Sig 320 safety issues

**chadbag** · 09-13-22, 18:16

Originally Posted by MAUSER202

I don’t own a consumer 320, but an actual M17. I like it and have been considering a 320 for carry. These articles do make me think. I wonder with more than one instance in the same department if the duty holster they are using could be a factor?

What are the incidences of this happening in other departments that use the the P320? If it happens across all departments I'd look at the gun. If it is clustered in departments, I'd look at their gear (holsters), training, mode of carry. etc. Why are certain departments having more problems? That sort of thing.

**sandsunsurf** · 09-13-22, 21:48

Originally Posted by chadbag

What are the incidences of this happening in other departments that use the the P320? If it happens across all departments I'd look at the gun. If it is clustered in departments, I'd look at their gear (holsters), training, mode of carry. etc. Why are certain departments having more problems? That sort of thing.

I was thinking this exact same thing. There are plenty of departments using the P320 and I haven’t seen this issue reported.

Recently I’ve been thinking that the original “safe action” by Glock is really the only gun that’s not able to go bang from dropping or squeezing a holster wrong.

**opngrnd** · 09-15-22, 21:24

Interesting development:
https://www.wisn.com/article/coffee-...setts/41224245

More food for thought: Will we start to see this with the .mil M17/M18 line of pistols?

**ST911** · 09-15-22, 21:34

Originally Posted by opngrnd

More food for thought: Will we start to see this with the .mil M17/M18 line of pistols?

We lack details in what's reported by media, and lack everything in those incidents handled between citizen/officer/agency and the manufacturer directly. M17/M18 and contract guns are built and accountable to spec(s), 320s in your big-box and LGS are built to whatever. Most common problem with mil M17/M18 seems to be loose/lost rear sights.

**opngrnd** · 09-15-22, 21:54

Originally Posted by ST911

We lack details in what's reported by media, and lack everything in those incidents handled between citizen/officer/agency and the manufacturer directly. M17/M18 and contract guns are built and accountable to spec(s), 320s in your big-box and LGS are built to whatever. Most common problem with mil M17/M18 seems to be loose/lost rear sights.

I agree. I wish we could get details from a complete strip down of the pistols from the incidents I shared earlier. I remember one of the issues in a case several years ago is the pistol was assembled incorrectly.

The M17s from my most recent training had occasional issues with the slide completely returning to battery. The ammo we were shooting at that event was known to cause build up in the chamber, so we assumed the ammo was at fault.

**1168** · 09-16-22, 02:26

Originally Posted by opngrnd

The M17s from my most recent training had occasional issues with the slide completely returning to battery.

Hmmmm….. (touches beard thoughtfully)

**ST911** · 09-16-22, 07:18

Originally Posted by opngrnd

The M17s from my most recent training had occasional issues with the slide completely returning to battery. The ammo we were shooting at that event was known to cause build up in the chamber, so we assumed the ammo was at fault.

What load?

**Ron3** · 09-16-22, 07:23

Originally Posted by opngrnd

Interesting development:
https://www.wisn.com/article/coffee-...setts/41224245

More food for thought: Will we start to see this with the .mil M17/M18 line of pistols?

"Watch: Coffee shop employee jumps for joy as he receives first paycheck"

You might need to segway the connection...