What's new
caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

  • 📢 Classifieds Update — Effective Monday, September 21

    Starting Monday, the free Classifieds ad limit will be lowered from 3 to 2 active ads.

    Verified accounts will keep their limit of 3. All other account limits stay the same.

    Existing ads are not affected and will remain up until they expire.

    Want to keep 3 listings and add features like removing comments and emojis? Upgrade/Verify your account

    More information here
Rost Martin R1MF comes to Califnoria

Sig P385 rumored to replace the P320 system. Any intel out there?

Makoman said:
Whatever replaces it, if anything replaces it, I'm betting it has a Glock syle trigger safety. When the P320/M17/M18 was submitted for the military trials, Glocks patent on their trigger safety hadn't yet expired.

I wonder how it would bode for Sig considering the constant lawsuits. If they basically re-brand the 320 and add a trigger safety, it would almost be like admitting or acknowledging that there was an issue with their initial design, especially if they discontinue the 320 altogether.
Click to expand...

Picture I posted on page 1 didn't have a glock style trigger.
 
Gawernator said:
Being butthurt a company improves its products is actually hilarious
Click to expand...
This is an unfair characterization of his argument. The revisions to the MCX line for example has broken compatibility for certain upper components, and SIG doesn't appear to stock all of the parts for legacy MCX platform guns. So 1st gen MCX owners bought SIG's expensive modular rifle platform, and within one product revision SIG redesigned enough proprietary components that maintaining the original configuration eventually became a scavenger hunt. This is one of the reasons why I did not buy the cheap MCX Regulators that were selling on PSA for $1300. I wasn't sure if I could get parts for them in the future.

By contrast, for all of Glock's faults, their lack of innovation is a feature not a bug. They try to maintain institutional inertia at PD's and on the consumer side by not rocking the boat unless absolutely necessary, and they maintain a catalog of available OEM components.

I think both approaches have their place in the market and i'm not suggesting that SIG doesn't make parts available generally. Just saying that the commentator you replied to wasn't suggesting that SIG shouldn't improve their products, but more so that they should support all of the products that they've released.
 
Last edited:
Sig had some early versions of the P320 in 45 ACP. I've seen some listed here during the controversy. I'd be very interested if this next FCU service pistol releases with a 45 version. A complaint of the 320 in 45 was the lack of compatibility with parts from the 320 in 9mm.

I'd probably snap up the new model quick if it was a 45 FCU that was compatible with some of the 9mm FCU version parts.
 
decius_mus said:
This is an unfair characterization of his argument. The revisions to the MCX line for example has broken compatibility for certain upper components, and SIG doesn't appear to stock all of the parts for legacy MCX platform guns. So 1st gen MCX owners bought SIG's expensive modular rifle platform, and within one product revision SIG redesigned enough proprietary components that maintaining the original configuration eventually became a scavenger hunt. This is one of the reasons why I did not buy the cheap MCX Regulators that were selling on PSA for $1300. I wasn't sure if I could get parts for them in the future.

By contrast, for all of Glock's faults, their lack of innovation is a feature not a bug. They try to maintain institutional inertia at PD's and on the consumer side by not rocking the boat unless absolutely necessary, and they maintain a catalog of available OEM components.

I think both approaches have their place in the market and i'm not suggesting that SIG doesn't make parts available generally. Just saying that the commentator you replied to wasn't suggesting that SIG shouldn't improve their products, but more so that they should support all of the products that they've released.
Click to expand...
Well that is valid. Still normal though, like how Porsche did a ghost update in 1986 halfway through on the 944. Random example but companies do it all the time
 
Z Arms LLC said:
if Sig cares about public opinion they'd stick to hammer fired
Click to expand...
I think a more robust striker-fired inventory would do them well. It’s one of the biggest reasons that Glock does so well. And many want a P320 replacement.

People really like the P365 and have said that Sig should repurpose that design to replace the P320’s. Sig seemingly listened there at least but not sure if they’ll add the tabbed trigger.

One of the biggest wins with the P320 was the modularity with the FCU design, being able to reconfigure it from a compact to full-size pistol along with all the customization options. Many were hoping that Glock would go in the same direction with the gen 6.

It’s difficult to get that same modularity out of hammer-fired pistol’s.

So not just striker-fired but modular is the continued direction. One of the reasons the P211 is so attractive for me is because of the swappable uppers.
 
john_marsten_1873 said:
I think a more robust striker-fired inventory would do them well. It’s one of the biggest reasons that Glock does so well. And many want a P320 replacement.

People really like the P365 and have said that Sig should repurpose that design to replace the P320’s. Sig seemingly listened there at least but not sure if they’ll add the tabbed trigger.

One of the biggest wins with the P320 was the modularity with the FCU design, being able to reconfigure it from a compact to full-size pistol along with all the customization options. Many were hoping that Glock would go in the same direction with the gen 6.

It’s difficult to get that same modularity out of hammer-fired pistol’s.

So not just striker-fired but modular is the continued direction. One of the reasons the P211 is so attractive for me is because of the swappable uppers.
Click to expand...
When you look at what the systems do, the difference between a hammer or a striker is superficial. Excepting Glock and glock clones, the good striker fired pistols all use a precocked striker that is loaded by a certain weight spring, the trigger bar moves the sear until it slips off the striker and it fires. A hammer fired gun has a precocked hammer that is loaded by a certain weight spring. the trigger bar moves the sear until it slips off the striker and it fires. You can make a walther or M&P trigger under 3lbs fairly easily. Having an external hammer is really a novelty at this point. Not to say it isn't cool but it really isn't necessary. One caveat is perhaps wanting to carry a pistol hammer down. But you could replicate that with an internal system if you wanted, they do have double action striker fired guns. Nobody wants them of course but they do exist.
 
john_marsten_1873 said:
I think a more robust striker-fired inventory would do them well. It’s one of the biggest reasons that Glock does so well. And many want a P320 replacement.

People really like the P365 and have said that Sig should repurpose that design to replace the P320’s. Sig seemingly listened there at least but not sure if they’ll add the tabbed trigger.

One of the biggest wins with the P320 was the modularity with the FCU design, being able to reconfigure it from a compact to full-size pistol along with all the customization options. Many were hoping that Glock would go in the same direction with the gen 6.

It’s difficult to get that same modularity out of hammer-fired pistol’s.

So not just striker-fired but modular is the continued direction. One of the reasons the P211 is so attractive for me is because of the swappable uppers.
Click to expand...
Everybody always forgets the 320 predecessor.. the 250. I had one years before the 320 was released. Loved the modularity, and the smooth revolver like trigger was actually pretty decent. Only reason I sold it was all of the slides were becoming obsolete and I was moving towards slide mounted optics. It was an easy transition to the 320 since they were the same mags and frames
 
9mmContagion said:
Everybody always forgets the 320 predecessor.. the 250. I had one years before the 320 was released. Loved the modularity, and the smooth revolver like trigger was actually pretty decent. Only reason I sold it was all of the slides were becoming obsolete and I was moving towards slide mounted optics. It was an easy transition to the 320 since they were the same mags and frames
Click to expand...
I had regretted not buying the P250 when they came out. Having said that, I’m solidly into the P365 ecosystem. I’m not sure the economics for an FCU interchangeable chassis system are as good as one would think compared to buying a whole new firearm. The slides and barrels are pretty close to the cost of a new pistol. Close enough where i just assume get a second pistol.
 
Last edited:
Agree
Sheepdog1968 said:
I had regretted not buying the P250 when they came out. Having said that, I’m solidly into the P365 ecosystem. I’m not sure the economics for an FCU interchangeable chassis system are as good as one would think compared to buying a whole new firearm. The slides and barrels are pretty close to the cost of a new pistol. Close enough where i just assume get a second pistol.
Click to expand...
Agreed! At one time I had a slide and grip in sub/compact/full size. Swapping wasn’t hard, but it took time. Then it stayed in one configuration for almost a full year. That’s when I realized sell the extra crap. I like being able to buy the base then find what fits me. My 365 has a Wilson grip module. I couldn’t just buy it off the shelf like that. This is what truly makes sig better than Glock
 
9mmContagion said:
Agree

Agreed! At one time I had a slide and grip in sub/compact/full size. Swapping wasn’t hard, but it took time. Then it stayed in one configuration for almost a full year. That’s when I realized sell the extra crap. I like being able to buy the base then find what fits me. My 365 has a Wilson grip module. I couldn’t just buy it off the shelf like that. This is what truly makes sig better than Glock
Click to expand...
I think you are correct in that it does allow a large degree of customization you don’t get for many other pistols. What I have wanted for a long time, as in since the late 2000s, was a striker fired pistol in an all steel frame. Mostly just to have it shoot a bit flatter even though I never had issues with recoil and getting back on the target, especially with a 9 mm. Now, Mischief Machines makes an all steel frame with brass grips you can get for the P365. Not cheap but I’m saving up to get a pistol just the way I like it that unlikely ever to see from the manufacturer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom