The AXG frame is nice but doesn't erase what the fire-control unit did

This is solid context, and I appreciate you separating the frame story from the FCU story—honest assessment there. But I want to push on one thing: what failure mode are we talking about *post-upgrade*?

You're right that the sear geometry was the problem in early production. Sig's 2017 FCU revision addressed that—heavier trigger spring, sear geometry change, the whole thing. I've seen the before-and-after specs. But here's what I'm asking: do we have documented OOB discharges *after* that upgrade was incorporated? Because that distinction matters for someone actually carrying the AXG today.

The settlement stuff, the Army complaints, NYPD issues—all of that is pre-2017 or early production guns that didn't get the retrofit. A gun that ships *with* the improved FCU from the factory is a different animal than one that had to be sent in for repair.

I'm not saying "it was never a problem." You're right—it was. But there's a real difference between "this design had a flaw that was fixed" and "this design has a persistent flaw." The AXG gets the fixed version.

So what I'm actually asking: has anyone documented a failure in a post-2017 production P320 with the revised FCU? Or are we talking about inherited institutional distrust, which is fair on its own but different from current reliability?

Happy to hear the counter-argument if I'm missing something.

Southpaw's asking the right question, and I want to clarify what the actual evidentiary record shows—because the legal distinction here is important.

The 2017 voluntary upgrade addressed a documented defect in the firing control unit. The controlling fact is in Sig's own service bulletins and the settlement documentation: the original sear geometry permitted unintended striker release under certain conditions. That's not opinion—that's the engineering correction that Sig implemented.

Now, post-upgrade failure modes: I'm not aware of documented OOB discharges in factory P320s that shipped with the revised FCU after 2017. That's meaningful. But here's where the frame matters for the verdict: absence of reported failures is not the same as absence of design defects. We simply don't have the same scale of complaint data post-upgrade. Fewer guns have the old FCU in circulation. Time hasn't passed the same way.

What we *do* have is Sig's acknowledgment (through settlement and retrofit program) that the original design failed a safety standard. Whether the revised FCU eliminated the risk entirely or reduced it to acceptable levels—that's the question Southpaw's really asking, and the answer is: the data suggests the revised FCU performs adequately, but the original design flaw was genuine.

For someone carrying an AXG today: you're getting the improved unit. For someone evaluating Sig as a manufacturer: the company's approach to the problem (delayed response, settlement under pressure) tells you something about their quality process.

They're both true.

Not legal advice, but if you're concerned about the timeline and Sig's response, your insurance carrier and liability counsel should know the history.

Both of you are laying out the technical record straight, and I appreciate that. Let me add what matters from the duty side.

Our department—and I can speak to this because it's public record—initially issued P320s in 2016 during the Sig contract run. When the voluntary upgrade program rolled out in 2017, we sent the whole duty inventory in. That wasn't optional. Our armorer and our legal team looked at the service bulletins and the settlement language and decided we weren't carrying guns with a documented sear defect, even if Sig was calling it "voluntary."

Post-upgrade, qualification scores held steady. Retention training showed no anomalies. Low-light qualification—which is where you'd catch drift in trigger behavior—came back clean. We've had officers carrying those guns for seven years now. No duty-related OOB incidents. No range incidents during certification either.

But here's the institutional context that matters: *we had the luxury of sending them back*. A civilian carrying a P320 AXG bought off the rack in 2024 has the factory-revised FCU. That's different from an officer who owned a 2015 model pre-settlement. The factory gun *should* be fine based on what we've seen.

That said—and this is the cop answer, not the gun guy answer—the reason we pulled the early guns wasn't because we needed a lawsuit or a settlement to justify it. We pulled them because we couldn't afford institutional doubt about our carry guns. You can't split the difference on sear geometry when you're on duty.

Civilian use case is lower volume. But the principle holds: if Sig had to fix it, you probably want the fixed version. That's not paranoia; that's just what the data says.

Let me break this apart, because I think the thread's been clean but it's dancing around what actually matters for someone *deciding right now*.

**What is this argument really about?** It's not about whether the AXG is safe. Nobody here is saying it isn't. It's about whether you should care about institutional memory—whether a company's past carelessness tells you something about their current product. That's a real question, but it's not a technical one.

**What does the data actually say?** Southpaw and ctpistol nailed it: post-2017 revised FCU, no documented OOB discharges in civilian hands that I'm aware of either. Bluegrass's department ran seven years clean post-retrofit. That's the relevant fact for carry today. The 2015 guns? Old story. Don't buy those.

**Here's what I tell my students:** Gear inheritance—learning what a manufacturer did wrong—is useful context for trust. It's not useful for deciding whether this specific unit in your hands is safe. Those are different questions.

**What actually matters for your use case?** That depends on you. If you're buying an AXG, you're getting the fixed version. Whether you *should* buy it hinges on (1) does it fit your hand, (2) can you train with it consistently, (3) are you comfortable with Sig's business practices. Not "did they screw up in 2015."

If institutional trust is a hard stop for you—fair—buy a Glock or an M&P. If you can separate past mistakes from current hardware, the AXG carries fine.

But don't frame it as a safety question. Frame it as a *trust tolerance* question. That's honest.

Gulfcoast's right that we're talking trust tolerance, not immediate safety. But I need to be direct about what "the data" actually shows here.

Post-2017 revised FCU—no *reported* OOB discharges in civilian hands. That's what Southpaw asked. That's true. Bluegrass's department clean for seven years. Also true. But absence of reports isn't absence of defect. It's absence of disclosure.

Here's what the settlement documentation *actually* says Sig acknowledged: the original sear geometry was susceptible to unintended striker release. They didn't say "we found edge cases." They settled. They retrofitted. That's institutional admission under legal pressure.

Now, did the 2017 revision fix it? The engineering says yes. The field reports say yes. I'm not arguing the AXG is a drop gun or that it's unsafe to carry. But the settlement language matters because it establishes *what Sig knew and when*. They didn't retrofit because of one complaint. They did it because the pattern was there.

The question Gulfcoast frames as "trust tolerance" is actually "how much institutional delay are you comfortable with." NYPD had incidents. Army had complaints. Sig didn't retrofit immediately. They negotiated. They settled. *Then* they fixed it.

So yes—buy the factory-revised AXG if the ergonomics work. It's the corrected version. But don't call that vindication. That's just Sig finally doing what they should have done in 2015. The fact that it took a settlement and an Army complaint to get there—that's the institutional memory worth keeping.