7 ms·

Not clicking on that at work, but, if it's related to the P320, there's no reason that Congress hasn't ordered an investigation into this. There's a decent cha

Not clicking on that at work, but, if it's related to the P320, there's no reason that Congress hasn't ordered an investigation into this. There's a decent chance that the handgun our men and women are issued is a danger. When the M16 had problems early in Vietnam there was an investigation and they found out it was a powder issue in the cartridges. No (good) reason that there's not something similar for this issue here. And Sig can dig their heels in all they want, but when you've got ranges banning P320s and they're in the bargain bin at the local gun shop, well, the market has spoken. You can't unring that bell. Stop production of the P320, fire the executives, and do what it takes to repair this issue.

michaelcampbell 1y ago
> there's no reason that Congress hasn't ordered an investigation into this Cynically, there's a very good reason they haven't. Embarrassment, money, entitlement... lots of reasons, actually.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  Well, I should have specified, there's no good reason for no investigation. Personally my money's on corruption but I have no proof.
  - jakogut 1y ago
    Sig secured contracts for the Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition, with an objectively inferior design compared to every other entry, as well as the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program with the Sig MCX Spear firing an objectively worse proprietary cartridge with higher pressure (lower parts lifespan), more recoil and weight, and less capacity. This design takes the firepower and weight of light arms design back to the sixties when battle rifles were still issued. We've forgotten what we already learned decades ago, standardized intermediate cartridges have a plethora of benefits in combat and logistics. Sig also won contracts for suppressors, optics, and probably more I'm unaware of or can't remember. Unit cost of the M7 is several times higher than the M4, it's heavier, has more recoil, carries less ammo, and the cartridge it fires is still stopped by commonly available body armor that's manufactured today. Corruption is obvious in my mind, it's shocking Congress seems either oblivious or so complacent.
    - SauciestGNU 1y ago
      The intermediate cartridge doctrine is evolving as a result of improvements in armor. M855A1 5.56 cartridges fired out of a long (20") barrel may have success against modern armor, but slightly larger intermediate cartridges (6 and 6.5mm) are being adopted for supposedly superior performance. That doesn't excuse the weird 6.8 fury cartridge Sig designed around though.
      - aerostable_slug 1y ago
        And Sig is responding to .mil requirements, just like the other companies who introduced similar cartridges. It makes no sense to assert they're the ones forcing it on the military. The military asked for it. The requirements may be goofy, but that's a requirements problem and not a Sig problem.
        SauciestGNU 1y ago
        Fair enough, but goofy they are.
        lazide 1y ago
        And if it turns out that someone in the committee made those requirements almost custom for Sig’s projects, and was either buddies with someone in SIG, or went to work for SIG later? As happens all the time in military procurement?
        lenerdenator 1y ago
        Sometimes the requirements almost seem to be purposefully goofy. I can sort of see why they went with a completely new cartridge with the XM7; they want a common cartridge between the service rifle and machine-gun, and they want ballistic performance that can defeat certain types of body armor out of a barrel that's short enough to be maneuverable with a suppressor affixed to it. Would 7.62 NATO do that? I don't know. Maybe not. The one that gets me, though, is the "modular grips" requirement for the competition the P320 ended up winning, with part of the rationale being a better fit for more hand sizes. C'mon. That seems like an interesting idea, but the idea of fitting soldiers for custom grips and keeping them in inventory, just seems far-fetched. Maybe I'm wrong. More importantly, it made the P320 the apparent shoo-in for the competition. It's like someone involved in the process knew someone at Sig and the two devised a requirement that only Sig could reasonably hope to fulfill. Then they undercut Glock on the price, and suddenly a well-regarded service pistol that is proven the world over just isn't good enough for the price, but this completely new design somehow is. It just stinks of collusion between the military and someone putting in a tender for a contract.
- 4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
  There's also no good reason that there wasn't standard testing before adopting the P320 to be the M18. Sig undercut Glock on price and the DOD said "eh... good enuf"
  - bombcar 1y ago
    If it’s a manufacturing defect as some theorize, then the sample guns could have passed with flying colors, but the later ones have the potential issue.
    - 4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
      There were no standard trials for the M18 so Sig didn't even need magical sample guns.
    - jakogut 1y ago
      It's at least partially a design and engineering problem. Sig shoehorned the hammer-fired P250 fire control unit into the P320, which is striker fired. The P250, being hammer fired, uses a fully cocked hammer capable of setting off a primer when dropped, and the P320 (to my understanding) also uses a fully cocked striker, meaning less trigger input is required for firing. Hammer fired guns are capable of doing this safely because they have a sear geometry that requires moving the hammer back against spring pressure with trigger input a very short distance before the hammer drops. Along with a functioning sear block in case the hammer slips off the sear without trigger input, this makes them very safe. Basically every other striker fired gun on the market uses a semi-cocked striker with a trigger widget and sear block, which is a copy of Glock's design, and it's quite safe. Sig deviated from this design without fully proving it out. Their guns don't have trigger widgets, which allows the trigger to move under momentum when dropped, causing repeatable firings. The fully cocked striker design leads to a shorter, crisper pull, but a sear slip leads to uncommanded firings, unlike a semi-cocked design, which doesn't have enough energy to fire a primer. Combine this with poor control of manufacturing, intermingling of parts designed and intended for different calibers, as well as factories in the US and India with varying levels of quality control and poor spec for parts to begin with (metal injection molding for fire control parts), and safety critical systems like the sear block have been shown to not be 100% reliable. It's a system of cascading failures resulting in a firearm that's unsafe to carry loaded.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
  We would need a government body whose mission is to act in the people's interest. Maybe someday.
  - wiml 1y ago
    We would need a demos that is capable, trained, and willing to select such a government body. Our problem in the US is that we're bad at hiring.
shepardrtc 1y ago
A few notes: - Sig has known about it for years[1] - A company recently filed a patent for a fix[2] and they offered Sig the rights to it before filing, but Sig refused. - The Air Force has cleared the 320 for use[3]. In my pessimistic opinion, they probably determined the cost to procure new weapons would exceed the cost to replace lost airmen. [1] https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-of-pistol-risks-for-years/ https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-o... [2] https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-news/patent-says-the-sig-sauer-p320-is-unsafe-but-offers-a-fix/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-news/patent-says-the... [3] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/25/m18s-cleared-use-air-force-global-strike-command-following-airmans-death.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/25/m18s-cleared-...
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  They didn't just clear the gun for use, they arrested the airmen who shot the guy and lied about it. It totally changes the framing of what happened. In a Friday statement, a Department of the Air Force spokesperson said that the unidentified arrested person is accused of making a false official statement, obstruction of justice and involuntary manslaughter. In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/08/08/air-force-makes-arrest-in-airmans-shooting-death-involving-m18-pistol/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/08/08...
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    > In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. That's the Air Force's accusation.
  - shepardrtc 1y ago
    Right, but that doesn't address the issues that all 320's have. In that case, the airman lied, but the guns still have those issues.
    - jibe 1y ago
eoskx 1y ago
Despite the name of the website, it is focused on journalistic aspects of the firearms industry, but point taken.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
jeffwask 1y ago
It's easy. The people in charge now care more about Sig's profits than the dead and injured soldiers who they see as losers and suckers.
anikom15 1y ago
A literal definition of commenting without reading the article
ubunthree 1y ago
Not powder but many other failures in a particular model of the Vietnam era m16: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/m16-vietnam-failure/ https://www.pewpewtactical.com/m16-vietnam-failure/ (I own an ar15 and an ak47 and it is like comparing Microsoft’s MFC to a shell script. The former is all bloat and high tolerances and the latter gets the job done with fewer moving parts.)
- 4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
  Both guns have a bolt carrier, rotating bolt, and similar amounts of fire control group components. Both need to be headspaced within a spec of a few thousandths of an inch. The biggest difference is about 20 years of industrial development (moving from stamped/milled steel to aluminum)
- TacticalCoder 1y ago
  [dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nosignono 1y ago
Curious, what makes that not safe for work? It's a discussion about a handgun manufacturing error, and the manufacturer's failure to respond adequately to it.
- aerostable_slug 1y ago
  They might have very zealous web filters. Something like Websense would categorize that site as "Weapons" related and visiting the site, even if not blocked, would result in a scoring change to the user's profile. I don't blame them for playing it safe. I've personally had to help Bay Area HR types understand that looking at "weapons" sites by itself was probably okay when the company we worked for had thousands of employees across California and at least some percentage of them hunted, went target shooting, etc.
  - seanw444 1y ago
    We really do live in a lame version of a cyberpunk dystopia, don't we.
  - smithkl42 1y ago
    I'm the CTO at my company, and I had to convince my own IT guys that they needed to remove our firewall's weapons-related filters.
  - martin-t 1y ago
    Weapons are for hunting, target shooting and killing people. These HR types (and many in the general population) need to understand that there's nothing wrong with the third point. Aside from the obvious case of self defense, people can only protect their freedom as long as they have equally powerful tools a those trying to oppress them. Democracy can only work with the ability to kill evenly distributed. There's a reason all dictatorships have strict gun control laws.

michaelcampbell 1y ago

> there's no reason that Congress hasn't ordered an investigation into this Cynically, there's a very good reason they haven't. Embarrassment, money, entitlement... lots of reasons, actually.

lenerdenator 1y ago
Well, I should have specified, there's no good reason for no investigation. Personally my money's on corruption but I have no proof.
- jakogut 1y ago
  Sig secured contracts for the Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition, with an objectively inferior design compared to every other entry, as well as the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program with the Sig MCX Spear firing an objectively worse proprietary cartridge with higher pressure (lower parts lifespan), more recoil and weight, and less capacity. This design takes the firepower and weight of light arms design back to the sixties when battle rifles were still issued. We've forgotten what we already learned decades ago, standardized intermediate cartridges have a plethora of benefits in combat and logistics. Sig also won contracts for suppressors, optics, and probably more I'm unaware of or can't remember. Unit cost of the M7 is several times higher than the M4, it's heavier, has more recoil, carries less ammo, and the cartridge it fires is still stopped by commonly available body armor that's manufactured today. Corruption is obvious in my mind, it's shocking Congress seems either oblivious or so complacent.
  - SauciestGNU 1y ago
    The intermediate cartridge doctrine is evolving as a result of improvements in armor. M855A1 5.56 cartridges fired out of a long (20") barrel may have success against modern armor, but slightly larger intermediate cartridges (6 and 6.5mm) are being adopted for supposedly superior performance. That doesn't excuse the weird 6.8 fury cartridge Sig designed around though.
    - aerostable_slug 1y ago
      And Sig is responding to .mil requirements, just like the other companies who introduced similar cartridges. It makes no sense to assert they're the ones forcing it on the military. The military asked for it. The requirements may be goofy, but that's a requirements problem and not a Sig problem.
      - SauciestGNU 1y ago
        Fair enough, but goofy they are.
      - lazide 1y ago
        And if it turns out that someone in the committee made those requirements almost custom for Sig’s projects, and was either buddies with someone in SIG, or went to work for SIG later? As happens all the time in military procurement?
      - lenerdenator 1y ago
        Sometimes the requirements almost seem to be purposefully goofy. I can sort of see why they went with a completely new cartridge with the XM7; they want a common cartridge between the service rifle and machine-gun, and they want ballistic performance that can defeat certain types of body armor out of a barrel that's short enough to be maneuverable with a suppressor affixed to it. Would 7.62 NATO do that? I don't know. Maybe not. The one that gets me, though, is the "modular grips" requirement for the competition the P320 ended up winning, with part of the rationale being a better fit for more hand sizes. C'mon. That seems like an interesting idea, but the idea of fitting soldiers for custom grips and keeping them in inventory, just seems far-fetched. Maybe I'm wrong. More importantly, it made the P320 the apparent shoo-in for the competition. It's like someone involved in the process knew someone at Sig and the two devised a requirement that only Sig could reasonably hope to fulfill. Then they undercut Glock on the price, and suddenly a well-regarded service pistol that is proven the world over just isn't good enough for the price, but this completely new design somehow is. It just stinks of collusion between the military and someone putting in a tender for a contract.
4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
There's also no good reason that there wasn't standard testing before adopting the P320 to be the M18. Sig undercut Glock on price and the DOD said "eh... good enuf"
- bombcar 1y ago
  If it’s a manufacturing defect as some theorize, then the sample guns could have passed with flying colors, but the later ones have the potential issue.
  - 4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
    There were no standard trials for the M18 so Sig didn't even need magical sample guns.
  - jakogut 1y ago
    It's at least partially a design and engineering problem. Sig shoehorned the hammer-fired P250 fire control unit into the P320, which is striker fired. The P250, being hammer fired, uses a fully cocked hammer capable of setting off a primer when dropped, and the P320 (to my understanding) also uses a fully cocked striker, meaning less trigger input is required for firing. Hammer fired guns are capable of doing this safely because they have a sear geometry that requires moving the hammer back against spring pressure with trigger input a very short distance before the hammer drops. Along with a functioning sear block in case the hammer slips off the sear without trigger input, this makes them very safe. Basically every other striker fired gun on the market uses a semi-cocked striker with a trigger widget and sear block, which is a copy of Glock's design, and it's quite safe. Sig deviated from this design without fully proving it out. Their guns don't have trigger widgets, which allows the trigger to move under momentum when dropped, causing repeatable firings. The fully cocked striker design leads to a shorter, crisper pull, but a sear slip leads to uncommanded firings, unlike a semi-cocked design, which doesn't have enough energy to fire a primer. Combine this with poor control of manufacturing, intermingling of parts designed and intended for different calibers, as well as factories in the US and India with varying levels of quality control and poor spec for parts to begin with (metal injection molding for fire control parts), and safety critical systems like the sear block have been shown to not be 100% reliable. It's a system of cascading failures resulting in a firearm that's unsafe to carry loaded.
kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
We would need a government body whose mission is to act in the people's interest. Maybe someday.
- wiml 1y ago
  We would need a demos that is capable, trained, and willing to select such a government body. Our problem in the US is that we're bad at hiring.

shepardrtc 1y ago

A few notes: - Sig has known about it for years[1] - A company recently filed a patent for a fix[2] and they offered Sig the rights to it before filing, but Sig refused. - The Air Force has cleared the 320 for use[3]. In my pessimistic opinion, they probably determined the cost to procure new weapons would exceed the cost to replace lost airmen. [1] https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-of-pistol-risks-for-years/ https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-o... [2] https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-news/patent-says-the-sig-sauer-p320-is-unsafe-but-offers-a-fix/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-news/patent-says-the... [3] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/25/m18s-cleared-use-air-force-global-strike-command-following-airmans-death.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/25/m18s-cleared-...

WillPostForFood 1y ago
They didn't just clear the gun for use, they arrested the airmen who shot the guy and lied about it. It totally changes the framing of what happened. In a Friday statement, a Department of the Air Force spokesperson said that the unidentified arrested person is accused of making a false official statement, obstruction of justice and involuntary manslaughter. In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/08/08/air-force-makes-arrest-in-airmans-shooting-death-involving-m18-pistol/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/08/08...
- lupusreal 1y ago
  > In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. That's the Air Force's accusation.
- shepardrtc 1y ago
  Right, but that doesn't address the issues that all 320's have. In that case, the airman lied, but the guns still have those issues.
  - jibe 1y ago

eoskx 1y ago

Despite the name of the website, it is focused on journalistic aspects of the firearms industry, but point taken.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

jeffwask 1y ago

It's easy. The people in charge now care more about Sig's profits than the dead and injured soldiers who they see as losers and suckers.

anikom15 1y ago

A literal definition of commenting without reading the article

ubunthree 1y ago

Not powder but many other failures in a particular model of the Vietnam era m16: https://www.pewpewtactical.com/m16-vietnam-failure/ https://www.pewpewtactical.com/m16-vietnam-failure/ (I own an ar15 and an ak47 and it is like comparing Microsoft’s MFC to a shell script. The former is all bloat and high tolerances and the latter gets the job done with fewer moving parts.)

4MOAisgoodenuf 1y ago
Both guns have a bolt carrier, rotating bolt, and similar amounts of fire control group components. Both need to be headspaced within a spec of a few thousandths of an inch. The biggest difference is about 20 years of industrial development (moving from stamped/milled steel to aluminum)
TacticalCoder 1y ago
[dead]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

nosignono 1y ago

Curious, what makes that not safe for work? It's a discussion about a handgun manufacturing error, and the manufacturer's failure to respond adequately to it.

aerostable_slug 1y ago
They might have very zealous web filters. Something like Websense would categorize that site as "Weapons" related and visiting the site, even if not blocked, would result in a scoring change to the user's profile. I don't blame them for playing it safe. I've personally had to help Bay Area HR types understand that looking at "weapons" sites by itself was probably okay when the company we worked for had thousands of employees across California and at least some percentage of them hunted, went target shooting, etc.
- seanw444 1y ago
  We really do live in a lame version of a cyberpunk dystopia, don't we.
- smithkl42 1y ago
  I'm the CTO at my company, and I had to convince my own IT guys that they needed to remove our firewall's weapons-related filters.
- martin-t 1y ago
  Weapons are for hunting, target shooting and killing people. These HR types (and many in the general population) need to understand that there's nothing wrong with the third point. Aside from the obvious case of self defense, people can only protect their freedom as long as they have equally powerful tools a those trying to oppress them. Democracy can only work with the ability to kill evenly distributed. There's a reason all dictatorships have strict gun control laws.