Comments on: Gunsite Academy Bans Use of SIG SAUER P320 Pistols in its Training Classes

By: CaptainR

CaptainR — Sat, 26 Jul 2025 13:15:10 +0000

Don’t point a firearm at anything f you don’t wish to shoot or destroy.

By: Charles Valenzuela

Charles Valenzuela — Sat, 26 Jul 2025 00:42:10 +0000

Good call. Frankly, no one should have gone to a striker-fired pistol in the first place. Hammer-fired guns, especially with de-cocking mechanisms and double action only (DAO) guns, and guns with full manual safety switches are the only safe-to-carry chambered pistols that I ever carry or transport in a loaded and chambered condition. Striker-fired guns are just accidents and negligent discharges waiting to happen. Unfortunately, they don’t wait too long, either. I’m not interested in how you have safely carried your striker-fired pet rattlesnakes for years and you’ve never been bitten. Just shut up.

By: William

William — Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:03:42 +0000

I understand and agree with the concern over the P320 as well as the right for any individual or corporate trainer to ban the P320 from classes.

I also agree with the assessment by many that Sig Sauer has erred in their decision to deny that there is a problem and that this denial is likely a financial decision, i.e. they recognize that the problem of “inadvertent” discharges is real, but it’s in their financial interest to deny it.

Now that the “evidence” and public outcry has become so overwhelming, many trainers and agencies have also weighed the risks and many have chosen to ban the P320 from their courses….unless the user belongs to a government agency and is using an agency approved P320 and/or the user is carrying in an OWB hip holster.

Is it hard to imagine that many of these same trainers and agencies have had significant concerns about the safety of the P320 for some time?

Is the P320 safer – in terms of not accidentally discharging and hitting either the user OR A FELLOW STUDENT – if worn OWB hip side? Is it safer in the hands of a MIL or LE student than a civilian?

Have these trainers made these exclusions based on financial considerations outweigh safety considerations? If so, how does that differ from the course taken by Sig?

By: JohnC

JohnC — Fri, 25 Jul 2025 02:44:17 +0000

The M18 involved apparently had a light affixed to the rail, and was in the holster when it discharged. Those holsters have big gaps around the trigger guard. So, add this to the long list of possible causes.

By: Shire-man

Shire-man — Thu, 24 Jul 2025 15:53:18 +0000

Sig may very well have a problem and their attitude isn’t helping things but there certainly is a lot of deja vu.

The Glock was the only semiautomatic to fail in a recent round of “drop tests,” Mr. Pledger said. In those tests, guns were dropped to the floor from waist height to see if the impact caused them to fire.

“In many cases, the Glock pistols will not pass the drop test,” he said. “If you drop it exactly right, it can go off.”

The F.B.I., police departments in Los Angeles and Chicago, the California Highway Patrol and the Metro-Dade Police Department in Florida have banned Glocks for routine use by their officers, citing a range of safety and training problems. All these departments have selected other brands of semiautomatics instead. The Philadelphia Police Department has been testing Glocks for several years and has not reached a conclusion about their safety.

…

The F.B.I. decided against authorizing Glocks about five years ago, after preliminary tests showed that the gun’s light trigger pull and short trigger travel made it “too easy for someone to have an accidental discharge,” Mr. Pledger said. Agents are allowed to carry two other brands of semiautomatics — the SIG-Sauer and the Smith & Wesson. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/15/nyregion/use-of-semiautomatic-gun-by-new-york-police-may-pose-risks.html

D.C. police officials repeatedly studied the phenomenon of accidental discharges, invariably concluding that there was no fundamental problem with the Glock itself — as long as users were properly trained.
…
Unintentional shots would turn out to be a disquieting byproduct of Glock’s unique design, according to many experts and to lawsuits filed against Glock in the last decade. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/18/armed-and-unready/419a50bf-23b0-4175-93ee-33211044c8df/

“Spontaneous discharge” of a Glock 35: https://globalnews.ca/news/3680510/3-arteries-severed-after-gun-spontaneously-discharges-on-winnipeg-police-officer/

Internet forums abound with tales of Glocks popping off in holsters, firing when dropped or placed on tables. Obviously we don’t know the deets of these cases or even if they’re real. It’s just all very familiar.

Minus the chest-thumping Glock responded in pretty much the same way by reinforcing the safety features to the public and blaming training. And as we all know Glock has since ceased to be a company. 🤔

By: Chris T in KY

Chris T in KY — Thu, 24 Jul 2025 15:28:11 +0000

The dominoes are falling.

By: uncommon_sense

uncommon_sense — Thu, 24 Jul 2025 15:06:40 +0000

Let’s assume for sake of discussion that the Sig P320 pistol series actually does have a design or manufacturing defect which makes it dangerous and thus not suitable for widespread use. Such a situation highlights the downside to “centralization” which is that a simple error/defect can significantly degrade a huge swath of society, business, or government. (The upside of course is commonization and usually lower prices.)

I would like to see police and military settle on three standard handguns. In that case a design or manufacturing defect would only degrade one-third of operations.