My love/hate relationship with the Sig P320

[GlockyGlockLife87]

Due to a few issues I’ve had with my Sig P320 X Five, I’ve considered trading it multiple times. The two issues that have frustrated me are the ridiculous optic mounting system and the fact that my particular pistol cannot co-witness since I lose my iron sight when I mount an optic. I know that sounds like the same issue but allow me to explain.

The P320 is designed in such a way that if you’re not careful, you can render the pistol inoperable. Well, maybe not inoperable, but you it will cause nonstop failures to eject. Looking at the pistol from the back, the right hand optic screw goes right on top of the ejector spring plunger. If you use a screw that’s too long it will impede upon that plunger and after extended time sitting in your safe or just not being shot, the plunger will bend. That will cause your spent casings to fail to eject.

The other issue I have with Sig is that some of their optics ready P320s lose their iron sight when you take the plate off to mount an optic while others retain their iron sights. Why not make them all the same way? They should all retain their iron sights. I’m not even going to go into the issue of the P320s being their own proprietary optic footprint. Come on Sig help us consumers out by streamlining the manufacturing of these pistols!

 

[Creedmoor]

Well glockglock, I would just suggest that you trade it in and get some more of that glock Perfection that your dying to talk about.

 

[GlockyGlockLife87]

Well glockglock, I would just suggest that you trade it in and get some more of that glock Perfection that your dying to talk about.

There’s always room in my safe for another Glock but as frustrated as I am with my Sig I like just a bit too much to let it go.

 

[WebSnyper]

Due to a few issues I’ve had with my Sig P320 X Five, I’ve considered trading it multiple times. The two issues that have frustrated me are the ridiculous optic mounting system and the fact that my particular pistol cannot co-witness since I lose my iron sight when I mount an optic. I know that sounds like the same issue but allow me to explain.

The P320 is designed in such a way that if you’re not careful, you can render the pistol inoperable. Well, maybe not inoperable, but you it will cause nonstop failures to eject. Looking at the pistol from the back, the right hand optic screw goes right on top of the ejector spring plunger. If you use a screw that’s too long it will impede upon that plunger and after extended time sitting in your safe or just not being shot, the plunger will bend. That will cause your spent casings to fail to eject.

The other issue I have with Sig is that some of their optics ready P320s lose their iron sight when you take the plate off to mount an optic while others retain their iron sights. Why not make them all the same way? They should all retain their iron sights. I’m not even going to go into the issue of the P320s being their own proprietary optic footprint. Come on Sig help us consumers out by streamlining the manufacturing of these pistols!

I'd have to say there are some things that frustrate me about the 320 as well and some about Sig in general.

• Sig does a good job of continuous improvement, but at the same time they seem to do rolling updates with no delineation of generation or any other identifying quantitative description of when they do updates, etc so the consumer has little info on what firearm rev they actually have. This can make purchasing parts, etc tough.
• The optic cuts and footprints have changed quite a bit during the span of manufacture of the 320. Different screw holes/optic compat over that time (largely due to having their own optics business) can make it hard for someone to know what they are getting. They also started with losing the rear sight (less than optimal) then changing so that the rear sight was retained (good). Sig seemed to do a little better with the 365 on optic compat, but the rear sight aspect followed the same path.

That said, the modularity of the 320 (and 365) as well as some other aspects are great innovations and additions to the firearm world. Sig just makes it hard to love them sometimes, but also makes it hard not to like them.

 

[GlockyGlockLife87]

I'd have to say there are some things that frustrate me about the 320 as well and some about Sig in general.

• Sig does a good job of continuous improvement, but at the same time they seem to do rolling updates with no delineation of generation or any other identifying quantitative description of when they do updates, etc so the consumer has little info on what firearm rev they actually have. This can make purchasing parts, etc tough.
• The optic cuts and footprints have changed quite a bit during the span of manufacture of the 320. Different screw holes/optic compat over that time (largely due to having their own optics business) can make it hard for someone to know what they are getting. They also started with losing the rear sight (less than optimal) then changing so that the rear sight was retained (good). Sig seemed to do a little better with the 365 on optic compat, but the rear sight aspect followed the same path.

That said, the modularity of the 320 (and 365) as well as some other aspects are great innovations and additions to the firearm world. Sig just makes it hard to love them sometimes, but also makes it hard not to like them.

I agree 100% with everything you said! And I do love that they got the optic compatibility right with the P365 because I am not a fan of the Romeo Zero. I’ll admit that I haven’t upgraded yet and still use the Zero because it does actually work but it’s not my preferred optic.

 

[shootersix]

My 320 legion is a first gen that came with. 1 set of holes, so “pro” footprint only (delta point pro or sig Romeo pro), and the sight comes off when add a dot.

My 320 axg came drilled for “pro” or rmr and the sight stays on when you add a dot, but the base of the dot is so thick you can’t use the sights, I’d have to put suppressor height sights on.

My two choices are
1 a co witness optics mount

R2 Co-Witness Optics Mount for Sig Sauer P320

R2 Co-Witness Optics Mount for Sig Sauer

shop.springerprecision.com

2 a side mounted battery (the new Romeo)

But, since my 320’s are competition only guns I probably won’t do either of those

Both have dpp sights

 

[GlockyGlockLife87]

I'd have to say there are some things that frustrate me about the 320 as well and some about Sig in general.

• Sig does a good job of continuous improvement, but at the same time they seem to do rolling updates with no delineation of generation or any other identifying quantitative description of when they do updates, etc so the consumer has little info on what firearm rev they actually have. This can make purchasing parts, etc tough.
• The optic cuts and footprints have changed quite a bit during the span of manufacture of the 320. Different screw holes/optic compat over that time (largely due to having their own optics business) can make it hard for someone to know what they are getting. They also started with losing the rear sight (less than optimal) then changing so that the rear sight was retained (good). Sig seemed to do a little better with the 365 on optic compat, but the rear sight aspect followed the same path.

That said, the modularity of the 320 (and 365) as well as some other aspects are great innovations and additions to the firearm world. Sig just makes it hard to love them sometimes, but also makes it hard not to like them.

I agree 100% with everything you said! And I do love that they got the optic compatibility right with the P365 because I am not a fan of the Romeo Zero. I’ll admit that I haven’t upgraded yet and still use the Zero because it does actually work but it’s not my preferred optic.

My 320 legion is a first gen that came with. 1 set of holes, so “pro” footprint only (delta point pro or sig Romeo pro), and the sight comes off when add a dot.

My 320 axg came drilled for “pro” or rmr and the sight stays on when you add a dot, but the base of the dot is so thick you can’t use the sights, I’d have to put suppressor height sights on.

My two choices are
1 a co witness optics mount

R2 Co-Witness Optics Mount for Sig Sauer P320

R2 Co-Witness Optics Mount for Sig Sauer

shop.springerprecision.com

2 a side mounted battery (the new Romeo)

But, since my 320’s are competition only guns I probably won’t do either of those

Both have dpp sights

My X Five is a “first gen” so it came with the holes for the Romeo 1 but NOT the Romeo 1 pro. I found it easier and more cost efficient to just purchase the Romeo 1 and mount that even though I really would’ve preferred something that has a rmr footprint. And unfortunately like I said earlier I lost the rear sight when I mounted it. I’ve only seen one aftermarket plate that had an integrated iron sight but the reviews weren’t very favorable. I don’t shoot my X Five as much as my other pistols so it didn’t bother me much to stop doing the research. But now that I’m talking about it again it’s making me want to start my search again.

 

[shootersix]

I agree 100% with everything you said! And I do love that they got the optic compatibility right with the P365 because I am not a fan of the Romeo Zero. I’ll admit that I haven’t upgraded yet and still use the Zero because it does actually work but it’s not my preferred optic.

My X Five is a “first gen” so it came with the holes for the Romeo 1 but NOT the Romeo 1 pro. I found it easier and more cost efficient to just purchase the Romeo 1 and mount that even though I really would’ve preferred something that has a rmr footprint. And unfortunately like I said earlier I lost the rear sight when I mounted it. I’ve only seen one aftermarket plate that had an integrated iron sight but the reviews weren’t very favorable. I don’t shoot my X Five as much as my other pistols so it didn’t bother me much to stop doing the research. But now that I’m talking about it again it’s making me want to start my search again.

I know lots of people that use springer precision parts, and I haven’t heard any complaints!

 

[Creedmoor]

There’s always room in my safe for another Glock but as frustrated as I am with my Sig I like just a bit too much to let it go.

Why would you be frustrated with the main problem you have with your 320 is self induced extra length screw you installed?

 

[GlockyGlockLife87]

Why would you be frustrated with the main problem you have with your 320 is self induced extra length screw you installed?

It frustrated me because there was no warning anywhere that that could be an issue. There for awhile it was my bedside gun and I always wonder what if I would’ve needed it and a design flaw contributed to a malfunction at the worst time. It’s just a personal perception and not one I expect most people to see the same

 

[WebSnyper]

It frustrated me because there was no warning anywhere that that could be an issue. There for awhile it was my bedside gun and I always wonder what if I would’ve needed it and a design flaw contributed to a malfunction at the worst time. It’s just a personal perception and not one I expect most people to see the same

There are actually a few guns that have that issue. The Daggers are another I have heard about as well. Assuming there may be others.

 

[WebSnyper]

Why would you be frustrated with the main problem you have with your 320 is self induced extra length screw you installed?

With the number of folks getting into firearms and optics on these optic ready guns, it can cause issues that folks may not easily figure out (should be easy to figure out that the optic install did it ... i.e. running before optic, not running after, but many won't know that the screw length caused it).

You seem to be crazy protective of the 320's. I get that it's your preferred gun (I like them too), but they are not perfect.

 

[BigMoose]

So... you dropped it I take it.

 

[A-Aron88]

I'd have to say there are some things that frustrate me about the 320 as well and some about Sig in general.

• Sig does a good job of continuous improvement, but at the same time they seem to do rolling updates with no delineation of generation or any other identifying quantitative description of when they do updates, etc so the consumer has little info on what firearm rev they actually have. This can make purchasing parts, etc tough.
• The optic cuts and footprints have changed quite a bit during the span of manufacture of the 320. Different screw holes/optic compat over that time (largely due to having their own optics business) can make it hard for someone to know what they are getting. They also started with losing the rear sight (less than optimal) then changing so that the rear sight was retained (good). Sig seemed to do a little better with the 365 on optic compat, but the rear sight aspect followed the same path.

That said, the modularity of the 320 (and 365) as well as some other aspects are great innovations and additions to the firearm world. Sig just makes it hard to love them sometimes, but also makes it hard not to like them.

You nailed it. Like always.

 

[Creedmoor]

With the number of folks getting into firearms and optics on these optic ready guns, it can cause issues that folks may not easily figure out (should be easy to figure out that the optic install did it ... i.e. running before optic, not running after, but many won't know that the screw length caused it).

You seem to be crazy protective of the 320's. I get that it's your preferred gun (I like them too), but they are not perfect.

LOL, I own M17's Only because they have a manual safety.
I'm a P226 guy if I'm any kind of pistol guy.

I do know this, if I do changes to a piece of machinery and after the machine has had changes it doesn't work,,,, It was caused by something I did.

And what are the odds of one using the wrong screw and its pinched something below it and its seated in whats being mounted?

Its one of the reasons we have Gunsmiths.

 

[WebSnyper]

LOL, I own M17's Only because they have a manual safety.
I'm a P226 guy if I'm any kind of pistol guy.

I do know this, if I do changes to a piece of machinery and after the machine has had changes it doesn't work,,,, It was caused by something I did.

And what are the odds of one using the wrong screw and its pinched something below it and its seated in whats being mounted?

Its one of the reasons we have Gunsmiths.

Well, Armorers anyway. Gunsmith not really needed for this task IMO.

That said, the whole purpose of these OR ready guns is to be able to have any relatively proficient person be able to add an optic to a gun. Of course the optics sometimes come with varying screws and it's not always easy to tell which one fits.

I agree with you, if the gun worked, then I add something and it doesn't work, then undo the last change and see if the gun works. But then pinning down the very specific what/why may take a bit more sleuthing. It would not be intuitive that the screw would impinge on the extractor unless one went searching on the internet (where there are lots of reports for this for some guns).

 

[GlockyGlockLife87]

There are actually a few guns that have that issue. The Daggers are another I have heard about as well. Assuming there may be others.

The silver lining for me was that I could use what I learned about the P320 going forward and apply that to any other new guns that I bought. It turned out to be a very valuable learning experience. That is the first I’ve heard about the Daggers experiencing the same problem though. I own a Dagger so now I’m compelled to look into it a bit.

 

[92FSTech]

OP, I believe you are talking about the extractor, not the ejector, but I completely agree that designing the gun in a manner that the optic screws could impinge on the extractor channel and the components contained therein was a stupid decision.

Mounting the rear sight on the optics plate cover was also a horrible idea. Thankfully, Sig has addressed both of these issues with subsequent updates, but like WebSnyper pointed out, it can make it really hard to know what you're getting, especially if you're buying used or new old stock.

I guess I'd rather see a company learn from and address it's mistakes in a timely manner rather than repeating them for years simply due to institutional inertia. But I can definitely understand the frustration that comes with the ongoing, un-announced changes and updates that can be hard to track or identify.

 

[GlockyGlockLife87]

OP, I believe you are talking about the extractor, not the ejector, but I completely agree that designing the gun in a manner that the optic screws could impinge on the extractor channel and the components contained therein was a stupid decision.

Mounting the rear sight on the optics plate cover was also a horrible idea. Thankfully, Sig has addressed both of these issues with subsequent updates, but like WebSnyper pointed out, it can make it really hard to know what you're getting, especially if you're buying used or new old stock.

I guess I'd rather see a company learn from and address its mistakes in a timely manner rather than repeating them for years simply due to institutional inertia. But I can definitely understand the frustration that comes with the ongoing, un-announced changes and updates that can be hard to track or identify.

Yeah and in the grand scheme of things it really wasn’t that big of a deal. It could’ve been but it wasn’t. And I was more perturbed that I had to buy a replacement piece for $50 when I could’ve spent that money on a different and more fun accessory.

 

[KokomoDave]

Like ammuntion!!