SIG 320 Changes due to Drop Safe Issues
- Thread starter Canuck44
- Start date
gadget and Glock made the necessary changes in the design to correct what had become an issue with their Gen 4 slides. The Gen 5 is a new gun that looks like the old one. If I owned an older Glock there is not much the Gen 5 has that would motivate me to go out and buy one other than if I was collecting Glocks which some do. Despite what the Fans like KIDDX say there are some very nice striker fired pistols out there and buyers can pick and choose what features they want. The SIG has a number of interesting features that some would like. For the Competitor who like the platform, one trigger assembly ( the gun) allows you to mix and match frames and slides to meet several different game requirements. The PPQ offers a crisp consistent trigger pull, a very fast reset and the ability to change out sights in you r living room. Accuracy is about as good as it gets from a handgun. The "stepped chamber" is an interesting feature. There are other pistols whose features appeal to consumers. It really isn't necessary to drink the Glock koolaid to get a reliable pistol that doesn't need a bunch of after market parts to compete in the marketplace... beyond discounted pricing.
Take Care
Bob
Take Care
Bob
Can anyone explain how an "old" design is a bag thing? If it works and is serving the role then why does it have to be new? Sounds like people have a serious case of consumeritis. The 1911 is a very old design and it still works as intended. I will be the first to admit that it has been surpassed by many designs and was in it's prime over 50 years ago. There is nothing that Glock is doing to try and "stay current". Their recipe is the one everyone else is copying, some to the point of being a patent infringment. SO much innovation from the other companies that they literally copy Glock's design down to the letter.
The new trigger group has nothing to do with the slide changes. The cracks around the guide rod hole have been known to happen and cracks along the e port have also been known to happen. Sh*t breaks, unfortunately some failures are not repairable like the crack along the e port. There are plenty of gen 1/2/3/4 guns out there with 6 figure round counts and zero broken bits. The crack issue is not common and nothing to be concerned about. If you break your gun after 50,000 rounds your gun owes you nothing. You've spent around $13,000 on ammo.
The stock trigger is more than usable. I've waxed plenty of tuned 1911's, shadows, and other "superior trigger" guns with bone stock Glocks. The trigger complaint is a crutch for crappy shooters. Either you can shoot or you can't, and a Glock will quickly determine which category you fall into.
The striker contains the firing pin at the front. If A Glock pistol is not hammer fired then should we call it firing pin fired? It's a striker fired pistol and the proper name is a striker not a firing pin. the CZ/VZ 58/858 is also striker fired but it's firing pin is separate from the striker.
I'm aware that the cutout was already there for the 320. SIG is CHANGING it for the recall which means it is/was ineffective. Ten years of research and design.
The disconnector does have to do with being more drop safe. Part of the issue was some slide movement when dropped which was not enough to activate the trigger disconnect. The trigger also had enough rearward movement to disengage the firing pin block and the impact force was enough to allow the sear and striker to separate causing uncommanded firing. All of the changes are directly connected to the unsafe(poorly designed) operation of the 320. Remember, SIG lied about there being a problem to begin with then lied about it being a recall. Do you really think they wouldn't lie about the changes being necessary from a safety standpoint?Please elaborate on the features of the 320 that one might like? The ability to change frame/slide sizes is a gimmick. A compact pistol does the same thing a full size gun does which negates the need for a full size gun to begin with. That "feature" is more suited to those how can carry than those who compete. The PPQ is a single action striker fired gun, I would hope it has a decent trigger. The reset is short and so is the reset on Glock's or several other designs. A short reset is only as valuable as the shooter using it. The sight change feature?? You can change any pistols sights in your living room, and just how often are you changing sights?
If you want the pistol with the fewest parts and longest most reliable track record then you buy a Glock. If you can shoot then you can do just fine with a stock Glock, except for the sights, they're garbage. IF you want to game it up then who cares what you buy you're playing a game.
- Location
- The Orion Arm
I believe you answered your own question
Striker fired technology was HK's invention, not Gaston Glock's. They copied HK.
Glock also had to copy replaceable back straps.
It happens.
Go tell that to Glock. I'm merely using THEIR nomenclature. They should know better, but obviously, they don't. The other manufacturers seem to know what it is you're saying, but maybe they're not as enlightened as Glock. Those barbarians.
Here's the link to Glock's CS. Let them know they're wrong and report back here: https://us.glock.com/customer-service
Again...........the "recall" was to fix an AD if dropped at a very specific angle. The cutout, lack thereof, increase thereof, or whatever, has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's like saying Sig upgraded their 229 magazines because their recoil spring was under-powered. Yes, you do sound like that.
Again.........they changed the mechanical movement of the disconnector. There was nothing wrong with it before. If you're saying it was "ineffective", please provide proof. Post it here.
Companies tend to upgrade designs all the time. If you think that's a tacit admission of something being wrong with the gun, tell me........why did Glock move to a captured recoil spring instead of the old style? You're saying they screwed the pooch with the old design and wanted to quietly improve their platform? If not, then why change?
Exactly.
No slide will move backwards far enough to activate the disconnect on a drop. There simply isn't enough force to overcome the inertia. The angle necessary to induce an AD on the 320 depended on the gun landing on the beavertail at a very specific angle.
The "impact force" had nothing to do with it, nor did the sear drop because of that "impact force". The trigger moved backwards and caused it to fire, just as if a human finger was pulling it. Which is why you couldn't induce a AD no matter how many times you dropped it or threw it or subjected it to extraordinary "impact forces".
Honestly.
They went in a new direction (and didn't copy Glock like you complained about up above) in that (like I explained........again), Glock pushes the trigger bar forward while Sig pulls it backwards (which is why Glock and M&P need that blade safety on the trigger and Sig's don't). So there's that. And unsafe/poor design? Based on inducing a million to one AD?
I suppose you're right. It's not like they designed an unsupported chamber for a high pressure round, sold tens of thousands of them, watched them blow up in people's hands and maim them, deny it, then quietly alter the design and call it a "new Gen".
That would be worse.
Why is the Sig Sauer P320 a big deal all of a sudden? Mostly because the US government announced that it would be replacing the Beretta 92FS/M9 as the standard sidearm of the armed forces. They notably disregarded Glock, so a number of people will wonder if the Glock vs Sig is really a losing proposition for the Austrian plastic fantastic. If you want to sell a whole bunch of guns, get an Army contract. That gives a pistol pedigree, which will also result in a bevy of civilian sales.
What's so great about the Sig P320, though? First is the function. One of the attributes that reviewers rave about when it comes to the P320 is the ergonomics, fitting the hand as well or better than most polymer striker guns on the market.
The trigger is also hailed as one of the best on a striker pistol, though admitedly some require some break-in before they get really good, with a smooth pull, crisp break and short reset, which was a major failing of the Sig P250, which the P320 is essentially an evolution of.
In terms of dimensions, the Sig P320 Carry or Sig P320 Compact is not much different than the Glock 19 in terms of size. Barrel length, weight, overall height are similar, and carrying capacity is 15 in the Compact and 17 in the Carry, same as the full-size. The party piece, though, is the modularity. The trigger group can be swapped between frames and upper assemblies. So long as you have the parts, you can switch between slides and firing mechanisms in 9x19mm, .40 S&W and .357 Sig. You can also drop the trigger group into a .45 ACP frame and upper, as the larger caliber requires a different frame in addition to the upper group. You can swap between full-size, compact, carry and subcompact frames. All models have accessory rails, .
With Glock, it's not so straight forward.
Comparing Sig to Glock depends on having to compare the right Sig P320 model, because there are almost 10 of them. In reality, what we're talking about is the Sig Sauer P320 Compact or Sig Sauer P320 Carry, as these are closest in size and purpose to the Glock 19; and are both far and away the most popular of their respective lines. The full-size would be better compared to the Glock 17 and the Subcompact is closer to the Glock 26; neither of which compare in terms of sheer volume of sales.
Now, the difference between those two models is the Sig P320 Carry is 0.2 inches taller and holds 2 more rounds of 9x19mm or 1 more round of .40 S&W. The Compact, as of right now, isn't offered in .357 Sig. That said… The Glock 19 is 7.36 inches long with a barrel length of 4 inches, standing 4.99 inches tall and 1.18 inches wide. It weighs 23.65 oz unloaded and has a carrying capacity of 15+1 rounds of 9mm. The trigger pull is around 5.5 pounds and has the famously bifurcated trigger and Glock trigger safety system. The Sig Sauer P320 Compact is 7.2 inches long with the 3.9-inch barrel, standing 5.3 inches tall and 1.3 inches wide, weighing 25.8 oz unloaded.
Trigger pull is rated at 6.5 pounds, but does not have a bifurcated or tabbed trigger. The firing pin block is deactivated with a trigger pull, and has a similar safety system. However, a tabbed (bifurcated) trigger can be ordered if desired. The Sig P320 Carry is basically the same; it's just 0.2 inches taller and holds 1 or 2 more rounds, depending on caliber. That said, the Glock 19 is only offered in 9mm; the Sig can be had in 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 Sig or .45 ACP. You can also get Sig's Caliber X-Change Kit to swap between calibers. Oh, and the Sig doesn't require the trigger be pulled to field-strip, which is a common complaint about striker guns..
Part of shooting is subjective; you can read about it but you won't appreciate it until you do it yourself. The Glock is a fine shooting pistol, as everyone knows. It's reliable, easy to use and easily accurate enough for defensive and recreational purposes. The Sig P320 is widely acknowledged for incredible out of the box accuracy by reviewers and most find it unfaltering with any type of ammunition. Some reviewers, though, have noted the P320 has a bit more muzzle rise, as it has the trademark high bore axis that Sigs are known for. Then again, the ergonomic feel of the pistol, how it sits in the hand and so on - along with the trigger - is rated as second only to Walther in the plastic fantastic set.
Glocks, on the other hand, with the aggressive rake of the grip can be a bit alienating.
.........and just to end this on a laugh
QUOTE=Melnibonean;15084881]I believe you answered your own question
Striker fired technology was HK's invention, not Gaston Glock's. They copied HK.
Glock produced a quality striker fired gun that made sense. HK was first but they failed to make it work commercially.
Glock also had to copy replaceable back straps.
Copy?? replaceable backstraps is not a difficult thing to do, Glock did copy the trend but not by choice, more by ignorant customer demand. Clever marketing..
The 4mm difference in circumference from zero backstrap to the large one on a Glock is a f**king joke! It falls into the same category as "fit". 99% of handgun owners haven't a clue what to look for in a proper fit to begin with. Nor do they have a clue how to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship. They go off of "feel" which has absolutely zero bearing on proper fit or function of the firearm. Holding a gun is not checking for fit, it's checking for comfort and cool factor.
It happens.
Go tell that to Glock. I'm merely using THEIR nomenclature. They should know better, but obviously, they don't. The other manufacturers seem to know what it is you're saying, but maybe they're not as enlightened as Glock. Those barbarians.
Here's the link to Glock's CS. Let them know they're wrong and report back here: https://us.glock.com/customer-service
Dumbing down your nomenclature is bad form and I am openly criticizing Glock for it. They're striker fired pistols which means they use a striker and a firing pin or the two are combined into just the striker. I ask again, should we call them firing pin fired guns or striker fired guns?? Pretty sure all firearm use a firing pin but not all use a striker.
Again...........the "recall" was to fix an AD if dropped at a very specific angle. The cutout, lack thereof, increase thereof, or whatever, has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's like saying Sig upgraded their 229 magazines because their recoil spring was under-powered. Yes, you do sound like that.
the force required to induce an ND was not a lot. It has been demonstrated from waist height onto a carpeted floor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsljmVh-GFQ
Again.........they changed the mechanical movement of the disconnector. There was nothing wrong with it before. If you're saying it was "ineffective", please provide proof. Post it here.
Companies tend to upgrade designs all the time. If you think that's a tacit admission of something being wrong with the gun, tell me........why did Glock move to a captured recoil spring instead of the old style? You're saying they screwed the pooch with the old design and wanted to quietly improve their platform? If not, then why change?
Exactly.
They didn't upgrade their design. They got caught selling an unsafe design and had no intentions of correcting it until the public caught wind of it. Improving on reliability/or durability is one thing. Correcting an unsafe design is another.
The change from non captive to captive recoil spring has no bearing in perfromance or reliability. It has everything to do with making the gun easier to field strip and assemble. Again, marketing to the dumbest consumer. Captive springs also prevent people from using the wrong spring with the wrong rod/gun. Think compact spring in a full size gun.
No slide will move backwards far enough to activate the disconnect on a drop. There simply isn't enough force to overcome the inertia. The angle necessary to induce an AD on the 320 depended on the gun landing on the beavertail at a very specific angle.
The "impact force" had nothing to do with it, nor did the sear drop because of that "impact force". The trigger moved backwards and caused it to fire, just as if a human finger was pulling it. Which is why you couldn't induce a AD no matter how many times you dropped it or threw it or subjected it to extraordinary "impact forces".
Honestly.
Not even close. The trigger did not move all the way to the rear. It moved far enough back to disengage the firing pin block and the sear and striker disengaged from one another. Watch the video below at the 1:10 mark and on. The trigger moves rearward slightly, nowhere near a full press. But enough to disengage the firing pin block and with enough force to cause the striker and sear to disengage. Why do you think SIG has added the second sear notch and increased the tension on the sear keeping it in the "up" position? Why do you think they reduced the weight of the trigger mech, to keep it from moving rearward at all regardless of the force applied from any angle. Same goes for their disconnect. The old one flops around which proved to be useless for preventing the trigger bar from moving when dropped at specific angles. It too is now more resistant to free movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch7si_VQsGA
They went in a new direction (and didn't copy Glock like you complained about up above) in that (like I explained........again), Glock pushes the trigger bar forward while Sig pulls it backwards (which is why Glock and M&P need that blade safety on the trigger and Sig's don't). So there's that. And unsafe/poor design? Based on inducing a million to one AD?
What new direction? They offer a single action striker fired gun. Not difficult to offer what amounts to a single action hammer fired gun with no visible hammer. You're right, the striker on a Glock actively pushes the trigger bar forward when at it's rest position, a smart self safetying design. Glock then incorporates 3 more passive safeties just to be sure. The ND of a 320 is not 1 in a million. There's been 4 reported cases of people being shot by this dangerous design and countless others can repeat the event on demand.
I suppose you're right. It's not like they designed an unsupported chamber for a high pressure round, sold tens of thousands of them, watched them blow up in people's hands and maim them, deny it, then quietly alter the design and call it a "new Gen".
That would be worse.
The unsupported chamber BS is a gigantic myth. Their chambers have slightly less support, they are not "unsupported. And all(the handful) of the Kabooms you see are done with poor reloads and/or incorrect ammunition used. That is not the fault of any manufacturer.
Here's your unsupported chambers for comparison
https://www.ar15.com/forums/handgun...pos_s_unsupported_chambers_barrels_/13-95714/
OH my god look at that unsupported Beretta chamber!!
Why is the Sig Sauer P320 a big deal all of a sudden? Mostly because the US government announced that it would be replacing the Beretta 92FS/M9 as the standard sidearm of the armed forces. They notably disregarded Glock, so a number of people will wonder if the Glock vs Sig is really a losing proposition for the Austrian plastic fantastic. If you want to sell a whole bunch of guns, get an Army contract. That gives a pistol pedigree, which will also result in a bevy of civilian sales.
They didn't disregard Glock. SIG under bid by $100 million dollars, that's hard to pass up if you're some general looking to win some points, or receive a pay off, who knows. All of US SOCOM uses Glock 19's. That would be a clue. They switched to Glocks nearly a decade ago, that would also be a clue.
Front line grunts who have near zero use for a handgun and receive nearly zero training on a handgun are not what I would use as a reference point in vetting equipment..
You are correct that winning the big green contract definitely creates a pedigree. A pedigree for low IQ types to latch onto without applying any thought or research into their decision. Remember, the US Army trials were stopped before completion. The 320 was failing miserably compared to the Glock submissions. The 320 lost to Glock for the FBI who actually COMPLETED their testing. Some say the FBI trials are the most rigorous trials out there.
What's so great about the Sig P320, though? First is the function. One of the attributes that reviewers rave about when it comes to the P320 is the ergonomics, fitting the hand as well or better than most polymer striker guns on the market.
And again, "fitting the hand" what a load of crap. The ergonomics as far as controls go is atrocious. The slide lock is located way back on the frame where any normal human can't reach without an extra joint in their thumb. It's also a very small slide lock, something Glock haters have screamed for years.
So if it's such a problem to have a small slide lock then why does nearly every wannabe Glock pistol still use a small lever?? I'm no fan of the slide lock, it's a pointless control best suited for one handed use if need be(although there are other methods of working the slide one handed) but the placement is plain stupid on the 320.
The trigger is also hailed as one of the best on a striker pistol, though admitedly some require some break-in before they get really good, with a smooth pull, crisp break and short reset, which was a major failing of the Sig P250, which the P320 is essentially an evolution of.
A trigger with an average pull weight of 6.6lbs is hailed as one of the best?? Are you on crack? Stock Glock comes in at 5.5lbs or 3.5lbs if you have the "-" minus connector. Oh and Glocks are DOUBLE ACTION not SINGLE ACTION like the 320. An SA trigger with 6.6lb pull is pathetic. What's more pathetic is that SIG advertises the trigger pull as between 5.5-7.5lbs. Really? You can't be any more consistent than to have a 2lb variance from high to low??
In terms of dimensions, the Sig P320 Carry or Sig P320 Compact is not much different than the Glock 19 in terms of size. Barrel length, weight, overall height are similar, and carrying capacity is 15 in the Compact and 17 in the Carry, same as the full-size. The party piece, though, is the modularity. The trigger group can be swapped between frames and upper assemblies. So long as you have the parts, you can switch between slides and firing mechanisms in 9x19mm, .40 S&W and .357 Sig. You can also drop the trigger group into a .45 ACP frame and upper, as the larger caliber requires a different frame in addition to the upper group. You can swap between full-size, compact, carry and subcompact frames. All models have accessory rails, .
With Glock, it's not so straight forward.
The compact is still .3 inches taller, a smidge wider and nearly 2 oz heavier. Oh and it has more parts, nearly 20 more parts than a Glock.
Switching frames and calibres is the biggest gimmick going. Why would you have a full size gun when a compact does the same job? You still need a different slide and in some cases a different frame if you want to have all the "modularity". The cost of a calibre/size conversion kit is nearly the same price as buying another gun. The only benefit I see to swapping frames comes into play if you're doing stippling(a useless activity for the most part) or modifying the frame. If you screw it up it's a cheap replacement. One could argue that changing grip size(again, a very minimal amount of change that has no bearing on applying the fundamentals but we'll go with it) is more secure than backstraps as the frame is one piece. .40S&W is dead, .357SIG never took off(a shame really) and .45ACP needs to disappear. 9x19mm is the NATO standard and has served the planet well for over a hundred years.
Comparing Sig to Glock depends on having to compare the right Sig P320 model, because there are almost 10 of them. In reality, what we're talking about is the Sig Sauer P320 Compact or Sig Sauer P320 Carry, as these are closest in size and purpose to the Glock 19; and are both far and away the most popular of their respective lines. The full-size would be better compared to the Glock 17 and the Subcompact is closer to the Glock 26; neither of which compare in terms of sheer volume of sales.
Now, the difference between those two models is the Sig P320 Carry is 0.2 inches taller and holds 2 more rounds of 9x19mm or 1 more round of .40 S&W. The Compact, as of right now, isn't offered in .357 Sig. That said… The Glock 19 is 7.36 inches long with a barrel length of 4 inches, standing 4.99 inches tall and 1.18 inches wide. It weighs 23.65 oz unloaded and has a carrying capacity of 15+1 rounds of 9mm. The trigger pull is around 5.5 pounds and has the famously bifurcated trigger and Glock trigger safety system. The Sig Sauer P320 Compact is 7.2 inches long with the 3.9-inch barrel, standing 5.3 inches tall and 1.3 inches wide, weighing 25.8 oz unloaded.
Trigger pull is rated at 6.5 pounds, but does not have a bifurcated or tabbed trigger. The firing pin block is deactivated with a trigger pull, and has a similar safety system. However, a tabbed (bifurcated) trigger can be ordered if desired. The Sig P320 Carry is basically the same; it's just 0.2 inches taller and holds 1 or 2 more rounds, depending on caliber. That said, the Glock 19 is only offered in 9mm; the Sig can be had in 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 Sig or .45 ACP. You can also get Sig's Caliber X-Change Kit to swap between calibers. Oh, and the Sig doesn't require the trigger be pulled to field-strip, which is a common complaint about striker guns..
Yes Glock models are calibre specific. The 19 is 9mm, the G23 is 40S&W, theG33 is .357SIG and for size comparison the G36 is .45ACP.
With the exception of the G36 the other three are identical in size.
Pulling the trigger for disassembly as a concern is only a concern for idiots.
Part of shooting is subjective; you can read about it but you won't appreciate it until you do it yourself. The Glock is a fine shooting pistol, as everyone knows. It's reliable, easy to use and easily accurate enough for defensive and recreational purposes. The Sig P320 is widely acknowledged for incredible out of the box accuracy by reviewers and most find it unfaltering with any type of ammunition. Some reviewers, though, have noted the P320 has a bit more muzzle rise, as it has the trademark high bore axis that Sigs are known for. Then again, the ergonomic feel of the pistol, how it sits in the hand and so on - along with the trigger - is rated as second only to Walther in the plastic fantastic set.
Glocks, on the other hand, with the aggressive rake of the grip can be a bit alienating.
.........and just to end this on a laugh
The SIG or the Glock or any other gun is no different in mechanical/inherent accuracy. I shoot my buddy's 320 frequently and it shoots no different than my Glocks do. I shoot another buddy's Hk SFP9 and get the same results. It's the shooter not the gun that makes the shot. That's the secret.
But if we all knew the secret then many would stop chasing after the next latest and greatest gun and sales would drop dramatically.
The Grip angle on a Glock is ergonomically correct for the human hand and induces a strong locked wrist and natural point of aim. The broken wrist angle of 1911's which has somehow been the template for most other makers is not conducive to a firm repeatable grip. Watch the video below, start at the 4:15 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP7J-JNSUu4&t=280s
Watch this video at the 5:40 mark. It clearly explains the grip angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxmaXyn4k4U
[/QUOTE]
Me in the Red...
Striker fired technology was HK's invention, not Gaston Glock's. They copied HK.
Glock produced a quality striker fired gun that made sense. HK was first but they failed to make it work commercially.
Glock also had to copy replaceable back straps.
Copy?? replaceable backstraps is not a difficult thing to do, Glock did copy the trend but not by choice, more by ignorant customer demand. Clever marketing..
The 4mm difference in circumference from zero backstrap to the large one on a Glock is a f**king joke! It falls into the same category as "fit". 99% of handgun owners haven't a clue what to look for in a proper fit to begin with. Nor do they have a clue how to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship. They go off of "feel" which has absolutely zero bearing on proper fit or function of the firearm. Holding a gun is not checking for fit, it's checking for comfort and cool factor.
It happens.
Go tell that to Glock. I'm merely using THEIR nomenclature. They should know better, but obviously, they don't. The other manufacturers seem to know what it is you're saying, but maybe they're not as enlightened as Glock. Those barbarians.
Here's the link to Glock's CS. Let them know they're wrong and report back here: https://us.glock.com/customer-service
Dumbing down your nomenclature is bad form and I am openly criticizing Glock for it. They're striker fired pistols which means they use a striker and a firing pin or the two are combined into just the striker. I ask again, should we call them firing pin fired guns or striker fired guns?? Pretty sure all firearm use a firing pin but not all use a striker.
Again...........the "recall" was to fix an AD if dropped at a very specific angle. The cutout, lack thereof, increase thereof, or whatever, has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's like saying Sig upgraded their 229 magazines because their recoil spring was under-powered. Yes, you do sound like that.
the force required to induce an ND was not a lot. It has been demonstrated from waist height onto a carpeted floor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsljmVh-GFQ
Again.........they changed the mechanical movement of the disconnector. There was nothing wrong with it before. If you're saying it was "ineffective", please provide proof. Post it here.
Companies tend to upgrade designs all the time. If you think that's a tacit admission of something being wrong with the gun, tell me........why did Glock move to a captured recoil spring instead of the old style? You're saying they screwed the pooch with the old design and wanted to quietly improve their platform? If not, then why change?
Exactly.
They didn't upgrade their design. They got caught selling an unsafe design and had no intentions of correcting it until the public caught wind of it. Improving on reliability/or durability is one thing. Correcting an unsafe design is another.
The change from non captive to captive recoil spring has no bearing in perfromance or reliability. It has everything to do with making the gun easier to field strip and assemble. Again, marketing to the dumbest consumer. Captive springs also prevent people from using the wrong spring with the wrong rod/gun. Think compact spring in a full size gun.
No slide will move backwards far enough to activate the disconnect on a drop. There simply isn't enough force to overcome the inertia. The angle necessary to induce an AD on the 320 depended on the gun landing on the beavertail at a very specific angle.
The "impact force" had nothing to do with it, nor did the sear drop because of that "impact force". The trigger moved backwards and caused it to fire, just as if a human finger was pulling it. Which is why you couldn't induce a AD no matter how many times you dropped it or threw it or subjected it to extraordinary "impact forces".
Honestly.
Not even close. The trigger did not move all the way to the rear. It moved far enough back to disengage the firing pin block and the sear and striker disengaged from one another. Watch the video below at the 1:10 mark and on. The trigger moves rearward slightly, nowhere near a full press. But enough to disengage the firing pin block and with enough force to cause the striker and sear to disengage. Why do you think SIG has added the second sear notch and increased the tension on the sear keeping it in the "up" position? Why do you think they reduced the weight of the trigger mech, to keep it from moving rearward at all regardless of the force applied from any angle. Same goes for their disconnect. The old one flops around which proved to be useless for preventing the trigger bar from moving when dropped at specific angles. It too is now more resistant to free movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch7si_VQsGA
They went in a new direction (and didn't copy Glock like you complained about up above) in that (like I explained........again), Glock pushes the trigger bar forward while Sig pulls it backwards (which is why Glock and M&P need that blade safety on the trigger and Sig's don't). So there's that. And unsafe/poor design? Based on inducing a million to one AD?
What new direction? They offer a single action striker fired gun. Not difficult to offer what amounts to a single action hammer fired gun with no visible hammer. You're right, the striker on a Glock actively pushes the trigger bar forward when at it's rest position, a smart self safetying design. Glock then incorporates 3 more passive safeties just to be sure. The ND of a 320 is not 1 in a million. There's been 4 reported cases of people being shot by this dangerous design and countless others can repeat the event on demand.
I suppose you're right. It's not like they designed an unsupported chamber for a high pressure round, sold tens of thousands of them, watched them blow up in people's hands and maim them, deny it, then quietly alter the design and call it a "new Gen".
That would be worse.
The unsupported chamber BS is a gigantic myth. Their chambers have slightly less support, they are not "unsupported. And all(the handful) of the Kabooms you see are done with poor reloads and/or incorrect ammunition used. That is not the fault of any manufacturer.
Here's your unsupported chambers for comparison
https://www.ar15.com/forums/handgun...pos_s_unsupported_chambers_barrels_/13-95714/
OH my god look at that unsupported Beretta chamber!!
Why is the Sig Sauer P320 a big deal all of a sudden? Mostly because the US government announced that it would be replacing the Beretta 92FS/M9 as the standard sidearm of the armed forces. They notably disregarded Glock, so a number of people will wonder if the Glock vs Sig is really a losing proposition for the Austrian plastic fantastic. If you want to sell a whole bunch of guns, get an Army contract. That gives a pistol pedigree, which will also result in a bevy of civilian sales.
They didn't disregard Glock. SIG under bid by $100 million dollars, that's hard to pass up if you're some general looking to win some points, or receive a pay off, who knows. All of US SOCOM uses Glock 19's. That would be a clue. They switched to Glocks nearly a decade ago, that would also be a clue.
Front line grunts who have near zero use for a handgun and receive nearly zero training on a handgun are not what I would use as a reference point in vetting equipment..
You are correct that winning the big green contract definitely creates a pedigree. A pedigree for low IQ types to latch onto without applying any thought or research into their decision. Remember, the US Army trials were stopped before completion. The 320 was failing miserably compared to the Glock submissions. The 320 lost to Glock for the FBI who actually COMPLETED their testing. Some say the FBI trials are the most rigorous trials out there.
What's so great about the Sig P320, though? First is the function. One of the attributes that reviewers rave about when it comes to the P320 is the ergonomics, fitting the hand as well or better than most polymer striker guns on the market.
And again, "fitting the hand" what a load of crap. The ergonomics as far as controls go is atrocious. The slide lock is located way back on the frame where any normal human can't reach without an extra joint in their thumb. It's also a very small slide lock, something Glock haters have screamed for years.
So if it's such a problem to have a small slide lock then why does nearly every wannabe Glock pistol still use a small lever?? I'm no fan of the slide lock, it's a pointless control best suited for one handed use if need be(although there are other methods of working the slide one handed) but the placement is plain stupid on the 320.
The trigger is also hailed as one of the best on a striker pistol, though admitedly some require some break-in before they get really good, with a smooth pull, crisp break and short reset, which was a major failing of the Sig P250, which the P320 is essentially an evolution of.
A trigger with an average pull weight of 6.6lbs is hailed as one of the best?? Are you on crack? Stock Glock comes in at 5.5lbs or 3.5lbs if you have the "-" minus connector. Oh and Glocks are DOUBLE ACTION not SINGLE ACTION like the 320. An SA trigger with 6.6lb pull is pathetic. What's more pathetic is that SIG advertises the trigger pull as between 5.5-7.5lbs. Really? You can't be any more consistent than to have a 2lb variance from high to low??
In terms of dimensions, the Sig P320 Carry or Sig P320 Compact is not much different than the Glock 19 in terms of size. Barrel length, weight, overall height are similar, and carrying capacity is 15 in the Compact and 17 in the Carry, same as the full-size. The party piece, though, is the modularity. The trigger group can be swapped between frames and upper assemblies. So long as you have the parts, you can switch between slides and firing mechanisms in 9x19mm, .40 S&W and .357 Sig. You can also drop the trigger group into a .45 ACP frame and upper, as the larger caliber requires a different frame in addition to the upper group. You can swap between full-size, compact, carry and subcompact frames. All models have accessory rails, .
With Glock, it's not so straight forward.
The compact is still .3 inches taller, a smidge wider and nearly 2 oz heavier. Oh and it has more parts, nearly 20 more parts than a Glock.
Switching frames and calibres is the biggest gimmick going. Why would you have a full size gun when a compact does the same job? You still need a different slide and in some cases a different frame if you want to have all the "modularity". The cost of a calibre/size conversion kit is nearly the same price as buying another gun. The only benefit I see to swapping frames comes into play if you're doing stippling(a useless activity for the most part) or modifying the frame. If you screw it up it's a cheap replacement. One could argue that changing grip size(again, a very minimal amount of change that has no bearing on applying the fundamentals but we'll go with it) is more secure than backstraps as the frame is one piece. .40S&W is dead, .357SIG never took off(a shame really) and .45ACP needs to disappear. 9x19mm is the NATO standard and has served the planet well for over a hundred years.
Comparing Sig to Glock depends on having to compare the right Sig P320 model, because there are almost 10 of them. In reality, what we're talking about is the Sig Sauer P320 Compact or Sig Sauer P320 Carry, as these are closest in size and purpose to the Glock 19; and are both far and away the most popular of their respective lines. The full-size would be better compared to the Glock 17 and the Subcompact is closer to the Glock 26; neither of which compare in terms of sheer volume of sales.
Now, the difference between those two models is the Sig P320 Carry is 0.2 inches taller and holds 2 more rounds of 9x19mm or 1 more round of .40 S&W. The Compact, as of right now, isn't offered in .357 Sig. That said… The Glock 19 is 7.36 inches long with a barrel length of 4 inches, standing 4.99 inches tall and 1.18 inches wide. It weighs 23.65 oz unloaded and has a carrying capacity of 15+1 rounds of 9mm. The trigger pull is around 5.5 pounds and has the famously bifurcated trigger and Glock trigger safety system. The Sig Sauer P320 Compact is 7.2 inches long with the 3.9-inch barrel, standing 5.3 inches tall and 1.3 inches wide, weighing 25.8 oz unloaded.
Trigger pull is rated at 6.5 pounds, but does not have a bifurcated or tabbed trigger. The firing pin block is deactivated with a trigger pull, and has a similar safety system. However, a tabbed (bifurcated) trigger can be ordered if desired. The Sig P320 Carry is basically the same; it's just 0.2 inches taller and holds 1 or 2 more rounds, depending on caliber. That said, the Glock 19 is only offered in 9mm; the Sig can be had in 9mm, .40 S&W, .357 Sig or .45 ACP. You can also get Sig's Caliber X-Change Kit to swap between calibers. Oh, and the Sig doesn't require the trigger be pulled to field-strip, which is a common complaint about striker guns..
Yes Glock models are calibre specific. The 19 is 9mm, the G23 is 40S&W, theG33 is .357SIG and for size comparison the G36 is .45ACP.
With the exception of the G36 the other three are identical in size.
Pulling the trigger for disassembly as a concern is only a concern for idiots.
Part of shooting is subjective; you can read about it but you won't appreciate it until you do it yourself. The Glock is a fine shooting pistol, as everyone knows. It's reliable, easy to use and easily accurate enough for defensive and recreational purposes. The Sig P320 is widely acknowledged for incredible out of the box accuracy by reviewers and most find it unfaltering with any type of ammunition. Some reviewers, though, have noted the P320 has a bit more muzzle rise, as it has the trademark high bore axis that Sigs are known for. Then again, the ergonomic feel of the pistol, how it sits in the hand and so on - along with the trigger - is rated as second only to Walther in the plastic fantastic set.
Glocks, on the other hand, with the aggressive rake of the grip can be a bit alienating.
.........and just to end this on a laugh
The SIG or the Glock or any other gun is no different in mechanical/inherent accuracy. I shoot my buddy's 320 frequently and it shoots no different than my Glocks do. I shoot another buddy's Hk SFP9 and get the same results. It's the shooter not the gun that makes the shot. That's the secret.
But if we all knew the secret then many would stop chasing after the next latest and greatest gun and sales would drop dramatically.
The Grip angle on a Glock is ergonomically correct for the human hand and induces a strong locked wrist and natural point of aim. The broken wrist angle of 1911's which has somehow been the template for most other makers is not conducive to a firm repeatable grip. Watch the video below, start at the 4:15 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP7J-JNSUu4&t=280s
Watch this video at the 5:40 mark. It clearly explains the grip angle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxmaXyn4k4U
Me in the Red...
Last edited:
