New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[KevH]

Some may argue that SIG should do a recall on all their pre-2019 guns and replace these parts instead of doing "rolling changes" and quietly replacing parts as guns come in.

I would like to remind everyone the method SIG is employing has been used by Glock since their inception (as well as most firearms manufacturers). Glock "updated" the G21 trigger bar after problems with the 4256 trigger bar were discovered. LAPD got a batch of 4256-1 trigger bars (they're on 4256-3 now I think), but it was done very quietly. NYPD forced Glock to change the angle of the barrel hood on 22,000 G19's back in 2002/2003. They did it because of NYPD, but didn't go back and fix any Glock 19 sold for anyone else in the more than a decade prior. I won't even get into the G22 WML shenanigans.

SIG is under a microscope because of the media attention to "uncommanded discharges" on the nightly news.

My wife used to work in food safety inspection. I remember her telling me the safest time to eat at a major chain restaurant was in the few months after a major food-borne illness had occurred there and safety corrections had taken place. I believe such is the case with SIG right now.

The final piece of the puzzle is a trigger safety. The Agency Arms aftermarket trigger exists, but is far from perfect and I don't think is a viable option for serious use. I think SIG needs to spend time and money creating (yes, I know they have an older curved version that's unobtanium) a lightweight factory flat trigger with a trigger safety that will work flawlessly across the entire P320 line. It would probably solve (or greatly reduce) any real or perceived safety issues with the platform. Hell, market it as a "performance upgrade." I have a feeling they're just being stubborn and don't want the possible negative press and potential admission of guilt of their being anything wrong with the original design. I think we're there though, and it would make an great gun even greater. S&W just came out with a truly good and elegant flat trigger shoe for the M&P in the last couple years. Common SIG, it's your turn.

Safariland seems to be quietly working on safer holsters that guard the trigger, although they're still marketing and selling the ones to agencies that allow near full access to the trigger. guard area. There are tens of thousands of those out there in US LE right now so we with the combo of not-great holster design and no trigger safety we are going to keep seeing ND's with the P320 until one of the two (or both) are corrected.

[MichaelOrick]

I like the manual safety on my M18 more and more.

California added the M18 to its approved list 8/31/23.

[cheby]

Latest On the Lawsuits Against SIG SAUER:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/he...ls-are-unsafe/

[Bucky]

Latest On the Lawsuits Against SIG SAUER:

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/he...ls-are-unsafe/

These are all of the resolved cases that we have been able to find. You’ll notice a pattern here. First, no one has won a judgement yet. The company confirms that no one has ever won a judgement against them regarding the P320.

Weren’t there a couple of cases settled out of court regarding pre-upgrade pistols? If so, the statement above would be technically correct, but not show the whole picture.

[jd950]

Weren’t there a couple of cases settled out of court regarding pre-upgrade pistols? If so, the statement above would be technically correct, but not show the whole picture.

At least one was settled:

https://www.loudountimes.com/news/si...33ec2462c.html

This one stuck in my mind because the settlement occurred after jury selection and perhaps after opening statements...not sure anymore. While that timing is not at all unique, it is not usual in these types of suits. I have no idea of the age/condition of the gun but the incident occurred in 2018, so certainly a possibility that the gun was a pre-upgrade gun, I suppose. There may well be other settled cases and of course we have no idea about any settlements that may have happened before suits were even brought. For Sig, it would be very valuable to settle a claim discreetly and impose a confidentiality provision if they thought it was a strong claim.

I don't have the time or interest to investigate all the cases cited in that article, but I would not take it at face value. Also, civil and criminal cases are sometimes won or lost based on things only tangentially related to the truth of the claims and defenses.

[MichaelOrick]

About 20 years ago the DOJ had over 100 UIDs in a five-year period, more than one a month.

The way Glock and SIG (and others) handle their issues is good for them so far, but it does fuel the fire for putting guns under the CPSC and repealing the PLCAA.

[AMC]

About 20 years ago the DOJ had over 100 UIDs in a five-year period, more than one a month.

The way Glock and SIG (and others) handle their issues is good for them so far, but it does fuel the fire for putting guns under the CPSC and repealing the PLCAA.

Did you mean DOJ or DOD?
Anyway, poorly trained armed professionals will manage to ND any trigger system. I had an advisory role on our Departments Firearms Discharge Review Board before I retired. Negligent Discharges fell under the boards purview, so I got to see the facts behind all of these. Our department issued handgun was a DA/SA gun with a decocker. Most of the NDs that we investigated during my time involving the department gun were caused by failure to follow proper unloading procedures prior to attempting poorly conceived 'dry-fire' practice. The rest were largely personally owned Glocks being disassembled for cleaning. Our Sheriffs Office, which issued Glocks for over 20 years at that point, still had several NDs a year....almost all associated with cleaning.

Bottom line is most of these are related to administrative handling and a failure to follow universally accepted safe practices, and properly taught unloading procedures. None of the described instances could reasonably fall under CPSC, because the users handled them in an unsafe manner. The product functioned exactly as it was designed to.

[MichaelOrick]

Did you mean DOJ or DOD?

Bottom line is most of these are related to administrative handling and a failure to follow universally accepted safe practices, and properly taught unloading procedures. None of the described instances could reasonably fall under CPSC, because the users handled them in an unsafe manner. The product functioned exactly as it was designed to.

DOJ (FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS).

I mean some think making and selling a gun w/o a manual safety/magazine safety or needing to have the trigger pulled to clean (or whatever else) it is negligent. Even if that's the way their customers want it.

Telling people to send them in for a fix, and not recalling all the guns out there to fix them, is also seen as negligent.

The courts and politicians have been hashing that out for a long time.

I remember a video of a Las Vegas NV officer covering a prone suspect. Her Beretta 92 went off and the round hit the ground next to his head. I don't know if anybody sued Beretta, but they could have...

[HCM]

DOJ (FBI, DEA, ATF, USMS).

I mean some think making and selling a gun w/o a manual safety/magazine safety or needing to have the trigger pulled to clean (or whatever else) it is negligent. Even if that's the way their customers want it.

Telling people to send them in for a fix, and not recalling all the guns out there to fix them, is also seen as negligent.

The courts and politicians have been hashing that out for a long time.

I remember a video of a Las Vegas NV officer covering a prone suspect. Her Beretta 92 went off and the round hit the ground next to his head. I don't know if anybody sued Beretta, but they could have...

Based on your statements here, you don’t even know what you don’t know.

Perfect example, in the video you reference the officers Beretta did not just “go off”

The officer pull the trigger and fired the gun. The gun function, exactly as it was designed to. How is Beretta’s problem?

The problem there was the selection, training, and retention of a deputy who lacked the emotional control to properly handle her firearm in a stressful situation.

Like @AMC I see the details of a fair number of negligent / unintended discharges via work.

The most common cause is people who do not understand the cycle of operation making errors during administrative handling. This is one of the reasons why I personally recommend revolvers to people who wanna gun, but are not gun people and will treat the gun like the fire extinguisher in their kitchen.

The second most common cause is people violating one or more of the four cardinal rules of firearm safety. Particularly trigger finger control, and muzzle control.

The third, most common issue is allowing foreign objects into the trigger guard during draws or holstering.

All of these are “software” (training / attentiveness) issues.

Hardware issues like the issues with WML equipped pistols / holsters exist but are uncommon with modern firearms.

[HCM]

At least one was settled:

https://www.loudountimes.com/news/si...33ec2462c.html

This one stuck in my mind because the settlement occurred after jury selection and perhaps after opening statements...not sure anymore. While that timing is not at all unique, it is not usual in these types of suits. I have no idea of the age/condition of the gun but the incident occurred in 2018, so certainly a possibility that the gun was a pre-upgrade gun, I suppose. There may well be other settled cases and of course we have no idea about any settlements that may have happened before suits were even brought. For Sig, it would be very valuable to settle a claim discreetly and impose a confidentiality provision if they thought it was a strong claim.

I don't have the time or interest to investigate all the cases cited in that article, but I would not take it at face value. Also, civil and criminal cases are sometimes won or lost based on things only tangentially related to the truth of the claims and defenses.

The Loudon county case was a pre - upgrade gun. This case and the Connecticut SWAT cop case were the ones that brought the original design drop safety issues to public attention.

The original P320 design had real problems which could readily be replicated in post incident testing.

The key distinction between the incidents with original MVP guns and the current post 2019 P 320s is none of the alleged mechanical failures of the post 2019 guns have been able to be replicated in post incident testing.

Despite this many have moved forward with lawsuits, based simply on the reputation of the earlier guns and social/legal momentum.