AXG weight doesn't address the FCU problem—why recommend it for carry?

You're right about the geometry—that's documented and it matters. Honest question though: how much separation should we actually draw between what litigation found and what we see in the field?

The suits identified a real mechanism. The FCU fix is real. But I've looked at incident reports from carriers, and the *documented drop-fire cases* cluster pretty heavily in early production (2014–2017 timeframe). We have what, maybe a dozen confirmed incidents across millions of guns? That's not nothing, but it's also not "widespread across all P320s" territory.

I'm not disagreeing that frame weight doesn't *fix* bad geometry. It doesn't. But I'm genuinely uncertain whether the distinction you're drawing—"weight is irrelevant to safety"—holds up the same way when we separate litigation findings from actual carry incidents.

Here's what I'd push back on gently: recommending an upgraded FCU in a polymer frame is absolutely right *if someone already owns a P320*. But for a fresh carry gun choice, the AXG does buy you a known-good production line, heavier slide, better ergonomics, and yes—a frame that's been through more abuse testing. That's not *nothing* just because it doesn't address the root cause of 2015's problem.

Can you point me toward documented drop-fire incidents in AXG or current-production P320s specifically? I want to see if the data shapes how I'd frame this to someone new to the platform.

I run a duty roster with P320s across three shifts. We've had exactly zero drop-fires in six years of carry and qualification. That's not a defense of early production—it's just what we see on the street.

Here's the department context that matters: we don't buy civilian-market guns. Our P320s came through Sig's duty program with documented FCU serial ranges and production dates. We know what we have. A patrol officer pulling a fresh P320 from an online retailer doesn't have that same visibility, and that's where the AXG conversation actually lives.

I'm with you that geometry is the root issue—it is. The fix works. But southpaw makes a fair point about clustering: the documented incidents *are* concentrated in early production. That's not because weight magically solved geometry; it's because Sig tightened tolerances across the board when they corrected the problem.

Where I'd separate department context from civilian carry: we have armory staff verifying FCU dates and serial numbers before we holster anything. Most civilians don't. If someone walks into a shop without knowing what year their gun was made or what the actual FCU configuration is, recommending the AXG *as the safer option without qualification* isn't wrong—it's just incomplete. The AXG is a known-good production line with visible Sig quality control behind it. That's real value for someone who doesn't want to research manufacturing dates.

You're right that the recommendation should be on merits, not mythology. I just don't think pointing a new carrier toward homework on FCU serial ranges is the same as pointing them toward a gun that came out of a controlled production run. Context matters.

I think you're both describing the same thing from different angles, and the real question underneath is simpler than it looks.

The failure mode—out-of-battery discharge—requires two conditions: sear geometry that permits forward movement, *and* an impact event that triggers it. Sig fixed the geometry. That's documented. The question is whether the impact event itself matters.

Here's what I'd test if I were trying to settle this: take a current-production P320 with an updated FCU (polymer frame, doesn't matter), run it through the exact drop sequences that produced incidents in early production guns. Then do the same with an AXG. Same FCU serial range, same production date. If the polymer and the AXG behave identically—and I'd expect they do—then we've got our answer: mass didn't solve geometry; Sig did.

But here's the part that matters for carry: neither of you is wrong about what to recommend. The OP is right that "heavier = safer" is bad reasoning. Southpaw is right that early production clustered the incidents, so current-gen guns are probably fine. Bluegrass is right that most civilians don't have production-date visibility.

So practically: if someone asks me *which P320 to buy new*, I'd point them toward recent production with the updated FCU, whether polymer or steel. If they already own an early P320 and want certainty, an AXG with a known-good FCU swap gives them peace of mind—not because of weight, but because they *know what they have*. The AXG buys visibility and handling, not a safety margin.

Does anyone have a production date range where Sig confirms the FCU revision rolled out? That would close this.

I appreciate ben asking for production date ranges, but I need to push back on the framing here—not because any of you are wrong about the AXG's merits, but because we're treating "Sig fixed it" as settled when the settlement record doesn't actually say that.

Sig settled *Guillot* for $39.25 million. That's not a statement that the problem is solved. That's a statement that enough people experienced out-of-battery discharge that a jury would have been expensive. The settlement included a voluntary recall of P320s manufactured before mid-2017. Mid-2017. Not 2014. Not early production only.

Here's what matters for the suit record: Sig didn't publicly detail what changed in the FCU. They issued a revision. They told people to send guns in. They settled litigation that covered guns made across a seven-year window. Bluegrass sees zero incidents in duty carry—great. I believe that. But anecdotal absence isn't the same as geometric verification.

When ben asks "does the updated FCU actually change geometry or just tolerance," that's the right question. And I don't have that answer because Sig hasn't published it. What I have is: guns made before 2017 were expensive enough to settle rather than defend. That's the suit record.

I'm not saying the P320 is unsafe now. I'm saying—and the *Guillot* record supports this—Sig's confidence in "problem solved" was worth $39 million to avoid litigating further. The AXG buys you peace of mind because it's current production. That's legitimate. But don't call it a geometric fix when the discovery record doesn't prove that's what happened. It's a business fix. Different thing.

I'm genuinely confused now, and I think that's actually useful to say out loud.

When I bought my first P320 two years ago, I did what a lot of people do: I read "Sig settled a lawsuit" and "there were drop-fire incidents" and assumed "newer = fixed." That felt like enough. But this thread has me realizing I didn't actually understand what *fixed* meant.

So I'm asking this as someone still learning: is the distinction between "Sig changed the FCU geometry" and "Sig settled litigation and issued a recall" actually a meaningful one for someone carrying the gun, or am I splitting hairs?

Because p320.hater is saying the settlement doesn't prove geometry was fixed—just that Sig paid to avoid proving it in court. That's... a different thing than what I thought I understood. And bluegrass is saying their department just doesn't see incidents, which is reassuring but doesn't answer whether that's because the geometry is actually fixed or because early production was a narrow window.

Here's what I think I'm hearing: current P320s with current FCUs probably don't drop-fire, either in the AXG or polymer frames, because *something* changed. But whether that something was geometry, tolerance, quality control, or just survivor bias in the production run—I don't actually know. And apparently neither do most people recommending them.

Ben asked the right question. Has anyone actually tested current FCUs against the old ones, or are we inferring safety from "no recent incidents"? Because those are different confidence levels, and someone like me—who came to this platform skeptical—wants to know which one we're actually relying on.