SIG P320 Discharges?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The various problems with the P320 have been known since 2017. A couple of people I know and respect on LF first raised some of the issues back then. Sig's attitude is poor, at best. Man years ago, I ordered a 239 with certain features and it was so (messed) up that the dealer rejected it on receipt. That's a clue. I have another now and it seems fine.

I am not an engineer by a long shot, but my suspicion is that there is some kind of tolerance stacking within a poor design. Guns are a serious use issue and tolerating even a small number of hard/impossible to explain problems in a serious use firearm is simply not acceptable. There has been an on-going discussion among WA LE legal advisors about this, and frankly, what I saw was a collection of ignorant (the road to command rarely passes through the range or mat room) and butt hurt Chiefs who did not like being told they were Adam Frank Union in their choices. I am pretty sure that there ways to make Sig pay for replacements, along with other companies willing to step in at much reduced cost. I am in the process of retiring, so the legal issues are no longer mine,, but there is no way in hell I would ratify the use of that platform.

Interestingly, it is my understanding that the 365 does not reflect these issues. No idea why - remember I said I am not an engineer. FWIW, I have heard from other hard use folks that the Army lowered their testing standards to get the Sig instead of relying on the FBI's relatively stringent testing that resulted in buying the Gen 5 Glock. According to friends with military experience, the training and use of handguns outside of SOCOM and a few other places is borderline clown shoes. Handguns are relatively unimportant in military use, and as Lt. Col. Bolgiano said in a video I can no longer find, the only place that is institutionally more afraid of firearms than the military is Disney.

If I were staring to get into handguns today, I would likely go with the M&Ps. I am too heavily into Glocks to change now.
 
I've got 8 variations of the P320 and love them all. They shoot perfectly and NEVER had a problem with them, a couple are modified to my liking and all are very safe to carry. People foget about GLOCK-LEG with many AD's when they came out. Some people just upset Sig got the contract. Look at all the foreign countries using the P320 and you don't hear about AD's. To each his own. Remember... 1751737790747.png
 
BIGDOC said:
I've got 8 variations of the P320 and love them all. They shoot perfectly and NEVER had a problem with them, a couple are modified to my liking and all are very safe to carry. People foget about GLOCK-LEG with many AD's when they came out. Some people just upset Sig got the contract. Look at all the foreign countries using the P320 and you don't hear about AD's. To each his own. Remember... View attachment 773311
Click to expand...
You would be correct in the fact that people are pissed off that Sig got the contract.

The best gun did NOT win.

I hear nothing but complaints from the Army about their 320 problems.

And your Glock leg reference contradicts your entire post.
 
gunnertwo said:
Posted for information:

https://www.sigsauer.com/p320-truth

G2
Click to expand...
So?

Of course they are going to dispute the claims.

Even with documented proof on video!

Instead of admitting that there is a problem, they cover it up with misinformation and money.

This is why I will never buy any Sig product.

And Sig fanboys are just as guilty. So is the military. I've seen the internal documents. Nobody wants to tell the pentagon that they need to buy new guns to replace the 320.
 
I have studied this issue a lot since buying a P320 about a year ago before I was aware of the issue.

It is really perplexing in that without deliberately damaging internal parts, no one has been able to replicate an "uncommanded discharge" during testing. Sig, with guns that have had, per their operators, uncommanded discharges, has been unable to replicate this in exhaustive testing.

With the number of P320s out there, per a senior Sig engineer, the percentage of guns that per their operators have had uncommanded discharges is less than 0.01%.

So I continue to use my P320, with manual safety in my case, with confidence.

On the other hand, I also feel there is something going on that defies common sense and conventional wisdom. While a relatively small number, there are too many credible reports of uncommanded discharges for comfort.

I discount the emotional, absolutist takes I read, here and elsewhere, whether "Sig is hiding the problem and refusing to admit there is one!," or "The only possible explanation is operator error, poor handling skills!"

I continue to monitor, but, frankly, I think the issue will not be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Earlier today I did a little research (AKA asked ChatGPT) whether the controversy had affected sales of the P320. Answer is, essentially "No." The P320 remains one of the very best selling semii auto pistols is the US. (Second only to the Glock 17, IIRC, for a full size handgun.)

IMHO, FWIW.
 
The link was posted as information. There was no defense of Sig.

I ran the FA program at my SO for several years. In the early '90's I was tasked with investigation of Glock for a possible lawsuit of their product. There were examples of discharges from a PD in Oregon. I contacted the FTU of that agency and determined there was some fault by Glock. There was fault due to the agency protocols. At that time Glock sold pistols without mandating armorer training and transition training. The agency did not do the annual inspections and some of the practices were harmful to the pistols. Glock came to the agency trained armorers and provided Instructor Workshops for the staff. When Glock obtained contracts for guns they also mandated training to the agencies. The problems disappeared.

If you've been around for a while you might remember that HK contracted with NJ State Police issuing the P7 "Squeeze Cocker". They had numerous ND because the pistol wasn't "de-cocked" during re-holstering. Gun problem or training problem?

Anyone that ran a firearms program for an agency realizes that the majority of officers are not "gun folks". The serious shooters normally ended up being the instructors. Repetitive training using the Four Rules sometimes fixes the "least attentive" students.

Back to Sig. Regarding having "proof" of discharges on video, what is the proof? Can you see if the operator had a finger on the trigger? Some other object in the holster? A defective holster (Sherpa type). I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but we all want to know the cause-and the fix.

I have three P320's, all have been parked in my safe until more is known. Other friends, that are still in uniform are still carrying their P320's and have for years. They have not had any problems.

I've noted several agencies and training schools have prohibited use of the P320. My concern is what is the cause? Operator, equipment or the pistol. My hope is a solution can be found soon.

G2
 
Last edited:
gunnertwo said:
The link was posted as information. There was no defense of Sig.

I ran the FA program at my SO for several years. In the early '90's I was tasked with investigation of Glock for a possible lawsuit of their product. There were examples of discharges from a PD in Oregon. I contacted the FTU of that agency and determined there was some fault by Glock. There was fault due to the agency protocols. At that time Glock sold pistols without mandating armorer training and transition training. The agency did not do the annual inspections and some of the practices were harmful to the pistols. Glock came to the agency trained armorers and provided Instructor Workshops for the staff. When Glock obtained contracts for guns they also mandated training to the agencies. The problems disappeared.

If you've been around for a while you might remember that HK contracted with NJ State Police issuing the P7 "Squeeze Cocker". They had numerous ND because the pistol wasn't "de-cocked" during re-holstering. Gun problem or training problem?

Anyone that ran a firearms program for an agency realizes that the majority of officers are not "gun folks". The serious shooters normally ended up being the instructors. Repetitive training using the Four Rules sometimes fixes the "least attentive" students.

Back to Sig. Regarding having "proof" of discharges on video, what is the proof? Can you see if the operator had a finger on the trigger? Some other object in the holster? A defective holster (Sherpa type). I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but we all want to know the cause-and the fix.

I have three P320's, all have been parked in my safe until more is known. Other friends, that are still in uniform are still carrying their P320's and have for years. They have not had any problems.

I've noted several agencies and training schools have prohibited use of the P320. My concern is what is the cause? Operator, equipment or the pistol. My hope is a solution can be found soon.

G2
Click to expand...
Not enough is known because of Sig.

Up until the P320 fiasco, I had nothing against them. I admired them for a quality product.

Years ago I owned a P220 and 226. Both great guns. Outstanding actually. But I disliked DA/SA triggers and switched to Glock.

Then the drop issue came about with the P320. Instead of issuing a recall like any other manufacturer. They suggested a voluntary "upgrade". Think about that for a minute.

An upgrade is offered to a product which is fine functionally but will perform better with an upgrade.

To use the word upgrade is not an admission that something is wrong. That was their intention all along.

And they have done the same with the ND issue. They continually deny that a problem exists even though there is ample evidence.

They claim that "agenda driven parties" have launched attacks against them. Agenda driven parties? So the military, law enforcement, and the average citizen are all conspiring against them?

And the worst part is that they blame ALL of the "unintended discharges" on the customer. Really!?

So every single ND was the fault of a careless police officer? A military member? Or an average citizen? I don't think so. Not all of them.

There is definitely a problem. And we may never know what that problem is. Something is wrong. Something is fishy. And I'm beginning to wonder if Sig actually knows what the problem is.

And worst yet, how many more people have to get shot before something serious is done?
 
robertrwalsh said:
SIG is blaming these on operator error or inappropriate holsters. There are probably right in at least some of the 20 plus cases currently in legal action.
Click to expand...
Could be. But not all. Which means a problem still exists.

Where were these problems before the P320? With Glock, M&P and others?

Sure there were problems. But not on this scale. Not with so many agencies involved.
 
I have a few 320s. I was retired before they became a thing. I do have some observations however. I wonder if all the unintended discharges (UDs?) were in a "hard" holster as opposed to a leather holster. The hard plastic holsters are a relitively new item, and I cannot help but wonder. There is apparently no information on the type of holsters involved.
With the military, the holster can vary. Some units can use other than the issue holster. Also although the military does have a "safety on" rule, I spent 26+ years in the Army and USCG. I know what it takes to make anything "soldier proof", primarily an act of God. After 30 years as a big city cop, I also know what it takes to make something "cop proof" (another act of God).
There is an answer, no one has found it just yet. If it is a SIG defect, they should go out of business.
I am not concerned here with drop testing, that is another issue, although handguns should be reasonably drop proof.
 
Last edited:
Sig is now being managed by the same person who almost destroyed Kimber. All the issues that Kimber had under Cohen's leadership are issues at Sig now. Combine that with poor QC of an imperfect design, the 320, and you have the issues being seen.

The issue of tolerance stacking has been brought up by various people. Not just from Ian.

With the way Cohen is once again treating the customers, I would avoid all things Sig. At least until he's gone, and new management proves they actually care about putting out a good product. I'm not anti-Sig, I'm anti-Cohen who failed upwards and treats people like crap.
 
Rob613 said:
Glock leg is negligence of the user, Sig leg is negligence of the company.
Click to expand...
I disagree, its Glock's fault they built a totally unsafe design. A 1911 with hammer down does not produce Glock Leg and even in the cocked and locked mode it will not go off when holstered. Again it is Glock's fault, not the users, as an accidental snag of the trigger on your shirt tail or on a fold in the holster will set it off faster than a cat can jump off of a hot tin roof. But the Glock Fan Boy's refuse to admit to reality and the truth about a totally unsafe design. They will tell you with a straight face, "It has not happened to me and never will because I will be lucky".
 
Capt29 said:
I have a few 320s. I was retired before they became a thing. I do have some observations however. I wonder if all the unintended discharges (UDs?) were in a "hard" holster as opposed to a leather holster. The hard plastic holsters are a relitively new item, and I cannot help but wonder. There is apparently no information on the type of holsters involved.
With the military, the holster can vary. Some units can use other than the issue holster. Also although the military does have a "safety on" rule, I spent 26+ years in the Army and USCG. I know what it takes to make anything "soldier proof", primarily an act of God. After 30 years as a big city cop, I also know what it takes to make something "cop proof" (another act of God).
There is an answer, no one has found it just yet. If it is a SIG defect, they should go out of business.
I am not concerned here with drop testing, that is another issue, although handgubns should be reasonably drop proof.
Click to expand...
I don't think exact numbers exist, but it has been pointed out by Sig that some (many?) of the LEO "uncommanded discharges" have happened in holsters designed to accommodate P320s with lights attached.

These holsters, Sig explains, allow entry to the trigger area when the gun is holstered. (One example given is two officers bumping holsters when dealing with a suspect and one officer's keychain enters the other officers holster causing the discharge.)
 
This particular topic is within my professional wheelhouse.

Spontaneous P320 discharges have never been duplicated or replicated under controlled laboratory conditions, (not even by a plaintiff's paid technical experts), in examples alleged to have experienced self discharge resulting in injury and lawsuits.

Is there something intrinsically defective in the design and/or manufacture process?

Beats me, but any inherent fault needs to be replicated under observed and scientifically controlled conditions in order to provide verification, and the onus to do so falls squarely on those making allegations.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, the cause of UD of issued pistols in standard, high quality holsters in normal duty (MIL or LE) use does not matter - other pistols don't have the problem.

It's one thing if an individual chooses to carry this pistol; it's quite another to order others to carry one.
 
Last edited:
Lots of comments and anecdotal reports on this. Sig's strident denials vs. a growing number of reports.

What is troubling to me is Sig's lobbying through an immunity statute in their state and advising the Army to make the carry protocol "Do not carry with a round in the chamber."

If life was all good, maybe no need for these two things.

I have several 320s and put one in my daughter's hands. All are parked for now.
 
walternash said:
Lots of comments and anecdotal reports on this. Sig's strident denials vs. a growing number of reports.

What is troubling to me is Sig's lobbying through an immunity statute in their state and advising the Army to make the carry protocol "Do not carry with a round in the chamber."

If life was all good, maybe no need for these two things.

I have several 320s and put one in my daughter's hands. All are parked for now.
Click to expand...

The statute doesn't render SIG immune from lawsuits, nor, in fact, does it protect SIG to the exclusion of other gun manufacturers; it merely prevents lawsuits against gun manufacturers based on the lack of certain features also widely lacked by the manufacturers of other widely sold firearms.

"As written, the new law explicitly states that gun makers cannot be sued for products lacking magazine disconnects, which prevent guns from firing if their magazines have been removed; loaded-chamber indicators that notify gun owners if a round is chambered; smart technology that ensures a gun can only be operated by authorized users; or an "external mechanical safety" like the "tabbed trigger safety" found on Glock-style pistols."

smokinggun.org

New Hampshire Enacts Immunity Law for Sig Sauer

State lawmakers said they wanted to stem the flow of lawsuits against the gun maker related to its P320 pistols.
smokinggun.org smokinggun.org

For example, the lack of a thumb safety, or magazine disconnect.

The statute does not apply to lawsuits that claim a firearm is defective when it does not function as intended or if it violates existing laws.

Oh, the horror.

I blame the sensationalist gun tuber industry for the promulgation of misinformation and falsehood regarding the statute.
 
Last edited:
Analyzing the science of a discharge without the trigger being pulled is simple basic Laws of Physics.

If the "problem" cannot be duplicated or created, any other condition described as a spontaneous discharge is unsubstantiated conjecture, speculation, hypothetical theory, imagination, and Bravo Sierra.

If the holster is a causal factor in a spontaneous discharge, why are there 100s of thousands of the M17, M18, P320 being carried by multiple branches of our military, law enforcement, Canadian, Australian, Danish, and Armed Forces of Ukraine, Royal Thai Police, West Midlands Police in UK, Elite Units of Spanish National Police and Special Forces, being carried in different holsters with zero spontaneous discharges?
 
walternash said:
What is troubling to me is Sig's ... advising the Army to make the carry protocol "Do not carry with a round in the chamber."
Click to expand...
I don't think they advised the Army specifically not to carry with a chambered round. I think they revised the owners manual provided with each P320 gun sold to state this.

I think it's a legal CYA thing, like Ruger's barrels being inscribed with "Watch out! Guns are dangerous!," or whatever they say. Whether justified or not — leaving that aside for the moment —Sig is a big target for lawsuits these days, and its lawyers, I speculate, are advising it to be overly conservative.
 
BIGDOC said:
Look at all the foreign countries using the P320 and you don't hear about AD's. To each his own.
Click to expand...
From my experience in the Military and Police most people don't confess to a Negligent Discharge of a Duty Weapon unless witnessed by a straight arrow supervisor.

On my Police Department it is a two day suspension without pay. So $725.00 and if you are on probation it is cause for termination.
 
Oldsalt66 said:
The statute doesn't render SIG immune from lawsuits, nor, in fact, does it protect SIG to the exclusion of other gun manufacturers; it merely prevents lawsuits against gun manufacturers based on the lack of certain features also widely lacked by the manufacturers of other widely sold firearms.
Click to expand...
Which other firearm manufacturers are you familiar within the Granite State that this bar to plaintiff action benefits?

I am not familiar with any significant firearms manufacturers who are headquartered in New Hampshire besides SIG. I do look forward to learning however.

Oldsalt66 said:
Spontaneous P320 discharges have never been duplicated or replicated under controlled laboratory conditions, (not even by a plaintiff's paid technical experts), in examples alleged to have experienced self discharge resulting in injury and lawsuits.
Click to expand...

As well, your comments seem to ignore the U.S. Army's M17/18 testing, which of course was able to document and readily reproduce uncommanded firing in the P320 platform. I would believe that dozens of taxpayer-funded testing iterations in a laboratory setting would be acceptable, correct?

To wit, see page 183 from the Directorate Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of Secretary of Defense - https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/army/2017mhs.pdf

Edit: Images of text from the Army report, which found uncommanded discharges and noted a history of trigger group manufacturing issues.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2200.jpeg
    IMG_2200.jpeg
    190.1 KB · Views: 1
  • IMG_2202.jpeg
    IMG_2202.jpeg
    394.8 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hawg Rider
  • Locked
Fallout from the SIG P320 Uncommanded Discharges
Replies
26
Views
1K
Hawg Rider
Hawg Rider
L
  • Locked
Sig P320 AD issues
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
s&wchad
s&wchad
dben002
  • Locked
From the Sig Forum....P320 fails drop testing..orders being cancelled
3 4 5
Replies
138
Views
15K
ditrina
ditrina
S
S&W 4006TSW California Highway Patrol (CHP) Information
5 6 7
Replies
184
Views
58K
4506517
4506517

Latest posts

Back
Top