Sig Sauer P320 - Self Discharge Reports

[UncleDave]

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 with a finger was never on the trigger, then something is seriously wrong. Fact is, no gun should go off unless the trigger is pulled.

Of course it shouldn't but anything that bumps, wiggles, jars or touches the trigger COULD set it off.

Squeezing/ grabbing a soft holster just the right way could do it.

If the gun has such a tendency to go off unprovoked how come they dont do it at the range between reloads and firing?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Of course it shouldn't but anything that bumps, wiggles, jars or touches the trigger COULD set it off.

Squeezing/ grabbing a soft holster just the right way could do it.

A trigger shouldn't be that sensitive to a bump, wiggle or touch - if it was it would most certainly fire if dropped. It takes x lbs to pull a trigger and cause the gun to fire - and factory guns don't have a "hair trigger" for a reason. If a slight bump or wiggle causes a gun to fire then it's an unsafe design.

I agree, if the holster was so soft that is was grabbed in such a way as to invoke enough normal trigger force (x lbs) to cause it to fire then that could have been the case. That's why it needs to be verified if that pistol in that holster can do that. But if his P320 was not fixed per the safety recall then that most likely had a bearing on the incident.

If the gun has such a tendency to go off unprovoked how come they dont do it at the range between reloads and firing?

"Unprovoked" = not touched. I though we were beyond that tangent. Nobody has claimed any gun goes off when untouched.

 

[UncleDave]

A trigger shouldn't be that sensitive to a bump, wiggle or touch. It does take x lbs to pull a trigger and cause the gun to fire. If a slight bump or wiggle causes a gun to fire then it's an unsafe design.

I agree, if the holster was so soft that is was grabbed in such a way as to invoke enough trigger force (x lbs) to cause it to fire then that could have been the case. That's why it needs to be verified if that pistol in that holster can do that.

"Unprovoked" = not touched. I though we were beyond that tangent. Nobody has claimed any gun goes off when untouched.

I think this conversation would go faster at campsite

I agree it shouldn't go off like that but Ive seen all kinds of stuff happen.
Ive had weird problems even a factory return wouldnt solve so I know things can be defective.
One reason I only carry in condition 1 or CLRTR (what is that for a striker pin gun BTW?) on rare occasions.

My point was that the weapon was manipulated in some way that cause a trigger bump, spike, wiggle or pull.
If we agree it won't go off untouched then the question is where and how is it being touched when it does? I'd bet something touched the trigger somehow someway and best guess would be when he squeezed the holster or when he pulled on it.

What people claim is often not what they really do, sometimes they make claims out of self protection, some times they believe their incorrect statements to be true.

Remember the audi 5000 incident? People SWORE they stood on the brake and car just went full speed ahead into walls, a condition that could only occur if both the brakes and the throttle failed at the same time, but then mysteriously fixed themselves after the accident.

Heres a good article.

https://www.sigtalk.com/threads/negligent-not-accidental-discharge-with-my-p320.45091/

 

[ZeeOSix]

My point was that the weapon was manipulated in some way that cause a trigger bump, spike, wiggle or pull.
If we agree it won't go off untouched then the question is where and how is it being touched when it does? I'd bet something touched the trigger somehow someway and best guess would be when he squeezed the holster or when he pulled on it.

Did you read what Sig Sauer said in their safety recall info?

There's a difference between touching or manipulating a gun beyond "touching the trigger" in a normal way as designed, and it going off or not going off. No firearm should fire when the trigger is even slightly "bumped" sideways or "wiggled" (things that typically happen when it's dropped). No firearm should fire when dropped. It should take a pull straight backwards with a finger at x lbs for y distance to make it fire. And no safety when engaged should allow a gun to fire if the trigger is pulled or dropped. Like I said, if a trigger was that sensitive it would be like some super hair trigger, and no gun company in their right mind would allow any gun they make be sold to the public if it was that sensitive unless they wanted lots of lawsuits to drain them into bankruptcy.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Heres a good article.

https://www.sigtalk.com/threads/negligent-not-accidental-discharge-with-my-p320.45091/

How do you know that P320 didn't had the defect that Sig Sauer is addressing (it happened in 2015, so his gun was make before August 8, 2017, and it could have discharged as a result of the known defect? And NO gun should fire if the trigger is simply "wiggled" with no real rearward force. I'd never own such a unsafely designed gun.

 

[UncleDave]

How do you know that P320 didn't had the defect that Sig Sauer is addressing, and it could have discharged as a result of the known defect? And NO gun should fire if the trigger is simply "wiggled". I'd never own such a unsafe designed gun.

Yes I read it.

I suspect it did have the defect or the guy that shot himself probably wouldnt have had a recall notice.

You'd think one could tell if it was unsafe at the range, but apparently one cant.

I think the thumb and finger grip likely caused a wiggle through the holster that took up the creep- should it be that way? No.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

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.

Its never a good idea for people with subject matter knowledge to review a situation from all sides, promote ideas/theories and then have to validate them- those who cant usually whine and try to get those things dismissed as "arguments", being "mean", "demeaning the opposing views" and all kinds of meaningless emotional tripe. Right out of Saul's book. Got it.

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".

It wouldn't hurt you to know what the legal definition of "defect" is and how it is applied in a CA.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

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

Granted that's correct as written and I can speak from experience on the cost. The point was that it cannot be a "part" of this current case.

Sig Sauer might want to investigate it themselves.

Neither of us will ever know but I would bet you a months pay they already have.

They may choose to not divulge any information or even defend themselves,

That is a legal strategy ( and a very effective one for any defense because it draws out the prosecution into many potential traps) and many cases are won simply on exercising SILENCE because they already know the prosecutions case is weak.

regardless they can still be held liable and sued over it if the evidence shows that in a court case

Only if said evidence proves by preponderance the requisite points after a vigorous cross- based on the initial pleadings, they are light years from that ( at this moment). Being sued is easy- winning is not.

But Sig Sauer has a Class Action Settlement Claim form, so guess we know how this will now unfold for most owners.

Possible but doubtful. That "settlement" is nothing but basic boilerplate stuff. ( been a part of many arbitrated agreements and this one has nothing special or unusual) What a "settlement" means is this:

Defendant- I know you cannot prove me wrong and I admit nothing.

Plaintiff- I acknowledge that but I will continue to bleed you and damage your brand because I can

Both= Lets agree to meet in the middle and end this.

That's how it works in the real world.

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.

Valid points all and personally I think a settlement was (is) the original plan

 

[Astro14]

There are members here who like to stir the pot by taking contrary positions for the sake of argument, even when those positions are uninformed.

It’s called trolling.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

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.

The point is, that's his CLAIM. it has yet to be PROVEN. I could just as easily make the argument he is lying to protect his own name and reputation and simply taking advantage of a moment. ( equally unproven)

They make opening claims like this to subliminally start influencing public opinion ( standard and very effective tactic)

This thread is a textbook example of the desired result.

 

[Astro14]

Sig Sauer has investigated this extensively. The military version of the gun incorporated a manual safety.

The civil version has been updated from the original design to improve the safety level if it is dropped. There is a disconnect in the updated design, along with a lighter trigger to improve resistance to firing if dropped.

Sig calls it a voluntary upgrade. It is not a recall.

The gun met all drop safety testing requirements. It’s not a defective gun as the suit claims and as members here claim.

What happened to the plaintiff is different. It wasn’t dropped (and ALL guns are at risk of discharge if dropped) and he claims it fired at random, essentially.

I find it hard to believe but it will be up to him to prove it.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

A trigger shouldn't be that sensitive to a bump, wiggle or touch - if it was it would most certainly fire if dropped. It takes x lbs to pull a trigger and cause the gun to fire - and factory guns don't have a "hair trigger" for a reason. If a slight bump or wiggle causes a gun to fire then it's an unsafe design.

Personally I agree with everything you wrote but now lets analyze it under color of engineering and tenets of civil law to illustrate how this will be argued ( in methodology, not necessarily in specifics)

>sensitive to a bump, wiggle or touch

None of those can be defined in any engineering metric and are subjective- only things like shock, force, displacement etc. can be measured so to win there the plaintiff will have to define a standard then show the weapon didn't meet it. ( trust me, that's HARD to do)

>if it was it would most certainly fire if dropped. It takes x lbs to pull a trigger and cause the gun to fire

Go look at the average "drop test" ( not every jurisdiction has one) but its normally 3 feet on a FOAM PAD from various angles. A weapon CAN pass that test with flying colors, meet the "standard" and "declare" the weapon wont fire when dropped ( legally and not a defect) but that same weapon could fall from a waist high holster on a concrete sidewalk at some odd angle and fire.

That's not "legally" an unsafe weapon or a defect. ( that's why the disclaimer of mechanical safeties don't replace safe handling practices is there)

That's part 1 for the weapon class ( the 320 in this case)- then comes the specifics of mechanical integrity of the lone gun in question.

That's how these cases really go. People like me do all these things then feed it to the lawyers.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

What people claim is often not what they really do, sometimes they make claims out of self protection, some times they believe their incorrect statements to be true.

This needs its own callout.

I can see SIG arguing (in the motion to dismiss) that all of these claims in the pleading are:

Unvetted by a qualified 3rd party capable of rendering a proper judgement as to the actual cause

The "actors" ( people quoted) were not qualified or authorized to make the statements

The "actors" ( people quoted) are biased and have vested personal and professional interests in removing liability from themselves or their organization ranging from fear of loss of image, status, employment, reputation or other gain.

I can see SIG using the logical fallacy of "if their claims were all that- why didn't all of them sue too" (use the plaintiff's own methods against them in a legal judo technique)

I can see that winning too.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

And NO gun should fire if the trigger is simply "wiggled" with no real rearward force. I'd never own such a unsafely designed gun.

Not singling out Z but using that comment as an illustration for those who may never have done this and would like to see one possible countermeasure.

Imagine the plaintiff saying that in the opening statement.

Imagine this as the defendants counter:

We agree no gun should fire if the trigger is "wiggled" but what is "wiggled" in terms of deflection, tolerance, amplitude and frequency.

We will prove that our design as well as this specific gun meets our standards and accepted industry standards of (insert standards from the list above and expect a demonstration) and that the plaintiffs unintentional actions EXCEEDED these design specifications resulting in such an unfortunate and painful injury.

Now the plaintiff is in the corner taking body blows because now he must show that his actions were within design limits or the company has no liability. That aint easy to do.

 

[ollie]

Sig Sauer has investigated this extensively. The military version of the gun incorporated a manual safety.

The civil version has been updated from the original design to improve the safety level if it is dropped. There is a disconnect in the updated design, along with a lighter trigger to improve resistance to firing if dropped.

Sig calls it a voluntary upgrade. It is not a recall.

The gun met all drop safety testing requirements. It’s not a defective gun as the suit claims and as members here claim.

What happened to the plaintiff is different. It wasn’t dropped (and ALL guns are at risk of discharge if dropped) and he claims it fired at random, essentially.

I find it hard to believe but it will be up to him to prove it.

As I stated there is a claim form for settlement benefits. That in itself proves there was some sort of defect. Just the fact there was a class action lawsuit proves this was not an isolated incident.

As far as a defect I'm not familiar with this model. I'm assuming it's a striker fired design. If that is the case I would imagine the only way for it to discharge without pulling the trigger is a defective sear.

The P320 has since been fitted with a new trigger with minimized mass and a new striker disconnect. My question is if it was drop safe why the upgrade?

The only reason I can see for that is it makes it drop safe. I still think it was a defective sear. The only ones who would know for sure took theirs to a reputable independent gunsmith that inspected every part.

 

[Astro14]

It was drop safe before the modification. It is drop safe after the modification. It is less likely to fire if dropped after the modification. The test for drop safety cannot cover every impact velocity, angle, or surface. It just can’t.

And every firearm owners manual I’ve ever read tells you NOT TO DROP the gun, or it might go off. But they’re still drop safe. Nothing is absolute when you have a firing pin, and other parts, that can move under the inertia of a fall and the sudden impact with a hard surface, resulting in the primer being struck.

Some designs are more resistant than others. None are absolute.

Back to the plaintiff.

If he had simply obeyed the very basic firearm rule of muzzle discipline, “keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction” he would not have the injuries he incurred. When I put my holstered firearm on my belt, and take it off, that muzzle never, and I mean NEVER, sweeps my own leg, or another person. It just doesn’t. Practice that and you won’t shoot yourself in the leg, or the foot.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

As I stated there is a claim form for settlement benefits. That in itself proves there was some sort of defect.

No it doesn't "prove" anything ( especially since there is no admission of anything as part of the settlement)- if something were "proven" then there would be significant liability and possible punitive damages attached and there would be a "judgement" and not an arbitrated agreement.

Just the fact there was a class action lawsuit proves this was not an isolated incident.

Not at all, there are many class action suits out there. A strength in numbers strategy.

The P320 has since been fitted with a new trigger with minimized mass and a new striker disconnect. My question is if it was drop safe why the upgrade?

Part of the agreement called a compromise ( shows good corporate citizenship "taking action" for safety and all that- the fact that its not a "recall" and mandatory should make that clear)

The only reason I can see for that is it makes it drop safe.

There is no such condition

I still think it was a defective sear.

A non issue to be sure relative to this case

The only ones who would know for sure took theirs to a reputable independent gunsmith that inspected every part.

You cant possibly believe that, can you?

 

[UncleDave]

I'm trying to figure out how holstering, and manipulating in condition 1 with zero safeties was ever sound practice.(or likely its condition 0)

This would simply never pass the grandpa test...I can hear him from the grave " Youre lucky you didnt blow your head off dummy"

Im older than striker pin guns, which is part of the problem I guess.

 

[ollie]

I'm trying to figure out how holstering, and manipulating in condition 1 with zero safeties was ever sound practice.(or likely its condition 0)

This would simply never pass the grandpa test...I can hear him from the grave " Youre lucky you didnt blow your head off dummy"

Im older than striker pin guns, which is part of the problem I guess.

I'm with you and don't think it's sound or safe practice at all. I never liked carrying my firearm in condition 1 or 0. I can honestly say I have a healthy fear and respect to be handling any kind of weapon.

The P320 would be a no joy with all of it's issues.

 

[ZeeOSix]

There are members here who like to stir the pot by taking contrary positions for the sake of argument, even when those positions are uninformed.

It’s called trolling.

Half the posts on BITOG are in that realm ... doesn't matter if someone is "informed" enough or not, they can debate their contrary viewpoints and if they are wrong about their viewpoint then it will come out in the debate. That's what a chat board is about.

But when it turns into personal attacks and comments directed in a demeaning personal way (which has happened a few times in this thread) is when it turns to trolling and abuse.