Dated video below pre the new revelations about take down levers, etc., but at around the 6:10 mark of this video, from an armorer I believe, he goes through the differences between the Glock and P320 firing pin blocks including a verifiable instance where the block on the P320 is regularly defeated.

I have never owned a P320 but do have several P365s (and Glocks) and am glad they have the plunger style. I am also a "In God We Trust, everybody else bring data" kinda of guy -- and while there are issues on P320, the math on this still doesn't add up for me completely either. Maybe that's because so much of this is driven by the internet, lawyers, unions, and more; it just feels disproportionate. Sig punching back didn't help either -- at least at this stage -- time will tell. Also, the P320 is in ~20 different countries Law Enforcement & Militaries and no issues (I could find). Why only Americans?

Hope it gets cleared up for the industry and karma does its thing.

quote:

Originally posted by LoneMouser:
Also, the P320 is in ~20 different countries Law Enforcement & Militaries and no issues (I could find). Why only Americans?

That's a good question. Do we know for a fact that there are no documented international instances of P320 uncommanded discharges? I can't recall hearing of any.

Didn’t Canada have an issue? I believe there may have been an instance in one of the Scandinavian countries as well but I might be wrong. I have only followed this in an ancillary gun geek kind of way not of that of an owner of one so I might be mistaken.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
Didn’t Canada have an issue?

Yes, back in 2021.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com...02/05/canadian-p320/

But later in 2023, Sig filled the Canadian C22 pistol contract.

https://www.sigsauer.com/blog/...ns-to-sig-sauer-p320

I work for the largest Sheriff's Office in Florida. Been carrying my P320 (XFive DH3) on duty about 18 months now. It was taken off our approved list about 6-8 months ago. We buy our own guns off the list. I will be switching to my G17 w/ RMR at next qualifying. I can probably contact our range and do it quicker but I know quite a few guys that carry them here and there has been no rush in them changing guns. I've banged the shit out of this gun, dropped it (in holster and out) and have had no issues. There has been talk of them buying us all G45's, but the cost is keeping it at bay for now. This is my only 320, although I have several classic P series guns and they are still my favorite. If they would allow it I would be carrying a P226. I will be buying a new P226 X Carry Legion once they become available. Would sell the 320 but at this point I will probably have a hard time giving it away. Too bad as it really is a good shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by LoneMouser:
Also, the P320 is in ~20 different countries Law Enforcement & Militaries and no issues (I could find). Why only Americans?

That's a good question. Do we know for a fact that there are no documented international instances of P320 uncommanded discharges? I can't recall hearing of any.

I've never heard of a P320 UD here in Europe, fwiw. Outside the US it's a popular firearm among civilians as well as military and law enforcement. Every P320 I've seen in Europe and the UK was manufactured in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_P320#Users

If the military M17 has also experienced the problem, it doesn't appear that models with the thumb safety are immune. Is that correct? Does the thumb safety on a 320 block trigger movement (maybe not helpful in these cases) or does it prevent the striker from moving? If the latter, you might have a Rem 700 situation occur where the striker is being held only by the thumb safety and the pistol fires as it is switched off. Only a partial solution. My eyes kind of glaze over watching the videos of the mechanical aspects because I simply don't understand the firing mechanism well enough.

I apologize if this has been covered earlier. I've been following the thread, but may have forgotten reading it.

The manual safety on the P320/M17 locks into the trigger bar and prevents the trigger from being pulled. It does not block downward motion of the sear.

I confirmed on an M17 that pushing down the sear will cause the FPS lever to pop up and trigger to move a little until it hits the trigger block engaged by the manual safety.

When it is off-safe you get the trigger movement too, but only forward motion of the trigger bar. When it is on-safe, pushing the sear down causes the trigger bar to move DOWN and forward, with the disconnector snapping down.

One of the videos showed this disconnector interaction and timing of the action made it nearly impossible for the FPS to deactivate upon manual sear drop. But he found this was inconsistent and different trigger bars with the same part numbers acted differently when installed in various FCU's.

I checked again and if I apply light pressure to the FPS lever it does not rise and "disconnects" with a snap as a push down the sear. Not sure if the FPS lever spring tension is enough to cause this disconnector effect.

I will say that Sig's engineering change control sucks. They change part designs often, but without changing part numbers so you can tell the difference between old and new. And then you get issues with compatibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

I will say that Sig's engineering change control sucks. They change part designs often, but without changing part numbers so you can tell the difference between old and new. And then you get issues with compatibility.

100% agree. I think that likely a great deal of potential issues could be addressed if SIG made their parts in house, rather than contracting out to multiple other manufacturers. While I still don’t really like the P320 operating system, I think it would likely be better with more in-house manufacturing, or sole source component subcontracting at minimum.

Is there any reason to believe the 10mm and 45ACP FCUs are any less susceptible? I'd imagine the vastly greater numbers of 9mm are going to result in very skewed numbers of incidents.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
Is there any reason to believe the 10mm and 45ACP FCUs are any less susceptible? I'd imagine the vastly greater numbers of 9mm are going to result in very skewed numbers of incidents.

My 10mm FCU behaves the same as the non-safety 9mm FCU's. Of course a lot of the actual risk depends on the timing of the system regarding the FPS lever rising in relation to the sear falling.

A thought occurred to me the other day about the discharges seeming to happen almost exclusively to LEOs with the gun holstered. Yes, there are more police with these guns than private citizens, but competition shooters manipulate, dry fire, practice fire and shoot in matches a lot more than police do those things. I’m thinking the retention in their holsters might have something to do with the frequency of the alleged UDs.

Another thing that occurred to me is the frequency of the alleged UDs doesn’t work statistically. Typically you have a Wiebell curve for failures, which looks like a bathtub, with a high number of failures at beginning of life, a much lower plateau of failures until end of life, then a high number.

Also, the frequency of the reported UDs should either be much higher or much lower by at least a factor of ten up to a factor of a million.

Finally, people keep invoking tolerance stacking to explain these UDs. But tolerance stacking on a set of parts doesn’t not happen for months on end, suddenly happen one time, then magically go away.

1st LEOs are far rougher on their sidearm than even the military in many cases. In and out of vehicles all the time, scuffles, banging into all kinds of stuff etc. etc. This is just their job/life. It’s not throwing shade at them they just have a life that puts more stress on their bat belt gear including the sidearm.

2nd There is a large user base of LEO’s with the P320

3rd Folks who buy their own firearm (non LEO etc. ) are more likely to be more careful with it as well as less likely to bang it around in an OWB “gun bucket” so to speak.

I know very little about very little but opinions being like ….. well you know. I will offer mine. I think the lack of a tabbed trigger combined with SIG sourcing parts from different vendors trying make the cheapest gun possible along with deviation from the “engineering norm” all conspire to make a small percentage of guns dangerous and those guns are far more likely to exhibit failure in holsters of those likely to be using them roughly (again not out of a lack of training just because it’s the nature of their job)

There is a possibility that wear over time might be a factor as well. The vast number of 320’s are probably fine, the problem becomes “is mine fine or not???” That “what if” is the big problem for SIG.

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

I will say that Sig's engineering change control sucks. They change part designs often, but without changing part numbers so you can tell the difference between old and new. And then you get issues with compatibility.

100% agree. I think that likely a great deal of potential issues could be addressed if SIG made their parts in house, rather than contracting out to multiple other manufacturers. While I still don’t really like the P320 operating system, I think it would likely be better with more in-house manufacturing, or sole source component subcontracting at minimum.

Basic part number control says if form, fit, or function does not change, then revising up the number is acceptable. Parts of different revisions should be interchangeable. If one of the three change - form, fit, or function - then a new part number is called for.

It would be interesting to see Sig’s PLM - Product Lifecycle Mgt and ECM procedures.
I wouldn’t assume anything Sig is doing or not doing.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:
so does this reflect in the cost of used P320's on the market? Maybe a ton of leo trade in weapons?

What’s a gun store going to give them for a used P320? $250?

There’s three major places we buy our guns from.
One flat out declines to buy the used Sig.
One will give you night sights for your new gun.
One is giving $100, and that’s about to end soon.

Yeah, a lot of these kids are PISSED!

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by cajunmuscle:
so does this reflect in the cost of used P320's on the market? Maybe a ton of leo trade in weapons?

What’s a gun store going to give them for a used P320? $250?

There’s three major places we buy our guns from.
One flat out declines to buy the used Sig.
One will give you night sights for your new gun.
One is giving $100, and that’s about to end soon.

Yeah, a lot of these kids are PISSED!

Good Lord that is a kick in the teeth and CPD isn’t subsidizing at all????

*sigh I remember asking a mentor of mine way back in the day what was better than a Glock

Sig & H&K was his opinion

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
Is there any reason to believe the 10mm and 45ACP FCUs are any less susceptible? I'd imagine the vastly greater numbers of 9mm are going to result in very skewed numbers of incidents.

I was wondering the same thing. If the problem is related to parts in the FCU versus a design flaw, I’m wondering if any differences in parts between the 9/40/357 and 45 FCUs (maybe there aren’t any, I don’t know) might be a factor.