SIG P320 vs. P365

Two categories of pistol, not two sizes of one.

SIG labels these itself: the P320 record carries the maker’s own “Full-Size,” the P365 carries “Micro-Compact,” and this directory normalizes both to the same words. That is not a subtle distinction of a half-inch here and a round there. The P320 Full-Size is 2.2 in longer, 1.2 in taller, and carries 1.6 in more barrel, which is the widest dimensional spread between any two records this site has paired.

The sight radius follows the slide and is worth naming because it is the field that most directly tracks the size difference: SIG publishes 6.5 in for the P320 and 4.9 in for the P365. Neither figure has a schema field in this directory, so both are cited here from the product pages rather than rendered as a spec row on the record.

The weight is the field to be careful with.

Every comparison of these two pistols quotes a weight difference of about ten and a half ounces. This one does not, and the reason is on SIG’s own pages. The P320 listing states its weight as “28.3 oz [802.3 g] w/ Magazine.” The P365 listing states 17.8 oz and says nothing at all about whether a magazine is fitted.

Those are not the same measurement. One names a condition; the other leaves it open. This directory files them in different fields — with-empty-magazine against unloaded — specifically so that no page can subtract them by accident, and the matrix above gives each figure its own row with the delta column reading “not comparable.” Subtracting them would produce a number that looks precise and is not traceable to anything SIG published.

Note what this is not: it is not a claim that SIG is wrong, or that the P320 is not the heavier pistol. It plainly is. The claim is narrower and it is the only one the sources support — the size of the gap is not published, because the two figures were never put on the same footing.

Seven rounds, and no optional capacities on either.

SIG lists 17 rounds for the P320 Full-Size and 10 for the P365, and publishes no optional capacities for either record. Both ship with two steel magazines.

Two clarifications the search results around this pair tend to blur. The P320 page’s second SKU, 320F-9-BSSP-10, is this same pistol with 10-round magazines for capacity-restricted states — a separate listing, not a lower-capacity model. And the higher-capacity P365 variants readers often have in mind, the XL, X-Macro and Fuse, are separately catalogued models rather than configurations of the record here. The 10 rounds above belongs to SKU 365-9-BXR3 specifically.

One thing SIG does better than most of this directory.

SIG publishes both unit systems on both product pages, so nothing in the matrix above is converted by this directory and no figure carries the ≈ mark. Most manufacturers here publish imperial only — Springfield, Walther, Taurus and Ruger among them — which means their metric figures are this site’s arithmetic and are flagged as such. On this pair, every number is the manufacturer’s own.

The height comparison benefits directly. Both pages carry the identical basis note — SIG does not state whether either height includes a magazine — and because the note is the same on both, the 1.2 in difference is a subtraction the source supports. That is exactly the test the weight row fails.

What neither page publishes.

Trigger pull is absent from both listings; SIG describes the P365’s trigger in prose without giving a figure. Year introduced is unrecorded on both records, and the reason is the same for each: SIG’s press-release index returns a Cloudflare challenge, which this directory does not attempt to defeat, and no launch release for either pistol was recoverable from the Web Archive. The P320 reached market in 2014 and the P365 later, but neither date is sourced here, so neither is published.

One asymmetry is real rather than a gap: the P320’s operating system is recorded as recoil-operated, cited to SIG’s own operator’s manual, which states the pistol is “striker fired, mechanically locked, short recoil operated.” No equivalent statement was found for the P365, so that field is blank on its record rather than assumed from the P320’s.

What the data supports—and what it cannot.

The two listings settle size, barrel length, sight radius, capacity, ignition, finish and warranty. They do not settle which conceals better, which shoots better, or which suits a particular lawful use — and on this pair they do not settle the weight difference either, because the two figures are published on bases that do not meet. That blank is reported here rather than filled.

Open the current P320 recordOpen the current P365 recordCompare current directory records