As the last post was April, I presume this is news and on-topic for this thread.
https://www.fox13news.com/news/tampa...misfire-injury
No idea as to any merits (or lack thereof) of this case; just offering it as it crossed my path from another source.
Not a lot of specific details, but it does seem to follow an established pattern.
The problem with that assumption is the article is based on what the officer and his civil attorney said to the reporters and they, like all those I’ve seen filing suit are simply tracking the language of prior lawsuits right down to the emphasis on “firing uncommanded” which is an odd and distinctive phrase.
I.e everyone who wants a payday is going to make their story fit the pattern.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that the original P3 20 design and some of the so-called “upgraded” Guns have flaws that can make them fire due to mechanical defect, though usually it requires an impact.
However, there are at least people who have had operator induced negligent discharges and then tried to hop on the sue SIG bandwagon.
For example there is a federal officer in Pennsylvania who is suing Sigg claiming his agency issued 320 just went off as he attempted to draw the newly issued gun.
That particular incident occurred during Agency training and was witnessed by agency Firearms staff. It occurred in the winter on an outdoor range and the officer was drawing from a personal SERPA holster sized for his previously issued P229DAK.
The witnesses say it was an ND not an AD, the use of a SERPA holster, regardless of the sizing issue tells me it was likely a classic SERPA ND and an examination of the weapon by the agency armory staff found nothing wrong with the weapon.
Then there was the Florida school resource officer who claimed his 320 just went off in the holster in a school cafeteria but video later showed he was handling the gun and doing a little how to draw release retention moves as he was standing his post, so another ND rather than AD.
As I said there are real issues with earlier P320s and earlier P320s that have been upgraded but even with those a closer examination will likely find a mix of NDs and ADs.
There was a recent LE incident in which a suspect managed to work his finger into an officer's holster and fire off a shot. That's a holster problem.
In one of the known Sig incidents, Sig's response is that a foreign object managed to get into the holster, and I believe the holster was for a pistol other than the 320 but it "fit".
There seems to be a growing number of holster accepting WML having a gap that would allow access to the trigger when holster.
I'm still hesitant on the 320, but I also want to know about the holsters involved in each incident.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
I first saw it in the lawsuits against SIG.
The NH lawsuit that is the subject of this thread involved an original (not updated) model P320. However, in their lawsuit they cite numerous examples of guns allegedly “firing uncommanded” some of which I know were negligent discharges.
Doesn’t mean no AD’s occurred but I know a few of the examples they cited were found to be or self admitted to be ND’s..
This is an issue I always worried about at my first agency. We were issued G21s, with Streamlight TLR-1s, carried in Safariland 6360s. In order to allow the WML in, the holster had enough space around the trigger area that I could have reached a pinky or ring finger in and pulled the trigger easily on a holstered gun. Worrying about a finger or other foreign object activating the trigger of a holstered gun during a fight was a legitimate concern.
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.
Video of that incident here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....=1#post1241166