New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[DpdG]

Sorry if this seems like a possibly ignorant question, but as I understand it that spring was what kept the lever in the down position and now only gravity keeps it down. So would holding the pistol upside-down and it hitting something (dropped, struck on something or by something) possibly cause a discharge in a similar manner as to what happened with the lever getting stuck in the up position with LWT's guy?

In theory, no it should not discharge. The actual striker block (part of the striker assembly) has its own spring that keeps it engaged unless/until it’s deactivated by the safety lever. The safety lever is functionally only a floating transfer bar and the only time it would be only controlled by gravity is when the slide is off the gun.

The malfunction described was the safety lever being wedged in a position not allowing the striker block to engage. I imagine removing the safety lever spring reduces/eliminates the likelihood of that happening, as the old spring was pretty easy to dislodge and I can see how it could wedge the lever in the up position.

All the above said- it’s modern Sig, so who knows and the parts will probably change again for reasons undisclosed.

[Runt1122]

Any updates to this story?! To be honest, the part that bothered me the most was Sig’s response.

Four days later, according to court paperwork, SIG Sauer “issued a press release stating that the P320 could fire without a trigger pull under certain conditions, including vibration, but “reaffirmed” the safety of the P320 to all end users.”

Could fire under certain conditions including vibration?! Are you kidding me?! How does that provide confidence and trust?

After this story I traded away my P320 for a Glock 19 Gen 5 and have been very pleased. I kept my P365 because I had not heard of any similar problems and it performs so well.

[HCM]

Four days later, according to court paperwork, SIG Sauer “issued a press release stating that the P320 could fire without a trigger pull under certain conditions, including vibration, but “reaffirmed” the safety of the P320 to all end users.”

Source for this ?

[jd950]

Source for this ?

I was curious, too. I thought the implication was that this was a recent press release from Sig. Without spending much time on it, I spent some time looking on the internet and I think this was an allegation made in a suit back in 2017, before the "voluntary upgrade" and referring to those guns.

I don't know if it was said or not, but if it was, it was not in relation to the current issue.

I have now obtained and read Sig's Answer in the current lawsuit. Their position is that the gun in question could not have discharged without the trigger being pulled, which is pretty much what one would expect them to say. I doubt they ave made any statements that would contradict their formal position in court pleadings.

[Runt1122]

Source for this ?

https://www.unionleader.com/news/cou...943be8493.html

[HCM]

https://www.unionleader.com/news/cou...943be8493.html

So it’s not in the story it’s in paragraph 46 of the lawsuit complaint here:

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...63c886.pdf.pdf

It is also not a response to the current 2020 lawsuit, but rather a response to the 2016 lawsuit by the CT SWAT cop.

It’s worth noting that the 2020 lawsuit involves an original design 320 purchased in 2016 which had not been upgraded.

So despite the date, it is not reflective of current production or upgraded guns.

The claim that only 20% of the original design guns have been sent in for upgrades is interesting.

However there are some blatant technical mistakes in the complaint.

In paragraph 63 they show a picture of the Honor Defense 9mm pistol with the FIST frame which is an intentionally extended dust cover designed to prevent out of battery malfunctions during contact shots

FIST stands for Firearm with Integrated Standoff. In practice, this means an extended dust cover so the gun will function properly even during contact shots. It ain’t exactly a gimmick, as there’s definitely a percentage of revolver owners who eschew semi-autos for fears of it going out of battery when the muzzle is pressed up against something.

However in the lawsuit they use a photo of this gun, which is in battery, as an example of a semi auto pistol which is out if battery.

More interesting though is paragraph 84 which describes a CAT scan of a P320 which injured a VA sheriff’s deputy. The CAT scan found the dual seat springs were crossed similar to the malfunction found by PF member @lwt16.

@TXPO

@Gadfly

[HCM]

So keep in mind, while there are some reports of legitimate unintentional discharges (UD) apparently caused by mechanical or design failure, many of the UDs cited in the lawsuit are really negligent discharges (ND) caused by operator error.

For example, paragraph 93 states:

93. On July 23, 2019, an upgraded P320 fired un-commanded on Officer Walter Collette, Jr. of the Somerville, Massachusetts, police department, hitting him in his leg and causing substantial injuries to his leg. The next day, an upgraded P320 fired un-commanded on a Homeland Security Agent at a firing range in the Bronx, New York.

So the Bronx incident was during transition training from P229 DAKs to P320s, was witnessed, and resulted from the Agent putting their finger on the the trigger during a draw. In other words it was a clear ND.

The claim that this ND was “uncommanded” is not just misleading but outright false.

If you put your finger on the trigger you commanded the gun to fire whether you intended to do so or not.

Also the use of the term “upgraded” P320 in the complaint is a misnomer as the gun in question was a post upgrade model and had not part of SIGs voluntary upgrade program.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/homela...-at-gun-range/

So while there are some nuggets of useful information in the complaint there are also technical errors, and attempts to exaggerate the extent of 320 issues by mis-categorizing operator induced NDs as mechanical failures.

Cops have NDs. I’ve witnessed and treated enough to state that as a fact. Further, as we know from the LA sheriff’s study. LE agencies transitioning from DA guns to striker fired guns often have a learning curve among those with trigger checking issues resulting in a temporary spike in NDs when the “crutch” of the longer DA pull is removed.

Given that a fair number of agencies adopting the P320 are doing so out of brand loyalty and transitioning from SIG TDA or DAK guns some operator induced NDs are to be expected.

[JonInWA]

I wouldn't be too surprised to hear of NDs caused by officers/agencies transitioning from Glock to the P320. The P320 has a much softer break point compared to Glocks, I can easily visualize an "Are we there yet? BOOM" triggerpull sequence...

Any transition (or initial acquisition) involving short triggerpull/relatively light break weights really need to have an effective transition and qualification program-and the qualification needs to be of a scope beyone merely successfully placing the requisite amount of holes in a target.

I think that it was on p-f here that a member equated many of the contemporary SFA's to be like a 1911-without a manual safety. There's some truth in that.

Best, Jon

[AMC]

I wouldn't be too surprised to hear of NDs caused by officers/agencies transitioning from Glock to the P320. The P320 has a much softer break point compared to Glocks, I can easily visualize an "Are we there yet? BOOM" triggerpull sequence...

Any transition (or initial acquisition) involving short triggerpull/relatively light break weights really need to have an effective transition and qualification program-and the qualification needs to be of a scope beyone merely successfully placing the requisite amount of holes in a target.

I think that it was on p-f here that a member equated many of the contemporary SFA's to be like a 1911-without a manual safety. There's some truth in that.

Best, Jon

The issue with proper transition training is real. When we proposed moving from DA/SA Sigs to a striker fired gun, I insisted that we run a 20 hour transition. Folks complained that a lot of neighboring agencies just make an officer qualify with a new gun/trigger system before hitting the street. I refuse to do that, and think its borderline criminally negligent. The issue isn't getting people to "qualify", as if that really means something.....its getting them to be safe with the gun under stressful real world conditions. That people don't grasp that in this day and age astounds me.

A neighboring agency, which shoots far more than we do, recently transitioned from Sig 226R DAKs to the 320. They did an 8 hour conversion course. When I asked their instructors if they had experienced an increase in NDs, they said no. When I asked the same of a couple of their cops, they said "Oh yeah. All the time. But its all on the range so its good." Nope. No its not.

And as for NDs....half the recent NDs we've seen lately have been guys' off duty Glocks. And our Sheriffs Department still experience several a year with their Glock 17s. Its the one thing that gives me pause about the G-lock easy button for cops. Too many "cleaning accidents".

[Sammy1]

Some good info is coming out on the lawsuits and allegations, thank you to the members digging through this. I'm leaning more towards ND's and not "uncommanded" firing. The latest figures from Sig, they are producing 100,000 firearms per month and not keeping up with demand. I'm guessing that a large number of those firearms are P320s. If the guns were unsafe I think there would be much more reports of this and injuries.