No idea if this source is reputable or accurate.

[/QUOTE]


Read the bio. A blogger, reporter and a "long time" shooter. Not impressed.

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:

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

Kick in the teeth to the cops that bought a Sig P320.
We buy our own weapons, holsters and equipment. (We also get a "uniform allowance" for maintenance when they get off probation, and it actually evens out over time- cost of gear and time on the job)

That being said, why would our department subsidize it?
"Oh well, sucks to be you! We didn't buy it for you, you just got unlucky."

I feel bad for the younger cops. They shelled out around $4000 for all their uniforms and gear. Sig's and holsters (mostly Safariland) aint cheap!
Now they're at a loss on the gun and holster, and have to go out and get a new pistol and holster.
There's a lot of other departments that operate the same way, and the cop is out of luck.

A lot of the younger cops in the past month or two have read Paras Thread:
https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0601935/m/5941074751

(I swear that guy must have a big ole' chunk-o-stock in that company! )

As a privately held company, there is no stock or investors.

Many departments issue , some don't and provide funding for equipment purchases (mine included). NYPD duty and off duty firearms are privately owned.

But our contract stated a change of duty weapons was at the expense of the agency. A rather common clause.

Army’s Sig P320 Derived Pistols Will Remain Unchanged After Concerning FBI Report
Jul 17, 2025 1:56 PM EDT

https://www.twz.com/land/army-...oncerning-fbi-report

The TWZ article is quite long and much of the info re: the FBI-BRF testing/report has been discussed ad nauseam already so I'm not quoting the complete article here, BUT the following seems to have not been widely reported, if at all:

quote:

In addition, Sig Sauer claims that it engaged with the FBI in relation to the August 2024 report and its findings, and that subsequent testing was conducted that contradicts the initial results.

“The test conducted by the FBI-BRF was made aware to Sig Sauer when it was submitted to the Michigan State Police,” Jason St. John, senior director of strategic products for the company’s Defense Strategies Group, told TWZ. “Sig Sauer expressed concerns with the FBI’s initial report about how some of the tests were conducted.”

“Specifically, Sig explained that forcing the sear downward with a punch was moving the trigger bar forward and, as a result, the trigger to the rear since the sear is in constant contact with the trigger bar,” he continued. “Sig expressed that this was not a proper representation of the striker slipping off of the sear’s primary notch from a parallel/grip-down drop. Sig also noted that the FBI’s concern of the striker safety spring movement on the striker assembly post after getting hit with a hammer was unwarranted due to the viewing window that was cut into the slide that sacrificed the sidewall support of the striker safety spring.”

“After the initial report was submitted, Sig Sauer and its engineers worked in cooperation with the FBI and Michigan State Police to design a fixture that all agreed would create a more controlled testing protocol for striker/sear slippage,” St. John added. “Using that fixture, the FBI forced the sear off of the primary notch 565 times with 19EA different striker assemblies with zero indents on the primer (no fires).”

TWZ has reached out to the FBI for more details about the results of this additional testing.

Sig’s St. John also told us that the company has no plans to take further actions regarding the P320 based on the initial BRF report on the MSP incident last year.

“Sig Sauer continues to have full faith in the P320,” he said. “Due to the FBI manually manipulating the P320 sear improperly, Sig Sauer refutes the initial results.”

Honestly, I haven't seen anything other than 'SIG declined to participate in the evaluation with the FBI' on this, perhaps because it doesn't support the agenda of the 'click whores' posting all over the internet!

Perhaps one of the experts here could comment on the possibility of the sear creeping?

Specifically, if the pistol is subject to lots of jostling, and perhaps unholstering/holstering without firing, would the sear possibly creep? Since the trigger bar is attached to the sear and thus the trigger moves, might this result in the release of the striker?

The followup questions then would be, 1) does racking the slide periodically make a good mitigation, and 2) does a press test (partial racking to visually verify a round in the chamber) accomplish a sear reset and mitigate the problem?

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Perhaps one of the experts here could comment on the possibility of the sear creeping?

Specifically, if the pistol is subject to lots of jostling, and perhaps unholstering/holstering without firing, would the sear possibly creep? Since the trigger bar is attached to the sear and thus the trigger moves, might this result in the release of the striker?

The followup questions then would be, 1) does racking the slide periodically make a good mitigation, and 2) does a press test (partial racking to visually verify a round in the chamber) accomplish a sear reset and mitigate the problem?

Watch Bruce's informal demonstration using a reciprocating saw. Think that produces more joselin than normal carry use?

All this fixture designing and attempts to replicate real world conditions in a lab is clearly missing something. The fact that these conditions aren’t being duplicated by tests that SIG designs and controls does little to allay the concerns of people that see a pistol going off in a motor officer’s holster while they aren’t doing anything to interact with the pistol (sworn affidavits indicate that the officer’s hands were full and not touching the pistol). It similarly does nothing to allay the fears when they see a school resource officer’s pistol discharge in its holster as she takes her backpack off her shoulder to put it into the vehicle. All this demonstrates to me, as a scientist and engineer, is that there are additional variables and/or potential combinations that are yet to be identified.

I think even police administrators are getting the idea that these problems are not happening with other striker fired pistol designs. It means little to me that SIG can hypothesis that an errant key got into a police officer’s holster and that jostling caused the gun to fire due to an interaction with the trigger by a foreign object, when that’s not happening with Glocks, S&Ws, XDs, etc. It simply isn’t worth the risk. Mayb this could all be fixed with a trigger dingus, maybe not. Either way these incidents are only happening with one brand, so why choose that brand over another, especially when the brand suffering these incidents can’t really be demonstrated to be objectively better performing?

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:
I think even police administrators are getting the idea that these problems are not happening with other striker fired pistol designs.

On top of that, there is the liability issue of mere appearances. Let's say that all of this is a fluke. Let's assume that despite the odds against it, all striker-fired pistols are subject to the type of discharge plaguing the P320, and that it just so happens- as unlikely as it is- that it's merely coincidence that it keeps happening with the P320. This wouldn't matter, even if proven to be the case, if the administration of some police force or other considered moving away from the P320 but chose- for whatever reason- to not do so, and then an officer or citizen was accidentally injured or killed when a P320 "just went off."

At this point, erring on the side of caution is the only way to go.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:
I think even police administrators are getting the idea that these problems are not happening with other striker fired pistol designs.

On top of that, there is the liability issue of mere appearances. Let's say that all of this is a fluke. Let's assume that despite the odds against it, all striker-fired pistols are subject to the type of discharge plaguing the P320, and that it just so happens- as unlikely as it is- that it's merely coincidence that it keeps happening with the P320. This wouldn't matter, even if proven to be the case, if the administration of some police force or other considered moving away from the P320 but chose- for whatever reason- to not do so, and then an officer or citizen was accidentally injured or killed when a P320 "just went off."

At this point, erring on the side of caution is the only way to go.

This right here times 100. It would be very easy to make the argument that an agency was negligent by fielding guns that have been shown to discharge randomly when there are options (Glock) that don’t do that. If an officer takes a round to the leg because an agency issues the 320 then they are getting a fat check. If a kid takes a fragment because one goes off they are getting a check as well. From my basic understanding it does appear that the odds of this happening are crazy low but no police administrator wants that type of publicity.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Lt CHEG:
I think even police administrators are getting the idea that these problems are not happening with other striker fired pistol designs.

On top of that, there is the liability issue of mere appearances. Let's say that all of this is a fluke. Let's assume that despite the odds against it, all striker-fired pistols are subject to the type of discharge plaguing the P320, and that it just so happens- as unlikely as it is- that it's merely coincidence that it keeps happening with the P320. This wouldn't matter, even if proven to be the case, if the administration of some police force or other considered moving away from the P320 but chose- for whatever reason- to not do so, and then an officer or citizen was accidentally injured or killed when a P320 "just went off."

At this point, erring on the side of caution is the only way to go.

If I were still working. And issued a Sig P320, it would never be pointed at anyone. For any reason, until I decided to actually shoot. “Covering”, even a potentially armed suspect, would not involve actually being pointed in his general vicinity.

IF that gun fires, Sig will produce a string of attorneys and their proof, that I obviously pulled the trigger, killing the suspect.

I’d prefer not going to prison for life.

As a matter of fact, I probably wouldn’t draw that thing until it was absolute GO time.

quote:

Originally posted by Sgt 127:

If I were still working. And issued a Sig P320, it would never be pointed at anyone. For any reason, until I decided to actually shoot. “Covering”, even a potentially armed suspect, would not involve actually being pointed in his general vicinity.

IF that gun fires, Sig will produce a string of attorneys and their proof, that I obviously pulled the trigger, killing the suspect.

I’d prefer not going to prison for life.

As a matter of fact, I probably wouldn’t draw that thing until it was absolute GO time.

I’m actually hoping that some of the police unions get involved and start pressuring agencies to get rid of their P320s. Although with SIG’s unscrupulous tactics I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve already bought off some leaders of police unions too. In my most recent full time LE job, I was issue a P320 but since I was in plain clothes I was able to carry a personally issued P365. I almost never carried my issued gun once I got my P365. I’m honestly grateful that I don’t have to carry a 320 at all anymore. As you and Para have both alluded, the perception out there is such that you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t should something go wrong and an innocent gets hurt. SIG would gleefully twist the knife in your back to extricate themselves from any potential liability and an agency or overzealous prosecutor oils paint you as reckless for pointing a gun (that could potentially fire accidentally) at someone that wasn’t in immediate need of being shot. No thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cslinger:



(I swear that guy must have a big ole' chunk-o-stock in that company! )

As a privately held company, there is no stock or investors.

--->

because I was too lazy for the "/sarcasm"

Ok, All the past 31 pages on this thread, and the various posts on others about the Sig Sauer P-320.

Today- Would you buy a Wilson Combat P-320?

Yeah, it's a Wilson, but would that make a difference?

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Today- Would you buy a Wilson Combat P-320?

Are you going to point it at people while it's holstered?

quote:

Originally posted by CPD SIG:
Ok, All the past 31 pages on this thread, and the various posts on others about the Sig Sauer P-320.

Today- Would you buy a Wilson Combat P-320?

Yeah, it's a Wilson, but would that make a difference?

Yes I would, if the price was right. I always felt they were overpriced for a stock gun with some minor mods.

I admit I haven't been following this whole saga at all, so I have nothing to add other than this:

Where do I go to buy a deeply discounted 320 that people can't wait to get rid of?

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:
I admit I haven't been following this whole saga at all, so I have nothing to add other than this:

Where do I go to buy a deeply discounted 320 that people can't wait to get rid of?

Gunbroker. Most models are selling for 30% less than they were a couple of years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:

Where do I go to buy a deeply discounted 320 that people can't wait to get rid of?

If you’re serious, do a little research on police departments near you that are discontinuing the 320’s. Ill bet you can pick one up from a cop or a gun store close to there for a really good price.

Will it get to the point that the 320 will be turned away from gun buy backs?

With the number of claims numbering in the hundreds now, there must be some great spreadsheet documenting the circumstances. While the P320 is a common factor, it seems like there is some other combination of holster, WML, etc that gets involved to cause the discharge. That certainly doesn't excuse the design being unsuitable for police work, but might give some peace of mind to those that don't use a WML, Alien Gear holster (whatever).

Has it even reached 100 yet?

From this thread, there was one maybe two incidents not involving a holster. In this thread, there were two incidents where holsters weren't mentioned. One firearm was in a regular purse, no separate compartment for the firearm, and the other the firearm was wrapped in a towel that was in a gym bag.

One guy was able to get one 9mm P320 to fire without a trigger pull by disabling the striker block and installing a trigger bar meant for a 45 P320.

Otherwise, I'd take comfort in the fact that no one, not even the FBI, has been able to replicate an unintended discharge with any of the firearms that were purported to have done so.

People talk about tolerance stacking. Did those tolerances unstack when these firearms were tested?

LEOs shooting themselves is not unusual. There's loads of reports of thos happening with various firearms; Glocks, M&Ps, Beretta 92s, etc. For example, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department reported a 500% increase in unintended discharges when they switched from the Beretta 92 to the M&P which means it was happening in the first place with the 92.

Besides a tally of how many P320 incidents with what holsters and WMLs if any, I'd also like to see that statistics on how many unintended discharges are happening with other firearms as well as the P320 vs how many are in use. This should be easy if one limits incidents to LEOs.