Opinions on the Sig P320

[welequipt1]

Sad part is I like the pistol, however to much bad hooked to it for me.
My glocks never had an issue. I dont understand why these do

Thought provoking comment. Regrettably, those thoughts are less than kind...ponderous

 

[welequipt1]

Zero concerns here. Wife and I have put many thousands of rounds through the full size as well as the compact without any failures. If you have them, enjoy them, they are good shootin' pistols. Though I confess we have been enjoying the hell out of the P226's lately.

The 226 is legendary. Costly, some say, but a CZ Shadow2 for the same price gets my dollars.

 

[RedGoat]

When evaluating postings made on the interwebs, one must first place said postings in one of several categories: 1) pure opinion based upon nothing except perhaps having read some stuff on the interwebs, 2) an opinion based upon experience with a very limited amount of "hands-on" usage, usually with a VERY small sample size, 3) an opinion based upon a deep understanding of the mechanism in question, OR 4) (and I put the most weight on these) an opinion based upon aforesaid deep understanding PLUS extensive hand-on experience / observations with a WIDE number of physical examples. There are probably additional categories that one could "create" based upon various split hairs, but I think that these four will cover just about anything that's been posted on the subject of SIG P320 "uncommanded discharges."

I freely admit that my opinion here falls squarely into category 1 because I do not own nor have I ever owned a P320, I've never fired one, to my recollection, have never examined one, and I've not really put forth the effort to gain a solid grasp on how its fire control mechanism functions. Nevertheless here it is: Whether the SIG P320 has a design flaw that presents a mortal danger of an "uncommanded discharge" or not is still yet to be definitively proven nor disproven. I cannot take SIG's word to the contrary. Any proof or dis-proof will have to come from an impartial entity whose statements can be placed in category 4. Authorities such as Bruce Gray need not apply as an "impartial entity." I give great credence to Bruce's writings / statements, but at the same time his fortunes are very tied to those of SIG at the economic level. At this point in time, I can make only one statement with authority: SIG has a public relations problem of the worst kind due to the P320's "reputation" on the interwebs. And I will add that SIG has not helped its case by its behavior / statements in connection with the P320. They definitely give off the vibe of "they're hiding something in order to protect their own economic / legal interests."

I will also postulate that in another 10 to 20 years, history itself will document how much truth or untruth has been thrown at the P320 on the interwebs. If the SIG P320 (and indeed, SIG itself) weathers the storm, they (SIG) might still be selling P320s and its reputation, though sullied, will be solidified if only through its continued adoption / usage by the US armed services branches. This was the path taken by the now-beloved 1911 pistol. It wasn't ALWAYS universally loved by the soldiers who carried it. However, over time, its reputation wound up on the positive side of the ledger. Perhaps the SIG P320 will follow in the 1911's footsteps. Maybe it will not.

We will see.

 

[Old_Me]

When evaluating postings made on the interwebs, one must first place said postings in one of several categories: 1) pure opinion based upon nothing except perhaps having read some stuff on the interwebs, 2) an opinion based upon experience with a very limited amount of "hands-on" usage, usually with a VERY small sample size, 3) an opinion based upon a deep understanding of the mechanism in question, OR 4) (and I put the most weight on these) an opinion based upon aforesaid deep understanding PLUS extensive hand-on experience / observations with a WIDE number of physical examples. There are probably additional categories that one could "create" based upon various split hairs, but I think that these four will cover just about anything that's been posted on the subject of SIG P320 "uncommanded discharges."

I freely admit that my opinion here falls squarely into category 1 because I do not own nor have I ever owned a P320, I've never fired one, to my recollection, have never examined one, and I've not really put forth the effort to gain a solid grasp on how its fire control mechanism functions. Nevertheless here it is: Whether the SIG P320 has a design flaw that presents a mortal danger of an "uncommanded discharge" or not is still yet to be definitively proven nor disproven. I cannot take SIG's word to the contrary. Any proof or dis-proof will have to come from an impartial entity whose statements can be placed in category 4. Authorities such as Bruce Gray need not apply as an "impartial entity." I give great credence to Bruce's writings / statements, but at the same time his fortunes are very tied to those of SIG at the economic level. At this point in time, I can make only one statement with authority: SIG has a public relations problem of the worst kind due to the P320's "reputation" on the interwebs. And I will add that SIG has not helped its case by its behavior / statements in connection with the P320. They definitely give off the vibe of "they're hiding something in order to protect their own economic / legal interests."

I will also postulate that in another 10 to 20 years, history itself will document how much truth or untruth has been thrown at the P320 on the interwebs. If the SIG P320 (and indeed, SIG itself) weathers the storm, they (SIG) might still be selling P320s and its reputation, though sullied, will be solidified if only through its continued adoption / usage by the US armed services branches. This was the path taken by the now-beloved 1911 pistol. It wasn't ALWAYS universally loved by the soldiers who carried it. However, over time, its reputation wound up on the positive side of the ledger. Perhaps the SIG P320 will follow in the 1911's footsteps. Maybe it will not.

We will see.

i only read a few "reviews" on the Sig P320 regarding the issue.

i still went out and bought one.

thinking maybe i read more as in the category of #1 as you mentioned.

i do not buy nor stay away from many guns based on the interluding interwebs from half-witted know-it-alls.

i do however respect professionals who speak of either proving or disproving such "reviews"..

however too...i usually do not buy fugly guns based on looks, like the Hi-Points, that has a look that only its mother could love...and most mothers are crackheads.

and i do not buy (to me) super cheap guns, simply cuz they save money.........to me, cheap guns are all those..new out of the box at a cost of under $300, maybe a bit cheaper.


i also do not buy guns from makers/manufacturers i never heard of, are "new" to the market, and simply put..unknown, of quality, dependability, simply cuz some "article praised them highly, in a review".....(AKA..paid endorsements)..

for me, it would take a "ton of proof" that a brand new gun, from a brand new or young company, produces a gun i'd buy from them.

Sig is of a known product, and some people are 1000% fan boys, as are some to Glock, CZ, S&W, etc, etc.......

we all have our love of a company and thier products, and a disliking of others.

 

[Jsimon78]

It’s hard to believe anything anymore on what is going on. Personally I’m not a big fan of it for different reasons. The big reason is all the news around it. Every manufacturer has their problems and lemons. If you trust it enough then go with it.

 

[RedGoat]

@Old_Me -- I agree with your comments.

I try to use reviews / posts / evaluations from the interwebs as part of my evaluation process, but not as my sole criteria. Honestly, most of my firearm purchases are based upon or spring from a lifetime of experience and of reading/study. I view the interwebs as just another useful (when used correctly) tool in evaluation of whatever. To that end, I've sort of developed the four classifications mentioned above for what I find on the interwebs.

I've been very interested in the P320 ever since it was announced due to its highly modular nature. I own more than one example of the P365 that I selected, not due to its modularity, but due to its round count capacity in a package very comparable to the Glock 43. I've been very happy with my 365s and haven't really experimented with changing up their configurations.

I have mixed feelings about SIG the company / brand. I "discovered" the older style SIGs a little too late: The P239 feels amazing in my hands and I also own more than one example of this model also. The problem is magazine availability. Magazines for the P239 are unobtainium at any approaching a reasonable cost... Which leads me to one of my main complaints about SIG handguns in general: magazine availability and their cost. Compare to Glock. 'Nuff said.

"we all have our love of a company and their products, and a disliking of others." Amen! and Amen! One thing I've learned over the years is that firearms owners' preferences are HIGHLY personal, and most people, once they've made their choice and plunked down their hard-earned money, will argue endlessly in an effort to gain the validation of others for their choice. In other words, they become emotionally invested in their choice. I try to avoid those games. I just do not have the bandwidth to engage.

Based upon where I am at right now regarding the P320, I might still pick one up someday if the price is right and I don't have a higher priority "need / want" for the money in question. Given the current state of suspicion, it probably would not become a carry gun, but I suspect much enjoyment could be had with it at the range. I would also not choose it for a training class where drawing from the holster / reholstering is part of the regimen. Many instructors currently have a standing ban on the P320 in their classes anyway.

 

[papa]

I have never cared for any of the Sigs. I don't think they are unreliable , I just don't like the looks of them. They all look bulky to me.