www.twz.com
If that is SIG's response in the face of video evidence showing P320s firing untouched in the holster, every police chief in the country with P320s on the street should dump the weapon as fast as possible, and exclude SIG Sauer in perpetuity from consideration for any future contract. I say that as a longtime SIG fan, owner of twelve SIG pistols, but thankfully no P320s.
This thread is in the "Firearms & Knives: Other Brands & General Topics" subforum, which means non-S&W stuff. The thread title is "Sig P320 Discharges," and has remained on-topic. This is probably the biggest topic in all of the firearms world right now, and the debate over this pistol is at its peak right at this moment, with new information about it appearing weekly. If this topic doesn't interest you, then why did you scroll through and read it?
My last fleet unit (USMC infantry) still had nothing else but M9s when I left. Only M18s I had seen at that point were with PMO and gate sentries. But our armorers had long since stopped repairing M9s, and if one became unserviceable, it was sent off and not replaced. I expect there are still many M9s in Marine Corps holsters but I don't think it would be quick or easy to return to it for general issue, simply because the maintenance tail has been allowed to die off by attrition.
The M9's will probably go the way of the M1911A1's. For the Corps and the Navy, they will end up at Naval Weapons Station Crane, Ind. There they will be repaired as needed or destroyed as needed. The repaired pistols will probably go to "Deep Storage/War Stores". At some point they may end up at CMP for sale as the M1911A1's are now. Watched this evolution happen to the M1911A1's, when I was in the Corps.
But that one was "too modular" doncha know.
My son seperated in early 2024, his Fleet infantry bn had all M18s by that point. I asked him what everyone thought of them and he told me that they were only drawn out for mandatory quals. Said the older Marines despised it. He told me that the only time he saw the M18 in use was in the holster of MPs. Yeah I know this hearsay.
My comment is about time frames and the fact that the trigger guard safety issue is mandatory today, universal and unrelenting. It is a great idea especially given the millions of folks who bought these striker fire paddle safety guns. I hunted everyday when I was a kid in the 50-60s. All of us always walked at the ready with finger in the trigger guard. When I was drafted in 1965 the Army never mentioned anything about trigger guards. The USMC may have because they live and breath weapons care and use, but the Army never did. In VN '66-67 nobody I knew ever mentioned it either. I'm sure there are thousands of folks who were taught trigger safety (great idea) throughout history, my point is that today and for the last 20 years it is gospel.
If it is indeed true that "the P320 fires only with trigger pull," then why has it been firing while completely contained inside holsters with no hands on the gun? If you're going to say that the holster itself is pulling the trigger, then why have these holsters decided they only want to pull P320 triggers exclusively? If the argument is that in each of these cases, some obstruction got inside the holster and pulled the trigger, then why hasn't the same thing been happening with any other striker handgun besides the P320? Why was the P320 designed in such a way that it can fire so easily by something barely touching the trigger? Why are these cases only happening with the P320 and not other striker fired pistols? Don't you think these are fair questions to ask in light of the evidence?
Anyone with 3 functioning brain cells could understand that the screw was used merely to remove the possibility of the demonstrator from inadvertently applying the pressure to fully depress the trigger as he wiggled the slide. The gentleman that used the CNC setup did the same thing, a CNC is capable of moving .0001" (maybe less now) at a time manually.
One oddity in infantry battalions was that the Marine Corps years ago changed the table of equipment and reduced the pistol allocation down to almost nothing. The two E-9s and the medical officers were the only ones left who actually rated a pistol. Even the battalion commander only rated an M4. We were allowed to keep our M9s on the basis that if they broke, we lost them one at a time. Without the rack full of orphaned M9s, the battalion didn't even rate enough pistols to arm watch standers or conduct mandatory pistol qual ranges. From what you describe it sounds like the battalions, at least in his Division, have surrendered their M9s and now have to borrow a van full of M18s from the Division armory to conduct a pistol range. I wouldn't be surprised if the Officer of the Day is lugging around an M4 now if that is the case.
Exactly! And these unsafe gun handlers who favor Sig have decided that among all the Sig models, the P320 is exclusively their sidearm of choice to handle unsafely.
Maybe that is a good thing with the M18 being so iffy,
A member for 12 years with 6 posts? And you choose to post ignoring all video evidence available on the +/- 120 incidents now known with this one particular handgun.
For the low threat environment of most military pistol carry (if the threat is not low, they will pull out M4s every time), condition 3 carry is not a bad option, and will allow the armed forces to ride out the P320 fiasco while awaiting some technical modification to their pistols. There aren't many public statements coming from the military, and I have no inside perspective anymore, but it would surprise me if commanders all the way down to the O5 level aren't quietly directing condition 3 carry until this plays out.
Wow. No assumptions or misinformation here...............
Typical derogatory comment. I don't know how rational, logical, thinking human beings can internalize opinions and pseudo-scientific drivel and accept it as fact. The FBI recanted on their testing and no one to date has replicated or demonstrated the "how" of the "uncommanded discharge".
