Sig P320 "Uncommanded Discharges" (Merged Threads)

Although they may consider this as prohibiting carrying them in loaded:
The immoveable tables constitute the “Firing Line”. Shooting is allowed while on the firing line. A firearm is defined as being unloaded when there are no cartridges in its chamber and magazine. Firearms must be unloaded and firearms must not be fired while you are forward of, behind, or away from these firing lines.
 
Private as in we pay a membership?
If so, yes.
Anyone over 18 can pay 50 bucks and get a yearly membership though, so I guess it depends on what private means. :D
Yes... Private means not public... requires membership. Public range would be one where anyone can show up on any day and pay to shoot.... like at a gun store... or a state-run public range.
 
At the Action Steel shoot today in Orlando (CFRPC), during the pre-match announcements it was noted that while P320s would be allowed today, the further usage would be determined at the club meeting later this coming week. Sig fanbois were directed to go to the website to see if there would a ban for later matches. :eek:

Later, one of the members theorized/quipped about creating "Glock"-branded grip modules and slides and offering them for sale... :unsure: 😇

320s have been 86-ed... :(

nobueno.JPG
 
320s have been 86-ed... :(
View attachment 34192

I can understand CFRPC point on this, it is a private club with matches open to the public (I've shot NRA, CMP, and IDPA matches there myself while not being a member.) If I recall correctly, they were also a training range for central Florida police, so they routinely had people walking around the grounds with loaded and holstered firearms.

Any of the other area clubs doing the same? The Palm Coast club also doubles as the range for Flagler P.D. training, but nothing posted on their site. Strickland in Volusia county has never allowed loaded and holstered, but they are a county owned public range from the start.
 
Last edited:
That is the follow up video I was talking about.

To understand what is going on internally, here are two pictures of the mechanism with the slide removed and the relevant areas circled to show what is happening.

Pistol in the Take-Down position: Take-down lever rotated to remove the barrel and slide, shoving the Take-Down Safety bar to the rear. The Take-down safety bar is then blocking the magazine well and holding the sear down so you can remove the slide. The Slide-Stop lever is locking that bar to the rear so you can remove the take-down lever from the pistol and remove the entire FCU from the grip module if needed.

20250815_034327.jpg



Now, Pistol in the normal firing configuration: Take-down lever is rotated to lock the barrel and slide onto the pistol. Take-down safety bar is in the forward position and no longer holding down the sear or blocking the magazine well. The slide-stop is no longer holding the take-down safety bar to the rear.

20250815_034447.jpg


So, if you don't follow the assembly steps in the manual, you end up with a pistol that looks assembled correctly, but the slide stop lever is still holding the Take-Down Safety bar to the rear, which is holding the sear down.

If the pistol is perfectly within tolerance, this condition just results in a dead trigger... the sear is down and can't cock the striker, the magazine well is blocked so you cannot load ammunition into the pistol. And you can clear this malfunction by simply locking the slide back with the slide stop once. At which point the take-down safety bar will move forward to the normal assembled and ready to fire position.

If the accumulated part tolerances are not working in your favor, you end up with what the fellow in the video is demonstrating... a miss-assembled pistol that cocks the striker and holds it just enough when the pistol is stationary, but will release it if you bump the slide. At least his is still blocking the magazine well, so it is giving away clues that something isn't right.

Hell of a mouse-trap design :)

The entire Take-Down Safety mechanism doesn't exist on a P250. It is another fiddly-bit that was created just for the P320 to be able to take it apart without pulling the trigger. If you are comfortable with the take-down procedure of a Glock, then the entire mechanism could be omitted from the P320.

And, if you are not having enough fun with this already.... Not all P320's behave the same way in this condition. The example one I used for the photograph doesn't get caught in an "assembled but take-down bar stuck back" condition. In other words, it will assemble correctly even if you skip the step of locking the slide to the rear before rotating the take-down lever. There is enough clearance with this specific Wilson Combat grip module to allow the take-down safety lever to jump under the slide-stop lever. This is an example of how one out of spec part can affect the entire mechanism if the piled up tolerances are in your favor. (I doubt Wilson Combat actually intended to defeat Sig's take-down safety system, it just happens that this combination of assembled parts have that effect.)

The Sig fan boyz are in denial about the nature of the problem. Sure, the bulk of P320 pistols in existence probably work correctly in most respects and will not fail in any way that is hazardous to the end user. But there are ones that left to factory with the built-in potential to fail in a dramatic way. Without inspecting and testing every single one, there is no way for anyone to estimate how many faulty P320 pistols are out there. Sig just doesn't know... which should scare the hell out of them. I managed to find issues using a sample size of just three pistols. It just isn't a very good design.
 
Last edited:
So, if you don't follow the assembly steps in the manual, you end up with a pistol that looks assembled correctly, but the slide stop lever is still holding the Take-Down Safety bar to the rear, which is holding the sear down.

If the accumulated part tolerances are not working in your favor, you end up with what the fellow in the video is demonstrating... a miss-assembled pistol that cocks the striker and holds it just enough when the pistol is stationary, but will release it if you bump the slide.

It is another fiddly-bit that was created just for the P320 to be able to take it apart without pulling the trigger.

All the above is unacceptable with any gun. If you reassemble the gun "incorrectly," it shouldn't work at all. The gun's mechanism should not have that sort of latitude. It's an unsafe design. Period.

The Sig fan boyz are in denial about the nature of the problem. Sure, the bulk of P320 pistols in existence probably work correctly in most respects and will not fail in any way that is hazardous to the end user. But there are ones that left to factory with the built-in potential to fail in a dramatic way. Without inspecting and testing every single one, there is no way for anyone to estimate how many faulty P320 pistols are out there. Sig just doesn't know... which should scare the hell out of them. I managed to find issues using a sample size of just three pistols. It just isn't a very good design.

This is why Sig should have done like Tylenol did and immediate recall every single 320 out there. The fact that they refuse indicates an arrogance and dismissiveness regarding the safety of their customers. What they are effectively saying is: We do not give a fuck! And it's very clear that they don't. I mean they really really do not give a fuck.

If this is not the end of Sig, it will crush their reputation and dominance in the firearms market. CRUSH it. Shit, they're making Taurus and Charter Arms look good! They make HK seem to care about and admire their customers! ;)

Personally, at this point... I won't and never will touch a Sig again. I've never owned one (though I have considered buying one in the past), but I have friends who do and have let me shoot them. With this attitude, Sig deserves to go down.
 
Last edited:
If you go back and look at the history of how Remington handled the 700 fiasco, it’s like Sig did not learn from history and are repeating Remington’s follies.
 
If you go back and look at the history of how Remington handled the 700 fiasco, it’s like Sig did not learn from history and are repeating Remington’s follies.

Yeah... even so, I still own and use several Remington 700 rifles to this day. In fact, It is my favorite hunting and target shooting rifle.

But, what the management did was foolish. I think the first foolish move Remington made was to remove the instructions for properly adjusting the trigger from the manual. I had to get a copy of an early Remington 700 manual to print off a copy of the page with the instructions. Being up-front with the customers about the risks would have insulated them better from the misuse of the rifle. More of a "Hey, you wanted the light trigger of a target gun, we gave you one, now don't be stupid about using it." approach. If the owners where better informed about what they were buying, they might have been less cavalier about how they handled them out in the field.

Having read through multiple accounts of the accidental discharges of Rem 700's, I still consider it a fairly safe design. There were a lot of bad firearm handling practices exhibited in every case. Put a Savage 110 or a Weatherby Vanguard in the same circumstances, you would get the same results. I know, I have fixed bad stock fitting on them too. The flag safety of a Mauser 98 or Winchester 70 is a more reliable means of locking the striker, but at the end of the day if you do stupid things with the rifle, you can expect bad things to happen. You never, ever, rely on any "safety" with any of these rifles. You rely of the fundamental rules of safe handling instead. The safety is just there to remind you in case you absent mindedly fingering the trigger when you are not ready to take a shot.

Personally, I don't use the safety on any long gun except the AR and M1, On the bolt guns, I don't close the bolt on a round until I'm ready to take a shot. I've missed opportunities as a result, but I'll never be found at the bottom of a tree-stand with an extra hole in my anatomy. ;)
 
Yeah... even so, I still own and use several Remington 700 rifles to this day. In fact, It is my favorite hunting and target shooting rifle.

But, what the management did was foolish. I think the first foolish move Remington made was to remove the instructions for properly adjusting the trigger from the manual. I had to get a copy of an early Remington 700 manual to print off a copy of the page with the instructions. Being up-front with the customers about the risks would have insulated them better from the misuse of the rifle. More of a "Hey, you wanted the light trigger of a target gun, we gave you one, now don't be stupid about using it." approach. If the owners where better informed about what they were buying, they might have been less cavalier about how they handled them out in the field.

Having read through multiple accounts of the accidental discharges of Rem 700's, I still consider it a fairly safe design. There were a lot of bad firearm handling practices exhibited in every case. Put a Savage 110 or a Weatherby Vanguard in the same circumstances, you would get the same results. I know, I have fixed bad stock fitting on them too. The flag safety of a Mauser 98 or Winchester 70 is a more reliable means of locking the striker, but at the end of the day if you do stupid things with the rifle, you can expect bad things to happen. You never, ever, rely on any "safety" with any of these rifles. You rely of the fundamental rules of safe handling instead. The safety is just there to remind you in case you absent mindedly fingering the trigger when you are not ready to take a shot.

Personally, I don't use the safety on any long gun except the AR and M1, On the bolt guns, I don't close the bolt on a round until I'm ready to take a shot. I've missed opportunities as a result, but I'll never be found at the bottom of a tree-stand with an extra hole in my anatomy. ;)
It wasn’t an instructional issue, the gun was faulty and was recalled to be fixed. It killed two dozen people and it would go off without touching the gun and would/could go off when the safety was touched. Sorry, no gun should do that regardless of how light the trigger is. Remington fought tooth and nail in court and were even held in contempt. They were forced to recall the 700 to fix it and later admitted it was faulty.
 
If you go back and look at the history of how Remington handled the 700 fiasco, it’s like Sig did not learn from history and are repeating Remington’s follies.
Seems like I remember hearing at the time that the engineer who designed the trigger (Mike Walker) recommended that Remington not alter the original design to save something like 5 cents per rifle. Of course, the bean counters prevailed, and they went with the design changed to chase that nickel.

The last thing these companies want is a recall. It will cost them tens of millions. They figure settling the lawsuits out of court with a non-disclosure agreement will be cheaper.

I have owned a 700 for over 40 years and haven't had any issues with the trigger. But knowing the history, I don't close the bolt on a live round until the barrel is pointed at the target.

I agree with clm2112 in that you should never put absolute faith in a mechanical safety. Safety is between the ears, not between the hands.
 
The last thing these companies want is a recall. It will cost them tens of millions. They figure settling the lawsuits out of court with a non-disclosure agreement will be cheaper.

Perhaps cheaper in the short term. But the long-term damage to their reputation and future sales will arguably cost them FAR more than a recall. To wit... Remington vs Tylenol. Tylenol is still in business.

I believe Sig is finished... like Remington. I think they have passed the point of no return.
 
Perhaps cheaper in the short term. But the long-term damage to their reputation and future sales will arguably cost them FAR more than a recall. To wit... Remington vs Tylenol. Tylenol is still in business.

I believe Sig is finished... like Remington. I think they have passed the point of no return.
What sunk Remington was being bought by Cerebus Capital Management and having suits that know nothing about firearms making the decisions. They let QA go to shit and the public took notice and bought something else. Their cluster fuck with Marlin made it even worse.

I believe I have related my story about a Remington made Marlin before. For those that have not heard it, ask.
 
Seems like I remember hearing at the time that the engineer who designed the trigger (Mike Walker) recommended that Remington not alter the original design to save something like 5 cents per rifle. Of course, the bean counters prevailed, and they went with the design changed to chase that nickel.

The last thing these companies want is a recall. It will cost them tens of millions. They figure settling the lawsuits out of court with a non-disclosure agreement will be cheaper.

I have owned a 700 for over 40 years and haven't had any issues with the trigger. But knowing the history, I don't close the bolt on a live round until the barrel is pointed at the target.

I agree with clm2112 in that you should never put absolute faith in a mechanical safety. Safety is between the ears, not between the hands.
If you’ve owned it for 40 years, yours was not part of the recall so it would make sense that you had no issues. The ones that were recalled are Model 700 and Model Seven rifles with the X-Mark Pro (XMP) trigger manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014.
 
If you’ve owned it for 40 years, yours was not part of the recall so it would make sense that you had no issues. The ones that were recalled are Model 700 and Model Seven rifles with the X-Mark Pro (XMP) trigger manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014.
That was the new "safer" trigger Remington rolled out to replace the Mike Walker designed trigger used on the post war 721, 722, and 700. It had a propensity to fire when the bolt was closed and was also the subject of lawsuits.

If you want to do some digging to find the article, you can, but these are the highlights.

  • Walker testified under oath in 2011 at age 98, revealing that Remington’s process engineers altered his design by switching from wrought metal to powdered metal, which he believed compromised safety.
  • He proposed a fail-safe design that would lock the trigger while the safety was on, but Remington rejected it due to cost.
  • Walker also testified about internal document destruction and being marginalized within the company before retiring in 1975.
 

Walker’s Testimony on Cost Savings​

In his 2011 deposition, Walker stated that Remington declined to implement his fail-safe trigger design because it would have added approximately 5.5 cents per rifle to the manufacturing cost. This design would have locked the trigger while the safety was engaged, preventing accidental discharge.

Legal History of the Walker Trigger​

  • Volume of Lawsuits: While exact numbers vary, investigative reports and legal filings indicate hundreds of individual lawsuits were filed against Remington, many alleging that the rifle could discharge without the trigger being pulled.
  • Class Action Settlement: In 2017, Remington agreed to a landmark class-action settlement covering millions of rifles, including the Model 700, Model Seven, and others equipped with the Walker trigger.
    • The settlement offered free trigger replacements for affected firearms.
    • It did not cover personal injury or wrongful death claims, which could still be pursued separately.
  • Trigger Design Flaw: The lawsuits centered on the connector component in the Walker trigger, which could become misaligned or contaminated, leading to uncommanded discharges.

Why No Formal Recall?​

Despite the volume of litigation and media scrutiny—including the 2010 CNBC documentary—Remington never formally recalled the Walker trigger. Instead, they:

  • Denied systemic flaws.
  • Settled cases quietly.
  • Eventually replaced the Walker trigger with the X-Mark Pro in 2006 (which itself was recalled in 2014).
 
What sunk Remington was being bought by Cerebus Capital Management and having suits that know nothing about firearms making the decisions. They let QA go to shit and the public took notice and bought something else. Their cluster fuck with Marlin made it even worse.

I believe I have related my story about a Remington made Marlin before. For those that have not heard it, ask.

I hear similar claims about the CEO of Sig, who apparently previously ran down Kimber's reputation.
 
Back
Top