quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:
I think this guy is doing the most thorough investigation and is on to something. His latest vid

Yes, it would appear so. This explains why the P365 remains unaffected by the P320 issues.

I like my DA/SA hammer-fired SIGs. And Glocks.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

With the level of disagreement and controversy with this pistol, even among engineers and highly skilled gunsmiths, the P320 is just not worth looking for another cobbled together fix with no guarantee other issues will not pop up again.

That's easy enough said if you have no personal investment in the platform...but we kinda all do because our tax dollars bought almost half a million of them for the military alone, not to mention who knows how many for law enforcement.

There's over 3 million of these guns in circulation at this point...at $400/apiece (which is low, and doesn't include the cost of holsters and other accessories) that's a $1.2 Billion investment.

The P320 is not just going away. If there's a problem it's absolutely worth the effort to fix it.

quote:

Originally posted by 92fstech:

The P320 is not just going away. If there's a problem it's absolutely worth the effort to fix it.

If it turns out that the P320 does have a problem, do you think departments that issue the P-320 should allow officers to continue to carry these pistols until a fix is applied? I would think the risk would be huge in more ways than one. Even after a possible fix, how long before they are declared good to go? If an un-commanded discharge happens after the fix, I can only imagine what the lawyers would do to the City/County/Department that allowed their officers to beta test the new and improved version.

Also, should the fixed version have a trigger safety? As someone who has witnessed countless shooters blindly fishing for their holster after a course of fire, it seems like a good idea to add one.

It depends on the fix and the problem.

As a for instance, when the E series frame rail recall came down on issued Glocks, Glock asked for the serial numbers on the affected guns. About 10 days later, I got a box that had brand new frames. Each frame has one of our serial numbers plus a -1. All I did was have the officers come in, unload their duty pistol, popped the slide off the defective frame, put the slide on the new frame, and they loaded up and headed back out the door.

Once they were all traded out, I sent the defective frames back to Glock. Total time to fix about 2.5 weeks from announcements.

I remember the frame recall well. I sent in my ERRxxx G17 G3 and Glock replaced the frame with ERRxxx-1.

That pistol is at Wilson Combat now having a match barrel fitted and being cut for a direct mount Vortex Defender XL (DPP) footprint.

quote:

It depends on the fix and the problem.

This.

Either way, they're going to get carried until they're fixed or replaced. If a fix is identified, especially if it's something as simple as replacing a sear, I could have our entire department updated in a couple of hours once the parts are in hand. It would take weeks or months and thousands of dollars for even our tiny agency to purchase new guns, holsters, and get everybody qualified. And during that time we'd still have to carry the P320s as-is. A fix would be a much simpler and better solution.

If you notice, most of the places that are banning these guns have no financial or logistical skin in the game. The police academy in Washington State services numerous agencies. Those officers bring either their own guns or guns issued by their agencies. The academy doesn't own the guns, and has nothing to lose by banning them. Same with Chicago PD...those aren't agency purchased guns, they're owned by the individual officers who bought them for duty use because they were on an approved list. My understanding is that the agency just decided to pull them off the list, and officers that are using them are now responsible to buy themselves something else. The FOP flipped out about that. Again, an easy decision for the agency to make under the guise of an "abundance of caution" when they bear no financial burden for the consequences.

It's a different matter altogether for an agency that owns their guns to have to procure funding from their city council to buy new ones, especially when they can provide no proof of a problem, there have been no local problems with the gun, and the manufacturer is on-record saying they are safe.

If a problem is eventually proven, that will change things somewhat, but the solution will depend on what the problem is and how the manufacturer responds.

All of the SIG P320 fans for the last few years,
"There are no problems with the P320."
"Mine has never gone off in the holster."
"It's the Safariland Holster that's the problem."
"It ends today."


Then someone demonstrates that there is, in fact a problem, as if anybody who has even a shred of objectivity couldn't see that years ago, and all of a sudden the argument changes to,
"It's worth the fix."
"Keep carrying the defective weapons until we get a fix."

SIG knew there was a problem with the P320 from day one. SIG kept producing the P320 and kept selling them knowing there was a problem. SIG screwed every one of those Police Departments, the US Military, and every private citizen who bought one. I'd hate to see my former favorite gun manufacturer go out of business, but they'd absolutely deserve it if that's how this plays out.

I’ve tried to keep up with this thread, and may have missed it. What function does that rear leg on the sear provide? It appears cutting it off does not affect the function of the pistol in any way.

Yet, an engineer(s) at Sig, determined it had a purpose.

Is there some yet unknown function it provides?

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
SIG knew there was a problem with the P320 from day one. SIG kept producing the P320 and kept selling them knowing there was a problem. SIG screwed every one of those Police Departments, the US Military, and every private citizen who bought one. I'd hate to see my former favorite gun manufacturer go out of business, but they'd absolutely deserve it if that's how this plays out.

PURE Speculation right there!

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
Then someone demonstrates that there is, in fact a problem, as if anybody who has even a shred of objectivity couldn't see that years ago

Objectivity, by its very nature, requires facts, evidence, and proof before making a decision. Not speculation. Or a "feeling". Or an assumption. Or especially majority opinion.

Proof isn't a grainy video of an incident with an unknown cause.

Facts aren't "because somebody on the internet said so".

Evidence requires replicating the problem in a systematic manner through the use of the scientific method, which had been attempted but was elusive.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
Then someone demonstrates that there is, in fact a problem, as if anybody who has even a shred of objectivity couldn't see that years ago

Objectivity, by its very nature, requires facts, evidence, and proof before making a decision. Not speculation. Or a "feeling". Or an assumption. Or especially majority opinion.

Proof isn't a grainy video of an incident with an unknown cause.

Facts aren't "because somebody on the internet said so".

Evidence requires replicating the problem in a systematic manner through the use of the scientific method, which had been attempted but was elusive.

Boy, you must really be head-over-heels for the P320 to ignore all of the reported problems plus videos showing what the problem is. Enjoy your SIG, I'll pass.

One thing that is never going to happen is Sig admitting there is a problem. Any fix would come as a voluntary upgrade.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
Boy, you must really be head-over-heels for the P320 to ignore all of the reported problems plus videos showing what the problem is. Enjoy your SIG, I'll pass.

Boy, in your haste to post your snarky retort, you completely missed what I was saying.

I was pointing out how - "years ago" - nobody could "objectively" state that there was "in fact" a problem, as you claim. Because years ago there wasn't any actual evidence in fact, so anybody objective was still waiting on actual proof.

But notice the tense.

Wasn't.

And in my previous post I stated that replicating the problem had been elusive.

Had been.

That tide appears to be changing. We now have at least one actual example of somebody replicating the problem. So those who were remaining objective are now starting to come around to the notion that the P320 has an issue. Which is actual objectivity in action.

But you appear to be more interested in arguing and strutting than having an objective discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmoid:


Thx for this voice of truth, facts, and reason.
The emotional infants on this are incapable of comprehending.
Its easier to "feel".

That's hilarious. I guess all of the LE departments that are banning them and the people who have had uncommanded discharges are just silly and immature, too.

You don’t think command staff ever makes over the top knee jerk emotional rules and regs? Which may or may not be the case in some of these actions. As said on the Wire… shhhhhiiiittttttt…….

And the fact that this reply is ignored it tells you that he is a company man that does whatever the chief or ass chief says.

He’s the guy that was enforcing mask rules during COVID.

Someone in the command staff has told him to hate SIGs so he is “just following orders”.

I’ll sure he’ll be a long shortly to tell us it ain’t so, or claim that somehow were the problem, or the most likely he’ll lie and claim he didn’t see this post but after 10 days he managed to hone in on the chief’s party line “dont think, just do what your told”

I'm not looking to take on the angry mob on this one. All Ill say on this thread is that I'm glad I sold by P320 back on 2019. There is clearly a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
I'm not looking to take on the angry mob on this one.

Well, you damn sure have been antagonizing awful hard for somebody who suddenly claims you don't want a conflict.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
I'm not looking to take on the angry mob on this one.

Well, you damn sure have been antagonizing awful hard for somebody who suddenly claims you don't want a conflict.

Disagreeing ≠ Antagonizing

Posting snarky pretentious statements about shreds of objectivity and being head-over-heels isn't mere disagreeing.

If as you claim you don't want to fight, then you should reconsider the tone of your posts in this thread, and actually read the content of folks' posts before argumentatively calling them out.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Posting snarky pretentious statements about shreds of objectivity and being head-over-heels isn't mere disagreeing.

If you don't want to argue, then reconsider your tone.

Maybe I should have said that I'm not looking to bicker back and forth with the angry mob who read way too much "snark" and "pretentiousness" into my posts.

One thing that is important to remember when posting in contentious threads like this. You need to word your responses where it merely annoys those you disagree with but not to a point where you get called out.