A Thoughtful & Nuanced Take on SIG's P320 Nightmare

Published on May 13, 2025
Duration: 19:48

This review delves into the SIG P320's unintended discharge issues, distinguishing between early drop safety flaws and later potential causes like tolerance stacking. It highlights the P320's fully cocked striker design and lack of external safeties as contributing factors to its sensitive trigger. The analysis debunks cost-saving claims regarding manufacturing changes, emphasizing the importance of quality control in complex firearm designs.

Quick Summary

Early SIG P320 models had a drop safety flaw, later addressed by SIG. The P320's fully cocked striker and lack of external safeties contribute to its sensitive trigger, potentially leading to unintended discharges due to factors like tolerance stacking or foreign object interference.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: P320 Controversy Revisited
  2. 01:40The Original Drop Safety Flaw
  3. 02:37Striker Design: P320 vs. Glock
  4. 04:16Lack of External Safeties Explained
  5. 06:13Tolerance Stacking & QC Issues Theory
  6. 10:25Debunking Manufacturing Claims (MIM vs. Stamped)

Frequently Asked Questions

What were the main safety concerns with the SIG P320?

Early SIG P320 models faced scrutiny for a genuine drop safety flaw. Additionally, its striker-fired design with a fully cocked striker and lack of external safeties can make it sensitive to unintended discharges from external factors or internal component issues like tolerance stacking.

How does the SIG P320 striker design differ from a Glock?

The P320 uses a fully cocked striker, enabling a superior trigger pull. In contrast, a Glock's striker is only partially tensioned, offering a built-in safety margin if internal parts fail, making it less prone to accidental discharge from certain failures.

Could tolerance stacking cause unintended discharges in the P320?

Yes, Ian McCollum theorizes that 'tolerance stacking' might explain P320 discharges occurring without direct trigger interaction. This happens when minor variations in multiple manufactured parts combine, potentially allowing the sear to disengage unexpectedly, possibly exacerbated by quality control lapses.

Did SIG Sauer change P320 manufacturing for cost savings?

Reports suggesting SIG switched from stamped to MIM parts to save money are debunked. Stamping is generally a more cost-effective method for producing these specific firearm components, making the cost-saving claim illogical.

Related News

All News →

More Reviews Videos You Might Like

More from Forgotten Weapons

View all →