Guns & Outdoors Forum

I got an email from AIM Surplus today,

LEO trade in "Carry size" P320 $299.95

the Ubiquitous Gen 4 Glock 17 LEO Trade in $399.95

Hell, even a chinese Norinco type 54 7.62x25 is $50 more than the P320

Not quite to the "can't give one away" stage, but pretty danged close, if you ask me

GrapeApe wrote: ↑Sun Jan 18, 2026 11:10 pm Hell, even a chinese Norinco type 54 7.62x25 is $50 more than the P320

This would be a good cornerstone in arguments of communism vs capitalism:

"Who is more likely to make a defective product; the virtual slave laborer under a communist system when he thinks he's not being watched, or the unprincipled grifter in a capitalist system when he thinks he's not being watched?"

I figure the Museum of How Not to Do Things will need at least one P320 in its collection. After that, demand is probably gonna drop off pretty sharply.

At least the Type 54 is based on a Browning design, so it's kind of overbuilt, even if the materials themselves are substandard.

Sportsmans Warehouse by me wont even consider one on a trade in.

mitdr774 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 12:31 am Sportsmans Warehouse by me wont even consider one on a trade in.

"PINLESS HAND GRENADES! ON SALE FOR THE NEXT FIVE SECONDS!!"

When they get to “pay you to take it” price point I’ll probably buy one and throw it in the glovebox…full mag and nothing chambered….

No personal experience.

My range, which does a lot of competitive shooting events, has banned the P320.

Is there any way to correct the problem with the 230?

Apparently not.
If there was, you'd think Sig would have recalled them and done it?

Freezer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 10:59 am Is there any way to correct the problem with the 230?

First Sig would have to admit there is a problem. Even if only tacitly. Then they would have to engineer a proper fix. They will never do this because it would be taken as an admission of guilt and used against them in court. So the 320 will be what it be until irrefutable proof forces otherwise.

Freezer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 19, 2026 10:59 am Is there any way to correct the problem with the 230?

Well. . . number one is that Sig would need to admit there's a problem. Haven't heard that yet.

The most prevalent theory is that there is excessive vertical slop between the frame and slide rails, and the kabooms may be the result of additional poor QC, poor maintenance, or wear within the fire control parts that allows the striker to drop off the sear when the slide and frame are flexed apart. A possible additional component may be that there is insufficient spring pressure to fully reset and hold the trigger forward against internal friction, which is supposed to engage the internal striker blocks - whether that's from tired springs, crud in the mechanism, or some other fault isn't clear. That could be made more positive, but then you get the multitudes of people who can't shoot and blame the equipment bitching that the trigger is too heavy.

Problem A is that the frame rails are on the serialized part of the the gun, so making them bigger is a serious logistical/paperwork/recordkeeping challenge.

Problem B is that the slide is the most expensive part of the gun, so swapping every one with a replacement with narrower rails would be heinously expensive.

Problem C is that it's running a fully cocked striker when the gun is at rest (a Glock doesn't load any striker spring tension until you start pulling the trigger).

The gun's engineering is like a stack of Swiss cheese slices: there are lots of holes through which a problem can try to pass, and they seem to be lining up with disturbing regularity.

Basically, Sig Sauer is Ford and the P320 is the Pinto. Discontinuing the Pinto is probably far cheaper than trying to repair a product with a hopelessly tarnished reputation of blowing up on the road.

I was just wondering if a good gunsmith....Nope....not worth the price of a paper weight.