Sig Sauer P320 and their disastrous response

jbmonkey said:
other than the 1911, I havent been a fan of modern army picked pistols. the m9/beretta I don't care for, and these m17/18 sigs either.

I own lots of pistols, but not this sig so im watching from the sidelines on this. reminds me of the remington 700 trigger suits that ran forever ......
Click to expand...
My buddy’s Rem700 would fire if you took it off safety and there was a round in the chamber. You have to take it off safe in order to cycle the bolt. Needless to say, he put a 30-06 round through the roof of his condo.
 
IMG_7275.jpegI’ve been a Sig fan for years. My go-to carry gun is my P365 Legion. I have owned 320’s in the past and had no issues. But would I buy another 320 at this point? Probably not.
 
not2sharp said:
Apparently there is a document (FMECA) circulating that seems to indicate that Sig knew about the uncommanded discharge issue back in January of 2017. They had assigned a probability of .001 that the p320 would discharge unintentionally during the life of the gun.

N2s
Click to expand...
That's only a partial from the document and does not take into consideration what they did to reduce the risk.

practicalshootinginsights.com

The Document Sig Sauer Doesn’t Want You to See About the P320

This story begins with research I started a few days ago after reading about the recent, tragic incident involving a United States Air Force airman who was killed while on duty, reportedly while unholstering his Air Force-issued Sig Sauer M18. This firearm is, for all intents and purposes...
practicalshootinginsights.com

The author of that article got hold of the redacted document and was able to unredact it. He published the unredacted version. (and is getting sued for it.)
I've pulled the risk in question from the document.
1754339371744.png

That "C" refers to the likelihood using MIL 882 terminology, "
1754339480380.png

So initially, the minimum risk of it happening was assessed to be at least 0.001% or 0.00001
The way probability calculations work is you multiply the probability by the number of units under consideration.
So if they produce 100,000 of them that's 0.00001 x 100,000 or 1 uncommanded discharge.

Max risk was 0.1% or .001
or 100 per 100,000 produced.

BUT
That was the initial assessment.

Their initial assessment on their Risk Assessment Matrix was "High"
Here are their comments in this report on that line item as to what they did about it to reduce the risk
The Firing mechanism of the P320 is designed to prevent release of the striker in a drop or during
transportation. In case of a failure of the sear to striker interface, it has a redundant striker safety
that blocks striker travel unless the trigger is pulled. The P320 will pass drop safety testing IAW AR-
PD-177. It will pass loose cargo testing with the safety on or off. The P320 has passed drop safety
testing IAW TOP 3-2-045 and NATO STD AC225 D14 without a manual safety, however failed
customer drop testing (notified 2/1).
Click to expand...

In their assessment, the secondary safety should have eliminated the risk of the occurrence and gave them a final Risk Assessment Score of "MEDIUM".

The way a Risk Assessment Matrix works is you look at the probability of something happening vs. the negativity of the result if it does.
My interpretation of MEDIUM is they assessed a "very low probability" of the event occurring, but a "very negative" result should it occur. So they assigned it a Risk Assessment of "Medium" based on the severity of the result should it occur.

Bottom Line:
IMO this report shows that Sig Sauer addressed the issue and they felt that they had it under control because of the secondary safety. At the time of the report they had not evaluated the report from the customer that the item failed a test. So that is not addressed.
 
I had a West German P220 in 45 ACP that I edc'd for years. Fabulous gun.

I was lucky enough to have a private tour of the Sig factory in Northern Germany back in 1998. It was a masterclass of pride and quality.

Now Sig has become a money grabbing corporate who cares little for quality and pride and gives all its allegiance to dividends and bonuses. Very sad.........
 
knarfeng said:
That's only a partial from the document and does not take into consideration what they did to reduce the risk.

practicalshootinginsights.com

The Document Sig Sauer Doesn’t Want You to See About the P320

This story begins with research I started a few days ago after reading about the recent, tragic incident involving a United States Air Force airman who was killed while on duty, reportedly while unholstering his Air Force-issued Sig Sauer M18. This firearm is, for all intents and purposes...
practicalshootinginsights.com

The author of that article got hold of the redacted document and was able to unredact it. He published the unredacted version. (and is getting sued for it.)
I've pulled the risk in question from the document.
View attachment 2942586

That "C" refers to the likelihood using MIL 882 terminology, "
View attachment 2942587

So initially, the minimum risk of it happening was assessed to be at least 0.001% or 0.00001
The way probability calculations work is you multiply the probability by the number of units under consideration.
So if they produce 100,000 of them that's 0.00001 x 100,000 or 1 uncommanded discharge.

Max risk was 0.1% or .001
or 100 per 100,000 produced.

BUT
That was the initial assessment.

Their initial assessment on their Risk Assessment Matrix was "High"
Here are their comments in this report on that line item as to what they did about it to reduce the risk


In their assessment, the secondary safety should have eliminated the risk of the occurrence and gave them a final Risk Assessment Score of "MEDIUM".

The way a Risk Assessment Matrix works is you look at the probability of something happening vs. the negativity of the result if it does.
My interpretation of MEDIUM is they assessed a "very low probability" of the event occurring, but a "very negative" result should it occur. So they assigned it a Risk Assessment of "Medium" based on the severity of the result should it occur.

Bottom Line:
IMO this report shows that Sig Sauer addressed the issue and they felt that they had it under control because of the secondary safety. At the time of the report they had not evaluated the report from the customer that the item failed a test. So that is not addressed.
Click to expand...
The report seems to read > 0.1% or 0.001 (at least 1 occurrence per 1000 units).

N2s
 
Steven65 said:
I had a West German P220 in 45 ACP that I edc'd for years. Fabulous gun.

I was lucky enough to have a private tour of the Sig factory in Northern Germany back in 1998. It was a masterclass of pride and quality.

Now Sig has become a money grabbing corporate who cares little for quality and pride and gives all its allegiance to dividends and bonuses. Very sad.........
Click to expand...
The issue seems to be with the U.S. Sig operation; it does not reflect on the German or Swiss made models.

N2s
 
not2sharp said:
The report seems to read > 0.1% or 0.001 (at least 1 occurrence per 1000 units).

N2s
Click to expand...

We said the same thing. I based it on per 100,000 produced. You based it on per 1,000 produced.

The chart gives a min-max range. Both numbers are in percent. (0.001 - .1)%

But you are missing my point. That's not the final figure to look at. They considered that they reduced the likelihood of an uncommanded fire, with the secondary safety. I don't see that they gave a final MIL 882 assessment after factoring in the secondary safety, but they did provide a final RISK Matrix score after assessing the countermeasures (secondary safety). Look at their risk table below. Their in-house assessment of the likelihood of an uncommanded fire event happening was "Improbable".

1754346985078.png

And this is exactly why Sig Sauer did not want to publish that report. Without an engineering design background (which I have), it is difficult to correctly interpret the report
 

Attachments

  • 1754347160452.png
    1754347160452.png
    576.5 KB · Views: 1
eveled said:
Tolerance stacking or defective parts or bad design
Click to expand...
I believe this is true but we don't yet know exactly what, if we did it could be addressed.

I've since found a few videos on youtube that explained most of the parts and how they work. On paper the design looks reasonable so it must be something in the implementation, or it could be that in operation it doesn't always work as designed. Of course that doesn't explain tolerances or defects in production.
 
not2sharp said:
The issue seems to be with the U.S. Sig operation; it does not reflect on the German or Swiss made models.

N2s
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Sig USA can even catch all of the blame on the manufacturing side, but the corporate side sure as hell can. A huge criticism of the P320 was that they were outsourcing a ton of the parts to India. I can't speak to their exact operation, but having worked with contractors out of India myself for many years now, and can confidently say that is a very poor decision.
If it were my company, I'd stay as far as humanly possible from Indian manufacturing. They have a laundry list of problems I won't even get into, but to sum it up, training, employee vetting, and QC are borderline non-existent. If I see a company contracting to India, I now just automatically assume that they saw the lowest bid and turned a blind eye to everything else.
 
Planterz said:
I've been wanting to pick up a P365, but now I'm looking at alternatives. Not because the 365 is unsafe - I know it's not - but just out of principle. If Rob Cohen gets shitcanned my opinion might change.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I like my Hellcat, but still like my Walther PPS model 1 best.
 
Planterz said:
I've been wanting to pick up a P365, but now I'm looking at alternatives. Not because the 365 is unsafe - I know it's not - but just out of principle. If Rob Cohen gets shitcanned my opinion might change.
Click to expand...
My wife carries a 365 and she likes it. She likes her Bodyguard 2 a little better though. Both have been fantastic shooters.
 
The only 320 that I currently own is an Xten Comp. I have no idea if those are equally at risk of nds, or drop fires. I note, these have different slides and have only been around for a couple of years. I hope Sig eventually gets off its tail to tell where they are with the various 320 releases. Presumably they should have been making small improvements over the last 8 years. :rolleyes:


N2s
 
jbmonkey said:
other than the 1911, I havent been a fan of modern army picked pistols. the m9/beretta I don't care for, and these m17/18 sigs either.

I own lots of pistols, but not this sig so im watching from the sidelines on this. reminds me of the remington 700 trigger suits that ran forever ......
Click to expand...
IMG_8570.jpeg
/\These 3 were all made in 1918 /\
The S&W 1917 .45 acp revolver is pretty sweet! The 1911 is a work of art. But I shoot the revolver better. The Luger is a novelty.

I like the Beretta, but don’t like the double single action, I very much prefer the 92D double action only version.

Best US handgun issued? 1917 revolver

Best pistol? 1911

Best 1911? M45A1IMG_8705.jpeg
The Sig. M18 / p320 isn’t even in the conversation.
 
Last edited:
eveled said:
View attachment 2943343
/\These 3 were all made in 1918 /\
The S&W 1917 .45 acp revolver is pretty sweet! The 1911 is a work of art. But I shoot the revolver better. The Luger is a novelty.

I like the Beretta, but don’t like the double single action, I very much prefer the 92D double action only version.

Best US handgun issued? 1917 revolver

Best pistol? 1911

Best 1911? M45A1View attachment 2943348
The Sig. M18 / p320 isn’t even in the conversation.
Click to expand...
I have a 1918 ww1 1911 with 2 tone original mag also...

I'd rather use that over 100 years old gun than an m9 or a m17/18.
 
eveled said:
FWIW, I like my Hellcat, but still like my Walther PPS model 1 best.
Click to expand...

I like that the Hellcat mag holds 11.

these-go-to-eleven-nigel-tufnel.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top