If you put your finger on the trigger of a P320 or 365, when you shouldn’t, is it any more likely to go off than a stock Glock? If you have a holster obstruction with a P320 or 365, do you think it is any more likely to go off than a stock Glock?
Can you link to a lawsuit on a post upgrade P320? Can you link to any verified instance where a post upgrade P320 fired when it shouldn’t have? I have been looking for a lawsuit based on a safety defect with a post upgrade P320 and haven’t found one yet. Also haven’t seen a verified instance of an upgraded P320 firing when it shouldn’t. Not saying it hasn’t happened, just I haven’t seen such a thing.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ther-P320-suit
In theory, a Glock has two safety features that are not present on a P320. I don't think either is particularly effective, but still, they're at least present:
Trigger dongle: restricts trigger travel unless and until the center of the trigger is depressed. In theory, it prevents a lateral or partial snag from depressing the trigger.
Partially-cocked action: in a stock Glock, and especially in models with NY1/2 springs, there is substantial pretravel with resistance in the trigger stroke. In theory, this gives you the opportunity to sense some resistance when holstering and abort that action.
So, yes, I can imagine at least two instances where the P-series SFA is more vulnerable to an ND than with a Glock. The first is a partial obstruct that barely snags the trigger. The second is a situation wherein a finger or obstruction causes the holstering user to sense a couple pounds of resistance while holstering. In either case, the Glock is a, admittedly marginally, "safer" design.
I mean, take that for what it's worth. Just a dude's opinion on the internet. However, in a products liability context, if industry standard practices involving products marketed to a particular market include various safety features/redundancies, and you voluntarily omit those features from a design intended for that market, you better have a damn good reason for those omissions.
First off- in my opinion Sig screwed up badly with the P320 launch and especially in not calling for a full-scale recall immediately after initial discovery (internally, not public disclosure) of the drop safety issue.
Having said that the linked article concerns a pistol purchased in September 2016 (upgrade came out in the fall of 2017) and there is no mention of any “upgrade” work being done on the plaintiff’s pistol. Furthermore, the article does not mention the suit alleges any unintended discharge experienced by the plaintiff- only that Sig continued to sell the original design after discovering the flawed safety system. All mention in the article of UD/ND are from other incidents.
The only public info I’m aware of for post upgrade UD/ND are the SRO and SEPTA, both cases have not resulted in definitive failure analysis (human vs. mechanical failure). If it is mechanical on Sig’s part then I’m of the opinion that Sig should payout dearly in the many civil suits that follow.
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.