I don’t own any modern SIGs, specifically the 365 as modern SiG has left a bad taste in my mouth so while I’ve shot a bunch of them I’ve never researched parts. That said I cannot believe nobody makes an aftermarket spring to address the TRS issue. Somebody has to right???

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:


Obviously, Sig didn't feel like a full size P365 was duty rated either. They sure didn't beef it up so they could make it in .40 s&w.

The availability of 40 cal is irrelevant. Sig doesn't make a single pistol in it and it is quickly becoming an orphan caliber. The 365 has always been marketed as a carry gun but from a durability standpoint there is no advantage that I can see between the 365 and 320.

quote:

Originally posted by sigarmsp226:

quote:

Originally posted by 10round:
The FS, Carry and Comp were available for pre-order.
Everything except the compact has a mag funnel so it won't accept 17 rd mags without changing out the baseplate.

10Round - Two questions please

1 - Did pre-order pricing match the current published MSRP pricing?

2 - Can you please explain what you mean when you said - Will not accept 17 round mags without changing the baseplate?

I want the MACH3D but will more than likely go with the FS since the MACH3D will not be released until later in the year.

Thanks Mark

I have a P211 and P320 with a mag funnel. They don't accept 17 round magazines, they don't seat. You can buy aluminum base plates from Sig or Gray guns for $22 to make them work. The P385 has a plastic baseplate extension on the bottom to make it work with the mag funnel. The plastic baseplate is not available right now but the Sig guy told me they would be in the future and about half the price of the current aluminum baseplate extensions.

The full=size was listed at $769.99. The 385 comp was listed at $1269.99 and the carry at $1119.99 (I assume that price included the red dot).

quote:

Originally posted by MikeNH:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:


Obviously, Sig didn't feel like a full size P365 was duty rated either. They sure didn't beef it up so they could make it in .40 s&w.

The availability of 40 cal is irrelevant. Sig doesn't make a single pistol in it and it is quickly becoming an orphan caliber. The 365 has always been marketed as a carry gun but from a durability standpoint there is no advantage that I can see between the 365 and 320.

I think you misunderstood the point I was making. The point I was making is Sig didn't beef up the P385 over the P365 because they wanted to make it in .40. They beefed it up to make the pistol more robust for duty use.

quote:

Originally posted by .38supersig:
Any ideas as to a P320 slide being compatible with the P385 (other than the roll marks?

It would be kinda cool for a caliber swap.

I don't have any inside info, but just reading I think SIG by design and on purpose doesn't want anything to do with cross compatibility between the 320 and 385 platforms. They for sure had the opportunity to go the Glock direction, make small improvements, use most of the parts and make a 320 gen2.

I think SIG wanted a clean break from the 320, get away from the reputation of the 320 and designed a new model. The only 2 parts I've heard so far that swap are the magazine and the little aluminum flared magwell that fits on the bottom of the the compact model grip.

It's absolutely amazing what Glock got right 40 years ago and how they have been able to make incremental updates over the generations and keep a lot of backwards compatibility. There's a little uproar every 10 years about the changes, but Glock fans stick with them. One thing that would have been nice is for SIG to have kept similar slide dimensions and holster compatibility, but they chose a clean slate. I do like the factory gas pedal/takedown lever so that points towards new holsters anyway.

10round - Thank you Sir for responding. The details you provided are appreciated AND the information related to the 17 round mags is great to know because I have several P320 17 round mags on hand.

Thanks again - Mark

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
^^^^ All that fancy mumbo jumbo tells us nothing how it actually works.

They likely just angled the trigger shoe to be flush with the tab in its at-rest position. Theoretically, there was nothing stopping Glock from doing the same thing back in the day.

My initial thoughts on the P385: I actually think it looks great.

Aesthetically, it looks like a PDP-ified P320, which is good. I like the lower bore axis too (long overdue). Because of the obvious similarities to the P365, I have to wonder if it has “full” (i.e. duty-pistol level) durability like the P320 or if it has some P365 chintziness (not ragging on the P365, it’s just a micro-9 thing in general).

I stopped being a fan of interchangeable grip components (side panels and/or backstraps) a while back. IMO, that’s the only thing that I can currently perceive to be a step backward from the P320. The Echelon does this too, which seems somewhat pointless with a removable FCU.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
That said I cannot believe nobody makes an aftermarket spring to address the TRS issue. Somebody has to right???

I use these replacement trigger return springs and so far no issues.

https://www.sigguy.com/product...ger-return-spring-10

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
That said I cannot believe nobody makes an aftermarket spring to address the TRS issue. Somebody has to right???

I use these replacement trigger return springs and so far no issues.
https://www.sigguy.com/product...ger-return-spring-10

This is the way..,

I just did a search on P365 trigger return spring and found a whole page of results that offer +10% springs available. Why do people make assumptions and never do research to find answers? Wolff gun springs and ISMI, traditional sources of gun springs, do not offer these springs. So looking at traditional sources isn't going to give an acceptable answer.