this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025

9 points (90.9% liked)

guns

1530 readers

7 users here now

Keep it civil.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

theyoyomaster@lemmy.world

Aliendelarge@lemmy.world

A theory on the 320 mechanical issues (youtu.be)

submitted 2 weeks ago by thundermoose@lemmy.world to c/guns@lemmy.world

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Pretty good demonstration of the mechanics of how bumping the slide can cause the striker to drop. The guy takes the gun apart and shows which components contribute to this malfunction. Worth a watch if you're curious what's happening internally.

It seems pretty clear that there are a lot of differences between P320s in the wild, so it's hard to generalize these findings well. This guy's gun isn't stock, and I personally have not been able to reproduce this behavior on mine (which is stock). It does seem more and more that the 320 design does not tolerate non-spec parts well, which is especially weird given the design was supposed to be modular.

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Never should have went away from the Retta.

Or at least normalized condition 3 carry.

Desk jockeys rocking condition 0 will always result in ND, it's just a matter of when.

Everyone has this obsession with cowboy movie quick draw. If you need to shoot within half a second of drawing your gun, it most likely doesn't matter if you even have a gun.

You get to a secure location while drawing, evaluate the situation, then engage. Absolutely plenty of time to disengage a safety, or barring a safety to chamber a round.

Quick edit:

Everyone kept saying p320 I forgot the M18 has a safety. I haven't seen anything that mentions if the safety was on or not, still leaving the original because the vast majority in public use don't have a safety, because everyone is convinced flipping a safety while you bring it up is too much of a hassle.

Anyway, this has been my rant about how safeties and hammers need to come back.

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The Beretta was a decent gun new, but wears into a malfunction queen. There is a reason the special forces went away from them decades ago, better sidearms exist.

There are tons of examples of someone having to draw and fire in a split second without time to retreat and chamber. This is a settled issue.

Cop shoots guy who pretended to surrender and drew a gun. https://youtu.be/V7qcZ127y10?t=1m

Attempted mugger with a gun gets shot by armed civilian. https://youtu.be/9xjyaBaVfew?t=47s

Many such cases.

Complacency is primarily why NDs happen, P320 type malfunctions are an exception and should not be an example of why you should carry with an empty chamber.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

but wears into a malfunction queen

Because most were 30 years old at the time...

Beretta offered up a new model that met every demand for the new contract. But we're denied because top brass wanted "modern" and that meant it had to look like a concealed carry despite that making zero sense.

If I'm remembering right, they even used old random Beretta for the baseline instead of new produced straight from factory line Berrertta.

It wasn't a fair contract, that's not a secret

Like, sure, I can CCW a full size Beretta and not print. But there is zero reason for a service pistol to need to do that. It's not spending all day tuck next your balls. It's hanging a couple inches off your body around thigh height.

There are tons of examples of someone having to draw and fire in a split second without time to retreat and chamber. This is a settled issue.

And at least 10x more where someone NDs and gets shot...

Complacency is primarily why NDs happen

Exactly.

How much time have you spent in military bases standing watch?

Literally no one is more complacent then someone sitting stateside for 12hrs straight with a gun. It just stops being a thing and you will get complacent.

Even when they have to be ridiculously over dressed with plates, helmets, and ARs. It's normalized and you just stop giving any fucks.

why you should carry with an empty chamber.

You should open carry with an external hammer, double stage trigger, round chamber, safety on.

Condition 1.5ish.

Completely safe in a holster and able to be drawn and fired as fast as a striker fired gun that is way more likely to negligently discharge.

People carrying without one in the chamber is what people dumb enough to have bought a CCW without a safety should do.

Because about 99.999% of people who CCW will never have to actually draw a gun.

But we're having two different conversations at once, CCW by a civilian and open by the military.

[–] thundermoose@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've never heard that about the M9. I had one of the original M9s (think it was late 80s/early 90s) for years with probably 10k+ rounds through it and never had an issue. Anecdotal, I know, but given I've never heard of widespread issues with the gun I'm finding this claim hard to believe.

Do you have a link to a study/article about this? Curious if there's something I should be on the lookout for, as I am quite partial to that particular design.

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

GAO report on failures/defects

CNA study on soldier experiences with small arms, including M9 55% reported failure to feed, 26% stoppages(62% serious), and 46% lacked confidence in the reliability.

Our top tier soldiers don't want the M9.

Special forces switch to Glock 19/22 and SIG MK25(P226)

SEALs use Glock as SI

Then there are the anecdotal accounts of soldiers that didn't like the M9 that you can find all over the Internet.

[–] thundermoose@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks for sharing. That GAO report is pretty old, and seems to indicate potential issues with the first gen M9s. Not sure how much of that is still relevant today, I'm pretty sure my M9 was made after that report came out.

The CNA study is more interesting and relevant but kinda hard to interpret. There's a lot of externalities in there, apparently only 64% of soldiers were issued cleaning kits with their weapons, and 23% used nonstandard lubricant. The second one is interesting because later on the study found that those using nonstandard lube were 21x more likely to experience malfunctions. I honestly wonder if "nonstandard" lube was KY jelly for a lot of those guys; Army grunts are pretty famously stupid when it comes to gun maintenance.

Don't know that there's enough here to change my mind on reliability. Clearly the M9 was the least satisfactory part of their kit, but I'm not sure that it was due to a problem with the gun itself. Double-action is a legit downside, so I can't fault them for being unhappy with it; if they want to be able to draw and fire with a quick trigger pull, the M9 ain't it.