Here's the video I did 2 years ago on this topic. I stand by my conclusions in that video, but with the caveat that it assumes the parts are all made to designed spec (I didn't think I would have to specify that...):

https://forgottenweapons.vhx.tv/videos/what-s-the-deal-with-the-sig-p320-exploding-and-firing-un-commanded

So which camp am I in? "I found a way to stick it to a big company and now that's my entire personality" or "Look at these morons, SIG makes a flawless pistol!". Neither, so I'm sure I will take flak from both of them (hence the flak jacket).

It sure does seem like there is *something* going on with P320s, but it's proving very difficult to figure out exactly what it the cause. Usually when I talk about a phenomenon like this I do so with the benefit of a few decades or centuries of hindsight and research, and I can explain things like how Springfield used receiver color to dictate 1903 heat treat, or how the CZ52 was only supposed to be a temporary service pistol.

One thing that I think really contributed to SIG's problem here is the three-fold set of issues with the P320. First was the drop safety flaw, which they did fix. Then the number of discharges caused by foreign objects in holsters or just by negligence - issues that I think are significantly exacerbated by the short, light trigger in the 320 and its lack of trigger dingus safety. Then third came the appearance of truly uncommanded discharges. In the public perception, I think these issues all blend together, making each individual issue seem more common than it probably really is.

Would a company hide and deny a problem that they found while quietly fixing internal processes to fix it? Yeah, of course they would. Does anyone really think they wouldn't? Is that the case here with the P320? I really don't know...but I look forward to following up with a definitive explanation video in 2035.