This seems to suggest carrying with a chambered round. Is this prudent without an external threat? They can drop the thing, or some kind of impact can yield a “design problem”. Can’t they just chamber when there’s a need?
Since all services have adopted it, idiot proofing should be the main feature of the gun because it will be carried with idiots all the time and casualties accumulate.
I have a 320C that I purchased in 2018 and have shot less than 100 rounds out of. I tried to sell it recently and was offered by two gun stores, less than $200. MSRP was around $500. Very annoyed with Sig over this. Their statements have been no help either, talk about Streisand effect.
Everyone I know has been saying, for years, to not carry Sig 320s or their variants. Those things are dangerous. It's tragic it took the death of someone from what (at this point) was an entirely preventable outcome.
It's crazy how the P320 has such a bad reputation, while the P365, a 9mm micro-pistol by Sig Sauer, is a phenomenal piece of kit by comparison. I purchased mine in 2018 and it's seen thousands of rounds put through it with zero issues encountered.
Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off.
I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the safety?
Interesting... I would have thought that maybe the military variant with the manual safety would be immune to this issue. It seems the manual safety is only a trigger block and not an additional or positive stiker block. It seems this offers no additional safety beyond keeping the trigger guard clear. So much for the military's insistence on a manual safety. Was there really any data showing the units using Glocks had issues related to a lack of manual safety? Sig added one, but clearly it was an afterthought.
Beyond the tragedy here - the implication of this is that USAF security forces were carrying a widely understood to be mechanically unsafe handguns in the presence of nuclear weapons. I am not saying a stray round can cause a criticality but shooting a nuclear weapon or its associated delivery and logistics systems is suboptimal.
The problems with the civilian version (the 320) are well documented (by law enforcement officers and the civilian community) and there appears to be a root cause and solution. (Not an expert but replaced trigger group?)
I recently bought a SIG P320, and a week later, I started reading articles about it self discharging. =P It’s not like it happens all the time, but it seems that if the safety lever spring’s thickness is off by a thousandth of an inch, and the height of the post it fits on is also off by a thousandth of an inch, and you drop the pistol at just the right angle with enough force, the FBI reportedly got it to discharge once during testing—though officially, the results are inconclusive. Now, some law enforcement agencies are quietly replacing the P320 with the Glock 19. Personally, I’m keeping mine because it’s a great gun, and I love that 21-round magazine. However, I sent in my warranty card in case there’s a recall or something similar.
There are really two separate claims being made about the P320 and unintentional discharges.
One claim is that the gun can fire when dropped at a certain angle from a certain height. The voluntary "recall" lets you send it back to Sig and they replace some parts. I think the cause was because the trigger itself was bulky enough for a drop to give it enough inertia to fire, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
The other claim is that the P320 can fire without being dropped, and while holstered, seemingly on it's own. That's all I really know about it.
I own a P320, and I consider it an unsafe weapon at this point. I have not had the self-recall fix done and I'll never chamber a round in it again, so I guess it's a paperweight now.
Why? Also, isn't that only an issue in early P320s? (at least according to Sig)
> and I'll never chamber a round in it again
Isn't this good enough for most uses? Heck, a long time ago I was trained to only chamber after unholstering AND entering a situation requiring quick response. The extra round not being worth the risk. 17 instead of 17+1 for the 9mm P320, right?
Honestly, this all smells like an overblown hysteria campaign to pump American brands. I would like to see the accidental discharge rate per units in use. This is one of the most popular handguns.
Sig is an American company, owned by a German holding corp, but still significantly more American than any other pistol mfg being considered, Glock or Beretta.
Use to really enjoy shooting SIG, they felt well made, reliable, hell the military was adopting them over the 1911... Nothing led me to get rid of it, but I just found Glock to make a better handgun all around. Either way, much prefer single action revolves for their safety, accuracy, and reloading.
I think the first claim is cover for the 2nd. if they admit there are uncommanded discharges, their reputation is decimated and they will lose an entire batch of lawsuits. If they dont do anything, guns will keep uncommanded-discharging until there is overwhelming evidence (I think we're at that point already)
I've had one since before the military adopted it. I've been carrying it for years daily. It has never once went off on its own. I run with it, jump with it, have carried it in a small cross body bag. It has never just fired by itself. I have over 5k rounds through it.
The only time my gun has went off was when I pulled the trigger. Has your gun ever went off without pulling the trigger?
Most of the videos I see on YouTube are people who were fiddling with the gun, in some kind of physical altercation, or carry some sort of back on the side they carry. I didn't get the fix from Sig either.
I don’t know if the Sig P320 has a similar firing pin safety design to the P365, but I optioned to go with Springfield Hellcat vs P365 specifically because the Hellcat has two separate safety catch points on the firing pin assembly, thereby eliminating a single point of failure, while the P365 essentially has one (see photos here https://www.reddit.com/r/gunsmithing/comments/f7dgnl/how_saf...). Glock has also has a redundant “two-catch” internal safety design, and has a well established safety record (hellcat just worked better for my needs; glock was an equally good choice from a safety standpoint). It’s common in the US to carry in “ready” configuration (barrel loaded); IMO if you choose to do this, a single point of failure is unacceptable. It’s why hammer fire (with hammer disengaged requiring initial DA trigger pull to push hammer back) can be safer; you can also cover the hammer with thumb while drawing and feel if the trigger is accidentally engaging, helping to prevent a negligent discharge.
Consider the Canik TP9SF Elite rather than the ubiquitous Glock. My EDC is an TP9 Elite SC. Thousands of rounds through it and support is outstanding. Several advantages and features over big G. Nothing wrong with the Glock 17 G5 or 19 G5.
Ah, Sig. On the one hand, gold (P365). On the other hand, painful, agonizing failure (P320).
If you make new-design firearms in any significant volume, you will have safety recalls. I don't know how many times I've gone to another gunmaker's website to see a banner announcing a safety recall. The important thing is that you stand behind your product 100%, and Sig's not doing that, even with arguably the most prestigious military contract in the world that one can hope to get for their pistol.
I wouldn't purchase any new Sigs after seeing how they've doubled-down on denial here. This is a life-taking/life-saving tool. It cannot be wrong; it cannot fail.
I mean the people here are largely from the US. And while some politicians and the media likes to pretend gun ownership is something only deeply conservative rednecks hold to, it simply isn't true, gun ownership and the support of gun owner rights in the US crosses all political and social boundaries. And it makes perfect sense when you realize how few people in the US trust the cops, military, courts, or politicians to protect them from others, and they have seen the very real threats of many groups and organizations that have repeatedly put forth ideals of wanting to kill others for petty ideological bullshit.
On top of that you have to add in the important historical contexts weapons are involved in which garners peoples interest.
And then there is the engineering ingenuity and craft involved in all the mechanics of how they operate and the {hopefully) fine machining and techniques used in creating them, the same way someone might marvel at the internals of different clocks or watches.
There is a lot of accidental discharge happening when people holster their pistol improperly and the trigger snags on something or they inadvertently press the trigger while grabbing it. However, I’ve seen at least one footage of a Sig 320 discharging while properly holstered (Sig tried to claim the retention hood wasn’t properly closed but it clearly was): https://youtube.com/watch?v=OSAI_HUZDI0
The Glock, on the other hand, doesn't have a safety lever. Instead, it uses a double trigger pull mechanism to help prevent accidental firing. I've often wondered if a safety lever gives people a false sense of security. With the Glock, you must always assume the gun is ready to fire, which requires careful handling.
I thought most law enforcement and military agencies use the Glock as standard issue. Isn't it?
Tangentially related: here's a gunsmith going into detail on improper modifications leading to double firing and failed drop tests: https://youtu.be/ppuyoeoTLMA
41 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 60.0 ms ] threadA gun carried without one in the chamber is just a totem for emotional coddling, nothing more.
I'll never buy another Sig. They've burned bridges IMHO.
I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case? If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the safety?
https://www.twz.com/land/army-making-no-changes-to-its-sig-p...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QusWrho19zE
And then a more recent follow up
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3iWVs2uD1XY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjEhgXAALL8&t=802s
One claim is that the gun can fire when dropped at a certain angle from a certain height. The voluntary "recall" lets you send it back to Sig and they replace some parts. I think the cause was because the trigger itself was bulky enough for a drop to give it enough inertia to fire, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
The other claim is that the P320 can fire without being dropped, and while holstered, seemingly on it's own. That's all I really know about it.
I own a P320, and I consider it an unsafe weapon at this point. I have not had the self-recall fix done and I'll never chamber a round in it again, so I guess it's a paperweight now.
Why? Also, isn't that only an issue in early P320s? (at least according to Sig)
> and I'll never chamber a round in it again
Isn't this good enough for most uses? Heck, a long time ago I was trained to only chamber after unholstering AND entering a situation requiring quick response. The extra round not being worth the risk. 17 instead of 17+1 for the 9mm P320, right?
Honestly, this all smells like an overblown hysteria campaign to pump American brands. I would like to see the accidental discharge rate per units in use. This is one of the most popular handguns.
Sig is an American company, owned by a German holding corp, but still significantly more American than any other pistol mfg being considered, Glock or Beretta.
The only time my gun has went off was when I pulled the trigger. Has your gun ever went off without pulling the trigger?
Most of the videos I see on YouTube are people who were fiddling with the gun, in some kind of physical altercation, or carry some sort of back on the side they carry. I didn't get the fix from Sig either.
If you make new-design firearms in any significant volume, you will have safety recalls. I don't know how many times I've gone to another gunmaker's website to see a banner announcing a safety recall. The important thing is that you stand behind your product 100%, and Sig's not doing that, even with arguably the most prestigious military contract in the world that one can hope to get for their pistol.
I wouldn't purchase any new Sigs after seeing how they've doubled-down on denial here. This is a life-taking/life-saving tool. It cannot be wrong; it cannot fail.
I learned something new today.
On top of that you have to add in the important historical contexts weapons are involved in which garners peoples interest. And then there is the engineering ingenuity and craft involved in all the mechanics of how they operate and the {hopefully) fine machining and techniques used in creating them, the same way someone might marvel at the internals of different clocks or watches.
I thought most law enforcement and military agencies use the Glock as standard issue. Isn't it?
Also: Glock-specific safety checks: https://youtu.be/LFk_nq0HcEc