Would you carry Sig 320 with 4 1/2 lb trigger?

[Kawamax]

I would place the burden of proof on showing that the firearm is safe.

That isn’t really possible with any firearm. You can certainly test some firearms in a variety of tests. Assuming no failures, then you would know two things:
1. For the tests you performed, there were no failures. You would still have no idea if there were other tests in which the firearm might fail.
2. You could say that for the tests done, there would be a specific probability that all of the firearms of that brand/model would be safe. That probability would not be 100%.

History is littered with examples of human engineering that were deemed “safe” that later turned out not to be…

Side note: I do not own or plan to own any Sig 320s. I do own other Sigs, and I’m not interested in the 320 simply because there are a lot of other pistols are more interesting to me.

 

[someguy2800]

The last I saw there were some 50 or 60 reports from law enforcement agency's of Sig P320's going off unintentionally, some of them while sitting in their holsters. Some of them or possibly even the majority of them are probably people trying to cover for themselves, but here are two witnessed cases of competitive shooters with P320's going off inside the holster.

https://www.tiktok.com/@chefchrisc/video/7128390964959497518

 

[Kleanbore]

1. For the tests you performed, there were no failures. You would still have no idea if there were other tests in which the firearm might fail.

True indeed-and it is therefore impossible to "prove" that a tirearm is "not unsafe". One cannot prove a negative.

Still, the important factor is having sufficient confidence that a firearm is safe. Adequate testing and a lack of faiiures can provide that.

Can't have that with the P320 now, based on the as yet unresolved reports of unintentional discharges.

This is speculation, but I would think that the design concept is safe, and that if there are problems, they involve manufacturing issues, such as stacked tolerances. Those can be difficult to isolate.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

I would place the burden of proof on showing that the firearm is safe.

As someone that performed UL safety testing for 6 years I fully support the idea of rigorous testing to show that a product is reasonably safe. But there is no way to prove absolute safety. You can only prove that a product is unsafe. It is also impossible to predict every possibility that could result in a failure.

But there are also a judgement calls to be made.

Such as how tolerant must a firearm be of gunpowder residue, lint, sand, mud, and and other contaminants and still operate safely and reliably?

How drop safe must a pistol be? Would it be reasonable to expect it to be fully drop safe if you dropped it off the Empire State building?

How much vibration must it be able to withstand without failing in an unsafe manner?

How long should critical parts last before they need to be replaced for safety reasons?

Under what temperature extremes must a pistol be able to safely and reliably operate?

Here are the SAAMI abusive handling testing parameters:
https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SAAMI-Z299.5-Abusive-Mishandling-Approved-3-14-2016.pdf

I have an issue with the testing procedure at first glance. They are performing the drop test ONTO A RUBBER MAT! That does NOT seem like worst case testing to me. A firearm can easily be dropped onto concrete or other unyielding surface. That doesn't inspire confidence in their testing procedure.

This is also VOLUNTARY testing by the gun industry. Biased to say the least. I wonder if the original P320 passed the drop on a rubber mat test.

 

[Kleanbore]

Good post, Allen.

 

[9mmepiphany]

it is therefore impossible to "prove" that a tirearm is "not unsafe". One cannot prove a negative.

You can only prove that a product is unsafe.

This is my understanding also.

The request isn't to prove the negative, that a product is is not safe, but to prove the fact that the product is unsafe...that it does something that it had been designed and proven not to do during initial testing

 

[Zendude]

If the light trigger is a cause for worry, then I would suggest not carrying it. Everyone has their own comfort level based on their own experiences. No need to induce unnecessary stress in your life.

 

[Kleanbore]

The request isn't to prove .... that a product is is not safe, but to prove the fact that the product is unsafe.

Those sound the same to me.

....that it does something that it had been designed and proven not to do during initial testing

Allen pointed out that that cannot be done... that we can only give ourselves a degree of confidence that is is unlikely to fail.

The problem is that until the conditions that can cause failure have been identified and duplicated in testing, there is always the possibility of failure. The cold-temperature failure of the elastomeric o-ring seals in the STS Solid Rocket Boosters are a good example.

They were able to demonstrate drop failures in early P320 pistols, and they changed the design. But there have been credible reports of other failures. If anyone knows the cause, they are keeping it to themselves for obvious reason as the litigation proceeds.

 

[halfmoonclip]

For the OP, the P320 can be retrofitted with the same manual safety as is used for the M17/18. It may require a trip to the mothership, as the retrofit is not as easy as the one for the P365.
That trigger pull doesn't seem excessively light; as regards the flippy-doo thingy in the trigger, its absence is one of the things I like best about SIGs.
For the OP, if you really are more confident of DA/SA platforms, then you are not apt to be really comfortable with any striker.
Moon

 

[Alllen Bundy]

I am not familiar with this company and I do not make any endorsement. But they apparently do manual trigger safety conversions for the P320. I believe that it requires machining the FCU.

Manual Safety Conversion for a SIG P320
https://www.abprototype.com/p320-manual-safety-conversion/

 

[Tcruse]

No, but not because of the trigger pull weight. Google sig 320 unintentional discharge.

The "unintentional discharge" issue has been resolved for 9 years. The update makes the Sig probably more drop safe than any of its competitors.

 

[Tcruse]

As someone that performed UL safety testing for 6 years I fully support the idea of rigorous testing to show that a product is reasonably safe. But there is no way to prove absolute safety. You can only prove that a product is unsafe. It is also impossible to predict every possibility that could result in a failure.

But there are also a judgement calls to be made.

Such as how tolerant must a firearm be of gunpowder residue, lint, sand, mud, and and other contaminants and still operate safely and reliably?

How drop safe must a pistol be? Would it be reasonable to expect it to be fully drop safe if you dropped it off the Empire State building?

How much vibration must it be able to withstand without failing in an unsafe manner?

How long should critical parts last before they need to be replaced for safety reasons?

Under what temperature extremes must a pistol be able to safely and reliably operate?

Here are the SAAMI abusive handling testing parameters:
https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SAAMI-Z299.5-Abusive-Mishandling-Approved-3-14-2016.pdf

I have an issue with the testing procedure at first glance. They are performing the drop test ONTO A RUBBER MAT! That does NOT seem like worst case testing to me. A firearm can easily be dropped onto concrete or other unyielding surface. That doesn't inspire confidence in their testing procedure.

This is also VOLUNTARY testing by the gun industry. Biased to say the least. I wonder if the original P320 passed the drop on a rubber mat test.

There is no question that the first P-320 (w/ heavy trigger part) was not as drop safe as most of us would like. However, the update has not only fixed the problem but has gone far beyond what other manufacturers have done. The P-320 (post upgrade) is as drop safe as any handgun currently on the market. The remaining "claims" are from people that want to "scam" SIG or have mistreated the firearm and have to lie to keep their governmnet jobs, IMO. There is a video that makes the comparison between pre-upgrade and current Sig P320, I do not think anyone that studies the changes could think there is still a problem.

 

[someguy2800]

The "unintentional discharge" issue has been resolved for 9 years. The update makes the Sig probably more drop safe than any of its competitors.

I’m not talking about the drop safety problem.

 

[Kawamax]

I’m not talking about the drop safety problem.

What do you see as “the problem”? If it’s the LEO ADs I am kind of skeptical as this they could lose their job over an AD, and we’ve seen similar issues/comments about Glocks with an entirely different trigger mechanism. If it’s the two competitive shooters you referenced, were they stock triggers?

 

[someguy2800]

What do you see as “the problem”? If it’s the LEO ADs I am kind of skeptical as this they could lose their job over an AD, and we’ve seen similar issues/comments about Glocks with an entirely different trigger mechanism. If it’s the two competitive shooters you referenced, were they stock triggers?

I know the one in the YouTube link was because he said as much and sent it back to sig. I don’t know if the one in the tic tok link was or not. I would normally be extremely skeptical of the law enforcement claims as they have an extreme motivation to lie about it, but having two separate videos of it happening brings a great deal of legitimacy to the claims for me. There is not enough evidence yet to make a determination but it needs to be taken seriously. We will likely learn more from the LE law suits because I presume at least a few of these events will have body or dash cam evidence. Assuming of course they don’t all get settled out of court, which is what sig will undoubtedly push for.

Just my personal opinion but after the p320 drop safety issue, the p365 firing pin and dead trigger issues, and now the p320 unintentional discharge problem coming to light, I’ll never buy a sig product until their corporate culture turns around. Every manufacturer makes mistakes but lying to the public about them is unacceptable. Like during the p365 release I remember someone saying they called sig customer service to say that their firing pin broke and being told that they were only the 2nd person that’s ever happened too. Meanwhile there were like 10 videos on YouTube already of people with broken firing pins and many more reports on the forums. They never did do a recall either.

 

[Zendude]

For the OP…There are stiffer trigger return springs you can get for the 320. I think Galloway Precision makes a +10% heavier spring. The stiffer spring might increase the trigger pull weight to a level you are more comfortable with carrying.

 

[Kleanbore]

The remaining "claims" are from people that want to "scam" SIG or have mistreated the firearm and have to lie to keep their governmnet jobs, IMO

What do you see as “the problem”? I

Sig has issued a statement to the effect that the P320 may fire without the trigger being pulled under conditions in which or has been subjected to shock or vibration.

I would describe that as a problem.

 

[Alllen Bundy]

Sig has issued a statement to the effect that the P320 may fire without the trigger being pulled under conditions in which or has been subjected to shock or vibration.

It would be easy to shock test a P320. Chamber a shell case with a functional primer, then whack it hard with a hammer everywhere on the gun. A person can easily hit it hard enough with a hammer to simulate a drop from a high height.

It would be more difficult for the average person to vibration test a P320, but still possible. Just walk into Home Depot and talk them into strapping your P320 to the paint can shaker! Industry has all sorts of devices to perform vibration testing. Products are commonly subjected to vibration testing.

With all of the Sig lawsuits going on, If I were a gun manufacturer I would be double checking to make sure that every firearm they manufactured was properly safety tested.

 

[Kleanbore]

It would be easy to shock test a P320....It would be more difficult for the average person to vibration test a P320, but still possible..

I think that would be a waste of time. A sufficient number of tests encompassing a sufficient number of variables should address any intrinsic design issues. It would seem likely that SIG has done that. The remaining issue would be manufacturing process variations as they affect the design functionality, which could be more elusive and which would require testing numerous examples.

 

[Lennyjoe]

Is the Sig trigger the issue or the pull weight?

I carry a Glock with a 3.5 lb disconnector if that matters

 

[DeepSouth]

A 4.5lb trigger wouldn’t keep me from carrying it. That is a lighter than my preference for a carry gun, but as long as the trigger is covered properly I wouldn’t let that stop me. A covered trigger is a must though with any carry gun.

Apparently I am the the only person on THR that can’t say if the P320 trigger issue would prevent me from carrying one. I don’t have one so I haven’t really researched it much, certainly not enough to have an educated opinion on the matter.

 

[Kawamax]

I know the one in the YouTube link was because he said as much and sent it back to sig. I don’t know if the one in the tic tok link was or not. I would normally be extremely skeptical of the law enforcement claims as they have an extreme motivation to lie about it, but having two separate videos of it happening brings a great deal of legitimacy to the claims for me. There is not enough evidence yet to make a determination but it needs to be taken seriously. We will likely learn more from the LE law suits because I presume at least a few of these events will have body or dash cam evidence. Assuming of course they don’t all get settled out of court, which is what sig will undoubtedly push for.

Just my personal opinion but after the p320 drop safety issue, the p365 firing pin and dead trigger issues, and now the p320 unintentional discharge problem coming to light, I’ll never buy a sig product until their corporate culture turns around. Every manufacturer makes mistakes but lying to the public about them is unacceptable. Like during the p365 release I remember someone saying they called sig customer service to say that their firing pin broke and being told that they were only the 2nd person that’s ever happened too. Meanwhile there were like 10 videos on YouTube already of people with broken firing pins and many more reports on the forums. They never did do a recall either.

Thanks for the explanation. My perspective is a bit different. Note that I’m not saying that you are wrong. Just that my experience has been different and that leads me to different conclusions. I have four Sigs (2xP220, P239, P365) and they have all been flawless. My 365 has never had a failure of any kind.

A friend of mine has a Ruger that has had two firing pins break. Ruger CS has been really good about getting him new ones, and with the last one the CS guy said “yeah we got a bad batch some time back…”. He hasn’t liked the down time but overall he’s happy with Ruger and his gun. I agree with him. Like I say my 365 hasn’t had any issues, but if the firing pin broke and they sent me a new one I’d be happy. I don’t see a firing pin as a recall kind of thing. But if there were trigger issues, slide issues, or potential chamber issues then I’d expect a recall.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Is the Sig trigger the issue or the pull weight?

I carry a Glock with a 3.5 lb disconnector if that matters

There is a huge difference between the stock SIG trigger and stock Glock trigger. The Glock striker is only partially cocked and completely cocked during the trigger press, while the SIG striker is completely cocked and being held by the sear.

When Glocks suffered their rash of ND, it was easy to trace back to operator error. Glock doesn't publicize these things as they like to stay in the good graces of potential LE customers...but then they never publicly address issues they've had to correct either

 

[9mmepiphany]

Every manufacturer makes mistakes but lying to the public about them is unacceptable

Then I'm assuming you don't give Glock a Pass when they've lied about fixes they've had to addressed over the years. They usually don't lie, they just never admit that there is an issue and fix it in production...like SIG did with their voluntary upgrade.

The one that stands out for me is when they claimed that the failure of Gen 3 .40 caliber Glocks with mounted weapon lights was due to magazine springs...but then addressed it (lack of flex in the frame) with the introduction of the Gen 4 guns

 

[Kleanbore]

Just that my experience has been different and that leads me to different conclusions. I have four Sigs (2xP220, P239, P365) and they have all been flawless. My 365 has never had a failure of any kind.

I'm sure there are many P320 pistols that have not yet failed. But there are a few that have.