Hi all,

I was thinking about retiring my overweight duty Beretta 92 Brigadier and going to a polymer 9mm. I love how it shoots, but hate carrying it 12 hours.

It's basically between a G17 Gen4 and P320 which I'm leaning towards since I don't love the Glock grip angle, but can live with it if need be.

I wanted your thoughts on the current post mods 320's and if they are as durable and reliable as the proven 17.

Thanks in advance.

As between the G17gen4 and the Sig P320F, the Sig will make you happiest. However, one can’t beat the accuracy and feel of the Beretta! Have you looked at the P4x Compact? Or even the PX4 full size?

I bought a p320 x5 about a month ago. I've had it to the range 4 times and have about 350 rounds through it. I like the sights, grip and accuracy of the gun. However, in my opinion the trigger is pretty poor. The pull is long mushy/spongy and relatively hard ( I don't have a trigger pull gage). I find that just about any of my hammer-fired steel guns have a better trigger, including my Beretta Brigadier on which I installed the lighter "D" spring.

Maybe my 320's trigger will improve with some more use, but I can tell you, it will never be equal to the Beretta or my Sig M11 A1. Hint: The M11 A1 is smaller and lighter (less than 2 lbs.) than the Beretta as well. I like it better than the 320, but the grip is kind of blocky, so its a better choice for a person with medium to large hands.

Bottom line is that I am not in love with my p320 x5. You may soon see it in the classifieds!

I'm 2.5 years on a pair of 320 Compacts, .357SIG and 9mm. 2100+ rounds through the 9mm, 1700+ through the .357.

These pistols replaced P2000SK and P30s when I decided to finally go to strikers in my full-size pistols (a decision driven by the fact I carry single-stack 9mm micros 80% of the time and at that time they were all strikers.)

I like fooling around with my full-size 228, HKs and 92FS hammer guns. But the P320 Compact is my go to double-stack holster gun 100% of the time. Zero failures at the range in all this time, really good combat trigger (I did the Apex flat trigger mod on both, 15 minutes on the kitchen table), light weight, and shoots where I point it.

Good luck with your choice!

quote:

if they are as durable and reliable as the proven 17

There are lots of reasons to love the 320 design, but there is not a chance its reached the level of reliability of a G17 in the real world, or in many tests.

Unless Glock stops producing the model 17 before SIG stops with the P320, the 17 will always be more reliable because the chances of its suddenly developing some systemic problem at this late date is nil. The question should be whether the P320 is reliable enough.

Some years ago I tried to research the question of how many rounds it was necessary to fire with a SIG Classic line pistol to be reasonably certain that it could be relied upon for serious purposes. Some people claimed that ridiculously high round counts were necessary, and obviously with no empirical evidence to support their beliefs. Based on my findings, I decided that if a Classic line pistol was going to fail or prove unreliable, it would almost always do so within 100 rounds, and therefore I established my own criteria of 200 trouble-free rounds to demonstrate such pistols’ reliability. Failures that occurred after that were at such random intervals as to establish no meaningful pattern or conclusions.

Does that same 200 round criteria apply to the P320? I have no way of knowing. Internet lore suggests that some P365s may go to about 1000 rounds and then suffer catastrophic failures due to defective parts. My recently-purchased 9mm P320 has about 250 trouble free rounds through it, and my only complaint, erratic ejection with low-powered ammunition, is clearly improving with each range session (three thus far). My 357/40 P320, however, has fired well over 2600 rounds without any complaints at all, and I rely on it for some duty purposes. I am confident that its failing during the middle of a defensive shooting is extremely unlikely. An agency I support issues the P320 in 40 S&W and although those guns haven’t seen heavy use, neither have they had any failures.

For my purposes the P320 is reliable enough, and because I prefer many of its features over any of the Glock line, it would take an extraordinary development for me to even consider switching. (In fact, if I switched away from the P320 for the purposes it serves me, it would be back to a Classic line SIG, not a Glock).

Great firearm. I bought one of the earlier P320s on the range master program. Proven design. You can't go wrong with a P320. Look around and don't pay over $450.

If you're looking at the P320 vs the G17, I think you owe it to yourself to put the M&P 2.0 in the mix. Get a chance to at least fondle it, or better shoot it.

Give this thread a read through to see what I mean.
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/5060017224

quote:

obviously with no empirical evidence to support their beliefs.

Sigfreund, I am not sure why you would think this. Statistics are one of the solid foundations of our universe. You can easily calculate how many rounds you need to do through a specific sample of guns (in terms of numbers) to have a specific confidence level about the results. No magic involved. For a sample of 1 the number is way way way bigger than 200. On the other hand there have been a number of large scale reliability trials for both the 226 and the 320 (recently the MHS trial) that you can reference. Me personally I use 500 rounds as the benchmark but statistically that's not even close, but it makes me feel ok.

I always like the bids for the army since they can afford to shoot a lot of rounds. Here's the MHS results.
During PVT, the XM17 and XM18, with special purpose
munition, met its requirement for both MRBF and MRBS:
- The XM17 demonstrated 8,929 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 8,333 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM17 demonstrated 1,923 MRBS (95 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 2,155 MRBS (96 percent
probability)
• During PVT, the XM17 with ball ammunition met its
requirement for MRBF but not its requirement for MRBS.
The XM18 with ball ammunition did not meet its MRBF or
MRBS requirement.
- The XM17 demonstrated 6,944 MRBF (99 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 3,906 MRBF (98 percent
probability)
- The XM17 demonstrated 343 MRBS (75 percent
probability)
- The XM18 demonstrated 197 MRBS (61 percent
probability)

One would note that the problems were mostly slide lock which you may or may not consider an issue (I don't, I don't give a hoot that it locks back) but its worth noting the very low numbers for ball ammo.

I'm adding this because I am a 226 fan. In the 1984 trials the mtbf of the then current 226 was in the range of 2877 rounds. The worst of the sample was 1305 and the best were in excess of 3500. This was a sample of 7. FWIW. I still would never consider 200 a good test number, but in the 1984 test the 1911 best weapon was 467. So at 500 you are clearly better than that.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
Sigfreund, I am not sure why you would think this.

Long ago I began pondering the question and I asked a number of statisticians this question:

Is there way to calculate the probability that after X number of rounds without a failure of some sort that the next shot will not result in a failure? I.e., if I fire 200 rounds without a failure, what is the probability that shot 201 will not result in a failure? And keep in mind that I’m not asking about sampling a large number of firearms as if they were light bulbs and I was trying to determine what their average life was. I’m referring to a single firearm and a specific number of shots fired. To be more specific, I have fired my 357/40 P320 exactly 2653 times without a malfunction. What is the probability that if I must defend myself with it tonight that I will have a malfunction with the first shot I fire? (The answer is obviously not 1 ÷ 2653 or 0.000377, because if it were that simple, the probability that there would be a malfunction after two shots were fired would be 1 ÷ 2, or 50%—or sort of like having a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery: I’ll either win or I won’t.)

No one I’ve ever posed the above question to has been able to give me a meaningful answer. Most just say that it’s not possible to calculate something like that statistically. Others just never responded. If, however, I’ve finally discovered someone who can answer that question based on sound statistical principles, I would be quite eager to learn how to do it myself.

If not, though, and someone decides that 500 malfunction-free rounds must be fired before relying on a gun for defensive use, what’s the basis for that decision? What is the empirical evidence for that number? Even though it’s weak and includes some assumptions, I have my evidence for my decision that 200 rounds is sufficient, but what is the evidence that others base their decisions on? No one I know has ever posted that information.

And as an aside, I have no idea what MHS, PVT, MRBF, MRBS, or LSMFT* mean and how they are relevant to the percentages you cited above. I suspect that they all somehow relate to how many rounds certain guns fired without failures, but even if that’s true, I don’t see how they establish any sort of basis for deciding how many rounds an individual should fire with a specific gun before relying on it for serious purposes. If someone else fires his P320 10,000 times without a failure, what does that demonstrate about my P320s? That I can be reasonably certain they will go 10K without any problems? And if one other person has a failure after 100 rounds, how does that then affect things? Can I expect to go only 4950 rounds without a problem? (Rhetorical questions; I know the answer to both, but I’m not certain everyone does.)

* Okay, I do know what LSMFT meant, but not the rest.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
I'm adding this because I am a 226 fan. In the 1984 trials the mtbf of the then current 226 was in the range of 2877 rounds. The worst of the sample was 1305 and the best were in excess of 3500. This was a sample of 7. FWIW. I still would never consider 200 a good test number, but in the 1984 test the 1911 best weapon was 467. So at 500 you are clearly better than that.

Interesting. If I'm understanding this correctly, then in the Army trials the P320 tested far better than the P226, albeit 30+ years apart, yes?

I love my P320’s, all mine have been reliable. Another suggestion is to try the 92A1 Compact if you want to drop some weight and stay in the same manual of arms as your full size Beretta.

Thank you all for your replies. I used to carry the M&P 40 back in 2013. Regarding the M&P, I think it has a major Achilles heel based on my own experience with it back in 2012. I will explain tomorrow when I have more time.

Based on the 320 being reliable enough, I would personally put four to five hundred rounds through it before considering it even remotely broken in and reliable to my standards. But I have to go out into the world at night with it and your mileage may vary.

You will do well with either pistol. The Glock has a proven track record, and the Sig has enough guns on the market that any bugs have likely been worked out.

The statistics/round count issue always fascinates me. You can buy a gun and shoot it until it fails, then you know how many rounds it takes for that particular gun to break under those exact same circumstances. There really is no way to predict how or when a gun will fail, or "prove" it is reliable. Even if you could, there's always ammo, it can fail. Your odds, as non-LEO, non-military, of needing to deploy deadly force are slim. Your odds of having a gun fail on you are slim. Your odds of a well-maintained, quality weapon with quality ammo in it failing at a moment you need to defend your life with it are, I would guess, much slimmer. There are things that keep me up nights. My pistol failing at an inopportune moment is not one of them.

Good summary, Fredward.

I’m at just over a year of carrying my P320SC. Flawless in over 760 rounds. That has all been 124 AE and MEN with 200 rounds of 147 grain HST only.

I’ve added a P320 45 Compact and a P320 Carry with an X5 grip.

I won’t say it’s more durable than the 17, but I have no reason to want to carry or own a 17 anymore.

I look at this like burn in on electronics. If a piece of electronics is really a dud, it will fry itself in the first few hours of operation, when it gets good and hot.

If a gun makes it through 500 rounds of ammo reliably, the statistical chances of it going belly up on your for the few shots you'll need in a self defense situation is low enough that you can trust it for that. Of course, if it's your carry gun, you should probably be putting a fair number of rounds through it on a regular basis. If there are issues that come up longer term, you find them that way, and reevaluate.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredward:
You will do well with either pistol. The Glock has a proven track record, and the Sig has enough guns on the market that any bugs have likely been worked out.

The statistics/round count issue always fascinates me. You can buy a gun and shoot it until it fails, then you know how many rounds it takes for that particular gun to break under those exact same circumstances. There really is no way to predict how or when a gun will fail, or "prove" it is reliable. Even if you could, there's always ammo, it can fail. Your odds, as non-LEO, non-military, of needing to deploy deadly force are slim. Your odds of having a gun fail on you are slim. Your odds of a well-maintained, quality weapon with quality ammo in it failing at a moment you need to defend your life with it are, I would guess, much slimmer. There are things that keep me up nights. My pistol failing at an inopportune moment is not one of them.

Sigfreund here's my best shot at a reply. Sorry for not putting in the abbreviations...on the latest MHS test MRBS was mean rounds between stoppages. I think the army was trying to differentiate between stuff the operator could easily just clear and real failures.
Your exact question about the probability of failure of your gun I don't think can be answered unless you have a direct connection to a deity. The behavior of a single unit is not the realm of statistical behavior or any science that I know. You need a population and even then it won't be any good for a specific unit. But it is possible to gather some useful information using the data we have from the army and basic statistics. If we can agree that guns follow the classic reliability "bathtub" curve of many industrial products where there are higher failures in early life, a period of long useful life and then a final period where they eventually fail. And we have data from a statistically meaningful population (this is its own issue with most guns since there are so few high unit/high volume tests) then things that you can know is the likelihood that a specific gun will make it to a specific MTBF round count. Or of a population of guns how many will have failed in any given round count, or how many guns you need to make sure you have a certain number available and similar stuff. None of which is useful for your actual question, but might be useful under other circumstances. Which is why the most volume purchasers perform some kind of reliability test.
Getting back to the issue of how many rounds to fire before trusting the gun that's a crap shoot without a study that you or I cannot do. But what we occasionally have is reporting on when exactly the failures occurred. I have not seen it for the 320 but since I don't carry one I have not seriously looked for it, it may be out there (I might look later). And if its available it would tell you where to set the cutoff if there was an early life failure period (there might not be). But we did have it for several other examples of at least traditional issued pistols (the best I know is the trials after the 92 slide failures) and mostly it shows that the early failure period ends by 500 rounds. Not relevant to the 320 in anything other than a hunch. But that MHS ball ammo test data would give one pause to at least better the MRBS for some confidence on that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: hrcjon,