Clubs Banning the Sig p320

[ReaperCustom45]

As far as I know, there's only one club near me that has banned it, and I won't shoot there because of it. I don't even shoot my 320 that often, but banning it is some gun grabber knee jerk reaction nonsense and I won't support it.

 

[ikeo1]

As far as I know, there's only one club near me that has banned it, and I won't shoot there because of it. I don't even shoot my 320 that often, but banning it is some gun grabber knee jerk reaction nonsense and I won't support it.

It's not a gun grabber issue. Like others said, it's an insurance coverage issue. The range isn't covered if theres an incident which threatens the entire facility.

The reality is SigSauer is not doing anything about it as incidents keep happening. So ranges don't really have a choice if the manufacturer won't acknowledge there's an issue when that's the only firearm we really see with issues like that.

I'm annoyed too because I like my p320 and many of us have them but Sig really dropped the ball on this one.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Not sure what the issue is, I throw mine across the room and it hasnt gone off yet

 

[ikeo1]

Not sure what the issue is, I throw mine across the room and it hasnt gone off yet

 

[weaverftw]

I suspect its really their insurance underwriters that banned any of them. Too many all banned within a week of each other for that to be coincidental.

I don’t think this is it. First of all, knowing some underwriters and risk control folks, I doubt they are well versed enough in the firearms world to even know about this controversy or factor it into their analysis. Second, I doubt ALL these businesses have the same insurer and/or the same renewal dates. Something like this would not come about mid-policy-period, it would be as part of a renewal (they can’t just change rates mid period). I think it’s just the news/social media cycle and businesses reacting to public sentiment and when a high profile incident occurs like the Air Force One, a bunch of businesses act.

 

[ikeo1]

I don’t think this is it. First of all, knowing some underwriters and risk control folks, I doubt they are well versed enough in the firearms world to even know about this controversy or factor it into their analysis. Second, I doubt ALL these businesses have the same insurer and/or the same renewal dates. Something like this would not come about mid-policy-period, it would be as part of a renewal (they can’t just change rates mid period). I think it’s just the news/social media cycle and businesses reacting to public sentiment and when a high profile incident occurs like the Air Force One, a bunch of businesses act.

This is why our club go rid of it and some others I know of. They didn't want to FAFO if it was public information. Many have the same insurer because there's only so many insurers for gun ranges and liabilities. These types of communities are very very small.

 

[weaverftw]

It's not a gun grabber issue. Like others said, it's an insurance coverage issue. The range isn't covered if theres an incident which threatens the entire facility.

I don’t think this is true. It’s somewhere in the middle; I doubt any insurer has attempted to write in an exclusion or endorsement altering coverage for sig p320s specifically. It’s about ranges being worried about an incident occurring (which would be covered) and then having the occurrence impact their rates.

 

[ikeo1]

I don’t think this is true. It’s somewhere in the middle; I doubt any insurer has attempted to write in an exclusion or endorsement altering coverage for sig p320s specifically. It’s about ranges being worried about an incident occurring (which would be covered) and then having the occurrence impact their rates.

The point being its still an insurance issue. It's not a separate rider for it because like i said Sig is not doing anything about it and it is a publicly known issue. It's banned more because Sig has decided not to do anything but the risk still remains. Insurance is indirectly related, not necessarily the policy, but as mentioned if anything does happen word travels fast and people would rather not deal with the issue if the Manufacturer themselves are ignoring the issue.

Ranges have the option to ban what they want for public safety. Similarly, steel cased ammo is another concern.

I doubt they are well versed enough in the firearms world to even know about this controversy or factor it into their analysis.

Are the underwriters you know dealing specifically with firearms related facilities? Insurers I've spoke to have specific departments that handle ranges/firearms independently from their other policies.

If you known there's a defect in a common platform, common sense has to rule, why would you let people use it on your property if the manufacturer isn't ignoring the issue. I own the platform, but get the reluctance, use another firearm. Hopefully, Sig will acknowledge the issue.

I've also known enough people where their firearm had issues and they ultimately changed platforms. So where you're saying it isn't a thing and mostly paperwork. People on ranges see P320s have issues over the years in person. So I understand why ranges decide to avoid having them because no one wants to test their insurance policy, where because you work in it and because you say it should be covered isn't a reason to take that risk for ranges who have seen issues, where incidents aren't always publicized. I can speak of a few that haven't.

I can speak for myself too that I was banned from the Sig Forum for bringing it up. When more people were using it people were blowing up their frames pretty consistently, in terms of issues but it was really random where the issue would happen.

No issues with any other platform in terms of sheer volume with the sig.

 

[NeilDown]

Not sure what the issue is, I throw mine across the room and it hasnt gone off yet

You have LAX ammo in there?

 

[BONECUTR]

My 2 cents:
#1 Most these places banning 320's are ran by FUDDS.
#2 NDs/ADs happen every day at ranges. People are new/careless/sloppy/ect with all types of guns. If it happens with a Glock/Springfield/Walther/HK the shooter was sloppy. If it happens with the 320 iTs ThE gUnS fAuLt!>
#3 I have personally seen so many guns and seem to go off on there own. Some have been "worked on" by the owner. Glocks go full auto after some work. A Walther that would "cook off" rounds and a Kimber that went full auto out of the box that I have personally witnessed.

I feel the 320 is just the boogeyman everyone wants to blame rather than take accountability for crap gear/parts installed by inexperienced people.

End Rant

 

[grandpapeepap]

You have LAX ammo in there?

 

[weaverftw]

The point being its still an insurance issue. It's not a separate rider for it because like i said Sig is not doing anything about it and it is a publicly known issue. It's banned more because Sig has decided not to do anything but the risk still remains. Insurance is indirectly related, not necessarily the policy, but as mentioned if anything does happen word travels fast and people would rather not deal with the issue if the Manufacturer themselves are ignoring the issue.

Ranges have the option to ban what they want for public safety. Similarly, steel cased ammo is another concern.



Are the underwriters you know dealing specifically with firearms related facilities? Insurers I've spoke to have specific departments that handle ranges/firearms independently from their other policies.

If you known there's a defect in a common platform, common sense has to rule, why would you let people use it on your property if the manufacturer isn't ignoring the issue. I own the platform, but get the reluctance, use another firearm. Hopefully, Sig will acknowledge the issue.

I've also known enough people where their firearm had issues and they ultimately changed platforms. So where you're saying it isn't a thing and mostly paperwork. People on ranges see P320s have issues over the years in person. So I understand why ranges decide to avoid having them because no one wants to test their insurance policy, where because you work in it and because you say it should be covered isn't a reason to take that risk for ranges who have seen issues, why aren't always publicized.

Oh no you misunderstood me, I just meant it wouldn’t be a “this incident isn’t covered because p320s were excluded in the policy” issue, but rather a “as a range owner I can’t risk a p320 incident based on what I’ve seen online or in person, so I’m banning them from my range to prevent an accident that would cause my insurance rates to skyrocket.”

That’s a totally reasonable business decision from a range owner’s perspective. And I think an insurance carrier would also be wise to know about the risk and take it into account when underwriting, I’m just not sure they do on an individual basis or on an existing policy. Some might have that as part of an analysis for new business (whether the facility bans p320s could impact whether they want to insure them), but it wouldn’t be a policy exclusion thing I don’t think.

I’m actually very curious on this now so I’m going to poke around. I work for one of the larger commercial property and casualty insurers so I just asked a contact in commercial general liability risk control - the guy I know personally focuses on construction but he might know who I can ask about the firearms industry.

…or maybe I shouldn’t poke the bear and make them aware of something they aren’t already talking into account…

 

[BONECUTR]

…or maybe I shouldn’t poke the bear and make them aware of something they aren’t already talking into account…

I would not recommend poking the bear. Being in the industry I have not heard one incident or insurance keeping up on current firearm/ammo trends to advise ranges on what they should/shouldn't allow.

This is a owner/management choice.

 

[1911-CV]

Has an insurer actually said/done anything or are some ranges/instructors simply anticipating that they might?

 

[weaverftw]

My 2 cents:
#1 Most these places banning 320's are ran by FUDDS.
#2 NDs/ADs happen every day at ranges. People are new/careless/sloppy/ect with all types of guns. If it happens with a Glock/Springfield/Walther/HK the shooter was sloppy. If it happens with the 320 iTs ThE gUnS fAuLt!>
#3 I have personally seen so many guns and seem to go off on there own. Some have been "worked on" by the owner. Glocks go full auto after some work. A Walther that would "cook off" rounds and a Kimber that went full auto out of the box that I have personally witnessed.

I feel the 320 is just the boogeyman everyone wants to blame rather than take accountability for crap gear/parts installed by inexperienced people.

End Rant

I tend to agree with this, once the narrative caught on now the gun gets blamed for user error. Several high profile cases have turned out to be this (air force). Couple this with the fact that there are 5 million of these out there and that’s plenty of guns for a normal 0.001% problem that ALL guns see seem like something more. These things also do have shorter lighter triggers which makes NDs more likely than say a DA/SA gun or other designs. I also agree many of these incidents likely involved people who messed with the guns themselves.

I had a G19 start firing on trigger reset (one trigger pull, two shots) from just a Zev connector which is a widely used part. Quickly swapped in an OEM connector and the issue disappeared. So yes this stuff happens a lot with all kinds of guns

 

[weaverftw]

Has an insurer actually said/done anything or are some ranges/instructors simply anticipating that they might?

It’s the latter I’m nearly certain.

I would not recommend poking the bear. Being in the industry I have not heard one incident or insurance keeping up on current firearm/ammo trends to advise ranges on what they should/shouldn't allow.

This is a owner/management choice.

I tend to agree. I won’t let my curiosity negatively impact the industry. Dude is offline, I hit recall on the email lol

 

[ikeo1]

Oh no you misunderstood me, I just meant it wouldn’t be a “this incident isn’t covered because p320s were excluded in the policy” issue, but rather a “as a range owner I can’t risk a p320 incident based on what I’ve seen online or in person, so I’m banning them from my range to prevent an accident that would cause my insurance rates to skyrocket.”

That’s a totally reasonable business decision from a range owner’s perspective. And I think an insurance carrier would also be wise to know about the risk and take it into account when underwriting, I’m just not sure they do on an individual basis or on an existing policy. Some might have that as part of an analysis for new business (whether the facility bans p320s could impact whether they want to insure them), but it wouldn’t be a policy exclusion thing I don’t think.

This is exactly my understanding of the situation. The range doesn't want to FAFO is the case. A lot of people like to assume, capitulation but the reality is the manufacturer is giving no reason or assistance to help address the issue.

My 2 cents:
#1 Most these places banning 320's are ran by FUDDS.
#2 NDs/ADs happen every day at ranges. People are new/careless/sloppy/ect with all types of guns. If it happens with a Glock/Springfield/Walther/HK the shooter was sloppy. If it happens with the 320 iTs ThE gUnS fAuLt!>
#3 I have personally seen so many guns and seem to go off on there own. Some have been "worked on" by the owner. Glocks go full auto after some work. A Walther that would "cook off" rounds and a Kimber that went full auto out of the box that I have personally witnessed.

I feel the 320 is just the boogeyman everyone wants to blame rather than take accountability for crap gear/parts installed by inexperienced people.

End Rant

I can understand the sentiment but can say that as a RO and RM for many many matches and training classes. I do see issues with multiple platforms but AD/ND's are usually user error. I have seen multiple SigNades as well in the same time period where people blew up their gun, which was mainly sig unfortunately. I'm not a FUDD or an idiot.

The difference is many of these happen with stock Sig's vs modified other brands. YMMV, but just putting my perspective in there too. P320's have a problem the manufacturer is ignoring that other manufacturers don't have with the base platform. I would rather Sig take responsibility / accountability because there's enough data out there that shows its a Sig issue IMHO. Blaming ranges for not wanting faulty equipment is the wrong direction to point blame.

Everyone at the range wants more options. Taking one away is legitimate if there's enough evidence of it to avoid bring issues where they don't need to be. Ultimately, this should point back to the manufacturer because the P365 doesn't have the issue and isn't banned. P226/P229 1911 etc not banned.

 

[21SF 2.0]

Anyone with half a brain left sig last year. The rest are holding on for dear life.

Wild.

 

[1911-CV]

There's this rule about arguing with someone in their own house, but I think this is just incorrect

but the reality is the manufacturer is giving no reason or assistance to help address the issue.

Sig has put a lot of time and resources into trying to duplicate the reported incidents. Many have turned out to be explainable (key scratches...) and the outright false report of in the Air Force incident has certainly tainted the issue. What Sig hasn't done is found or fixed anything. Perhaps there's nothing to find or perhaps a defect with an infinitesimally small occurrence is eluding them.

 

[BONECUTR]

I have seen multiple SigNades as well in the same time period where people blew up their gun, which was mainly sig unfortunately. I'm not a FUDD or an idiot.

The difference is many of these happen with stock Sig's vs modified other brands.

My Response to this is people lie.... I have them in my store trying to get me to fix what they messed up.
They will literally come in and say "this spring just fell out of my 320FCU" umm no it didn't... you took it apart... put it back together wrong and realized you missed a spring.

People will come in with the FCU and a bag of parts where they tried to change out the trigger and gave up and now I have a bag of new and old parts mixed together.

One gun will kaboom and they will come in cause I sold it to them (not Sig) and they blame the gun or the factory ammo I sold them. (6 months later their friend will come in saying they were making their own +P+ ammo and his gun also blew up)

These people are not going to go "Yeah, I've been tinkering with my gun/ammo so who know"

With all the current Sig criticism its blame free to just blame the Sig.

I have yet to have anyone come back to tell me their Sig had an issue. I have sold that many but my bound book shows a little over 2k P320's.