Are departments actually re-issuing P320s post-settlement, or just moving on?

Question

Good question. What I've seen reported is quiet attrition, not re-issuance.

NYPD ran out the clock on their inventory and moved to Glock 19. The Army's never publicly detailed what they're doing with existing stocks, but they haven't announced a P320 refresh order. A few smaller departments stuck with them—mostly because they'd already absorbed the cost and the FCU upgrades did address the out-of-battery discharge risk (though that's different from saying the risk never existed).

The settlement didn't come with a recall mandate for duty weapons already in the field. So departments could legally keep issuing them. Most didn't advertise the decision either way.

What I *haven't* seen: any major agency formally re-adopting the P320 after the suit settled in 2023. That's telling. Departments don't switch platforms casually—retraining, logistics, ammo compatibility. If they were confident in the platform post-fix, you'd expect at least one or two to make that case publicly. Silence usually means they're moving to Glock or staying put.

If you're tracking a specific agency, try FOIA requests. They'll give you procurement records.

David Walsh · Answer

bluegrass.leo nails the logistics piece, and that's the operational reality. But there's a distinct legal layer underneath that's worth separating out, because it explains why command gets a "clean exit opportunity" rather than just... staying.

Post-settlement, departments face a specific liability calculus. The Sig settlement was civil—it didn't impose a recall mandate, as the OP noted. Departments *could* legally retain P320s in duty inventory. But once a manufacturer has paid out over a known defect, and you're documented issuing that platform anyway, the liability posture changes.

It's not about the FCU fix working or not working mechanistically. It's about having a paper trail that says: "We knew about this, we settled it, and we issued it anyway." That becomes discoverable in the next incident. A plaintiff's attorney sees that settlement and doesn't need the gun to malfunction—they just need to establish that your department made a documented choice to keep a flagged platform in service.

So when command "takes the clean exit opportunity," they're not dodging a mechanics problem. They're eliminating a liability narrative. Glock 19 = fresh institutional choice, no settlement baggage, cleaner negligent retention argument if anything goes sideways.

The silence bluegrass.leo mentions reflects that. Departments won't publicly defend a platform post-settlement because doing so invites exactly that kind of scrutiny.

This isn't legal advice—talk to your department's counsel about your specific circumstances—but that's the framework departments actually operate under.

Sgt. Danny Prater · Answer

That tracks with what we saw in our department. We ran P320s for about four years—issued to patrol, carry-over retention guys, the works. After the settlement, command made the call to transition to Glock 19s over the next budget cycle. Nothing dramatic, just "we're going to standardize on this platform going forward."

The thing people don't always understand from outside: it's not about confidence or lack thereof. It's about logistics. Once you commit to a platform for duty use, you're committed to holster inventory, spare parts, ammunition lot compatibility, and most important—qualifying every officer on the new weapon system. That's time, range time, and it costs money whether you're moving to Glock or staying put.

With the P320, we didn't see a universal mandate to ditch them. Departments made individual calls based on their budget cycles. Some places kept them because the FCU upgrades genuinely resolved the mechanical issue—and they did. But when command gets a clean exit opportunity at a natural equipment cycle, most will take it rather than defend a platform that's now become a talking point. It's not a reflection on the gun's function after the fix. It's administrative inertia working the other direction.

Your point about silence is solid. If departments were running post-fix P320s with confidence, sure, some would tout that. Instead you mostly hear "we're Glock now." That tells you the institutional preference shifted, and liability concerns—whether rational or not—played into it.

Drew Fennell · Answer

Both of you are describing exactly why departments are moving on: they know the problem was real, and the settlement proved it. That's not administrative inertia. That's institutional acknowledgment.

The FCU upgrades addressed *some* out-of-battery discharge vectors, sure. But "resolved the mechanical issue"—that framing assumes there was only one failure mode. There wasn't. We saw drop fires from holster reholstering, we saw the Army's own testing flag reliability concerns that never made it into the settlement language, we saw documented incidents years after the FCU rollout. The "fix" was a patch, not a root cause elimination.

When bluegrass.leo's command took the exit, they weren't just optimizing logistics. They were quietly saying "we're not comfortable defending this platform anymore." And ctpistol's right about the liability layer—but it runs deeper. Once you've settled over a defect, you've forfeited the argument that the gun is safe. Staying with it signals you either didn't believe your own settlement or you're willing to absorb that risk anyway. Neither sells well in court or to your officers.

The silence isn't because departments are confident post-fix. It's because they're not, and they know a lawyer will use that settlement to prove it. Switching to Glock eliminates the liability *and* the platform that had a documented history of unintended discharge. That's not administrative preference. That's risk assessment working exactly as it should.