SIG P320 Discharges?

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Will the questions continue to be asked every time some has an accidental discharge because the neglected to recognize the primary safety for every gun is the same? Of course I mean keeping your finger clear of the trigger guard until your sights are on target.

That principle certainly applies... however, the trigger finger (and trigger finger discipline) being the primary safety is relevant to MECHANICALLY SOUND guns. Safe handling and trigger finger discipline becomes a moot point if the gun in question was poorly engineered and it has so much slop in it that the striker can slip off the sear by other means besides the trigger being pulled. The whole point of this thread is the gun allegedly firing without fingers being anywhere close to the trigger. In multiple P320 AD videos I've seen, the gun was holstered and the person carrying it did not have their hands near the trigger. If something inside the holster caused it to fire while a person was simply moving around, then it's still a schitt design for being that damn sensitive and isn't suited to duty use.

 

[DRankin]

Sure as hell better not be. I just picked up my new P226 XCarry SAO Legion this morning.

It checks all my boxes. Hammer fired, all metal components, legacy design.

At least the hammer and the trigger are locked into rigid alignment by the metal frame.

 

[Krogen]

What if it's my thread??

This is an open forum for discussion. Once post #2 appears, it ceases to be "your" thread. It's "our" thread. We are a group here. Nobody short of the Big Gorrilla owns anything.

 

[biku324]

This is an open forum for discussion. Once post #2 appears, it ceases to be "your" thread. It's "our" thread. We are a group here. Nobody short of the Big Gorrilla owns anything.

I was joking - note the emojis.

 

[Equus]

This is interesting.

SIG has lost 2 cases in court and is appealing. They won and settled others. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps have not "grounded" the M17/18 despite several accidents with injuries. They have passed (and continue to pass) DOD (regular LAT/lot acceptance testing), and CA DOJ safety tests (the M18 is on the approved handgun roster there).

View attachment 780526

When the M9 slides were failing (6 in service, 12 in testing) Beretta sued the government for defamation in court and won. The government had to pay for the M9 slide modifications, not Beretta. DOD went on to buy about 200,000 more pistols in follow on contracts to the original 300,000 pistol contact.

I suppose SIG is hoping their lawyers are as good as Beretta's were.

Did I trust my M9? Yes. As I trusted my M15, M1911A1, and M11. Would I trust an M18? No. Good thing I'm retired.

Beretta won in court because the issued ammo in the tests by the SEALs was +p+ level power. They also broke 2 Sig 226 slides, but for some weird reason those never get mentioned. As soon as the slides broke the Army rushed out and proclaimed the M9 as junk and defamed Beretta when it turned out to be the fault of the government. At least 3 of the services have the M17/18 under review.

 

[Rocketmedic40]

Note the Army, Navy and Marines aren't changing diddly.

Sig Sauer pistol still in wide use across military after airman's death

Officials from the three services said they have no plans to modify or pause use of the Sig Sauer pistol after the death of an airman.

taskandpurpose.com

Imagine losing an aircraft to a uncommitted discharge from a 9 mm pistol

 

[RebCop]

That could very well happen as most pilots carry with chest rigs now.

 

[Krogen]

I was joking - note the emojis.

Roger. Sometimes my sense of humor is faulty and I become overly serious. Sorry 'bout that!

 

[Quicksteel57]

It's my understanding that Glock lost 4 contracts from the military and this is about when the reports started coming in about the defective P320, After Sig got the contracts. This was told to me by a defensive trainer here in Jacksonville who uses exclusively Sigs for his carry.
The you tube videos on the net seem to contradict that along with all the stories you can read. I don't use the Sig brand anymore but it wasn't due to this issue. I think I'll just keep my booger hook off the bang switch.

 

[biku324]

Roger. Sometimes my sense of humor is faulty and I become overly serious. Sorry 'bout that!

Hey, no troubles!

 

[Rust E. Badge]

That's the same video, post #383 above, of the guy with the wood screw shown and discussed above.

I dunno, I still find it unconvincing in that he says the trigger pull doesn't actually begin until the wall, and then sets the trigger, using the screw a bit past the wall.

Then he jostles the pistol.

I think the trigger pull begins with taking up the slack or pre-travel, and I suspect other pistols, too, would go off if their triggers were set past the beginning of the wall and the pistol then jostled.

And as for not using his finger, okay, but the trigger has still been forced backward through the pre-travel and set back, a tiny bit, from the beginning of the wall, by the screw.

Does not change my overall take on the situation. I just think the wood screw guy test does not show that the P320 will go off without the trigger being pulled.

I guess his test might apply to construction workers armed with wood screws and drills who are engaged in a terrible fight against an angry P320 pistol. Simple solution to all of this nonsense is to buy another trusted firearms brand.

 

[Dave Haynes]

Correct me if I am wrong, but at 80 and been involved with guns my whole life...I do not recall the obsession with keeping the finger out of the trigger guard as gospel as it is today. In VN I saw myself staring down the barrel of a lot of rifles but I never thought about what the guy's trigger finger was doing. I think that with these ridiculous tiny Glock in trigger safeties it became essential to owning one of these striker fired guns and carried over into all firearms. While an absolutely great idea and practice, it only was a result of the Glock style safety and in my opinion a way around a very unsafe firearm. The SIG is just an example of the idea gone too far.

 

[TheInnovationGarage]

I don't own a P320, but have some colleagues that do. These comments are intended to provide some general technical observations when products produced don't perform as they should.

Beyond the Wyoming Gun Project video, in researching and learning more about this, I found these videos that do a great job of breaking down the various firing/safety system designs of some popular semi-autos including the P320.


P320 compared to Glock



In those videos they highlight the differences between Glocks (~ 35 parts in total) and SIG safety systems (~52 parts it total) by model.

SIG's video on the P320 5 steps to fire, is interesting to watch. It's quite a complex system.



For comparison, the P365 has a plunger safety system which is more similar to Glock.

One thing I do understand is the product design process, mechanical engineering. manufacturing, tolerance analysis and quality protocols.

In reviewing these video's it's clear that just the general tolerance stack up of the P320 system and the sear pin ledge of the P320 would be an ideal investigation point and likely require some very high precision in parts manufacture and quality control.

The manufacturing variation in the parts alone, and the system tolerance stack would need to be well understood by SIG.

Every part has its story in how it interfaces with its mating components. The variation in the manufacturing process alone could impact the overall firing/safety system performance. Once you understand the total part count and how the parts are made and the minimum and maximum bounds of the tolerances of each part in the system, you can do a system analysis with the manufacturing process variation and conduct real experiments of what can happen with worst case parts. This is a basic design principle that doesn't include what happens when the long term wear of parts occurs, which introduces another variable of performance on the system over time, but you can simulate and make parts to test these conditions.

It takes some time but this is not difficult to do. With a good design for manufacture/design for assembly (DFM/DFA) process a basic design rule is that every part you eliminate from the system is one less part that can fail and that reduces overall system failures.

What I've observed from all of this is that SIG in general with their legal and marketing teams handling of this matter, it would be likely that SIG development teams are well aware of the problem and should know what to do. And, for some reason it doesn't appear SIG is being proactive about resolving it to restore their credibility in the marketplace. The messaging and SIG's customer experience is being continuously damaged by the minute.

Listening to others opinions here and knowing what I know about product design and the SIG P320 about the safety system, until it's fixed, I wouldn't recommend a P320 for anyone.

 

[robertrwalsh]

IDPA just banned the SIG P-320 from IDPA sanctioned competition. FYI.

 

[Steve_Revo_]

FWIW IDPA has banned the use of all Sig P320 variants in their matches. Local clubs are following suit.

 

[biku324]

I think that with these ridiculous tiny Glock in trigger safeties it became essential to owning one of these striker fired guns and carried over into all firearms. While an absolutely great idea and practice, it only was a result of the Glock style safety and in my opinion a way around a very unsafe firearm. The SIG is just an example of the idea gone too far.

I'd politely, respectfully disagree. My first formal firearms training was in late 1978 using revolvers drawn from holsters - we were taught even during lecture to keep your finger outside the trigger guard until the weapon was pointing downrange and you were preparing to fire. In 1980 NMSP recruit training it was exactly the same, except if you were caught with a finger inside the trigger guard otherwise you had to drop and grind out 25-50 push-ups. Do it twice and you did (ahem) loads of push-ups and got unfriendly remedial instruction. Third time and they would flush you from recruit school.

It's a good practice, and one recruit violated it during night fire using 357 magnum duty rounds and discharged his weapon before it cleared the holster. It blew the holster apart at the stitching and the bullet dug an impact divot immediately behind his right foot.

This training practice is, to my knowledge, common since 1978 and in two widely separate states (MO and NM).

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I don't own a P320, but have some colleagues that do. These comments are intended to provide some general technical observations when products produced don't perform as they should.

Beyond the Wyoming Gun Project video, in researching and learning more about this, I found these videos that do a great job of breaking down the various firing/safety system designs of some popular semi-autos including the P320.


P320 compared to Glock



In those videos they highlight the differences between Glocks (~ 35 parts in total) and SIG safety systems (~52 parts it total) by model.

SIG's video on the P320 5 steps to fire, is interesting to watch. It's quite a complex system.



For comparison, the P365 has a plunger safety system which is more similar to Glock.

One thing I do understand is the product design process, mechanical engineering. manufacturing, tolerance analysis and quality protocols.

In reviewing these video's it's clear that just the general tolerance stack up of the P320 system and the sear pin ledge of the P320 would be an ideal investigation point and likely require some very high precision in parts manufacture and quality control.

The manufacturing variation in the parts alone, and the system tolerance stack would need to be well understood by SIG.

Every part has its story in how it interfaces with its mating components. The variation in the manufacturing process alone could impact the overall firing/safety system performance. Once you understand the total part count and how the parts are made and the minimum and maximum bounds of the tolerances of each part in the system, you can do a system analysis with the manufacturing process variation and conduct real experiments of what can happen with worst case parts. This is a basic design principle that doesn't include what happens when the long term wear of parts occurs, which introduces another variable of performance on the system over time, but you can simulate and make parts to test these conditions.

It takes some time but this is not difficult to do. With a good design for manufacture/design for assembly (DFM/DFA) process a basic design rule is that every part you eliminate from the system is one less part that can fail and that reduces overall system failures.

What I've observed from all of this is that SIG in general with their legal and marketing teams handling of this matter, it would be likely that SIG development teams are well aware of the problem and should know what to do. And, for some reason it doesn't appear SIG is being proactive about resolving it to restore their credibility in the marketplace. The messaging and SIG's customer experience is being continuously damaged by the minute.

Listening to others opinions here and knowing what I know about product design and the SIG P320 about the safety system, until it's fixed, I wouldn't recommend a P320 for anyone.

Outstanding videos (minus the fact the guy in the first video needs to learn how to express correct measurement terminology) and outstanding analysis by you! It sounds like you have a manufacturing background. I work in the CNC machining industry, so you're speaking my language. Your summary is spot on!

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

The other issue with the Sig P320 is that the striker safety lever moves upwards whenever the sear moves downwards, whether the trigger is pulled or not. The striker safety lever should be completely de-coupled from the sear assembly. The striker block also should not be a part of the striker housing either.

Again, the striker safety lever will move upwards when the sear becomes depressed, which deactivates the striker block. The sear on the P320 is held in engagement with the striker foot ONLY by spring pressure (another horrible design decision), and no mechanical block prevents it from being depressed, so if the sear return springs hang up or get crossed, the sear can fail to hold back the striker. Since the striker safety lever moves upwards to disengage the striker block when the sear moves downward, the bottom line is if the striker slips off the sear, the striker safety lever is disengaging the striker block along with it, and therefore, the striker block cannot prevent the gun from firing if the sear doesn't hold. This is ridiculously stupid engineering and is inexcusable. The "last line of defense" safety should never be influenced by any other part in the fire control system besides the trigger. Only a trigger pull should ever be able to deactivate the striker block. The Glock plunger style striker block ensures this cannot happen. I'm not saying that Glocks are completely fail-safe and foolproof, but they don't have this particular flaw, which is likely the reason why we aren't seeing ADs from other striker fired pistols that adopt similar internal safeties to Glock.

 

[GnarlsR2]

With all due respect to all the experts….

I am genuinely puzzled at WHY the spontaneous discharges CANNOT be re-created, duplicated, or otherwise analyzed to determine the exact cause(s)???

 

[Equus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but at 80 and been involved with guns my whole life...I do not recall the obsession with keeping the finger out of the trigger guard as gospel as it is today. In VN I saw myself staring down the barrel of a lot of rifles but I never thought about what the guy's trigger finger was doing. I think that with these ridiculous tiny Glock in trigger safeties it became essential to owning one of these striker fired guns and carried over into all firearms. While an absolutely great idea and practice, it only was a result of the Glock style safety and in my opinion a way around a very unsafe firearm. The SIG is just an example of the idea gone too far.

Yeah it's Glock's fault you were never taught proper gun handling protocols. My uncle taught me to keep my finger out of the trigger guard way back in the 70s. All my friends dads taught the same thing. The USMC beat it into my brain in 87.