SIG P320 Discharges?

Status
Not open for further replies.
At the risk of initiating another thermonuclear response.............. I still cannot discern what problems with older designs we are "fixing" with striker/pistol engineering.

I think the heart of what is discussed here comes down to whether or not it is wise to take the trigger and sear completely out of alignment (and context with one another) every time the gun fires and trust that it will reassemble itself properly and safely 100% of the time.

This thread has certainly reinforced one concept for me:

The last place I want to store any striker fired handgun is in an appendix holster pointing directly at several irreplaceable parts or worse yet, my femoral artery.
 
I still don't understand why we adopted the M9...if the old 1911's were wore out, why not a civilian contract for new ones from Ruger or SA...all holsters still would fit, mags fit and we surely had tons of 45acp stored in depots etc...instead we spend a small fortune to digress from an absolute proven platform...I don't get it, but then I'm just a poor dumb cop
I believe it was RSI (Rationalization, Standardization and Interoperability). Blame NATO.
 
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.


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.
 
Last edited:
Yes. People like you. Biased and uneducated. Unwilling to accept that the 320 is a failure. And the maddening part is that people like you are willing to blame those that have been hurt by the 320 instead of the gun.

There’s a lot more to this than most people realize. It’s simply not just Glock versus Sig.
Yes Sir, that inanimate object is to blame. No one can replicate the “uncommanded discharge” so it must be the gun. Since you are anti-Sig and P320 guess that makes you unbiased and intelligent or rather a Legend in your own mind!
 
I believe it was RSI (Rationalization, Standardization and Interoperability). Blame NATO.
Described by one military wag in the UK as NATO’s revenge on the US for forcing 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 on everyone when we all knew the Brit 280 round was the way to go.😉
 
Sig won the contract and they are increasing their capital which gives them enormous strength. And they are leaders in innovation. They are not like Glock which simply rest on their laurels. It will be years perhaps decades that Sig will continue to hold the Military contracts and they are NOW very popular across the world.
Face it, Glocks have gotten old. Many guns besides the Sig have outpaced them.
Glocks are outdated: Glock is bleeding out. I cannot see them competing in the near future.
  • Lack of innovation:
    Some argue that Glock hasn't made significant design changes or introduced new features compared to competitors like Sig Sauer, Walther, and others.
    Ergonomics:
    The Glock's boxy design is often criticized for being less ergonomic than some newer handguns.
    Competition:
    The market is now flooded with high-quality polymer-framed pistols from other manufacturers, offering features and designs that appeal to a wider range of users.



 
The various problems with the P320 have been known since 2017. A couple of people I know and respect on LF first raised some of the issues back then. Sig's attitude is poor, at best. Man years ago, I ordered a 239 with certain features and it was so (messed) up that the dealer rejected it on receipt. That's a clue. I have another now and it seems fine.

I am not an engineer by a long shot, but my suspicion is that there is some kind of tolerance stacking within a poor design. Guns are a serious use issue and tolerating even a small number of hard/impossible to explain problems in a serious use firearm is simply not acceptable. There has been an on-going discussion among WA LE legal advisors about this, and frankly, what I saw was a collection of ignorant (the road to command rarely passes through the range or mat room) and butt hurt Chiefs who did not like being told they were Adam Frank Union in their choices. I am pretty sure that there ways to make Sig pay for replacements, along with other companies willing to step in at much reduced cost. I am in the process of retiring, so the legal issues are no longer mine,, but there is no way in hell I would ratify the use of that platform.

Interestingly, it is my understanding that the 365 does not reflect these issues. No idea why - remember I said I am not an engineer. FWIW, I have heard from other hard use folks that the Army lowered their testing standards to get the Sig instead of relying on the FBI's relatively stringent testing that resulted in buying the Gen 5 Glock. According to friends with military experience, the training and use of handguns outside of SOCOM and a few other places is borderline clown shoes. Handguns are relatively unimportant in military use, and as Lt. Col. Bolgiano said in a video I can no longer find, the only place that is institutionally more afraid of firearms than the military is Disney.

If I were staring to get into handguns today, I would likely go with the M&Ps. I am too heavily into Glocks to change now.
"The road to command rarely passes through the range or mat room" " Chiefs do not like being told they are Adam Frank Union" OMG...I love it and soooo true!!
 
Tell the family of the USAF member whose holstered P320/M18 went off when he was not within reach of it and killed him that there is nothing wrong with the P320. If they feel like giving you a beating, I'll understand. BTW, last I knew there was an internal investigation into the adoption of the P320. The military lowered the testing standards from the FBI's to make the Sig competitive. There are multiple videos showing clearly uncommanded discharges in holsters and/or with fingers clearly not at all close to the trigger. The inability to replicate them on demand indicates a probable tolerance stacking/QC problem. Glock leg is clearly a training/gun handling issue. The problem with the 320 is not. Sig trying to claim it is is knowingly false. Remember that Sig has a history of trying to evade German trade laws and sell weapons to prohibited nations. Denial may be your right, but you are simply not correct. On their current trajectory, Sig has a good chance of ending their company, and it seems well deserved.
 
I own a P320, so the allegation that such could ever suffer an "uncommanded" discharge is not anything I want to hear. The company's repetitive defense that such is simply impossible and that the trigger must be depressed for the gun to fire rings hollow in light of the current anecdotal evidence.

This is a recent compilation that details why the P320 design may under some circumstances be flawed. It's not some rabid "hit job" but merits serious consideration.

 
There's no problem with the P320, it's political. Anyone can make anyone or anything look bad in the eye of the public. Pissed off people who didn't get their way and crying like little.... The gun cannot go off by itself, and with society the way it is now there seems to be more un-educated people with firearms today than ever before. Look around you next time you are at the range, take a minute and scope the people around you. I entered the Marine Corp using the issued .45 and saw accidental discharges with that firearm, we transitioned to the Beretta and again their were accidental discharges in other branches also. Proper training and discipline is all thats needed, not a lax attitude with a bullet in the chamber.
https://www.thetrace.org/2025/07/sig-sauer-p320-pistol-safety-ice-ban/ Respectfully, this Gun appears to be dangerous!
 
And yet, ICE extended their contract with SIG SAUER. Should be more cautious of only selecting information that supports your assumptions.

 

This "The Trace.org"?

How low can this discussion go with folks relying on anti gun rights propaganda organizations as their "expert sources" of information?

And BTW: as noted above by member CRT2, as well as elsewhere in this thread, the "information" provided in your link to The Trace has been proven to be false.

 
Last edited:
At the risk of initiating another thermonuclear response.............. I still cannot discern what problems with older designs we are "fixing" with striker/pistol engineering.

I think the heart of what is discussed here comes down to whether or not it is wise to take the trigger and sear completely out of alignment (and context with one another) every time the gun fires and trust that it will reassemble itself properly and safely 100% of the time.

This thread has certainly reinforced one concept for me:

The last place I want to store any striker fired handgun is in an appendix holster pointing directly at several irreplaceable parts or worse yet, my femoral artery.
"At the risk of initiating another thermonuclear response...."

It seems we have been at DEFCON 1 for quite awhile, with multiple thermonuclear blasts and radioactive fallout!:LOL:


 
I own a P320, so the allegation that such could ever suffer an "uncommanded" discharge is not anything I want to hear. The company's repetitive defense that such is simply impossible and that the trigger must be depressed for the gun to fire rings hollow in light of the current anecdotal evidence.

This is a recent compilation that details why the P320 design may under some circumstances be flawed. It's not some rabid "hit job" but merits serious consideration.



Anecdotal Evidence

Definition:

Anecdotal evidence can be defined as testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience. It is distinctly different from scientific evidence, or proof based on findings from systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation.


AKA: "Heresay".

information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
 
Hearsay and anecdotal info are NOT the same. For instance, I have PERSONALLY SEEN two Colt .45 ACP pistols become inoperable due to the firing pin safety hanging up. These happened with fairly early production Series 80 pistols in the same week in a high volume shooting training situation. That is anecdotal. It is not hearsay. They are admittedly isolated examples and not part of any formal study or systematic observation. Since I saw it myself and am relating it as such it is not hearsay.
 
I read an interesting perspective on the P320 thing, it may have been stated here?

Unless a person is an anti-2nd Amendment, anti-gun, anti-US Constitution, anti-American, and Civil Rights hater, ALL of what is being published in the firearm communities social media and forums is pouring fuel on the fire to promote the confiscation our guns and the destruction of our Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

At the very least, it is obvious that ALL criticisms and negative publicity, whether true or false, will promote the effort by the radical left to close and put out of business of all firearm manufacturers and all related industries.

Will the P320 lawsuits simply promote more right or wrong lawsuits against another firearm manufacturer?

It’s a very slippery slope to a very bad outcome for our American patriots.
 
I read an interesting perspective on the P320 thing, it may have been stated here?

Unless a person is an anti-2nd Amendment, anti-gun, anti-US Constitution, anti-American, and Civil Rights hater, ALL of what is being published in the firearm communities social media and forums is pouring fuel on the fire to promote the confiscation our guns and the destruction of our Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

At the very least, it is obvious that ALL criticisms and negative publicity, whether true or false, will promote the effort by the radical left to close and put out of business of all firearm manufacturers and all related industries.

Will the P320 lawsuits simply promote more right or wrong lawsuits against another firearm manufacturer?

It’s a very slippery slope to a very bad outcome for our American patriots.
Oh BS! Allowing a firearm that there is a perceived safety issue with to continue being sold adds more fuel to the anti-gun side than the 2A community demanding a product be made safe.

This argument is nothing more than Sig trying to use emotion to take all eyes off them and the very possible cronyism and very real lawfare bullying they have been pulling for the past decade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top