New 2 July 2020 SIG P320 Lawsuit and P320 Concerns

[Austin Millbarge]

That is a TQ on the front of the holster. It wasn’t unsecured.

The bale was up and locked.

[Noah]

That is a TQ on the front of the holster. It wasn’t unsecured.

The bale was up and locked.

If that is verified, Big Sig will look pretty dumb

[Austin Millbarge]

If that is verified, Big Sig will look pretty dumb

That’s 100% the case.

[cosermann]

…
I can tell you we’ve had enough problems with P365 series guns that we went from allowing any P365 series (commercial or LE/IOP sourced) to only allowing LE/IOP sourced guns even with mandatory armorer inspections prior to being put into service.

This piqued my interest. What kind of problems? Is there a PF thread on said P365 difficulties?

I haven’t heard much negative on the P365.

[Lon]

https://www.sigsauer.com/blog/sig-sa...tment-incident

“In reviewing the video footage of this incident currently available, it appears that the involved firearm was not fully seated in its holster and the holster retention hood was not fully closed over the pistol at the time of discharge (images below). This improperly holstered condition would have left the firearm’s trigger exposed and vulnerable to actuation. Even if properly holstered, the features of the involved holster allow for foreign object intrusion and interaction with the trigger, as has been seen in other incidents. ”

That is an incredibly bold (and I think stupid) statement for Sig to have released. There’s a lot of video out there that hasn’t been seen yet and if what many of us suspect is the case (that it’s a TQ case and the bale is up) then Sigs statement will be easily debunked. I would think a better statement would have been “we’re aware of the video and we have reached out to the agency to see if we can talk with them about the incident.” Or some such statement acknowledging the video and are trying to work with the agency to see what happened.

Oh, well. I’ll be interested to see what the agency releases down the road.

[HCM]

This piqued my interest. What kind of problems? Is there a PF thread on said P365 difficulties?

I haven’t heard much negative on the P365.

Already discussed in the 200 page P365 thread on multiple occasions and upthread in posts 687 and 690 of this thread.

Post 687 has a link to the 365 thread.

If you have a big enough sample size, you’ll find problems with any gun.

[HCM]

That is a TQ on the front of the holster. It wasn’t unsecured.

The bale was up and locked.

It’s clear there is a TQ mounted to the front of the holster and that it is a WML capable holster. It’s hard to see if the bake is in place or not but it’s only relevant if the gun had a WML mounted.

Without the WML in place, I’d the pistol is not properly locked into the ALS/muzzle plug, the pistol’s muzzle can be canted rearward into the space intended for the WML, allowing the bale to be closed and exposing the trigger more than normal.

I see this at work on a regular basis with plainclothes officers who don’t run a light. The fact that they’re allowed to qualify out of a rig that they only wear once every 90 days at the range is a whole other issue.

[HCM]

That is an incredibly bold (and I think stupid) statement for Sig to have released. There’s a lot of video out there that hasn’t been seen yet and if what many of us suspect is the case (that it’s a TQ case and the bale is up) then Sigs statement will be easily debunked. I would think a better statement would have been “we’re aware of the video and we have reached out to the agency to see if we can talk with them about the incident.” Or some such statement acknowledging the video and are trying to work with the agency to see what happened.

Oh, well. I’ll be interested to see what the agency releases down the road.

While I suspect this was not the spontaneous discharge it was originally purported to be, I agree with you 100%.

[Sig_Fiend]

If that is verified, Big Sig will look pretty dumb

Not just dumb. That's a bad look altogether. One might say conduct unbecoming to throw an agency end user under the bus like that publicly, and by their own words, apparently without verified proof.

I get that it's a tough and volatile situation. To respond with a blog post and what almost amounts to a meme? Based on this and past fiascos, it seems like there is a serious institutional behavioral problem at SIG.

[Lon]

What is your basis for claiming the rate is higher for 320s vs Glocks?

Are there actually more or are you just hearing more about issues with the 320?

As BBI and others have discussed, NDs are a lot more common among both cops and the general population than most recreational shooters are aware of. I’m aware of lots of LE ND’s with Glocks, M&Ps and other guns that never got public attention.

My agency issues 320s, but we authorize a list of striker fired 9 mm SIG’s and Glocks. We see a fairly even distribution of ND between sig and Glock striker guns.

During a 4 year period (2000-2003), the 38% of shootings by the USMS, DEA, ATF and FBI we NDs of some sort:
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/plus/e0410/intro.htm

I know of one agency close to me that of the 5 on duty firearm discharges (over a span of 20 years), 2 were NDs. Both were Officer error and had nothing to do with a weapon malfunction.

So yes, NDs are much more prevalent than most people think.

Scary, actually.