SIG P320 Discharges?

Mentioned earlier in either this thread or the other on the topic, I bought a P320 about a year ago before I was aware of the issue.

Actually, being me, I bought a Wilson Combat modified P320. (Then further sent it to Sig to add a thumb safety as Wilson Combat, for whatever reason, no longer offered them with a thumb safety.)

I think I paid about $1400, before paying Sig ~$200 to add the safety.

By what I am sure is sheer coincidence and absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, I was on Wilson Combat's site yesterday and their WCP320s are marked down several hundred dollars.

So, for those of you who have zero qualms about the platform, and would like a real nice Wilson Combat P320, now's the time to grab one!

Took a 3.5 hour class with it this morning, culminating with the FBI qual. (While not much of a challenge to many of you pistoleros here, I am sure, I was gratified to pass, albeit I did not kneel for the kneeling stage.)



IMG_9542.jpeg

IMG_9544.jpeg

I would not have bought the gun if I knew of the issue.

I think for range use it is relatively safe, and I will continue to use it at the range. Heck, I think is relatively safe for carry, too — odds of a failure are, in my mind, about the odds of being hit by lightning — but I don't think I will carry it.
 
Frailer said:
This is a fair point.

We, the “gun community,” are an odd lot. In some ways we have become over-the-top when it comes to safety (such as the folks who lose their minds when a YouTuber doesn’t clear a firearm on-camera or when someone “flags” themselves or someone else with a firearm with no magazine and the action open); in other ways we have become much too complacent.

Most striker-fired arms are inherently more dangerous to the shooter than other designs. Period. With all due respect to the “my trigger finger is my safety” crowd, few people would carry a 1911 with the hammer back, the safety off, and the grip safety pinned, yet many striker-fired guns are roughly equivalent.

A Glock’s striker isn’t fully cocked at rest, yet on the rare occasions I carry a Glock IWB it is equipped with a striker control device (Tau’s original “the gadget”) that I use to block the striker in the event the trigger encounters an obstacle while holstering.

The 320’s design takes the striker fired concept to the bleeding edge of acceptable safety. There is no trigger “dingus,” the striker is fully-cocked at rest, and the striker block is a folded tab of unmachined, stamped metal. The safety (when the gun is so equipped) disables the trigger but doesn’t block the sear.

Because of the nature of this design the level of safety is more dependent than most on the quality of parts manufacture and subsequent QC. If a substandard part slips through the cracks the consequences could be serious.

I am of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of 320s are as safe in practice as othrr striker-fired semiautos. But I am also of the opinion that a tiny fraction are downright dangerous.

The odds of your 320 being one of the latter is one-in-a-very-large-number. Whether or not these odds are acceptable is up to the consumer. You spends your money, and you takes your chances.
Click to expand...
I think this is the most spot-on analysis of the P320 controversy I've ever read. "Bleeding edge" is right! I believe in most cases, when the gun is assembled correctly without crossed springs and all parts are within spec and of good quality the gun is mechanically "safe" in terms of NDs and UDs. But the design isn't very tolerant of slightly out of spec parts causing tolerance stack-ups and it also isn't very forgiving of objects inadvertently brushing the side of the trigger that a trigger dingus might circumvent. I think it is very compelling that when Sig introduced the P365 something like 5 years after the P320 that they didn't use a version of the P320s action; they changed to a more mechanically straightforward, more foolproof Glock-style striker block safety and different sear mechanics.

I used to be a huge Sig fan. Sig's behavior during the initial P320 drop safety fiasco and the subsequent "voluntary upgrade" nonsense revealed what I still view as a highly unethical company. I carry a P365 and love the little gun, but I have been totally turned off on the idea of ever buying any more of their products because of how willing they are to let their customers be beta testers and how they skirt responsibility for their design mistakes. They should have taken the hit to their reputation early, redesigned the whole gun or introduced an entirely different model that is mechanically more sound while retaining the P320's modularity concept, size, and capacity. As it stands now, they longer they keep doggedly insisting there is "nothing to see here" and user error is always the culprit, the more damage they do to themselves it seems.
 
burneyr said:
Unsure this one is any better?

www.yahoo.com

Ceres police identify officer injured when holstered gun went off at school

The school resource officer suffered a leg wound last week in what’s being called an “uncommanded discharge.”
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Well, it looks like SIG is half way there. They have developed a firearm that fires all by itself with no human involvement, so now if they can figure out how to get the gun to climb out of the holster or off a table so it can commit a crime, the old argument that "it is the person, not the gun", will no longer be valid.

For those of you too dense to understand, my comment is meant as sarcasm.

I don't care for the way the 320 feels and points for me, so I'm not interested in owning one. However, if I did like it, I would own one.

I have been an S&W fan, to the exclusion of nearly all other handguns, since the late 60s especially after Ruger did their stupid herd thinning in the late 80s, and except for 3 SIGs and an old High Standard Supermatic, S&Ws are the only handguns I own.

I'm sure if this was an S&W model issue of some of one sort or another, the wagons would have been circled long ago.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's been a few years, but I harken back to the Winchester issue with their 1893 vs. 1897 design shotguns. A voluntary recall if you will...that most 93 owners did not take advantage of. That said, the '93 was not unsafe...so long as you limited use to black powder. It didn't go off by itself.

Sig has dug quite a hole. I have an old West German P226 in the safe that I shot silly all through the '90s. That said, it has not barked this century...because Glocks are just easier to shoot. As far as new Sigs? No. Not gonna.

And the odds of being struck by lightning are slim, but I still don't remain outdoors in a thunderstorm.

If you're happy driving a Pinto, rock on. I ain't gonna judge you. But, I will give you a wide berth.
 
I have several 320s and have used them at the range and in classes a lot. I got one for my daughter as well.

There have just been too many anecdotal reports of issues to make me comfortable with them right now. Even for range use, they get carried, moved, etc.

The ICE memo pulling the 320 from approved status and going to Glock also got my attention.

I am parking mine, and my daughter's, until this sorts out a bit more.

I still carry and use the 200 Series (225-A1, 229, 226, 220 and 227). No issues there.
 
Perhaps the die hard sig p320 - M 17 & 18 owners might want to train as the Israeli folks do and carry there P320's with an empty chamber and rack it when ready to fire. Then clear it before re-holstering !

I had my time and issues with the p320's , One with for the drop safe "Up Date " not a recall . The other was a early X series model that ether bulged brass so badly it was not reloadable and only good as scrap or blew the brass with standard pressure ammo do to a lack of chamber support that also was a quiet fix ! This was the result of many early X series fired brass - Second photo shows the early X 5 barrel next to a glock and CZ barrel ?. See if you can pick it out
1752575378375.png
1752575628432.png
 
hardluk1 said:
Perhaps the die hard sig p320 - M 17 & 18 owners might want to train as the Israeli folks do and carry there P320's with an empty chamber and rack it when ready to fire. Then clear it before re-holstering !

I had my time and issues with the p320's , One with for the drop safe "Up Date " not a recall . The other was a early X series model that ether bulged brass so badly it was not reloadable and only good as scrap or blew the brass with standard pressure ammo do to a lack of chamber support that also was a quiet fix ! This was the result of many early X series fired brass - Second photo shows the early X 5 barrel next to a glock and CZ barrel ?. See if you can pick it out
View attachment 776134
View attachment 776135
Click to expand...
:eek::eek::eek: Left to right, Sig, Glock, CZ.
 
Here's what GrayGuns thinks is required for an uncommanded discharge with a P320:

IMG_5616.jpeg

I don't have a facebook or instagram account, but the above was reportedly initially published there.

Here is the Sig Sauer site they have created to present their view of all the questions/claims made against the P320: https://www.sigsauer.com/p320-truth

They address the GrayGuns statement by saying that they have safeguards in place to assemble P329s properly, and that if guns are assembled improperly or tampered with, as described by GrayGuns, yes, there are potential problems.
 
Last edited:
LVSteve said:
:eek::eek::eek: Left to right, Sig, Glock, CZ.
Click to expand...
That had occurred to me as well. No round in the chamber, no uncommanded discharge. This might be the short term solution for the Feds and Military, as FBI, DHS, MI St Police, and now USAF (an airman NCO was just killed by a Sig uncommanded discharge) are standing down the M17/18 & P320 pistols. If I was running Sig I would have their engineering and manufacturing staffs working 24/7 to adapt/modify the P365 trigger mechanisms to work in a M17/18 & P320 pistols. P365 is an excellent system and has a stellar record.

And then their M7 which the 11Bravos don't like or want to use. But that discussion is left for another thread.

Maybe we should take up a collection for Extra Strength Excedrin for Sig employees and management. I think they will be needing it.
 
Onomea said:
Here's what GrayGuns thinks is required for an uncommanded discharge with a P320:

View attachment 778634

I don't have a facebook or instagram account, but the above was reportedly initially published there.

Here is the Sig Sauer site they have created to present their view of all the questions/claims made against the P320: https://www.sigsauer.com/p320-truth

They address the GrayGuns statement by saying that they have safeguards in place to assemble P329s properly, and that if guns are assembled improperly or tampered with, as described by GrayGuns, yes, there are potential problems.
Click to expand...


GrayGuns also adamantly insisted that the P320 could not fire when dropped on the rear of the slide early on when it was proven that the P320 wasn't drop safe, before Sig started its "voluntary upgrade" to fix a problem that was not a problem, but the recall would fix this nonexistant problem, if you voluntarily elected to fix the problem that did not exist.

Gray's assertions above assume that all the parts are within spec. Also, the striker block spring doesn't have to necessarily be missing or damaged; it only has to not be positioned correctly on its post with the legs of the torsion spring not bearing properly on the striker block. The sear override tests in the FBI document proved that the P320's striker block design was faulty and could not be depended on to prevent discharge if the striker slipped off the sear and the parts were out of spec.
 
What Sig says about the FBI tests, in the link above to their site dedicated to the issue, is that the results could not be duplicated when Sig and the FBI conducted subsequent tests under mutually agreed upon conditions.

FWIW
 
Last edited:
Who knows what the truth is? I just don't trust Sig based on their behavior all through this P320 saga. And Bruce Gray's credibility is suspect too. There are too many good alternatives to the P320 that don't have these suspicious ADs associated with them.

Even within Sig's products, the P365 hasn't had these AD issues. Interestingly, Sig elected to not scale down the P320 fire control system for the P365 that came later. It's a different design for the most part. Instead, the P365 uses a Glock-style, simple, more foolproof coil spring and plunger design striker block vs. the torsion spring and boomerang shaped striker block in the P320.

Edit: and I own a P320.
 
Last edited:
Onomea said:
What Sig says about the FBI tests, in the link above to their site dedicated to the issue, is that the results could not be duplicated when Sig and the FBI conducted subsequent tests under mutually agreed upon conditions.

FWIW
Click to expand...
I’m reminded of the American Airlines crash that was caused by the engine tearing off and rotating over the wing, tearing it off and killing everyone aboard. That crash was directly caused by shortcuts and poorly-considered procedures that ended up killing 275 people. Sig has decided to insist that their procedures and products are the toast of the industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Sig P320 AD issues
2 3
Replies
59
Views
7K
petepeterson
petepeterson
dben002
  • Locked
From the Sig Forum....P320 fails drop testing..orders being cancelled
5 6 7
Replies
138
Views
13K
ditrina
ditrina
S
S&W 4006TSW California Highway Patrol (CHP) Information
8 9 10
Replies
184
Views
57K
4506517
4506517

Latest posts

Back
Top