So what do you think the lifespan is of this gun? With the modular design will the Fire Control Group last longer than other designs? Saying we are looking at the 9mm version...what kind of round counts can we expect? Better than Glocks where you get 100’s of thousands?

Are there any ones out there with crazy round counts?

I can’t imagine any current production, well made, polymer handgun won’t go many many thousands of rounds with a modicum of care.

Now those in military service.....those are gonna get beat all to hell

The price of the ammo will far exceed the price of the gun.

The XM17/18 pistol trials called for at a minimum: 2,000 mean rounds between stoppages, 10,000 mean rounds between failures, and a 35,000 round service life.

https://www.defensemedianetwor...lar-handgun-systems/

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
The price of the ammo will far exceed the price of the gun.

This. Far and away, this right here.

Being part-time in the business, it is mind-numbing to me the people who will say things like "the barrel is only good for 20-30 thousands rounds"

No kidding, Sherlock? Holy crap, I did not know that!

Even at today's bargain prices, that's roughly $4000 worth of ammo. So 'that' guy is saying that a $500 pistol comes with a barrel that will 'only' handle $4000 worth of ammo, and that a new barrel at what, $139 is too much of a burden for you to bother? A seven-fold dollar increase in useful life makes it unworthy?

Can you imagine buying a new $30,000 SUV and then bitching that it can only use $240,000 worth of gas before it needs a new engine? (Roughly 1.7M miles - assuming 18mpg and $2.50/gallon gas - for those of you without a calculator.)

Hell, if they made cars that could perform on a dollar per dollar equal to my guns, I'd refi my house and buy one tomorrow!

At the sales counter I say: Tell ya what, sport, if you buy the gun and the ammo today, I'll throw in an extra barrel.

Haven't had any takers yet.

In my instructor days my issued gun was the P229 in fo-tay. When I first got the gun, I set out to try and wear it out.
Never happened. When I retired and turned it back in, I would guess the round count was 20K +. Only thing I replaced in it was the recoil spring.
With factory spec ammo being used (no nuke reloads) and proper lube, I would expect the same durability with a 320.

SIG/Glock/SIG poly gun cost = $400-600

20K of 9mm at 0.15-0.30rd (from cheap Wolf to full up 124 NATO = $3K-$6K in ammo.

So either you'll never get close to wearing out a modern pistol, or you won't care if you have to buy another one, since it's a drop in the bucket when compared to ammo costs.

Obviously people with access to 'free to them' ammo (Instructors, LE, etc) have a more valid attempt to do this a no cost. But even then, just man up and buy another pistol.

A good example is 12131's recent P228 torture test. That gun is worth more than any plastic gun and he still exceeded the value of the gun in ammunition fired. Even after that it still seems to be in great condition.
There are many examples of Glocks lasting well over 100,000 rounds.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
In my instructor days my issued gun was the P229 in fo-tay. When I first got the gun, I set out to try and wear it out.
Never happened. When I retired and turned it back in, I would guess the round count was 20K +. Only thing I replaced in it was the recoil spring.
With factory spec ammo being used (no nuke reloads) and proper lube, I would expect the same durability with a 320.

Got my P229 DA/SA .40 in 1996. Shot it a lot. Due to arthritis, I don't shoot my DA/SA's as much anymore.

The P229 has over 47,000 rounds through it. At about 35,000 the old style TBS broke. The new style coil TBS will probably last forever, The rails, slide and barrel look nicely broken in. It was and is 100% reliable and accurate.

I clean and lube after every range session. In 50 years, I've never had any gun "wear out". This topic, holster wear, hairline scratches, slide rattle, etc. seem to be perennial favorites. I think a lot of it is simply the influx of many new shooters to the activity. Plus a dose of Internet "experts" providing advice to the masses. Given the quality of many experienced/knowledgeable SF members, the SF is able to act as an antidote to this. Nothing wrong with asking the questions though. That's how people learn.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
In my instructor days my issued gun was the P229 in fo-tay. When I first got the gun, I set out to try and wear it out.
Never happened. When I retired and turned it back in, I would guess the round count was 20K +. Only thing I replaced in it was the recoil spring.
With factory spec ammo being used (no nuke reloads) and proper lube, I would expect the same durability with a 320.

I carried the same P220 from 1995 to 24 years. 24 years with lord knows how many cases of ammo through the original barrel. Since the frame was the only thing the agency had to have back for destruction, I was allowed to keep the slide and barrel. I’ll try to get a pic of the rifling, but it looks plenty sharp to my eye and was more accurate than me right up to the end.

I have no doubt the 320 will be as long lived as any other quality duty pistol.

I have never understood “the ammo fired cost more than the gun” argument; to me it’s like saying to the guy whose new $500 parka fell apart on a trip to Antarctica, “Well, yeah, but you spent much more than $500 on the trip, so what are you complaining about?” And I’m relatively certain that no ammunition or gun manufacturer has an awards card program of the “You’ve spent $5000 on ammunition, so now you’re entitled to a new free gun” sort. The amount I spent on one is immaterial to what I spent on the other, and if I now need a new parka or gun, that’s still an extra expense.

In any event, modern guns like SIGs last a long time. At one time I saw veiled references that seemed to indicate some Air Marshal P229s had exceeded 100,000 rounds of 357 SIG. The most common unfixable failure of SIG Classic line guns is having aluminum frame rails break. The rails of the P320’s receiver, however, are folded-over stainless steel projections that would seem to be pretty strong. Steel on steel is usually very durable, so unless there is an unrecognized defect that weakens the bend, I would expect a P320 receiver and slide to last at least as long as SIGs with aluminum frames, and probably much longer.

Another advantage of the P320 over other pistols with polymer frames is that anything other than the steel receiver that holds the action parts can simply be replaced if it breaks or wears out.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
The price of the ammo will far exceed the price of the gun.

This may be a slightly interesting factoid but why do you think this is relevant to the op's question of service life?

IMO it might take a decade or more yet to get a good idea on the P320 lifespan but I would bet it is a very very high round count. Why would the P320 lifespan not be comparable to other top tier pistols like the Glock 9MM? Sure the P320 has had it's share of problems in the past but I have read nothing to indicate that long term durability is one of them and considering the number of P320s out there and the testing it has endured I am sure we all would have read something if it was.

quote:

I have never understood “the ammo fired cost more than the gun” argument; to me it’s like saying to the guy whose new $500 parka fell apart on a trip to Antarctica, “Well, yeah, but you spent much more than $500 on the trip, so what are you complaining about?”

Actually, I think it's more like saying "I need a new parka for my trip to Antarctica, but before I buy one I want to know if it will last for 50 trips."

Somebody could probably make a parka like that, but it wouldn't be worth the small fortune it would cost. If you can afford all those trips to Antarctica, you can afford to replace your parka every once in a while.

That's the way I see the analogy. YMMV, etc.

I cannot expect everyone to understand the point of an analogy, but the bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds I’ve fired with a gun; if it wears out or breaks, that number has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that if I want to continue shooting, I must have a new gun. To reiterate, there are no rewards club programs that will give me a new one for having fired all that ammunition, and if I want a replacement, I will have to buy it myself.

What’s more, these discussions inevitably ignore the fact that not all guns are as easily replaced as many people seem to assume. I have guns that I’ve heavily modified at significant cost and many hours of work, and developing something that was even similar would be a major nuisance. Other guns are simply irreplaceable, or nearly so in any practicable sense. And to flog the parka analogy a bit more, it doesn’t matter whatsoever how much I spent getting to Antarctica if the garment falls apart and there are no parka stores down the block to buy another. What will matter is if the parka performs as needed, and that’s why I will research and ask, “Will it hold up?” before I buy it.

Those are a few of the reasons why people may have legitimate questions about how long they can expect something to last, and, more to the point, why the lifetime cost of using that something is totally immaterial to those questions. I first saw that argument here a few years ago and was just as puzzled by its relevance to the question as I am now. If anyone can explain that, however, I am eager to learn.

quote:

the bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds I’ve fired with a gun; if it wears out or breaks, that number has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that if I want to continue shooting, I must have a new gun

Agreed. But what we're saying is that it is a normal wear item. It's force on force. I promise you it will wear and eventually break. As sure as the sun will come up tomorrow.

What we're saying is that the amount of money one would need to expend to cause such wear and breakage makes the cost of the "thing" a pittance by comparison.

While I understand your analogy perfectly, it is a poor one. You are comparing something new that wore out prematurely (the coat). Therefore, you would be put out at not having a jacket on a chilly vacation. Understandable, but more relatable to an instant breakage or warranty repair item. What would be a better, more apt, analogy is if you paid the same money for that coat but it failed out on your 20th trip to Antarctica, not your first.

In asking us to understand your analogy, you skipped right over mine. Would you not buy a $30,000 car that would break or wear out after only $240,000 worth of fuel usage?

And if you did manage to use all that fuel, almost a quarter million dollars worth, what then would you think of the $4500 engine replacement cost? I mean, after a $30k car and $240k in fuel, you're $270k into the whole enchilada. Probably another $30k in oil changes, tire swaps, and routine maintenance. Now, after you've spent all that, is a $4500 engine really a big deal?

(Assuming the car is the gun, the gas is the ammo, and the engine is the barrel.)

That's what I'm saying.

In short, our point is this, the guys who can afford to shoot out a barrel in a modern defensive pistol don't give a hot shit what the gun costs. By the time it actually happens, they will have spent enough money in ammo, mags, springs, etc. that the cost of a new barrel - or even a whole new gun - will pale in comparison to what they've spent to get to that point.

I concede your point on customized firearms, but the OP was asking about a stock standard 320, not a custom one-off item.

quote:

but the bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds I’ve fired with a gun

I think that comment completely misses the point of a lifecycle discussion. If you were to know the actual lifecycle of the gun then you could plan to that, to your advantage. That probably doesn't matter too much if its a easily replaceable gun. Comments on the cost of ammo fit that situation. Who the heck cares about the cost of a new gun or part if you spent tens of thousands of dollars to wear it out and the replacement is readily available. But it doesn't fit and isn't relevant when the gun cannot be replaced or replaced easily. In that case knowing the life would enable you to actively deal with what kind of use you give the gun and it what circumstances. For that situation the cost to get to a given point is not relevant, but where you are in the lifecycle may very well be.
I can certainly say that personally when I have guns that I wanted to use, that could not be replaced I thought a lot about lifecycle limits and would have been very happy to have actual concrete data to help guide me.
In general the people who post these questions really don't tell you why they ask so you have to guess. In this case the original OP to me is asking a design question. Will Sig's design be better or worse than other designs. For sure there are some data points like the design service life, but real world experience will be needed to confirm that.

The cost of the ammunition is irrelevant. It is a straw-man argument. Muddy's the water with something that has nothing to do with the question.

How long does the firearm last? The military has projections. I don't know that sig offers a minimum number. I know someone that has the original recoil spring and everything else original in their pistol with 30,000+ thorugh it, and they shoot it regularly in completition.

How long will it last? Likely a long time. Will it break? Eventually.

The P320 pistol has a steel slide riding on steel rails. The traditional alloy frame Sigs have frames that can wear out and will require a new firearm (to my knowledge Sig doesn't replace frames). I have a P226 in 40 that has significant frame wear that I don't shoot anymore (dull silver showing on the rails,https://grayguns.com/guide-to-sig-sauer-pistol-inspection/) . Pretty much everything on the P320 can be fixed/replaced.

In light of the last year’s events, it’s interesting that this thread was resurrected. Ammunition prices have soared (when it can even be found), sometimes hitting double or more of what it was a year ago.

Therefore based on the idea that a firearm’s usable lifetime should be dependent upon the cost of the ammunition fired rather than something like actual round count, it’s now okay for a firearm to fail in half the time that it would have lasted in 2019—no? That’s actually a relief because my guns must last only half as long before the expense of replacing them is justified. Barrel life? Nah: How much did that last case of ammo cost? Time for a new Tikka; yay!

If, however, the cost of the ammunition fired should be the basis of deciding whether I’ve gotten my money’s worth out of the gun itself, why limit it to that? How about range fees? Gas for the vehicle or even its maintenance costs? “I had to have a brake job, so that alone was reason enough to trash my old Hi-Point and buy a Glock.”



And oh, yeah—another thing about 2020: Now that guns are as easy to obtain as new parkas in Antarctica and despite the fact that the amount of money I’ve spent on ammunition would have been enough to purchase a new Ferrari, does anyone besides me ever think, “Man, I hope this doesn’t break anytime soon”?