Sig Sauer P320 - Self Discharge Reports

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I'm sure anyone here who had a firearm discharge when they didn't pull the trigger would have a different viewpoint.

Its not that simple.

A gun is a mechanical device (normally cammed and held by a notch)

Assuming no mechanical defect or modification, it takes a degree of shock ( defined as a high amplitude "moment" type displacement) to mechanically disengage that notch for the hammer ( striker= hammer) to fall and fire. That's a simple fact of mechanics.

This guy is saying that in his lone case with a weapon with no revealed modifications or malfunctions prior just "up and did it".

All he has offered so far is a box full of words essentially saying "mine did because theirs did too".

A proper case with a substantial claim would have already had someone (gunsmith, armorer, even engineering firm) with the proper credentials assess the weapon, identify the culprit ( at least pro forma) and come out swinging.

Theres no reason to attempt to hold back because they have to disclose everything to the adverse side. ( this aint TV)

That's not what I see so far, but the case is young still

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

That's what an in depth investigation is for. Per the lawsuit, his wasn't the only one that discharged in a similar manner.

That "investigation" is to be done BEFORE the case is filed. So far this case is weak as water based on the claim.

I feel this guy is trying to get paid for his own carelessness by winning a nuisance settlement.

 

[UncleDave]

A gun cant self discharge unless its chambered and cocked - it didnt do any of that itself we can agree.

If you received a recall notice because of a possible problem why would you carry it chambered and ready to fire?

Why didnt it discharge when he was holstering it, or aiming, or any other time it was chambered and cocked - because he didnt pull the trigger is the main reason.

He manipulated a holstered weapon that was chambered and ready to fire by feel.

This is a little like the Audi 5000 "problem" to me.

 

[ollie]

A gun cant self discharge unless its chambered and cocked - it didnt do any of that itself we can agree.

If you received a recall notice because of a possible problem why would you carry it chambered and ready to fire?

Yes Dave!! If I received a recall notice on a firearm it would go straight to a local gunsmith I know and trust. I would be too scared to even handle it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

A gun cant self discharge unless its chambered and cocked - it didnt do any of that itself we can agree.

If you received a recall notice because of a possible problem why would you carry it chambered and ready to fire?

Why didnt it discharge when he was holstering it, or aiming, or any other time it was chambered and cocked - because he didnt pull the trigger is the main reason.

He manipulated a holstered weapon that was chambered and ready to fire by feel.

This is a little like the Audi 5000 "problem" to me.

Do you ever carry a gun with one in the chamber? I bet 99% of the people reading this thread do/have. It's not an excuse for a firearm that may have discharged without pulling the trigger.

You have zero proof of your "conclusion" ... it's just your opinion because you believe every gun on earth can somehow never discharge without pulling the trigger.

Yes, if there was a safety recall on the gun he should have taken action. But the fact that there was a safety recall by the manufacturer says they knew there was an issue with the gun's design. The fact that he didn't take action on the recall may play a roll in the outcome.

Designing, manfacturing and selling guns to the public is big liability if companies don't take it seriously. Last thing you want is a defective unsafe product in the hands of consumer ... that goes with anything.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Its not that simple.

A gun is a mechanical device (normally cammed and held by a notch)

Assuming no mechanical defect or modification, it takes a degree of shock ( defined as a high amplitude "moment" type displacement) to mechanically disengage that notch for the hammer ( striker= hammer) to fall and fire. That's a simple fact of mechanics.

This guy is saying that in his lone case with a weapon with no revealed modifications or malfunctions prior just "up and did it".

All he has offered so far is a box full of words essentially saying "mine did because theirs did too".

A proper case with a substantial claim would have already had someone (gunsmith, armorer, even engineering firm) with the proper credentials assess the weapon, identify the culprit ( at least pro forma) and come out swinging.

Theres no reason to attempt to hold back because they have to disclose everything to the adverse side. ( this aint TV)

That's not what I see so far, but the case is young still

Who says these few Sigs that were reported to discharge didn't have some kind of manufacturing defect. It's a man-made device, and there are some variances between them coming out of the factory. If critical parts associated with the safety level of the system don't have stringent QA in the manufacturing process it can cause some safety issues in the hands of the consumer. I'd think manufacturing QA needs to be high on the list to ensure guns coming off the line operate safely as designed and tested before getting the green light for full production.

Yes, the case is young ... so people saying it was his (and the other people in similar cases) fault or a gun can never ever go off without pulling the trigger are making conclusions with zero proof.

The investigation of more than one similar discharged needs to be thoroughly investigated. At this point, you have to take the cases of discharges seriously until proven one way or the other what the actual cause was.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Who says these few Sigs that were reported to discharge didn't have some kind of manufacturing defect.

Doesn't matter- this case is in a court of law, not an internet blog so the rules of evidence apply. "Fishing" and wild claims will be disallowed regardless of whether they "happened" or not. The rare exceptions to the hearsay rule is almost always direct relevance so to meet that threshold those "claims' would have to have already been officially reported/ fully examined/ ruled upon by a trier of fact and in the record and even then found to have a legitimate defect that's relevant to this case. I did not see any docket numbers referencing these claims- did you?

It's a man-made device, and there are some variances between them coming out of the factory - maybe more so if critical parts associated with the safety level of the system don't have stringent QA in the manufacturing process.

All true and normal for any manufactured device. I know SIG has all this in place because they couldn't be a USG vendor without it and would have to provide it as part of the bid package and proposals. I have yet to see any claim of a specific defect in the model proper or this specific weapon.

Yes, the case is young ... so people saying it was his fault or a gun can never ever go off without pulling the trigger are making conclusions with zero proof.

True but lets balance the scales and formally state that the plaintiff has offered "zero proof" as to his claims as well ( and he carries the burden- not a good position to be in)

The investigation of more than one similar discharged needs to be thoroughly investigated.

Why? This isn't any form of a class action. What possible bearing could some 30 odd other "alleged' accidental discharges possibly contribute to this specific case/weapon and incident to the exclusion of all others?

At this point, you have to take the cases of discharged seriously until proven one way or the other what the actual cause was.

Not in a court of law you don't. That's called prejudice. You aren't 'guilty until proven innocent" (yet anyway)

 

[UncleDave]

Do you ever carry a gun with one in the chamber? I bet 99% of the people reading this thread do/have. It's not an excuse for a firearm that may have discharged without pulling the trigger.

You have zero proof of your "conclusion" ... it's just your opinion because you believe every gun on earth can somehow never discharge without pulling the trigger.

I wont carry a striker pin gun with no secondary safety cocked. Call me old fashioned.

A hammer gun like a 1911 that can be cocked and locked I will - but dont unless Im in a riot situation thats happened once in my 53 years of life.

I think drops can make a gun go off, and I think lots of times people manipulate thing in ways they inadvertently pull or move the trigger - pulling motions in general like removing a holster, or removing the weapon - things snag and snare, zipper pulls etc.

 

[ollie]

I wont carry a striker pin gun with no secondary safety cocked. Call me old fashioned.

A hammer gun like a 1911 that can be cocked and locked I will - but dont unless Im in a riot situation thats happened once in my 53 years of life.

I think drops can make a gun go off, and I think lots of times people manipulate thing in ways they inadvertently pull or move the trigger - pulling motions in general like removing a holster, or removing the weapon - things snag and snare, zipper pulls etc.

I have mentioned before that I never was comfortable carrying the Navy Issue 1911 or 10mm Delta Elite cocked and locked.

 

[ZeeOSix]

ZeeOSix said: Who says these few Sigs that were reported to discharge didn't have some kind of manufacturing defect.

Doesn't matter- this case is in a court of law, not an internet blog so the rules of evidence apply. "Fishing" and wild claims will be disallowed regardless of whether they "happened" or not. The rare exceptions to the hearsay rule is almost always direct relevance so to meet that threshold those "claims' would have to have already been officially reported/ fully examined/ ruled upon by a trier of fact and in the record and even then found to have a legitimate defect that's relevant to this case. I did not see any docket numbers referencing these claims- did you?

My point is that if the investigation does indeed show evidence that the gun(s) involved have some kind of manufacturing defect, then it does matter because the manufacturer is still liable for selling a defective and unsafe firearm. Even if it's just a handful of guns.

ZeeOSix said: It's a man-made device, and there are some variances between them coming out of the factory - maybe more so if critical parts associated with the safety level of the system don't have stringent QA in the manufacturing process.

All true and normal for any manufactured device. I know SIG has all this in place because they couldn't be a USG vendor without it and would have to provide it as part of the bid package and proposals. I have yet to see any claim of a specific defect in the model proper or this specific weapon.

Just because a company has these required and applicable manufacturing processes and a QA program "in place" doesn't mean they follow them 100% unless there is some kind or independent monitoring body ensuring they do.

ZeeOSix said: Yes, the case is young ... so people saying it was his fault or a gun can never ever go off without pulling the trigger are making conclusions with zero proof.

True but lets balance the scales and formally state that the plaintiff has offered "zero proof" as to his claims as well ( and he carries the burden- not a good position to be in)

It's an initial lawsuit ... more evidence will have to be provided if the case goes to trial, which it probably will go to.

ZeeOSix said: The investigation of more than one similar discharged needs to be thoroughly investigated.

Why? This isn't any form of a class action. What possible bearing could some 30 odd other "alleged' accidental discharges possibly contribute to this specific case/weapon and incident to the exclusion of all others?

Why ... because if the discharges were caused by the same root cause then that needs to be investigated to prove or not. If there were 30 cases of similar discharges with the same exact gun, they should all be investigated to see if there is a common root cause associated with the firearm design/build quality. Or are they all random causes not associated with the firearm design/build. That's the focus of the lawsuit ... is the gun defective in some way that makes it unsafe.

ZeeOSix said: At this point, you have to take the cases of discharge seriously until proven one way or the other what the actual cause was.

Not in a court of law you don't. That's called prejudice. You aren't 'guilty until proven innocent" (yet anyway)

To clarify, when I said "you" I mean everyone involved in the lawsuit - it needs to be taken seriously until final resolution is determined from the lawsuit fallout. So you're saying nobody in a court of law takes any lawsuits seriously ... yeah, could be the way the court systems operate.

Seems some guys here think the guy is "guilty" of doing a Barry Fife and causing the gun to go off with zero evidence that was the case.

 

[ZeeOSix]

BTW - did Sig Sauer say exactly what the modification was to fix the "safety issue" in their recall of this firearm?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

My point is that if the investigation does indeed show evidence that the gun(s) involved have some kind of manufacturing defect, then it does matter because the manufacturer is still liable for selling a defective and unsafe firearm. Even if it's just a handful of guns.

This case CANNOT "investigate" those cases- do you not understand that concept of US law? There is no jurisdiction in this country that can 'try a case within a case" or investigate wrecks of Mazda's in Ca. to compare with a wreck in Alabama- no matter how 'similar" they may look to an outside observer. That's called relevance.( and fishing, and prejudice, and hearsay)

Just because a company has these required and applicable manufacturing processes and QA program "in place" doesn't mean they follow them 100% unless there is some kind or independent monitoring body ensuring they do.

Theres a circular meaningless argument that could literally apply to every company on Earth.

Why ... because if the discharges were caused by the same root cause then that needs to be investigated to prove or not. If there were 30 cases of similar discharges, they should all be investigated to see if there is a common root cause associated with the firearm design/build quality.

That's not how the law and rules of evidence work. No fishing allowed. That's not a point of debate.

To clarify, when I said "you" I mean everyone involved in the lawsuit - it needs to be taken seriously until final resolution is determined from the lawsuit fallout. So you're saying nobody in a court of law takes any lawsuits seriously ...

Spare me, you know exactly what I said and meant

yeah, could be the way the court systems operate.

No, that IS the way courts operate. Nobody is allowed unrelated cases to be used to prejudice a case. Rare exceptions allow when the circumstances are directly linked but no such evidence has been shown ( evidence, not untried statements- those 2 things are not the same)

Seems some guys here think the guy is "guilty" of doing a Barry Fife and causing the gun to go off with zero evidence that was the case.

You need to address that with "them", I have made no such claim. That said, the plaintiff has not offered anything resembling proof (to a legal standard) to support his "story" or show either the weapon specific or model proper is in any way defective.( design or condition)

Nothing else matters because SIG ( or any other manufacturer of anything) doesn't have to "prove' anything at this point.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

It's an initial lawsuit ... more evidence will have to be provided if the case goes to trial, which it probably will go to.

Initial? The plaintiff better bring more than a litany of unrelated unverified claims to support his charge or this case 'probably' wont survive the first motion to dismiss on grounds that the plaintiff has to support his charge.

I would like to think they have more than they have shown but many lawyers bluff hoping for a politically charged nuisance settlement.

 

[Al]

ZeeOSix. I am not sure why you continue to fall on your own sword. Perhaps you are not that knowledgeable on firearms. The internet is what it is.

In quantum mechanics it is possible for micro particle to go backwards and borrow energy to do things that can not happen in the "macro world"

Neither of know exactly what the facts are...but...it is highly, highly, highly unlikelyor possible that this claim is valid. I suppose this can be a pedantic argument but not a practical argument.

 

[ZeeOSix]

ZeeOSix. I am not sure why you continue to fall on your own sword. Perhaps you are not that knowledgeable on firearms. The internet is what it is.

In quantum mechanics it is possible for micro particle to go backwards and borrow energy to do things that can not happen in the "macro world"

Neither of know exactly what the facts are...but...it is highly, highly, highly unlikelyor possible that this claim is valid. I suppose this can be a pedantic argument but not a practical argument.

I'm not "falling on my own sword" ... far from it. I'm taking an unbiased position and looking at it from all angles - unlike others here who automatically "concluded" that the guy pulled the trigger because they think no mechanical device can be somehow defective. That's the funny part about "the internet" and makes it "what it is".

And BTW, I've had firearms for nearly 50 years and know way more about them then you think.

 

[ollie]

ZeeOSix. I am not sure why you continue to fall on your own sword. Perhaps you are not that knowledgeable on firearms. The internet is what it is.

In quantum mechanics it is possible for micro particle to go backwards and borrow energy to do things that can not happen in the "macro world"

Neither of know exactly what the facts are...but...it is highly, highly, highly unlikelyor possible that this claim is valid. I suppose this can be a pedantic argument but not a practical argument.

There is no need to have "firearm knowledge" to figure out that there are members here who are only trying to stir the pot by making a feeble effort to discredit and argue every single point of this or any other subject matter. When they don't get their way then it ends up being trolling expedition. I for one am grateful that ZeeOSix brought this out. It might just very well save a members life.

A quick google search finds that this claim has in apparently been settled: The P320 was "defectively designed because the design allegedly allows the pistol to discharge where the pistol’s slide and barrel are in an unlocked condition due to the absence of a mechanical disconnector".

You can get your class action settlement claim form directly from Sig Sauer:

https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Claim-Form.pdf

Hope this helps.......

 

[ZeeOSix]

A quick google search finds that this claim has in apparently been settled: The P320 was "defectively designed because the design allegedly allows the pistol to discharge where the pistol’s slide and barrel are in an unlocked condition due to the absence of a mechanical disconnector".

You can get your class action settlement claim form directly from Sig Sauer:

https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Claim-Form.pdf

Hope this helps.......

Well, there ya go. And I've concluded that many people are just too narrow minded and believe that every gun sold is 100% safe when it leaves the factory, and that they will discount it as a "Barney Fife" incident when a report comes out of a possible firearm discharge/safety issue caused by a defective design or manufacturing process.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This case CANNOT "investigate" those cases- do you not understand that concept of US law? There is no jurisdiction in this country that can 'try a case within a case" or investigate wrecks of Mazda's in Ca. to compare with a wreck in Alabama- no matter how 'similar" they may look to an outside observer. That's called relevance.( and fishing, and prejudice, and hearsay)

I'm talking about an independent investigation - I or you or the Plaintiff or anyone else interested could hire someone to do it if we wanted to and wanted to spend big coin - or Sig Sauer might want to investigate it themselves. When Toyotas had the "runaway issue", you can bet Toyota investigated every one of the reported cases. They will ultimately be liable if evidence is shown that a defect of their's is the cause.

Nothing else matters because SIG ( or any other manufacturer of anything) doesn't have to "prove' anything at this point.

They may choose to not divulge any information or even defend themselves, but regardless they can still be held liable and sued over it if the evidence shows that in a court case ... if it goes that far. But Sig Sauer has a Class Action Settlement Claim form, so guess we know how this will now unfold for most owners. Mr. Kyle Guay's lawsuit will probably latch on to the fact that Sig Sauer has admitted that there was a design defect in the P320, so who knows how that will all unfold, especially if he knew there was a recall on a problem that led to his discharge event. Still might be an out of court settlement there. Fun times for sure.

https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content...gn=Hartley&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

 

[UncleDave]

Well, there ya go. And I've concluded that many people are just too narrow minded and believe that every gun sold is 100% safe when it leaves the factory, and that they will discount it as a "Barney Fife" incident when a report comes out of a possible firearm discharge/safety issue caused by a defective design or manufacturing process.

Did anybody say no mechanical device can be defective?

The trigger got pulled, jarred, bumped, wiggled, bumped or moved somehow while the gun was being handled.

It doenst go off sitting untouched. How come the gun doesn't go off mysteriously at the range?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Did anybody say no mechanical device can be defective?

The trigger got pulled, jarred, bumped, wiggled, bumped or moved somehow while the gun was being handled.

It doenst go off sitting untouched. How come the gun doesn't go off mysteriously at the range?

I never said it went off while "untouched" ... go back and read it again. If it goes off while inside a holster while the holster is being removed from your body and a finger was never on the trigger, then something is seriously wrong. Fact is, no gun should go off unless the trigger is pulled and the manual safety is off (if it has one).