I've shot it a bunch. The guy that I teach CCW classes with is a Sig guy and carries one. I'm a Glock guy. It's a nice gun. It has the same ergonomics as the other sigs, so if you like it, you like it. I personally don't care for it much, but that's just preference. The trigger still has that "sig feel" to it even though it's striker fired. I prefer the stiff/crisp break of the Glock trigger, but that's probably just because of the hundred thousand plus rounds I have on the Glock trigger. To me the 320 trigger is mushy with the takeup having slight resistance and the break only minimally heavier than the takeup, making it feel too squishy to me. I like the takeup on the glock that has little resistance with a heavier break so I can feel that "wall" before the break. But again, that's preference. The 320 does have a very short reset to the trigger, so coupled with the lighter break it does shoot very quickly between shots. I've never been a fan of the bore axis of Sigs and how high it seems to ride in my hand, but it's nothing too severe. As far as reliability, the one I shoot regularly is 100% and has not been sent in to fix the "drop issue". I honestly find that to be a non-issue with this gun and it seems as reliable as any other quality striker fired polymer pistol. As has been mentioned, the modularity does nothing for me. I have conversion barrels for several Glocks and find this to be just as good a solution for caliber swaps, and rather than grip/frame size changes, I prefer to have another gun anyway, so it isn't a selling point for me. Overall, it is a nice gun and I can't disparage anyone for choosing it or carrying it and preferring it to Glock. For me though, I love my Glocks and this gun offers nothing to me to even begin to make me change. And honestly, with all the training I've put in on the Glock platform, I'd be foolish to eliminate all that muscle memory for a new platform anyway.
