a SIG modified striker and saying the slide has been completely changed does not compute to me. That, to me, does not support the claim that a new slide is "required". I've also seen pictures where it looks like SIG may have lightly reamed the striker channel, but again, 1 picture of 1 pistol. That also doesn't mean "new slide" for all new production weapons, I consider that a bit of a leap. JMHO __________________________________ NRA Benefactor I lost all my weapons in a boating, umm, accident. http://www.aufamily.com/forums/ | |||
|
| When you fall, I will be there to catch you -With love, the floor |
Magazines are considered a expendable item. | |||
|
| Middle children of history  |
I'd love to see some proof that a new slide is required, because that's not what this picture shows. This picture shows that the radius of the relief at the base of the striker pin has been increased to minimize localized stresses. That radius change occurs well within the striker channel though. The length and diameter of the striker pin that protrudes through the pin hole looks identical.
There you go, no new slide required. | |||
|
Member |
P365 Striker fix requires new slide If you read it on the internet, it must be true... Beware of a man whose only pistol is a 1911, he's probably very good with it. | |||
|
| Unflappable Enginerd |
Right! I don't know anything about anything, but I do know there is this thing called tolerance stacking, which has explained many more things to me, many times over. __________________________________ NRA Benefactor I lost all my weapons in a boating, umm, accident. http://www.aufamily.com/forums/ | |||
|
| Member |
I hoped that Bruce Gray would contribute to this topic. Wouldn't blame him if he doesn't though, what with the haters and conspiracy theorists...This message has been edited. Last edited by: az4783054, Beware of a man whose only pistol is a 1911, he's probably very good with it. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024