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.
As I like context, I thought I'd share some more here on why I dove into the SIG P320 and posted on this thread in the forum.
As for my background, I learned trigger management from my Dad. The first time I was at the range I was 7 or 8 years old. I learned proper trigger management on a what is now an old S&W Model 49 in .38 caliber which still resides in my collection today. Firearms were part of everyday life as my Dad had a Private Investigation and Security business.
Everyday he came home from work he placed his loaded carry gun on a shelf in the kitchen. Storage of firearms was a bit different back then as was his approach with us. At that young age, both my younger brother and I were told "Unless I'm with you, don't touch this, ever. Anytime you want to look at, all you need to do is just ask me." Those instructions were simple to follow and his approach also took the "mystery" out of a firearm. I would never advocate that approach today, my instructions to my son's were the same when they were young, but the firearms storage was enhanced a bit either in a safe or a gunvault with a full mag, but never chambered. They're both in their 20's now and are both great shooters.
When I was turning 21, in the early 90's I wanted a semi auto as my first adult purchase. With a policeman colleague, my Dad set up a trial of semi autos. On the table was a S&W 645 (45 .ACP) a Gen 2 G19 (9mm) and if I recall a S&W 6906 (9mm). The policeman's agency was evaluating all three to move away from revolver carry as I was given a great opportunity to learn something that would have been difficult to do on my own at the time.
My decision process at the time was based on three factors.
1) How reliable is it?
2) Will I be able to work the safety system effectively under stress?
3) How many parts are in the gun?
I bought a G19 after that side by side. Primarily because of point #2.
I figured if I have good trigger management, and the G19 has less parts, and if I'm under stress, and all I have to do is point and shoot, that's a good choice for me.
That G19 I've had for 33 years and still carry that. So, to dispel any thought that it's just a Glock fanboy here that wants to slam SIG.
I now also have an S&W 645 in .45 ACP which is a great firearm that I also carry every chance I get.
Someone very close to me carries a P365, which I helped them to choose, and that's mentioned below as well.
Now for the P320 and why I went down the rabbit hole.
I dove in because:
1) I have colleagues that carry P320's everyday.
2) I have someone very close to me that carries a P365 in .380 because they are small in stature. After trying everything out there including the P320 and many other manufacturer's, the P365 in .380 was the best choice for them. At the time that P365 was acquired, the general vibe at gun shops was, no matter what you buy from SIG they are both reliable and extremely safe. What I didn't really know at time of the P365 purchase was the differences between the P320 and P365 safety systems. My initial thought from a product design perspective was why wouldn't the safety systems be the same? It would make both design and business sense just to take the P365 system and move it into the P320.
3) From a product design perspective, I wanted to understand the nuances between the safety systems of P320 and P365 because of the person that caries the P365 every day. The safety systems in theses two SIG models are remarkably different from each other. P320 has more parts, P365 has less. In short, the less parts you have, the higher probability that there will be less tolerance stack, therefore higher reliability, performance and safety.
As this thread has carried on a bit, I don't believe this is political in any way. Nor, in the case of the P320, that's it's a simple and effective argument of proper trigger management that is the issue.
For those that don't understand the Liability details and the magnitude of the situation, some basic research indicates SIG has, for years, settled lawsuits individually (at least 20) and there are now another 80+ P320 lawsuits in the queue for SIG to deal with.
2024 -
https://www.thetrace.org/2024/06/sig-sauer-p320-lawsuit-safety-issues/
7/31/25
https://www.unionleader.com/news/co...cle_a2dd296f-fb21-46a1-9e04-666d697894dd.html
8/1/25 -
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...awsuit-over-accidental-gun-firing-2025-08-01/
In summary, SIG is mismanaging this situation in a big way. Spending more time on lawyering up and getting liability protection from the state of New Hamshire.
The new law has drawn pushback from people who've been injured from unintentional firings of their Sig Sauer pistols.
www.nhpr.org
Instead, SIG should own the problem and either provide an ideal technical fix that truly improves reliability or take the financial hit and recall the firearms.
Because very simply, it would sure seem to be the right thing to do.
