OP
Ever tried to fix an intermittent electrical problem?
SIG P320 Discharges?
- Thread starter biku324
- Start date
Yes..... and it was extremely aggravating!Ever tried to fix an intermittent electrical problem?
BUT..... I fixed it.
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 166
- Reaction score
- 332
Therein lies the reason why the discussion and controversy rages on for so long. No one is completely certain of what is happening, only that there is some vulnerability with this pistol that doesn't seem to be plaguing competing designs. It's not yet certain that anyone knows what condition or combination of conditions is causing the ADs, so recreating it isn't so straightforward. If anyone knows the reasons, they aren't saying so far. All anyone knows is the common denominator with all of these known cases is that they involved a Sig P320. All of the analysis of the gun has been motivated by trying to find these exact cause(s). Maybe the causes will eventually be discovered conclusively and maybe not, but until then, it is reasonable to critically scrutinize its design.
Jim Watson
Member
Chicago PD
Hickock45: "This one is real." Two days ago.
I posted this a while back in another forum and I still maintain this would be the only (yet absurd) way to recreate any of the alleged uncommanded discharges.
“My favorite is the argument that the uncommanded discharges can’t be repeated. The only way to try and repeat one would be to have someone who experienced a P320 uncommanded discharge, using same gun, completely recreate every singe movement from the time they first possessed the subject P320, to include number of times bumping gun, each time in same exact position, same exact holstering/unholsterings, loading/unloadings, etc. It has to be all exactly duplicated movements for the same duration as initial possession of said P320 to uncommanded discharge.
Yes, I know it’s absurd. So is the argument that there have been no recreations of the uncommanded discharges (likely caused by micro vibrations over use time of the gun which could only be recreated as above).
I do sincerely hope everyone that loves them (P320) enjoys them and never has an incident.”
Jim Watson
Member
I have been told that I am relying on social media gossip about so called failures of P320. By Facebook posters.
Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 1,347
So the guy presses the trigger 99.9999% of the way, then, manipulates the slide and the frame (you see the frame moving in the vice) and OMG! Who, knew!
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 166
- Reaction score
- 332
Not even remotely close to nailing anything, unless the video is intended to be tongue in cheek. He literally moves the trigger 99% of its travel, to the point there is miniscule sear engagement remaining, at which point almost any gun would fire when jiggling the slide because the striker is barely still hanging on to the edge of the sear ledge. He has to move the trigger what looks like ⅜" or so before he gets to the point where manipulating the slide will fire the gun. By that point, the trigger bar has completely depressed the striker block.
In contrast, the Sig P320's trigger was moved less than 1mm (0.039") to create this condition.
Apples and oranges.
ggibson511960
Member
The oldest striker fired semi-automatic pistol I can recall never had this kind of trouble in its decades of service. Perhaps some of the engineers, craftsmen, QC inspectors, accountants, lawyers and PR staff at Sig could learn something from DWM and how they successfully pushed out this ancient design, the Luger. No stamped or MIM parts and a higher unit cost, but they did it. The folks at Walther pulled off the same thing with the P-38, stamped parts and all. What have we forgotten?
Oldsalt66
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 1,347
Not apples to apples. The bald guy even says it in the video @ 6:02
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 166
- Reaction score
- 332
No, it absolutely is not apples to apples, for a couple reasons! With the XDM he staged the sear so that the grip safety remained depressed, which then allowed him to release the trigger so it stayed in that position without resetting. Then when he jiggled the slide to get it to "fire," since the trigger was no longer depressed and thus, the striker safety wasn't depressed, it could not fire because the striker safety was still blocking the striker. He states this very clearly in this video. In the Wyoming Project video, the P320 actually did fire a primer because the striker safety was in fact fully depressed when the trigger had traveled back less than 1mm. HUGE difference. The video did not show his methodology for the other pistols cited, so I assume there must be other parts to this video not included here.
Thaddeus, what do you think about my opinion that the Wyoming guy/wood screw guy, pulled the trigger through pre-travel with his finger, and then set the trigger, with his wood screw, further back, beyond the wall?
So the trigger got pulled, and then pushed, with/by external forces.
I think common sense says that trigger pull begins with eliminating the pre-travel/take up, and that the wood screw guy, using the screw, set, by his own definitions, the trigger sightly behind the beginning of the wall. At that point, he manipulated the slide and the striker was released.
Bang!
Say you had a 1911 with, say, a 2.5 lb trigger. And, say you put, using whatever device, 2.4 lbs of pressure on the trigger. And then, say you manipulated the slide.
Do you think the hammer would fall?
I think you understand my point, even if I have expressed it badly. Tell me how the situation with the P320 screw guy and the 1911 above are different?
(Not being argumentative — would truly like to understand.)
On the 1911 Is the thumb safety on or off? Is the grip safety depressed or not?
- Joined
- May 20, 2025
- Messages
- 166
- Reaction score
- 332
The compelling points that Wood Screw Guy made about the P320 were:
1. The extremely short distance the trigger had to travel - less than 1mm - to put it into this condition where slide pressure caused it to fire. Regardless of whether the trigger was staged before or after the wall, the total movement from the gun at rest was frightfully short.
2. The striker block was already deactivated from that short trigger movement, which begs the question of when the striker block is ever actually intended to work to prevent striker movement.
3. The gun had a VERY sloppy fit between slide and FCU rails. You really have to hold manufacturing tolerances very tight on fire control parts and design to counter that much expected play in the slide to prevent the striker foot from slipping off the sear under those conditions.
The other issue with the P320 as I stated previously is that the striker block lever is coupled with the sear assembly, and that is a ridiculous design. In the striker pistols that use the Glock style striker block, the striker block is not coupled with sear movement. It is moved by a projection on the trigger bar. Therefore if the sear drops but the trigger isn't moved, the striker block arrests striker movement. In the P320 design, regardless of whether or not the trigger is pulled, if the striker slides over the sear, pushing the sear down, the trigger safety arm rises and disables the striker block so it can fire.
On your 1911 example, it could not happen because you also have a grip safety preventing trigger movement. It has to actually be gripped in your hand before the trigger can travel rearward. Plus, you also have a thumb safety as mentioned above. So no, it cannot happen unless the 1911 in quesition was mechanically compromised and not working properly. The same is true with the XDM featured in the above video. In the video, he initially depressed the grip safety and pulled the trigger enough to stage the sear to the point it kept the grip safety depressed. So again, not remotely the same as the P320 that does not have a grip safety acting like an external safety lever.
smithman 10
US Veteran
Match director of a local match I may attend Saturday bans 320 from the firing line. He says he will have to run shooters who use the 320 one at a time.
gila_dog
Member
This may have been discussed somewhere else in this thread, but I would still like to clarify something... The military version of the P320, the M17/M18, has a thumb safety. Correct? How does this thumb safety work? How reliable is it in preventing the striker from hitting the primer of the loaded cartridge, no matter what? I wonder if the USAF man's pistol had it's thumb safety in the FIRE position when it was in his holster. Or was it set to SAFE? Have there been other verified cases of M17/M18 military pistols firing unexpectedly? I notice that the Army, Navy, and Marines have not stopped using them.
smithman 10
US Veteran
The military probably does not have enough suitable alternate pistols in their inventory to immediately replace all the 320s.
Similar threads
- Locked
