SIG P320 Discharges?

[Navy vet]

My EDC is a G19 GEN 5 MOS (Absolutely no issues with it) but I'm in the market for something lighter. I'm getting the G43x MOS. I've got over 5000 rounds thru my G19. Why mess with perfection? Remember when Ford dropped its prices after the Pinto fiasco? I may pick up a P365 380 if Sig drops prices but I'm still getting the 43x.

 

[Rimfire Fanatic]

Just a couple of thoughts here. Pertaining to the "do not lubricate" the striker assembly. What do they mean by this? Do they mean anywhere on the striker or just the engagement points? What if water gets into the striker? Water can act as a lubricant can it not? If a lubricated striker can work its way off its safety shelf, or ledge that is a HUGE concern and points to a design flaw in and of itself. How does anyone guarantee that oil does not migrate from other areas of the pistol to the striker shelf? This is a BIG red flag that proves Sig knows there is a problem with their striker system. No one, absolutely no one can guarantee oil doesn't get into the striker of their pistol, let alone something like water. Come on people, wake up!

I watched someone take a P320 apart and work the safety lever on the striker. The safety lever moved out of the way of the striker almost immediately upon trigger movement. This is important because the striker is free to move forward with almost no movement, or very little movement, of the safety lever. Why wouldn't you design this striker block to come away from the striker at the very end of trigger movement instead of at the very start of trigger movement. This makes no sense to me at all!!! This is one of the most unusual designs I have ever seen and I have seen a lot of designs at my age.

Lots of pro-Sig people like to flaunt the fact Sig has never been found to be a fault in any of the law suits against them and their P-320 pistol. While that may be true, there have been numerous reports of out of court settlements with non-disclosure agreements put in place. I find that to be the same as admitting guilt, in order to avoid unwanted publicity of a trial. It is also a way of hopefully saving a big dollar award after the trial. If Sig is such a stand up company why don't the publish a list of law suits they have had filed against them and the results of said law suits? And all out of court settlements should be included on this list.

Here is the kicker, the procurement of a firearm by a law enforcement or military organization is many times more complex and underhanded than we know. Some manufacturers have been known to "give" certain items to an agency that selects their firearm. In other words if I were the Anytown Police Department and I selected the Acme Firearms company's 9mm pistol for my department, as part of this purchase the Acme Firearms Company "gives" me any number of their rifles as a "gift" for making the purchase. Do you think for one moment that these "gifts" don't play into the purchase decision? Now suppose one of the handgun manufacturers trying to have their handgun selected by Anytown PD doesn't have a long gun in their product inventory, does that put them at a disadvantage in the selection process? I'll let you the reader be the judge of that, but I think it is a dirty sales tactic. It could potentially lead to the procurement of a less desirable item.

As I said before, this is all about money and Sig is no different than anyone else in this area. They are far too quick to suggest these "un-commanded" discharges are the fault of the user, or holster. Police officers and I suppose AF Security Police aren't weapons specialists, but they aren't stupid either. The P-7 pistol although beautifully made, was a poor design for law enforcement. Dare I say the P-320 is following the same route. Every time there is an "un-commanded" discharge of a P-320 it is another nail in the coffin for Sig. Dancing around the issue isn't helping anybody and puts more lives in jeopardy of injury or death. In my opinion no striker fired pistol should use a completely tensioned striker spring as a normal mode of carry. Partially tensioned would be acceptable as long as the striker cannot detonate a round from its at rest position. Perhaps that was why I liked the old Walther P-99 and Smith and Wesson P-99 that you could de-cock from a fully tensioned striker to partially tensioned at the push of a button on the slide. And lastly any firing pin block or striker block should not move completely out of the way until the very last movement of the trigger. Along ramble for sure, but I am done. I fear this issue will not go away or get better soon.

Rick H.

That was a great feature about the P99 that I had. Also, there was a video of a guy on another YouTube channel that was able to get the 320 to go off with nothing in the trigger just by moving the slide. He pulled up and to either side and but he really reefed on it. Still though it went off with a primed case in the chamber. I will try to find it it.

I wonder would a trigger safety like the Glock eliminate the problem? They make them after market. They are available.

 

[SG-688]

Tangential to Sig discussion, but knowledge of history is important.

Remembering the Waldo Lydecker/Dean Speir multi-week expose' in Gun Week -- mid 1980's???- early NY area police Glocks were also firing when the slide was dropped to load the pistol. In those articles, firing when struck from the side was discussed. The early Glock could fire if struck or if the pistol was slammed against a hard object. [The striker can pop primers even from the at rest position.]

One agency test concluded that could happen to a securely held pistol, but wouldn't happen if in a holster. The note above contradicts that.

The fix was as reported above by TAJ.

Note also that Glock has had occasional runs with problems. Two I remember: Waldo again on the NY "type 3 Malf" that defied diagnosis and repair. A large mid-South PD returned and replaced all of their guns.

 

[Navy vet]

Sorry, but in Portland in the late 80's or early 90's a Glock 17 went off in the holster during baton (PR 24) training when the baton hit the side of the holster on a back swing. No fingers involved.

There were other incidents too, but that is the one I had a personal connection to. Portland cops and Anchorage cops used the same (labor issues) law firm and the lawyers therein put pressure on Glock for remedies

If such things did not occur, why was Glock forced to redesign the part they call the cruciform and recommend they all be replaced?

Look it up.

As armorers we expedited the new parts asap and upgraded all the Glocks our guy and gals were carrying. The redesigned parts had a different color finish so that you could tell the difference.

Like Elmer Keith said.... Hell, I was there.

You are correct, but as someone else pointed out. This was 30 years ago, and the way Glock handled it was much better than sticking their head in the sand as Sig has done. Playing the blame game! Although after the USAF tragedy they did put out a better letter saying they were going to work with investigators in finding the cause. Call me skeptical, but isn't it common for an Arsonist to insert themself in the investigation? And no I do not have a foil hat! LOL

 

[isaactc]

This didn’t age well…

Just last week an Air Force Strike Command Sgt died after removing his Sig M18 and setting it down on his dell, still in the holster. He walked around to his chair and sat down. The Sig discharged hitting him in the chest, killing him. The U.S. Air Force immediately removed ALL Sig P320 platforms pistols from service until Sig can explain/correct this design flaw. Sig has done nothing but deny responsibility. There are well over 100 well documented, and filmed accidents like this, including Law Enforcement, Military, ad Civilians. Sig Lawyers are going to deny the Company into bankruptcy. I would guess that Sig will lose all military contracts if they continue denials.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

Reminder the Sig mishap is not a new story. The design of the Smith & Wesson Victory Model (Model 10) was modified in 1945 to include an improved hammer block after a sailor was killed by a loaded revolver discharging when accidentally dropped onto a steel deck. Many don't consider pre-war Smiths drop safe, and carry the hammer on an empty chamber.

The difference, of course, being that Smith & Wesson immediately recognized and acknowledged the problem, and fielded a definitive solution in a very short amount of time. Sigg sour has chosen to lie, to conceal and inflame the situation at every turn.

 

[Navy vet]

Reminder the Sig mishap is not a new story. The design of the Smith & Wesson Victory Model (Model 10) was modified in 1945 to include an improved hammer block after a sailor was killed by a loaded revolver discharging when accidentally dropped onto a steel deck. Many don't consider pre-war Smiths drop safe, and carry the hammer on an empty chamber.

Now you say it, I do remember that being a habit. (Hammer on empty chamber) Obviously, I never personally witnessed this because I am too young. Damn! Never thought I could call myself young again at 62! LOL

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I wonder would a trigger safety like the Glock eliminate the problem? They make them after market. They are available.

No it would not. At least not in the cases where the gun is firing from jiggling the slide or from vibration. Most shooters don't understand that the purpose of the Glock style trigger safety is actually a drop safety feature. It is designed to stop trigger movement if the gun is dropped onto the rear of the slide. Without the trigger safety, if the rear of the slide is impacted during a drop, the combined mass of the trigger and trigger bar will cause that assembly to move rearward from inertia. As per the laws of physics, "objects in motion will remain in motion until acted on by an outside force," anything not rigidly fixed in all axes on the gun will continue moving in the direction of the drop until something arrests its momentum well after the gun stops from impact. If the combined mass of the trigger and trigger bar are greater than the combined resistance of spring pressure, friction, and the resistance of other parts they activate, the trigger will continue moving rearward when the gun is dropped against the rear of the gun and fire the gun. The trigger safety's mass is less than its reset spring pressure, so it cannot depress during a drop and the catch on the back of the trigger safety contacts the edge of the frame, preventing trigger movement from a drop. Sig elected to simply reduce the mass of the trigger to prevent this from happening instead of installing a trigger safety.

In the cases demonstrated so far, it appears the P320s ADs have been caused by the striker slipping off the sear ledge and the striker safety block failing to stop the striker, either by faulty parts, sloppy parts fit, wrong parts installed, parts incorrectly assembled...something along those lines. In cases where ADs may have occurred because the trigger was pressed, then a trigger safety MAY have prevented it from firing IF an object brushed against the side of the trigger and didn't press directly on the trigger face.

 

[biku324]

On the carrying with a round chambered issue, one of the reasons the British switched from Brownings to Glocks was this very reason. They ordered empty chambers on the High Powers for safety reasons. But, disengaging the safety and racking the slide takes time. With the growing concern of green on blue shootings they looked for a handgun that would allow safe carry with a round in the chamber. Time saved is lives saved. They chose the Glock. That happened in 2013.

Having carried an M9 with an empty chamber, empty mag well, and 2 loaded mags as a contractor under contractor ROD I'll mildly suggest this is a policy solution to a training problem.

Returning to a cap-and-ball solution (hammer down, empty chamber and nipple) just seems, well, stupid. Doing so because of a known pattern of dangerous malfunction is exponentially more stupid.

 

[MikeOrick]

Glock has had problems from time to time too.

In the late 80s/early 90s they were slam firing and going full auto when a round was chambered. Others went off when hit. Others went off when dropped. Some had the slides pop off the guns when flipped like a Frisbee (that during DEA testing). All that led to the six part product "upgrades" of 1992. No recall though.

Nobody can be too careful with anything.

In 1988 the FBI said the Glock was dangerous. In 1998 they were issuing them. From 2000-2005 over 30% of the shooting incidents in the DOJ (FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS) were UIDs/unintentional discharges. Most in training, some in the field. They shot walls, floors, ceiling, cars, desks, hands, feet, and butts. The DOJ Glocks have the 5.5# trigger. NYPD's UID rate is usually around 15%, half the DOJ rate (see their annual firearms discharge reports). NYPD has the 8-12# trigger. The difference in Q scores between NYPD officers with heavy/light triggers is just 5 points (87 v 92). That heavier trigger is doing exactly what NYPD wants it to do for them.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

My problem with the video and the screw is that he continues to say that he was not touching the trigger, but the screw simulated him putting pressure on the trigger. ANd to top it off he began to place the pistol in a holster when it "went off" with the screw in place. Not a Sig fan and I have no idea how the Airman's pistol went off when holstered in a Safariland holster with a QLS.

Yes, I agree that this will be an obvious rebuttal to the video, but the salient point is that the screw did not move the trigger to the point of sear break. No mechanically sound gun should ever fire without the trigger fully depressed to the sear break. Granted, his case would have been even more compelling had he been able to demonstrate the gun firing from simply jiggling the slide and nothing else. That said, the screw applying pressure to the trigger without moving it fully rearward simulates how small the margin of safety is in at least his sample P320. It demonstrates the catasrophic potential of what could happen if slightly out of spec parts are used, as has been theorized. No well designed firearm should ever be that "touchy;" there should always be a much greater margin of safety. That is inexcusable engineering on the part of Sig.

 

[MikeOrick]

In 2017 the USAF went SIG M18. Soon after AFOSI passed on them and got Glock 19/26s. That's called a hint. In 2021 the DOD awarded Glock a $15 million contract for about 9,000 new Glocks. Mostly G19s (Gen 3,4,5, w and w/o threaded bbls and MOS). That's another hint.

In 2018 the TAF (Turkish Air Force) and national police went Canik TP9 SF Elite-S. It's been serving reliably and safely ever since. Same in about 50 other countries around the world. I like it almost as much as my M&Ps.

 

[McChemist]

First of all, the presence of oil, that is commonplace and not only accepted but recommended on every other firearm on the market, should not cause these problems. That statment in the manual is a boilerplate CYA measure so they can always fall back on that bs. Secondly, the problems with the gun thus far presented have nothing whatsoever to do with excessive lubrication or lack thereof; it is solely due to poor design and sloppy execution. Oil has no influence on parts being out of spec or using dumbass ridiculous design elements solely to be different and so you don't look like you're copying competitors. Third, if your gun is that sensitive to the presence of oil, something that is supposed to be a part of regular gun maintenance, then you have a sh!t design.

Sig was once a respected manufacturer of very high quality firearms, and now they have become a disgrace with their irresponsible, callous attitude towards the safety of their customers, their lack of proper engineering work, and their pizz poor QC. IMO, this P320 debaucle needs to send a permanent message that criminally substandard work, complete disregard for their paying customers, and arrogance will severely hurt their bottom line. People within that organization need to be fired if not held criminally liable for gross negligence.

And I was as big a Sig fan as ever existed prior to this.

You make very salient points. Quality is now, in the future, and always has been a Management responsibility. As fish rot from the head, one needs to start the trouble shooting effort there. Management made the decision to adapt an existing design (hammer-fired P226) to a different platform (striker-fired), use MIM produced in lieu of more precise stamped parts to reduce costs. Sig was virtually giving the pistol to the Army.

The CEO is the person who moved Kimber into cost'conscious mass marketing. Now at Sig, he is doing the same thing through adapted, rebranded, cost-reduced products. Then unleash the sale/marketing flacks move products. I remember the M7 decision coming closely after the M17/19 acceptance. That raised a few eye brows. They don't refer the Pentagon as the Five-sided Puzzle Palace for no reason.

Factor in that the Army has made some horrendous acquisition decisions over the years. ACUs, Sgt York Air Defense System, the M16 selection process, original MREs, rejection of the repeater rifles (they'll use up the ammunition too fast!), and the hits keep on rolling. Mil acquisitions have been corrupt and problematic ever since CiC George Washington sent MG Nathaniel Greene to be the QM for the Army.

Sig will have to make some serious course correction actions and quickly. Given their current bunker/siege mentality, that will be difficult. The will probably need a new skipper and command staff.

 

[Howie57]

Firearm safety rule #1:
Treat every firearm like it's an Sig Sauer P320.

Or Glock
Remember Glock Leg?

 

[wwsmith111]

This didn’t age well…

It's all over about an Air Force NCO being shot and killed by one a few days ago. The AF has apparently banned them pending and investigation. But you prob know this by know.

 

[gila_dog]

So, if everything goes just right, no improper handling, no improper assembly, no extra oil where it shouldn't be, no crud jamming things up, no clothing inside the holster, no fingers in the wrong places, no rolling around in the mud fighting for control of the gun with an assailant, lots of excellent training, etc, etc. there should be no unintentional discharges. On the other hand, if the gun had a thumb safety that would prevent the striker from hitting the primer of the cartridge, even if it slips off the sear, or the operator has his finger on the trigger when he shouldn't, the risk of all those other things causing an unintentional discharge would be greatly reduced, if not completely prevented. I know I'm a fudd, but I've learned over the years to be skeptical of dangerous things that depend on everything going just right every time.

 

[bph9]

Just a couple of thoughts here. Pertaining to the "do not lubricate" the striker assembly. What do they mean by this? Do they mean anywhere on the striker or just the engagement points? What if water gets into the striker? Water can act as a lubricant can it not? If a lubricated striker can work its way off its safety shelf, or ledge that is a HUGE concern and points to a design flaw in and of itself. How does anyone guarantee that oil does not migrate from other areas of the pistol to the striker shelf? This is a BIG red flag that proves Sig knows there is a problem with their striker system. No one, absolutely no one can guarantee oil doesn't get into the striker of their pistol, let alone something like water. Come on people, wake up!

I watched someone take a P320 apart and work the safety lever on the striker. The safety lever moved out of the way of the striker almost immediately upon trigger movement. This is important because the striker is free to move forward with almost no movement, or very little movement, of the safety lever. Why wouldn't you design this striker block to come away from the striker at the very end of trigger movement instead of at the very start of trigger movement. This makes no sense to me at all!!! This is one of the most unusual designs I have ever seen and I have seen a lot of designs at my age.

Lots of pro-Sig people like to flaunt the fact Sig has never been found to be a fault in any of the law suits against them and their P-320 pistol. While that may be true, there have been numerous reports of out of court settlements with non-disclosure agreements put in place. I find that to be the same as admitting guilt, in order to avoid unwanted publicity of a trial. It is also a way of hopefully saving a big dollar award after the trial. If Sig is such a stand up company why don't the publish a list of law suits they have had filed against them and the results of said law suits? And all out of court settlements should be included on this list.

Here is the kicker, the procurement of a firearm by a law enforcement or military organization is many times more complex and underhanded than we know. Some manufacturers have been known to "give" certain items to an agency that selects their firearm. In other words if I were the Anytown Police Department and I selected the Acme Firearms company's 9mm pistol for my department, as part of this purchase the Acme Firearms Company "gives" me any number of their rifles as a "gift" for making the purchase. Do you think for one moment that these "gifts" don't play into the purchase decision? Now suppose one of the handgun manufacturers trying to have their handgun selected by Anytown PD doesn't have a long gun in their product inventory, does that put them at a disadvantage in the selection process? I'll let you the reader be the judge of that, but I think it is a dirty sales tactic. It could potentially lead to the procurement of a less desirable item.

As I said before, this is all about money and Sig is no different than anyone else in this area. They are far too quick to suggest these "un-commanded" discharges are the fault of the user, or holster. Police officers and I suppose AF Security Police aren't weapons specialists, but they aren't stupid either. The P-7 pistol although beautifully made, was a poor design for law enforcement. Dare I say the P-320 is following the same route. Every time there is an "un-commanded" discharge of a P-320 it is another nail in the coffin for Sig. Dancing around the issue isn't helping anybody and puts more lives in jeopardy of injury or death. In my opinion no striker fired pistol should use a completely tensioned striker spring as a normal mode of carry. Partially tensioned would be acceptable as long as the striker cannot detonate a round from its at rest position. Perhaps that was why I liked the old Walther P-99 and Smith and Wesson P-99 that you could de-cock from a fully tensioned striker to partially tensioned at the push of a button on the slide. And lastly any firing pin block or striker block should not move completely out of the way until the very last movement of the trigger. Along ramble for sure, but I am done. I fear this issue will not go away or get better soon.

Rick H.

I am very curious about your statement in regards to the P7 pistol which I am assuming was the squeeze cocker made at one time by HK. If this is correct could you give me some detail on what defects there were with this design? I am only asking for my own knowledge.

About your statement that a full cock striker design should not be used. What problems would this cause? Would it be reliability of ignition or are you referring to a weapon that would not be as safe to carry?

Your answers would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[bph9]

Some folks don't remember the very early Glock "updates" that occurred several years ago. Due to tolerance stack-ups there were pistols that had situations where the cruciform sear was releasing the striker while still in the holster. Thankfully the striker safety plunger was doing it's job and I only recall a couple of incidents where the gun actually discharged. The biggest issue when this happened, was that you would draw the pistol to put it to work, and would have a "dead" trigger. I was a Glock LE rep back then and Glock called for an "update" vs a recall and we were sent out hundreds of update kits for all of the models, which included a new striker, trigger/ trigger bar, a striker safety plunger and spring, and an extractor plunger and spring. The whole idea was to increase the amount of sear engagement. We ran into a few issues where there was so much engagement, that if you pushed down on the slide toward the frame,(closing up that tolerance) the striker wouldn't release at all. We even had a cut away backing plate so we could visually see the amount of engagement. I still have a pretty large box of those kits, which I use for spare parts.

Could you tell me which "generation of Glock" had the defective sears? I remember several years ago my glocks which were made in the 80's had a recall (upgrade) in relation to the passive firing pin safety not working right. I did test my Glocks and the passive firing pin safety appeared to be working and was told if I sent them back in to be retrofitted I would get a much heavier trigger pull. Should I have sent them back in?

 

[Krogen]

Firearm safety rule #1:
Treat every firearm like it's a Sig Sauer P320.

That is a good one! I sure don't know what Sig's strategy is. There are a number of accounts of un-commanded discharges. I have read two reports, one from USMC and the other from the State Police Academy, that give me the willies. Sig is taking a hard stance that the gun isn't at fault. In fact Sig is suing the Academy on the issue.

Gunmaker sues Washington police academy over P320 ban

Sig Sauer challenges the Washington Police Academy's ban on the P320 pistol, citing safety concerns as the core issue.

mynorthwest.com

I have a single P320 and it has been relegated to range use and plate matches. I will not draw from a holster, but instead shoot from low ready. It hasn't given me trouble - yet - but I'm definitely concerned. No round in the chamber until pointed in a safe direction.

 

[bph9]

I might mention I tested 3 Glocks and 1 Walther P99 in regards to ignition strength compared to old fashioned "full cock" striker pistols and also "hammer fired" pistols. I deliberately seated a high primer and conducted the test "Three" times on every pistol using "the same" primer for 3 hits. In other words each pistol was tested with a new fresh primer. All 3 Glocks and the Walther P99 which have "pre-loaded" strikers failed the test 3 times in a row with the same primer. All the traditional "full cock" striker fired pistols along with the "hammer fired" pistols all passed the test on the first try. In other words the "full cock" striker fired pistols and the "hammer fired" pistols were 100% reliable when firing off a high primer.

I also tested the Glocks and the Walther P99 by over lubing the open striker channel and then freezing them in my basement food freezer. All 4 pistols failed to fire. The same test was done with the "full cock" striker fired guns and the "hammer fired" pistols and "all" passed the freezer test.

Admittedly I did not have a large number of pre-loaded striker fired pistols to test (only 4 pistols) but it did prove there is a vast difference in ignition power between them and the other pistols tested. I once years ago saw a German Police test in which every pre-loaded striker fired pistol tested failed the ignition strength test requirements so the Germans then "relaxed" the ignition strength requirements for the inferior pre-loaded striker fired weapons so that they could still be considered for possible adoption.

I am told that the one of the major reasons the Sig 320 was chosen over the Glock by the Military was because it has a "full cock" striker. Of course at the time the Military did not know about the defect that causes the pistol to fire off by itself.