Poll: Paul Harrell would not carry a P320 without safety.

[PaulF]

The external safety is to mitigate the much vaunted Sig "triple action" feature in case you drop it….

What mitigates the ND from holstering a P320?

 

[sobo]

Seven pages dissecting a "Youtube personality's" preference for carry mode of a pistol he doesn't even carry?

Must be a slow month for topics in the wide world of firearms.

View attachment 1059100

View attachment 1059099

Same here!

 

[Stomper]

What mitigates the ND from holstering a P320?

POCKET CARRY…… oh, and bubble wrap!

 

[PaulF]

POCKET CARRY…… oh, and bubble wrap!

I'd probably just tape it to my hand and wrist to be on the safe side.

 

[The Heretic]

MPD guns fired on their own twice in 6 months

The second accidental shooting happened after police supervisors internally raised questions about the safety of the SIG Sauer P320.

www.wisn.com

 

[PaulF]

MPD guns fired on their own twice in 6 months

The second accidental shooting happened after police supervisors internally raised questions about the safety of the SIG Sauer P320.

www.wisn.com

This also happened in IL and PA, those were police officers as well and not just some Chad.

 

[Old Dog]

"Chad?" WTF is some Chad?

And I wouldn't be looking at police officers as role models in terms of being firearms experts or super-careful gun-handlers. Wanna know how I know?

The lawyer who's going after SIG is angling for a big payday. And the cases in question... let's just say there are more questions raised. Not trying to be an apologist for SIG by any means, but it's appeared there was some, let's say, prevarication going on in some, equipment issues in others and a hint of guys trying to cover up NDs by blaming the pistol.

TTAG had a good piece recently on this very topic. If you dig long enough, you may notice that some of the reports of 320s "going off by themselves" have just kinda faded away into the sunset with no documentation of any resolution. Hmm.

 

[03A3Sporter]

Gun fights where the gunfighter lives tends to leave me with the idea that said gunfighter might know what he is talking about . Paul Harrel having been involved in two shootings makes him someone I would take seriously rather than not. Consider the fact he not only was in the gun fight but walked away without a conviction .

Charles Askins punched quite a few folks tickets for them, most consider the good colonel a SME when it comes to the subject .

The best path is always to avoid the confrontation but when you can't you ideally want to still be pumping oxygen out of jail. Of course your mileage may vary

I have always been a fan of Paul... but the more I learn about firearms the more I find myself questioning him as a person, and therefore his videos as well.

Specifically what I am talking about is the fact that Paul has been involved in at least 2 major shooting incidents that left people dead. Paul was not convicted in either of these shootings, but the fact that he has even been involved in a single fatal shooting would raise my brow, and having it happen twice is either the worst luck in the world or something else is going on.

Anyway like I said I have always been a fan of Paul, but as I learn more about him and his past I find it harder and harder to take his advice seriously - especially when it comes to gun safety.

 

[PaulF]

"Chad?" WTF is some Chad?

And I wouldn't be looking at police officers as role models in terms of being firearms experts or super-careful gun-handlers. Wanna know how I know?

The lawyer who's going after SIG is angling for a big payday. And the cases in question... let's just say there are more questions raised. Not trying to be an apologist for SIG by any means, but it's appeared there was some, let's say, prevarication going on in some, equipment issues in others and a hint of guys trying to cover up NDs by blaming the pistol.

TTAG had a good piece recently on this very topic. If you dig long enough, you may notice that some of the reports of 320s "going off by themselves" have just kinda faded away into the sunset with no documentation of any resolution. Hmm.

Never said LEOs were the end all best all "Experts" my point was they were and are people who have hands on training with firearms, and not total newbs who just didn't know what they were doing.

And yes Lawyers go after big paydays that's what they do.

But when Sigs track record is what is (P320 drops safe, holster discharge, P365 faulty striker assembly. Etc...) if you dig enough you can see that Sig has made it a habit of beta testing their products on their customers and I'm not ok with that, it makes the firearm industry and ALL gun owners/enthusiasts ok bad, and gives anti-gun Karen's and they Fupa ilk ammo to use against us.


The claims of the Holstered pistol ls going off for "no reason" is a bit of an oversimplification, the claim is that when holstering their weapons, the slide would go out of battery at the bottom of the holster from the muzzle pressure on the bottom of the holster, when the recoil spring returned the slide to its resting position, the firing pin would release (similar to a slam fire with no slam)

The odd thing how many times have you heard of this happening with Glock? SW? HK? Beretta? or really any other pistols in Law Enforcement or military?

I personally have ONLY heard about it with SIG.

There was some issues with the MPX as well, but I don't recall what it was, nor do I feel like looking it up.

Sig puts profits above safety (many companies do) but sig is blatant, unapologetic, and apparently learn nothing from their past mistakes.

Easy enough to say " if you don't like sig don't buy sig".

I wont buy sig and I haven't, the problem is others who are willing to overlook sigs gredy ways and buy their pistols anyways, then carry with them in places where o happen to go puts my health in jeopardy as well as others around.

Thats great there have been no NEW incidents, and I'm sure it'll stay that way until they push their next under tested product to market for sig fan boys to blindly purchase and help them work out the kinks, but it won't be my Junk getting blown off.by a sig (at least not one I'm carrying)
And it won't be my money helping them make up for their losses ( from what I've read they under bid their M17 and M18 costs to secure the military contracts, so they could beat out Glock and Beretta, they just make up for by overcharging, the civilian market)

 

[mhayd93]

My personal opinion on the P320; from the perspective of a military sidearm, it really doesn't make any sense how they ended up with the contract (aside from underbidding). It is also just lacking in any real style, which, while not a requirement, is something the last two US Service handguns had an abundance of!

I mean let's be honest, in 25 years is anybody going to be clamoring for a "classic" P320 like they do for a 1911 or Beretta M9??

 

[User 1234]

People bid up the military surplus M17's into the thousands when Sig sold those. So yes.

 

[mhayd93]

People bid up the military surplus M17's into the thousands when Sig sold those. So yes.

I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in a bidding war, I am more so thinking along the lines of enduring popularity and how it will be perceived long after it is "obsolete."

From both a historical and pop-culture perspective, the 1911 and Beretta have achieved a legendary status and are ingrained in American culture. I just don't think the P320 will have that same widespread appeal or provenance when all is said and done, even if it ends up with a great track record!

 

[mkwerx]

My personal opinion on the P320; from the perspective of a military sidearm, it really doesn't make any sense how they ended up with the contract (aside from underbidding). It is also just lacking in any real style, which, while not a requirement, is something the last two US Service handguns had an abundance of!

I mean let's be honest, in 25 years is anybody going to be clamoring for a "classic" P320 like they do for a 1911 or Beretta M9??

They wound up with the contract because they had the only pistol that passed most of the tests and actually met the requirements, along with substantially beating Glock's price.

Of the guns submitted to the testing - which called for MODULAR handguns - literally the only gun submitted that met that requirement was the P320. The Glock is not modular in any way, shape, or form. Neither was the Smith & Wesson M&P, the Beretta, or the FN FNS pistol that was submitted.

All of the competitors except Glock were eliminated in the first round of trials for one reason or another.

The Glock pistol still met less of the criteria, and scored lower on the tests over-all than the M320 did, especially when they reviewed the field-use reviews by troopers issued the guns for testing.

Glock was relying on their reputation and prior government contracts - hoping they could ignore the full list of criteria and still get the contract. They lost, they sued, they lost their lawsuit.

A guns "style" is far less important than function. Aesthetic shouldn't even be a consideration when talking about a duty pistol - ergonomics yes, aesthetics? Nope, no way. The P320 is more ergonomic for sure than the Beretta 92. Its ergonomics compared to a 1911 are not as different. The frame mounted safety, vs slide mount alone is a big difference, the Beretta's grip is larger than most .45's out there, including the unnecessarily chunky Glock 21.

Sig has had some challenges with the P320, yes. The trigger design, as original is dangerous. There's a reason every other striker fired pistol with a sub-7lb trigger pull has some sort of safety device integrated into the trigger shoe. The "drop safe" gun, wasn't. They had to make changes, yes. Glock isn't infallible, but they do have a safer, more proven trigger design. Glocks failings originate in other areas, typically.

The contract also wasn't just for the pistols themselves - it was for accessories and ammunition. Glock doesn't make ammo. Sig does, and Sig developed ammunition along with the M17 trial pistol.

As much as one can dislike Sig, their corporate officers, and their attitude of beta-testing designs on the consumer base for the last decade or so - their firearms are overall still high quality and price alone isn't why they're gobbling up contracts. They'll be making the new wave of replacement rifles, SMGs, and LMG's for the US Army in addition to the sidearms. They also got the contract for replacement optics as the military phases out the ACOG and Aimpoint sights in favor of LVPOs.

 

[The Heretic]

My personal opinion on the P320; from the perspective of a military sidearm, it really doesn't make any sense how they ended up with the contract (aside from underbidding). It is also just lacking in any real style, which, while not a requirement, is something the last two US Service handguns had an abundance of!

I mean let's be honest, in 25 years is anybody going to be clamoring for a "classic" P320 like they do for a 1911 or Beretta M9??

Not like the "classic" P22x metal framed DA/SA guns will be.

 

[mhayd93]

They wound up with the contract because they had the only pistol that passed most of the tests and actually met the requirements, along with substantially beating Glock's price.

Of the guns submitted to the testing - which called for MODULAR handguns - literally the only gun submitted that met that requirement was the P320. The Glock is not modular in any way, shape, or form. Neither was the Smith & Wesson M&P, the Beretta, or the FN FNS pistol that was submitted.

All of the competitors except Glock were eliminated in the first round of trials for one reason or another.

The Glock pistol still met less of the criteria, and scored lower on the tests over-all than the M320 did, especially when they reviewed the field-use reviews by troopers issued the guns for testing.

Glock was relying on their reputation and prior government contracts - hoping they could ignore the full list of criteria and still get the contract. They lost, they sued, they lost their lawsuit.

A guns "style" is far less important than function. Aesthetic shouldn't even be a consideration when talking about a duty pistol - ergonomics yes, aesthetics? Nope, no way. The P320 is more ergonomic for sure than the Beretta 92. Its ergonomics compared to a 1911 are not as different. The frame mounted safety, vs slide mount alone is a big difference, the Beretta's grip is larger than most .45's out there, including the unnecessarily chunky Glock 21.

Sig has had some challenges with the P320, yes. The trigger design, as original is dangerous. There's a reason every other striker fired pistol with a sub-7lb trigger pull has some sort of safety device integrated into the trigger shoe. The "drop safe" gun, wasn't. They had to make changes, yes. Glock isn't infallible, but they do have a safer, more proven trigger design. Glocks failings originate in other areas, typically.

The contract also wasn't just for the pistols themselves - it was for accessories and ammunition. Glock doesn't make ammo. Sig does, and Sig developed ammunition along with the M17 trial pistol.

As much as one can dislike Sig, their corporate officers, and their attitude of beta-testing designs on the consumer base for the last decade or so - their firearms are overall still high quality and price alone isn't why they're gobbling up contracts. They'll be making the new wave of replacement rifles, SMGs, and LMG's for the US Army in addition to the sidearms. They also got the contract for replacement optics as the military phases out the ACOG and Aimpoint sights in favor of LVPOs.

Their new LMG in 338 Norma looks pretty cool and seems to have sound design principles!

 

[PaulF]

They wound up with the contract because they had the only pistol that passed most of the tests and actually met the requirements, along with substantially beating Glock's price.

Of the guns submitted to the testing - which called for MODULAR handguns - literally the only gun submitted that met that requirement was the P320. The Glock is not modular in any way, shape, or form. Neither was the Smith & Wesson M&P, the Beretta, or the FN FNS pistol that was submitted.

All of the competitors except Glock were eliminated in the first round of trials for one reason or another.

The Glock pistol still met less of the criteria, and scored lower on the tests over-all than the M320 did, especially when they reviewed the field-use reviews by troopers issued the guns for testing.

Glock was relying on their reputation and prior government contracts - hoping they could ignore the full list of criteria and still get the contract. They lost, they sued, they lost their lawsuit.

A guns "style" is far less important than function. Aesthetic shouldn't even be a consideration when talking about a duty pistol - ergonomics yes, aesthetics? Nope, no way. The P320 is more ergonomic for sure than the Beretta 92. Its ergonomics compared to a 1911 are not as different. The frame mounted safety, vs slide mount alone is a big difference, the Beretta's grip is larger than most .45's out there, including the unnecessarily chunky Glock 21.

Sig has had some challenges with the P320, yes. The trigger design, as original is dangerous. There's a reason every other striker fired pistol with a sub-7lb trigger pull has some sort of safety device integrated into the trigger shoe. The "drop safe" gun, wasn't. They had to make changes, yes. Glock isn't infallible, but they do have a safer, more proven trigger design. Glocks failings originate in other areas, typically.

The contract also wasn't just for the pistols themselves - it was for accessories and ammunition. Glock doesn't make ammo. Sig does, and Sig developed ammunition along with the M17 trial pistol.

As much as one can dislike Sig, their corporate officers, and their attitude of beta-testing designs on the consumer base for the last decade or so - their firearms are overall still high quality and price alone isn't why they're gobbling up contracts. They'll be making the new wave of replacement rifles, SMGs, and LMG's for the US Army in addition to the sidearms. They also got the contract for replacement optics as the military phases out the ACOG and Aimpoint sights in favor of LVPOs.

Beretta submitted the M9A3 which was not Modular, they then submitted the APX which is modular in the very same way the p320 is.

As far as I can tell the APX checked all the boxes for the military requirements, it was a late submission but still seems like they got very little real consideration.

 

[mkwerx]

Beretta submitted the M9A3 which was not Modular, they then submitted the APX which is modular in the very same way the p320 is.

As far as I can tell the APX checked all the boxes for the military requirements, it was a late submission but still seems like they got very little real consideration.

They were eliminated early on - I don't remember what got them the boot, but they failed the first round test. I don't remember if FN got the boot, or if they withdrew their submission. Going into round two, the Smith & Wesson, Glock, and Sig submissions were the remaining, and the M&P was eliminated from consideration.

 

[sobo]

They were eliminated early on - I don't remember what got them the boot, but they failed the first round test. I don't remember if FN got the boot, or if they withdrew their submission. Going into round two, the Smith & Wesson, Glock, and Sig submissions were the remaining, and the M&P was eliminated from consideration.

I seem to recall that FN unilaterally withdrew their submission. Don't recall why, if a reason was even given.

 

[mkwerx]

Doing some digging into the case history for the M17 trials, came across a few nuggets from some articles on the subject

Here's one

The 8 Pistols That Battled to Win the Army’s XM17 MHS Competition

By now you’re probably aware that Sig Sauer’s P320 won the U.S. Army’s XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition to replace

www.tactical-life.com

"Upon receipt of hardware submission, inspections will be conducted to ensure that the Modular Handgun System candidate has an integrated rail, an external safety mechanism, adjustability for ergonomics (by means of grip inserts, grip panels, front- or backstraps, different triggers, or other means) and be other than single action only. Submissions without these features will not be considered for evaluation.

Since it was already under contract, Beretta's first bid was the M9A3 as a parts-compatible improvement on the existing M9, making it a low-cost option. This was rejected seemingly out of hand. While the solicitation didn't specify against a double-action/single-action (DA/SA) option, language seemed to imply that an always-consistent trigger was preferred, provided it wasn't a single action. Interestingly, Beretta's DA/SA design providing a "double-strike" capability on misfired ammunition was a selection point over the Glock 17 in 1985, yet it may have hindered its re-adoption here. More damning was the lack of a compact version of the M9A3, as required, and not really having a modular design

Here's the wiki on the trials:

XM17 Modular Handgun System competition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can't find solid data on exactly why the APX was dumped so early - but I am guessing either it was not performing up to standards in round one, the ergonomics weren't a hit with the field testers, or Beretta supplied a bad batch of guns.

It is interesting that the APX hasn't garnered a lot of ground commercially too. Even during the current panic, they're cheaper than Glocks and XD's.

 

[PaulF]

Doing some digging into the case history for the M17 trials, came across a few nuggets from some articles on the subject

Here's one

The 8 Pistols That Battled to Win the Army’s XM17 MHS Competition

By now you’re probably aware that Sig Sauer’s P320 won the U.S. Army’s XM17 Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition to replace

www.tactical-life.com

Here's the wiki on the trials:

XM17 Modular Handgun System competition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can't find solid data on exactly why the APX was dumped so early - but I am guessing either it was not performing up to standards in round one, the ergonomics weren't a hit with the field testers, or Beretta supplied a bad batch of guns.

It is interesting that the APX hasn't garnered a lot of ground commercially too. Even during the current panic, they're cheaper than Glocks and XD's.

Pretty sure I read, that the APX was just to late to the game, and never actually failed any of the testing but by the time it was submitted, they had already pretty much narrowed the field down to signature, glock and SW.

Had Beretta submitted the APX from the get go instead of the M9A3 they would have had a legit shot at the contract.

As far as the lack of sales on the civilian market, I've seen alot of people complain that the chunky front serrations aren't very aestheticly pleasing.

I think it looks good and the price is a huge selling point, I don't have one yet but will almost certainly get one in the future.

I also think Beretta hasn't really tried to push these like they have the M9A3, the M9A4, the 92X/ 92X performance and other variants of the M9/92 series. Which is a bummer because all of the reviews I've seen say that it is a great gun.