SIG P320s ridiculous resale prices after the latest ND fatality

[bootcamp]

Pricing in many of the classified ads on this site must be dictated by magic mushrooms. Never pay anyone's asking price for anything here.

Also, keep in mind there are some people here who have vested business interests in selling 320's or accessories for the weapon and possessing a fair amount of said inventory and not wanting to take it in the shorts so, you will see those people using "Nope, or Yawn" or some other silly reaction because they stand to lose money do to all this bad PR.

The Sig P320 and it's military variants are the Ford Pintos of the firearms world.

That's what I figured when I saw that yawn reaction on my original post. Then I looked at his posts and realized he's a sig accessory dealer. lol figures.

 

[USMC06RET]

Yup, i have a friend or two who are no longer using their 320s and are just holding out waiting for Sig to issue an exchange offer. I wouldn't hold their breathe though. I think the CEO would rather bankrupt the company.

He might not have a choice. Sig is owned by Lüke & Ortmeier Holding Gruppe. Roy Cohen, the CEO of Sig reports to Michael Lüke and Thomas Ortmeier and those two do not want to see Sig get flushed down the toilet. I wouldn't be surprised to see Cohen replaced or a P20 exchange and or buy-back program in the not too distant future. This bad PR is going to sink the company unless they start bailing water like mad and crazy.

 

[USMC06RET]

Ditch my m18 with a scs320 dot pro cut slide and semi custom stippled grip with a few mag for about $800. I just didnt want to risk and jumped ship to shower systems. Lol

Now here is a legal issue that everyone that owns a 320 or a variant who anticipates selling it should consider. If the weapon you sell, even privately, malfunctions and injures someone, you would be exposed to a degree of liability. Also, as it isn't difficult to subpoena people like Ikeo1 for information that will lead to revealing your true identity (as he restricts the use of VPN's on this site), it's probably a really good idea to not publish statements about selling your P320 because of risks, etc.

Yes, the odds are slim but lawsuits like that will destroy you financially.

 

[deephouse]

If you think about it - I feel like the main issue is the "already cocked" striker design. At the end of the day (no matter how it's induced) it's bypassing all the safeties and falling on the chambered round.

SIG SAUER Glossary: Exploring the Striker Mechanism

A striker is part of a semi-automatic handgun. Gain a more clear understanding of the striker mechanism and its significance in firearm technology.

www.sigsauer.com

I feel like if Sig wants to fix this they have to redo that design to one that is more of a "double action" striker (ie Glock).
Meaning, you pull the trigger, the striker gets pulled back, you hit a wall, the wall breaks, the striker moves foward....

 

[H. Bowman]

I can't thread cap on people's ads but I gotta bring it up for discussion. I see resale prices anywhere from$600 up to $1100.... I think y'all are bag holding these firearms if you think you're gonna get those prices especially after a military service member was killed after placing a holstered P320 firearm on a table.

Sig 320 guys, yall got nothing left to stand on in regards to defending this POS gun. IMO, resale price should be LESS than a used Glock 19g3, hell even less than a Hi-point cause both those guns are way more safer than a P320

Are their sale ads hurting you somehow?

 

[DJD100]

I never heard that the X5 is different. I agree that the issue must be in the FCU. There is talk of "tolerance stacking" due to MIM parts made in India. If that's the case, there is a fix but it would require Sig to do it...they'd probably have to exchange the FCU if they ever acknowledged it.

At this point, I do not believe that these pistols just randomly discharge by themselves. But in any case, if they (or even some of them) are "touchy", that is a matter or concern. I have a couple, but they are not my EDC. I have several pistols of different sizes and types from which to choose depending on the situation. I am as facile with a 1911 as I am a DA/SA, striker, or revolver (ever see one of those things? lol).

Its interesting that the P365 and it's variants have not displayed this kind of behavior as far as we know. And despite the massive number of 320s that have been made and sold, there must be a million P365s out there by now. So there's that.

Then there's this: "And just this month, Sig Sauer announced that the Michigan State Police is adopting the M18 as its primary sidearm." I'm not saying this is any sort of vindication, but I'm thinking it will push the ball a little further down the road of understanding what's happening and maybe a solution.

"Somethings happening in here,
And you don't know what it is,
Do you, Mr. Jones"

Three things have to happen at the same time for a P320 to UD (un-commanded discharge without a trigger pull), the primary sear notch must fail, the secondary sear notch must fail, and the striker safety must fail. The P320 has a unique striker safety unlike the P365's which has the common Glock style striker safety (and of course no reported issues!), I believe that's due to the P320 being a redesigned striker fired version of the DA hammer fired Sig P250. It's thought that this was done to speed development in order to compete for the military contracts which Sig of course won, but I'm not sure?

The FBI Ballistics Lab report on the LEO's P320 which had a UD showed wear on the sear after only 1300 rounds, especially wear on the sear's secondary notch which should not be touched unless the primary notch fails, which then indicates that either the primary notch was failing a lot or parts tolerances were not ideal? They also found that the striker safety spring is not captured and both ends, and that it moves around under use, so maybe that's a tell regarding the striker safety problems, not sure?

A web guy also showed that the newer sear design that Sig introduced to fix the original drop fire problem could be modified to eliminate the UD issue in one example that was having the striker safety fail repeatedly on the bench.

In fairness to Sig it should also be pointed out that most likely the number of flawed weapons in the field at this time is a small percentage of the number manufactured, and at least some percentage of the UD's were most likely user modifications or handling issues, including mixing up parts between the 10mm and 9mm versions and holster issues etc, though with that said the possibility of ANY UD's is totally unacceptable in otherwise properly configured and maintained equipment.

That said, I love my P365 Spectre Comp though I'll never own a P320...

 

[DJD100]

It only takes 3 failures for an un-commanded discharge with the P320, the primary sear notch and the secondary sear notch, plus the striker safety, and that includes manual safety models as the P320's manual safety works on the trigger/trigger bar rather than on the sear as in most others including the P365.

The FBI Ballistics Lab did find and report the following so make up your own minds folks, and though the problem has so far effected a tiny percentage of the manufactured P320/M18/M17's, and some percentage of the reported problems have to be due to user error, armorer/gunsmith error, assembling with wrong parts etc (9mm FCU with 10mm parts for example), the other remaining percentage of failures are potentially devastating life changing problems for those effected!

• The striker safety lock is intended to prevent the striker from moving forward in the event sear engagement (primary or secondary) is lost. It was observed that the spring was not fully seated on its post. It was also observed that the striker safety lock spring was only captured at the top of the striker housing. A pre-upgrade Sig Sauer P320 striker safety lock was reviewed for comparison, and it was observed that both the top and bottom of the striker safety lock spring was captured. If the striker safety lock spring leg lost engagement with the top of the striker safety lock, the lock would no longer be spring loaded and could possibly seize or "free-float" rendering the striker safety lock inoperable.
• Additionally, the wear on the sear appeared to be off-center and both the primary and secondary sear notch edges appeared worn (this weapon had approximately 1300 rounds down the pipe).
• The striker pin hook was examined due to its relationship to the sear during normal function. It was observed that the bottom of the striker pin hook face that engages with the sear had a "ledge" rather than being flat.
• The primary sear notch holds the striker, which is under spring tension, to the rear until the trigger is pressed. The secondary sear notch is located forward of the primary sear notch and "is designed to capture the striker pin hook in the event of sear and striker separation without the trigger being pressed. "Sig Sauer recommends a replacement schedule of the sear every 20,000 rounds "to prevent equipment failure before it actually occurs". The primary and secondary sear notch edges exhibit wear aligned with the striker pin hook. The face edge of each sear notch has a "chipped" appearance. Additionally, there appears to be a manufacturing artifact on the primary sear ramp just in front of the primary sear notch.
• The striker pin hook "ledge" shown in reduces the engagement surface between the primary sear notch and the striker pin face to the "face" of the "ledge". Additionally, the misshapen striker pin hook face may be contributing to excessive wear on the primary and secondary sear notches.
• Following the initial evaluation, limited live-fire testing was conducted for function and to determine if the striker safety lock spring moved. The striker safety lock spring was fully seated prior to testing by pressing the spring fully against the striker housing. Thereafter, BRF fired 50 rounds using MSP service ammunition23. The striker assembly was removed to observe the position of the spring. This process was completed three times.
  It was observed on all three iterations the striker safety lock spring moved during firing as seen in representative images below: Federal Premium Tactical HST 147 grain (P9HST2). As previously stated, should the spring leg slip off the striker safety lock, it may leave the safety inoperable. So long as the space between the striker channel wall and the striker safety lock does not exceed the width of the striker safety lock spring, it should remain in place despite not being captured by design.
• The remaining attempts resulted in no firing of the primed case and no evidence that the striker had contacted the primer. Ultimately, in these instances the striker safety lock functioned as designed.
  A brand-new unfired Sig Sauer M18 pistol was obtained from MSP to determine if the test could be repeated on another weapon. On the first attempt, the striker safety lock successfully prevented the striker from impacting the primed case. However, on the second attempt the primed case fired, indicating the striker safety lock failed to stop the striker’s forward movement. The primer indent measured 0.023”.

 

[bootcamp]

Are their sale ads hurting you somehow?

Actually yes, it's bothersome to see some people out of touch with reality and also trying to sell a piece of for unrealistic prices. Like I said, I didn't want to thread cap on people's personal ads, but I can certainly start my own thread so said sellers can come to reality. You must be a loyal triggered sigger? pun intended lol

 

[USMC06RET]

This "official" statement from Sig Sauer in March of 2025 has aged like milk.

“The P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull — that is a fact. The allegations against the P320 are nothing more than individuals seeking to profit or avoid personal responsibility,”

I'm sure the dead airman and the commanding General of the United States Air Force Global Strike Command are just trying to profit or avoid personal responsibility....... Please.

 

[bootcamp]

This "official" statement from Sig Sauer in March of 2025 has aged like milk.

“The P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull — that is a fact. The allegations against the P320 are nothing more than individuals seeking to profit or avoid personal responsibility,”

I'm sure the dead airman and the commanding General of the United States Air Force Global Strike Command are just trying to profit or avoid personal responsibility....... Please.

You forgot to include "IT NDs TODAY" hahaha. They used to be high on the totem pole, now they are the ground that a giant piece of lays on.

If they would have gotten in front of it and offered a FCU exchange rather than publicly sweeping it under the rug, they could have easily saved face. Can't pull that type of in today's social media world.

 

[p--and--p]

I searched P320's for fun to see if I can find a nice one for like $200 lol... Still many were asking msrp or higher, yea good luck!

 

[ugimports]

Now here is a legal issue that everyone that owns a 320 or a variant who anticipates selling it should consider. If the weapon you sell, even privately, malfunctions and injures someone, you would be exposed to a degree of liability. Also, as it isn't difficult to subpoena people like Ikeo1 for information that will lead to revealing your true identity (as he restricts the use of VPN's on this site), it's probably a really good idea to not publish statements about selling your P320 because of risks, etc.

Yes, the odds are slim but lawsuits like that will destroy you financially.

Why would someone selling a firearm be exposed to a degree of liability? Is there something in the law that makes this true? Aren't all firearms sold "as is" and it is up to the purchaser to inspect and bring to a qualified gunsmith if necessary to ensure it is safe? Is there precedence for the liability you mention? I've not heard of that before.

And even if the seller's ad says they are selling because they feel it is risky...doesn't the buyer assume that liability since they know about the "risk" up front?

 

[USMC06RET]

Why would someone selling a firearm be exposed to a degree of liability? Is there something in the law that makes this true? Aren't all firearms sold "as is" and it is up to the purchaser to inspect and bring to a qualified gunsmith if necessary to ensure it is safe? Is there precedence for the liability you mention? I've not heard of that before.

And even if the seller's ad says they are selling because they feel it is risky...doesn't the buyer assume that liability since they know about the "risk" up front?

If you as the seller knowingly sell someone an item that you suspect is defective or faulty and that item causes someone injury, through no fault of their own, you can be deemed liable for knowingly selling a defective item that could cause someone harm. As opposed to selling someone a weapon that causes harm in the commission of a crime, etc. Actually, I know manufacturers and dealers are basically immune from liability if they sell a weapon that is used in a crime but, I have never looked into whether a private seller enjoys such immunity.

On the issue of selling a suspected faulty or defective firearm, I would want the buyer to sign a comprehensive acknowledgement and a release of all civil liability.

 

[ugimports]

If you as the seller knowingly sell someone an item that you suspect is defective or faulty and that item causes someone injury, through no fault of their own, you can be deemed liable for knowingly selling a defective item that could cause someone harm. As opposed to selling someone a weapon that causes harm in the commission of a crime, etc. Actually, I know manufacturers and dealers are basically immune from liability if they sell a weapon that is used in a crime but, I have never looked into whether a private seller enjoys such immunity.

On the issue of selling a suspected faulty or defective firearm, I would want the buyer to sign a comprehensive acknowledgement and a release of all civil liability.

I didn't know that.. I've seen people selling stuff (non-firearms) that says "broken" and assume the buyer picks up any liability on that since it is known to be broken or parts only/defective at the time of purchase. If they are being told it was faulty up front and then take no responsibility in having a qualified gunsmith look at it then is that on them?

Obviously I am not a lawyer.....I assume most anything can cause someone harm if they try hard enough...

From quick googling, obviously no idea how accurate or not this info is:
"While California's consumer protection laws primarily cover new goods sold by businesses, buyers in private sales are not entirely without recourse if they discover a serious defect. Understanding the concepts of "as-is" sales, potential fraud, breach of contract, and transferable warranties can help you assess your situation and determine if you have grounds for legal action. Consulting with an attorney specializing in consumer law or real estate disputes is recommended to discuss your specific situation and explore the best course of action."

 

[USMC06RET]

I didn't know that.. I've seen people selling stuff (non-firearms) that says "broken" and assume the buyer picks up any liability on that since it is known to be broken or parts only/defective at the time of purchase. If they are being told it was faulty up front and then take no responsibility in having a qualified gunsmith look at it then is that on them?

Obviously I am not a lawyer.....I assume most anything can cause someone harm if they try hard enough...

From quick googling, obviously no idea how accurate or not this info is:
"While California's consumer protection laws primarily cover new goods sold by businesses, buyers in private sales are not entirely without recourse if they discover a serious defect. Understanding the concepts of "as-is" sales, potential fraud, breach of contract, and transferable warranties can help you assess your situation and determine if you have grounds for legal action. Consulting with an attorney specializing in consumer law or real estate disputes is recommended to discuss your specific situation and explore the best course of action."

Well, you have to be able to prove / document that you clearly communicated to the buyer that the weapon is potentially faulty and or defective and that defect could lead to serious injury or death. Now, you could try and do that verbally but, verbal contracts are worth the paper they are written on ( get it, get it? ;-) ).

A properly crafted, written acknowledgement and release of liability that is not only signed by the buyer but a witness as well could really pull your cookies out of the oven before they burn.

It's one thing selling someone a broken piano, I mean how much harm is caused by a missing middle C? On the other hand, knowingly selling someone a potentially defective lethal weapon as a private party could subject you to a world of pain and poverty if someone is injured as a result of that defect. Personally, I'm surprised any retail vendors are still selling these weapons.

 

[cake&sodomy]

 

[Pythonfan]

My non lawyer take on reselling would be that seller would only be liable if they modified something and didn't disclose it to buyer and something happened directly related to that modification.

Simply buying a product, then reselling it, probably doesn't rise to the level of responsibility for life.

 

[USMC06RET]

My non lawyer take on reselling would be that seller would only be liable if they modified something and didn't disclose it to buyer and something happened directly related to that modification.

Simply buying a product, then reselling it, probably doesn't rise to the level of responsibility for life.

Unfortunately, it would if you believed the weapon was potentially defective when you sold it. Now, if you never tell that to anyone, never publish that on the web and never say that to the buyer, it would be a tough row to hoe to prove that you were negligent and or malicious. On the other hand, if you publish that online, tell your friends, etc., then you have increased your potential liability exponentially.

 

[Enthused]

I can see some definitely trying to dump their 320s without losing much of their initial investment. But as with everything, people are allowed to list their 320 for whatever they want, but that doesn't mean anybody is going to actually pay that much for it.

On a side note, this whole saga pertaining to the 320 and the M17/18 adoption just sucks ass. What an absolute piece of . I fully understand why the military moved on from the 1911, wanting to go with a common NATO caliber... mag capacity... lower recoil... etc. But I just don't see a big enough reason to move on from the M9 to this pile of doodoo because of "modularity". Well, how about we pick a gun that doesn't go off on it's own? When an M9 is on safe, you could throw it off the top of the Empire State building and it wouldn't go off.

 

[JackRydden224]

I’m stuck with the P320 build that I went overboard with. It’s fine. It’s a lesson learned.

What’s equally dumb are the people selling Staccato P’s for $4K. Ain’t no one gonna pay $4K for a P when the HD is about $3200 after taxes and a Platy is $2500

The Staccato market has crashed. The P320 market is in purgatory