[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Claims of leaked sig 320 cad files (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/7/2025 8:24:23 AM EDT
The 3D2a community discussing the situation.
My favorite comment. Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted: Good for directional review but you dont know what the current Rev. is so you really cant conclude anything from it. . Sure. That could be mk1. Who knows, I certainly dont. Still interdasting Supposedly they were provided to a vendor who had them up on the web.. oops. |
|
Quoted: Should I be excited or outraged? Neither. Chinese won’t copy it because it’s a firearm and US import issues. Any American gun companies won’t copy it because it’s a junk design and because Sig’s patents. Countless YouTubers will start making videos claiming they found the shake awake flaw, but there won’t be a smoking gun of a singular problem. If the P330 wasn’t toxic right now, the CAD files may help aftermarket companies come out with parts like new grip modules or slides, but no one is going to sink R&D money into the P320 at this point. Theoretically, the CAD files could help an aftermarket company design a safer FCU, but I don’t think it’ll happen, nor be widely successful if it happens. People want to ditch their P320’s, not sink more money into it (especially when the striker block in the slide would still be a garbage design). Perhaps it’ll spark an aftermarket magazine option in hopes of getting a future military contract. |
|
Quoted: You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. somebody violated their NDA. 
|
|
Quoted: Neither. Chinese won’t copy it because it’s a firearm and US import issues. Any American gun companies won’t copy it because it’s a junk design and because Sig’s patents. Countless YouTubers will start making videos claiming they found the shake awake flaw, but there won’t be a smoking gun of a singular problem. If the P330 wasn’t toxic right now, the CAD files may help aftermarket companies come out with parts like new grip modules or slides, but no one is going to sink R&D money into the P320 at this point. Theoretically, the CAD files could help an aftermarket company design a safer FCU, but I don’t think it’ll happen, nor be widely successful if it happens. People want to ditch their P320’s, not sink more money into it (especially when the striker block in the slide would still be a garbage design). Perhaps it’ll spark an aftermarket magazine option in hopes of getting a future military contract. Any company with a lick of sense will avoid anything to do with this except maybe sights. If you start selling parts that affect the function then you’re putting yourself in the line of fire for the injury lawsuits. Why marry a toxic spouse? But hey this is arfcom and it’s what some do! |
|
Quoted: I know nothing about this. But couldn't someone just buy a 320 and make the same thing? To some extent yes, but this makes it WORLDS easier. Also, as mentioned earlier, there may be manufacturing data embedded in the file beyond just the dimensional model. Materials, coatings, manufacturing processes.... etc. |
|
Quoted: Any company with a lick of sense will avoid anything to do with this except maybe sights. If you start selling parts that affect the function then you’re putting yourself in the line of fire for the injury lawsuits. Why marry a toxic spouse? But hey this is arfcom and it’s what some do! Yep. And many companies who make aftermarket support products for the P320’s are blowing out their inventories and trying to run away as fast as possible. |
|
Quoted: You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. Quoted: Quoted: This means absolutely nothing without the drawings. You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. Are the CAD files out there though? All I'm seeing is renders. |
|
So these drawings are more definitive than a physical complete firearm in hand? Probably easier to reverse engineer a pistol to find the flaws than trying to dissect a computer image. Might be handy to compare how manufacturing tolerances stack up to cause the issue from the intended design. |
|
Quoted: MBD is a thing as well. real high likelihood all the information is there. somebody violated their NDA. Quoted: Quoted: You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. somebody violated their NDA. I was hoping you would show up. |
|
Quoted: Are the CAD files out there though? All I'm seeing is renders. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This means absolutely nothing without the drawings. You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. Are the CAD files out there though? All I'm seeing is renders. Yes, But i like my account too much to provide a hyperlink to it. |
|
Quoted: Good for directional review but you dont know what the current Rev. is so you really cant conclude anything from it. . HOWEVER, it can be used to analyze if THIS iteration suffers from issues and if it does, what it would take to fix it. Which is what we need: a consensus on WHAT causes the issue. We know it exists, but what is causing it is still not agreed upon. Once we can agree on what causes the issue, we can then decide if it's possible to remedy it. |
|
Quoted: You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. Quoted: Quoted: This means absolutely nothing without the drawings. You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. I spent 12 years as a CAD designer before I managed the design/development/FEA/simulation teams. It is ridiculously easy to reverse engineer and knock off CAD geometry with 3D and CT scanners these days. There are Chinese knockoffs of my designs out there. The aftermarket has no problem making replacement parts. The challenge in reverse engineering is the tolerancing, materials, and in some cases the manufacturing processes. You need the drawings to get the tolerancing and material information. |
|
Quoted: You can put all of that info in the file with the model. Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up. |
|
Quoted: Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up. This. .pdf for anything other than to the fabricator/manufacture. It's not 100% secure but why give more details than necessary for basic reviews. |
|
Quoted: You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. Quoted: Quoted: This means absolutely nothing without the drawings. You make drawings from 3D CAD files. Although a lot of times these days shops want the 3D model to drop in CAM I stead of taking the 2D drawing, building a 3D model then dropping into CAM. Not really. I mean, yeah, you get the drawings from models but they have to be toleranced by one of several types of engineers. The tolerancing is the magic sauce, presupposing a quality design to start with. |
|
Quoted: You can put all of that info in the file with the model. Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. I've deal with a lot of models. I've never seen one with tolerances. ETA: If they CAN put tolerances in the models, all the engineers I've ever dealt with have been wasting their time producing prints to go along with the models. Is it more convenient to make prints than put that data on the model, I wonder? |
|
Quoted: Well, his wife banned the 320 at her job. Quoted: Quoted: So how are these doing? https://wilsoncombat.com/handguns/collaborations/wcp320-sig-sauer.html Well, his wife banned the 320 at her job. Well there is that  I didn't know if there had been any issues with tweaked 320s from Wilson and/or if any people working on them had noticed inherent problems. |
|
Quoted: Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up.
What format are the files? |
|
Quoted: What format are the files? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up.
What format are the files? The ones now or the ones they grabbed? The ones on the web now are .stp |
|
Quoted: The ones now or the ones they grabbed? The ones on the web now are .stp Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up.
What format are the files? The ones now or the ones they grabbed? The ones on the web now are .stp .stp files are "dummy" unparamatized files that do not contain any 2D drawing information. If someone posts a 2D drawing in a Sig border, then eyebrows should be raised. |
|
Quoted: Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up. MBD information doesn't translate between software packages well so I still do get engineered drawings but if you are in a very vertically integrated field like aerospace the vendors typically need to use the same software as the customer so MBD can travel. I have full digital twins of some of my machines so the ability to drop the customer model onto work holding I've designed and then into the machine is priceless. I'm getting to the point that I don't even want to quote work without a model. People suck at making engineered drawings anymore. |
|
Quoted: I've deal with a lot of models. I've never seen one with tolerances. ETA: If they CAN put tolerances in the models, all the engineers I've ever dealt with have been wasting their time producing prints to go along with the models. Is it more convenient to make prints than put that data on the model, I wonder? Parametric modeling requires you to enter dimensions usually, so it's one click to add one of any of the standard tolerance types. If you put in the effort you can make tolerance templates that make it even faster. The reason paper drawings haven't gone away is just the slow adoption of the technology required to make it practical. You and I need a drawing at the machine, some places might have a computer or tablet with a files viewer on it for every machinist but most don't. @AeroE has discussed MBD in aerospace in other threads, he knows more of the practical side than I do. My software will do it but a lot of thew things I design, I build, so I don't really need it. |
|
Quoted: Step sucks, parasolid FTW. MBD information doesn't translate between software packages well so I still do get engineered drawings but if you are in a very vertically integrated field like aerospace the vendors typically need to use the same software as the customer so MBD can travel. I have full digital twins of some of my machines so the ability to drop the customer model onto work holding I've designed and then into the machine is priceless. I'm getting to the point that I don't even want to quote work without a model. People suck at making engineered drawings anymore. Quoted: Quoted: Typically any CAD files shared to outside vendors are in unparamatized .stp or similar format and drawings are typically .pdf. If the native files got out, someone at Sig fucked up. MBD information doesn't translate between software packages well so I still do get engineered drawings but if you are in a very vertically integrated field like aerospace the vendors typically need to use the same software as the customer so MBD can travel. I have full digital twins of some of my machines so the ability to drop the customer model onto work holding I've designed and then into the machine is priceless. I'm getting to the point that I don't even want to quote work without a model. People suck at making engineered drawings anymore. I prefer parasolid as well. Translates better between CAD softwares. We typically share a .zip file containing a .stp, .x_t, and .igs files and a .PDF 2D drawing with our suppliers. This is more-or-less SOP for all of our suppliers and competitors. |
|
Quoted: No. It's not. Parametric modeling requires you to enter dimensions usually, so it's one click to add one of any of the standard tolerance types. If you put in the effort you can make tolerance templates that make it even faster. The reason paper drawings haven't gone away is just the slow adoption of the technology required to make it practical. You and I need a drawing at the machine, some places might have a computer or tablet with a files viewer on it for every machinist but most don't. @AeroE has discussed MBD in aerospace in other threads, he knows more of the practical side than I do. My software will do it but a lot of thew things I design, I build, so I don't really need it. Quoted: Quoted: I've deal with a lot of models. I've never seen one with tolerances. ETA: If they CAN put tolerances in the models, all the engineers I've ever dealt with have been wasting their time producing prints to go along with the models. Is it more convenient to make prints than put that data on the model, I wonder? Parametric modeling requires you to enter dimensions usually, so it's one click to add one of any of the standard tolerance types. If you put in the effort you can make tolerance templates that make it even faster. The reason paper drawings haven't gone away is just the slow adoption of the technology required to make it practical. You and I need a drawing at the machine, some places might have a computer or tablet with a files viewer on it for every machinist but most don't. @AeroE has discussed MBD in aerospace in other threads, he knows more of the practical side than I do. My software will do it but a lot of thew things I design, I build, so I don't really need it. To be fair, tolerancing is a lot more than one click. Tolerance stack can get really messy really fast from a design standpoint. We mostly do GD&T. |
|
Quoted: I know nothing about this. But couldn't someone just buy a 320 and make the same thing? Obviously the original perimetric CAD files trump everything for accuracy and usefulness, but it's not hard to reverse engineer a physical part that you have in your possession these days, especially with how good/accurate 3D scanners are getting. They don't produce a similar type of document/model as far as I'm aware, but out would be a very good starting point to compare your hand crafted model against. |
|
Quoted: I've deal with a lot of models. I've never seen one with tolerances. ETA: If they CAN put tolerances in the models, all the engineers I've ever dealt with have been wasting their time producing prints to go along with the models. Is it more convenient to make prints than put that data on the model, I wonder? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. I've deal with a lot of models. I've never seen one with tolerances. ETA: If they CAN put tolerances in the models, all the engineers I've ever dealt with have been wasting their time producing prints to go along with the models. Is it more convenient to make prints than put that data on the model, I wonder? |
|
Quoted: No. It's not. Parametric modeling requires you to enter dimensions usually, so it's one click to add one of any of the standard tolerance types. If you put in the effort you can make tolerance templates that make it even faster. The reason paper drawings haven't gone away is just the slow adoption of the technology required to make it practical. You and I need a drawing at the machine, some places might have a computer or tablet with a files viewer on it for every machinist but most don't. @AeroE has discussed MBD in aerospace in other threads, he knows more of the practical side than I do. My software will do it but a lot of thew things I design, I build, so I don't really need it. Quoted: Quoted: I've deal with a lot of models. I've never seen one with tolerances. ETA: If they CAN put tolerances in the models, all the engineers I've ever dealt with have been wasting their time producing prints to go along with the models. Is it more convenient to make prints than put that data on the model, I wonder? Parametric modeling requires you to enter dimensions usually, so it's one click to add one of any of the standard tolerance types. If you put in the effort you can make tolerance templates that make it even faster. The reason paper drawings haven't gone away is just the slow adoption of the technology required to make it practical. You and I need a drawing at the machine, some places might have a computer or tablet with a files viewer on it for every machinist but most don't. @AeroE has discussed MBD in aerospace in other threads, he knows more of the practical side than I do. My software will do it but a lot of thew things I design, I build, so I don't really need it. The info seems to vary from user to user, some enter all the data on a component and some very little. I get models from gulfstream done in Catia that have pages of specs on material, tolerances, coatings, etc. then some from LockMart with nothing more than a detail number, I have to go to the BOM and flag notes just like always for the hard info. |
|
Quoted: I've deal with a lot of models. I've never seen one with tolerances. ETA: If they CAN put tolerances in the models, all the engineers I've ever dealt with have been wasting their time producing prints to go along with the models. Is it more convenient to make prints than put that data on the model, I wonder? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. You can put all of that info in the file with the model. I've deal with a lot of models. I've never seen one with tolerances. ETA: If they CAN put tolerances in the models, all the engineers I've ever dealt with have been wasting their time producing prints to go along with the models. Is it more convenient to make prints than put that data on the model, I wonder? CAD softwares have both 3D modeling and 2D drawing environments. You make the 3D model. Then you go into the drawing environment and import views of the CAD, add tolerancing, notes, etc. It is all done in the CAD software such as CREO, NX, SolidWorks, etc. Then dummy universal CAD files like step and parasolid are usually exported and .PDF or paper drawings created to share outside the company. From the CAD designer's perspective, it is all done in a single CAD software package. |
|
Link to actual files. https://odysee.com/@chairmanwon:a/p320rip:e |
|
Quoted: Not sure what this accomplishes without the associated tolerances, GDT, and coatings/platings (with their thicknesses) of all parts involved. This is true, and the whole story still isn't there without inspections showing that the components actually meet those specs. |
|
Quoted: This is true, and the whole story still isn't there without inspections showing that the components actually meet those specs. You say that like actual SIG P320 were made to whatever those specs are, and inspections happened. If anything, building a P320 with complete disregard to the tolerances is the most authentic you could make one. |