Sig Sauer P320 - Self Discharge Reports
- Thread starter ZeeOSix
- Start date
- Status
I opened the link but it won't allow me to read the article.
Wonder if that guy's P320 was one of the ones up for the "voluntary upgrade", the guy knew about the "recall", and decided not to do it? But discharge when removing from holster sure sounds like a trigger pull...
Safety "improvements" for certain models already sold to consumers are nothing new... my stepson has a couple Thompson/Center rifles that were affected by safety issues as well and got sent back for "voluntary upgrades", and that wouldn't stop me from buying a T/C. There's so many things that can be said here, but I'll just leave it at this: some people shouldn't own guns.
Safety "improvements" for certain models already sold to consumers are nothing new... my stepson has a couple Thompson/Center rifles that were affected by safety issues as well and got sent back for "voluntary upgrades", and that wouldn't stop me from buying a T/C. There's so many things that can be said here, but I'll just leave it at this: some people shouldn't own guns.
The article claims that the gun went off while the man was removing an IWB holster.
It discharged, destroying the holster and causing permanent tissue and nerve damage to the man’s thigh.
The lawsuit claims that the gun design is defective and it will fire without trigger pull.
Just randomly fire.
It discharged, destroying the holster and causing permanent tissue and nerve damage to the man’s thigh.
The lawsuit claims that the gun design is defective and it will fire without trigger pull.
Just randomly fire.
Last edited:
The military version is slightly different and they included the recall revisions the 320 received later from the get go.
I don't know the details but my uncle had an AD in the house with a 320. It was the only one he's ever had and he is a life long gun guy. There was something wrong with that gun too, he showed it to me the day before (unloaded) and it didn't want to cycle correctly, we couldn't figure out why.
Sig has had more than their share of issues the last few years IMO, I think they got too big too fast. On the flip side, one of my favorites for CCW is a P365XL and that gun has been absolutely flawless.
My Sig P227 is a great gun. It’s in .45 with the double/single with a decocker. Extra couple of rounds over the P220. Similar frame. Super reliable. Very accurate. Nice grip and feel.
I don’t like the P320, but it’s more a grip angle and feel thing. I just don’t.
I don’t like the P320, but it’s more a grip angle and feel thing. I just don’t.
Well, lets see what the details show.
Its been my experience that the opening claims in lawsuits routinely push "truth" to an extreme and this is only one side of the story.
Often times those opening claims don't make it past the opening round of discovery and a great deal don't survive cross.
Its been my experience that the opening claims in lawsuits routinely push "truth" to an extreme and this is only one side of the story.
Often times those opening claims don't make it past the opening round of discovery and a great deal don't survive cross.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,503
Seems like someone's in denial that they may have touched the trigger. These things just don't fire without the trigger being depressed out of the blue.
And shame on them for brining up the drop safety problem which is a completely different and now-solved issue.
And shame on them for brining up the drop safety problem which is a completely different and now-solved issue.
Says outside waist band Sig Sauer holster:
"In Guay’s lawsuit, he alleges he was removing his outside-the-waistband Sig Sauer holster, in which his Sig P320 was secured, “when the pistol fired and hit him in the right thigh without him ever touching the trigger.”
Can a finger even be put on the trigger while initially removing that pistol from the matching Sig Sauer holster? Or is the trigger and guard not exposed until the pistol is partially out of the holster? Hummm ...
Last edited:
There has already been at least one class action over the P320. I guess this is the fires when dropped just wrong issue:
https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content...gn=Hartley&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
Here is another lawsuit, similar to OP's post, alleging the gun just went off while still enclosed in a Sig brand holster and injuring the owner:
http://www.chronline.com/northwest_...cle_999881c0-7a8e-11ea-ae8b-4b412bf61424.html
We have way too many Sigs because my wife likes them ( for some reason ), but I don't see the P320 coming home with her, at least not if I am paying for it.
https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content...gn=Hartley&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
Here is another lawsuit, similar to OP's post, alleging the gun just went off while still enclosed in a Sig brand holster and injuring the owner:
http://www.chronline.com/northwest_...cle_999881c0-7a8e-11ea-ae8b-4b412bf61424.html
We have way too many Sigs because my wife likes them ( for some reason ), but I don't see the P320 coming home with her, at least not if I am paying for it.
Without going into specifics, I lead a state-level law enforcement agency. My guys carry the P320 and have for the last few years. If there was some way to shoot this gun without pulling the trigger, some of my problem children would have discovered that defect by now. Lol!!!
Here's a link to the actual complaint in OP's post. All of the complaints alleging this issue are probably very similar, except for the alleged facts specific to each individual case:
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...ptkhVUhASA9gxV2kI0_TNdYpePq91_yZcwQ59DAdpF7MM
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.tow...ptkhVUhASA9gxV2kI0_TNdYpePq91_yZcwQ59DAdpF7MM
Points of interest ( just observations based on the content and my experience)
There is no standard of "drop test" ( either industry standard test, protocol or law requiring compliance) so there is no such thing as a "defective design". ( cant be "defective" unless measured against something)
In the 1st case, this was a settlement reached in arbitration- nobody "proved" anything was wrong or defective. ( neither did SIG admit anything)
The basis of this case is not a "defective design" rather than the advertising claim ( basically a performance guarantee) that it wont fire "unless you want it to". ( lesson there is to legally review warranty and guarantee claims because they can be used against you)
There is yet to be published any technical analysis of the weapon in question to establish it is (was) mechanically sound/assembled properly/carried properly etc. at the time of the incident. ( that can make or break a case right there)
The plaintiff has only made allegations as to what happened, none of it has been "proven" yet and I see some "questions" in the pleading. ( means nothing at this point but can also end a case before it begins)
The "striker" V. "hammer" point is a non starter. Its mechanically the same principle. ( had to deal with that wordsmithing before personally- wont make any difference)
#4 likely wont survive motion to dismiss because its unqualified hearsay and prejudicial
#5 is very likely to hang SIG
#20  is probably going to get SIG to agree to a very generous settlement out of court and a manual rewrite.
All the claims of malfunction- I would almost bet excluded because of unqualified hearsay not because they are not true incidents but according to the claim the "cause/fault" was not ever officially determined to be the weapon.
Promises to be interesting
There is no standard of "drop test" ( either industry standard test, protocol or law requiring compliance) so there is no such thing as a "defective design". ( cant be "defective" unless measured against something)
In the 1st case, this was a settlement reached in arbitration- nobody "proved" anything was wrong or defective. ( neither did SIG admit anything)
The basis of this case is not a "defective design" rather than the advertising claim ( basically a performance guarantee) that it wont fire "unless you want it to". ( lesson there is to legally review warranty and guarantee claims because they can be used against you)
There is yet to be published any technical analysis of the weapon in question to establish it is (was) mechanically sound/assembled properly/carried properly etc. at the time of the incident. ( that can make or break a case right there)
The plaintiff has only made allegations as to what happened, none of it has been "proven" yet and I see some "questions" in the pleading. ( means nothing at this point but can also end a case before it begins)
The "striker" V. "hammer" point is a non starter. Its mechanically the same principle. ( had to deal with that wordsmithing before personally- wont make any difference)
#4 likely wont survive motion to dismiss because its unqualified hearsay and prejudicial
#5 is very likely to hang SIG
#20  is probably going to get SIG to agree to a very generous settlement out of court and a manual rewrite.
All the claims of malfunction- I would almost bet excluded because of unqualified hearsay not because they are not true incidents but according to the claim the "cause/fault" was not ever officially determined to be the weapon.
Promises to be interesting
That was the biggest "question" I was alluding to.
I am waiting to see that reenactment combined with the technical assessment of the weapon.
I am sorry the incident happened but my "spider sense" is tingling that a few pieces of information are missing/questionable.
- Status
Similar threads
