SIG P320 Rail Question

B

Brownstone322

New member
First of all, I know the differences among between the P30 Full Size/Carry/Compact. I don't need that explained. But ...

Why do you think the Carry and Compact have different rails? The Carry's has three notches, where the Compact's has four. They have the same barrel and slide, and one might think their rails/"dust covers" would be the same too. So, hmmm ...
 
The carry version is a compact slide on a cut down full size frame. They basically cut off the last two notches from a full sized frame so that it doesn't stick out past the slide.
 
Unless they have changed it... Yes, its a cut frame.

I have a carry frame I put on my full size.

They put it in a jig, and cut off the front, bevel the sides, and then mill out the "full size" marking on the side and laser etch "carry"...
 
Thanks for the replies. It makes sense now that I see what SIG actually does -- they cut down a full-size frame by lopping two notches off the business end. The rail on full-size frame has a long "blank" space forward of the trigger guard.

To me it'd make more sense if they would mold a purpose-specific carry-size frame, one with four rail notches starting back near the trigger guard, same as the compact. I mean, when you consider how many frames they make anyway (full-size, carry, compact, subcompact), which each (I think) offering small/medium/large grips ... why the hell not?
 
Sure, and it woulda been cheaper not to offer four sizes to begin with. It woulda been cheaper not to offer multiple grip sizes for each frame. It woulda been cheaper not to develop the gun as a DAO hammer-fired pistol and later convert it to striker-fired. Lotsa things woulda been cheaper. I knew all that before I asked the original question.

The whole point is the irony of the cost savings of that one particular detail.
 
In all honesty this is the first thread I've ever seen about it. I don't get the impression it bothers a lot of people. Of course you can always call SIG and talk to them.
 
I did a little reading, and I think I actually figured this out ...

When SIG developed the P250, they designed and tooled for three frame sizes (the most-common ones): full size, Compact and Subcompact. One can infer that they set up three production lines. Then, when they decided to add a Carry model to the series, it was easier to modify full-size frames (which were already coming off the line) than produce all-new tooling for a fourth frame.

I'll betcha that, had they envisaged a Carry model from Day One, they would have developed frame-specific tooling for it, and I'll betcha it would have featured the Compact model's four-notch rail. Instead the Carry frame is essentially a manufacturing afterthought.

What's especially ironic is that all M17s and M18s for the Army will use the Carry frame, which was never even part of the original design and is sort of a manufacturing workaround.
 
Sure looks that way:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/01/24/grapevine-us-army-pays-207-per-pistol-sig-sauer-m17-modular-handguns/

I will point out though that on my P320 Compcat with my TLR-1 the only rail position the light fits on is the one farthest forward. I imagine a TLR-3 can go one position farther back and these pictures seem to confirm that:
https://www.google.com/search?q=TLR3+p320+compact&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG24X7tuzUAhWJwiYKHYKRCmsQ_AUICygC&biw=1680&bih=960#imgrc=8XBRxcszj0flwM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=tlr+3&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitvL-0t-zUAhWEQSYKHWhVDC0Q_AUICygC&biw=1680&bih=960#imgrc=Fq3H5cIq-Z3r_M:.
I can't think of anything that honestly would be able to mount to that rail slot closest to the trigger guard. So given that the closest rail section is not really usable, the difference really just amounts to looks. I don't really mind how it looks either way.
 
Last edited:
TunnelRat said:
I can't think of anything that honestly would be able to mount to that rail slot closest to the trigger guard. So given that the closest rail section is not really usable, the difference really just amounts to looks. I don't really mind how it looks either way.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, despite all my hand-wringing. I'm sure the three-notch Carry frame/rail works just fine, else the Army wouldn't have selected for everything they're buying.

By the way, I think, aesthetically, the full-size barrel and slide look fabulous on the Carry frame. I hope SIG offers a commercial M17 for that reason alone. (Yeah, I know we can configure it that way now, but SIG has never offered it that way out of the box.) I'm thinking SIG might offer an M17/18 "value pack" with one frame and two sets of barrels and slides. Now that'd be cool.
 
Last edited:
From the people I know that work there they are going to busy filling the military contract for some time before we see anything civilian side. Even at the Pro Shop they've been running short on spare frames and magazines periodically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TunnelRat said:
From the people I know that work there they are going to busy filling the military contract for some time before we see anything civilian side. Even at the Pro Shop they've been running short on spare frames and magazines periodically.
Click to expand...

That's OK, I can wait. The MK25 and the M11-A1 took a while too. In the meantime, I'll be happy with a standard P320 Compact. (But remember that "value pack" idea; it's money waiting to be made. :))
 
I did the full size slide on a carry frame...

I love the look... but the fact that it is a cut frame has a disadvantage....


The dust cover has a molded in area that its tighter against the bottom of the slide. Making for a small/minimal gap there.

When they cut the frame, they also cut that area off, and the gap between the frame and slide is larger.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
marine6680 said:
I did the full size slide on a carry frame...

I love the look... but the fact that it is a cut frame has a disadvantage....

The dust cover has a molded in area that its tighter against the bottom of the slide. Making for a small/minimal gap there.

When they cut the frame, they also cut that area off, and the gap between the frame and slide is larger.
Click to expand...

That gun looks looks cool in profile. But the bad fit between the frame and slide is disappointing -- it relates back to my observation that the Carry frame is a hack that, in my worldview, should have been custom-designed, tooled and manufactured. Now I really want to see the M17/M18 frame firsthand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top