Sig Sauer P320 - Self Discharge Reports

[ZeeOSix]

ZeeOSix said: 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.

Yes, it's his claim and it needs to be proven. I don't think anyone here has said there's solid proof he is 100% correct, but there may be enough evidence that comes out that he is right - that's what court is for. However, there are many here that instantly conclude he did a "Barney Fife" and caused it to go off, and the gun is totally "safe" ... even when there is a safety recall from Sig Sauer saying the gun can self discharge. That right there is a "textbook example of the desired result" of the lawsuit.

Can you imaging if all those people instantly thinking he did a "Barney Fife" were on the jury and didn't even look at the evidence presented?

 

[Astro14]

I don't think the recall from Sig does say that.

The recall says that it improves the drop safety.

That's a far cry from "self discharge" - meaning, "goes off all by itself with nobody pulling the trigger".

And the one case on the Sig forum was of a guy who was manipulating the trigger, though not pulling it fully to the rear. That isn't really a "self discharge" either, because the trigger was being touched.

Sure, it shouldn't fire under those circumstances, if we can believe the poster's description of what happened, but if you don't want a gun to fire, then you absolutely must keep your hands off the trigger!

 

[ollie]

I am still very curious if any owners of a defective P320 have taken them in to a really good gunsmith for inspection. I would imagine that would clear up any theories. Just the thought of a firearm self discharging when pulling it from the holster sends chills through my body. I would send the whole package including the holster to a gunsmith.

 

[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.

I don't recall disagreeing with that statement as written

Yes, it's his claim and it needs to be proven. I don't think anyone here has said there's solid proof he is 100% correct.

Ibid

However, there are many here that instantly conclude he did a "Barney Fife" and caused it to go off and the gun it totally "safe" ... even when there is a safety recall from Sig Sauer saying the gun can self discharge.

That's 2 parts and you need to address those other claims with those making them.

I can see by his own testimony ( and bullet impact) that he violated the most basic tenet of weapon safety by not exercising full muzzle control at all times to to a legitimate degree the "Barney Fife" comparison has a degree of validity. If he knew about the past issues then that adds another degree of culpability.

That right there is "textbook example of the desired result" of the lawsuit. Can you imaging if all those people were on the jury and didn't even look at the evidence presented?

Unfortunately I can do much more than just imagine it, that - that's why a judge can set aside a verdict

 

[ZeeOSix]

The recall says that it improves the drop safety.

Where did you see that - link? I saw no words eluding to enhancing 'drop safety' in the Sig Sauer recall language.

That's a far cry from "self discharge" - meaning, "goes off all by itself with nobody pulling the trigger".

If a firearm goes off when dropped, nobody is touching the trigger. So if the trigger mechnism is defective and that sensitive, then what says it couldn't go off if the gun was manipulated somehow to make it go off without ever touching the trigger?

 

[Astro14]

Zee - ALL FIREARMS are at risk of going off when dropped.

ALL of them. Glock included.

Going off when dropped doesn’t necessarily mean that the gun is defective.

P320 Voluntary Upgrade Program | SIG SAUER

The P320® Voluntary Upgrade Program is a SIG SAUER initiative to upgrade P320 pistols at no additional cost.

www.sigsauer.com

 

[ollie]

The wording in the voluntary upgrade is vague.

The whole point of the lawsuit is the gun is going off without even dropping it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Zee - ALL FIREARMS are at risk of going off when dropped.

ALL of them. Glock included.

Going off when dropped doesn’t necessarily mean that the gun is defective.

P320 Voluntary Upgrade Program | SIG SAUER

The P320® Voluntary Upgrade Program is a SIG SAUER initiative to upgrade P320 pistols at no additional cost.

www.sigsauer.com

Yes, I know. But it going off when not dropped, and going off if manipulated somehow without touching the trigger (if that is indeed the case), is what I'd call defective and a safety issue.

 

[ZeeOSix]

There were a lot more mechanical mods done beside a lighter trigger (reduced mass) to reduce the inertial forces on the trigger if the gun was dropped. Other mods were done not associated with drop safety.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

The wording in the voluntary upgrade is vague.

List what you find vague about it and I'll clarify it

The whole point of the lawsuit is the gun is going off without even dropping it.

Not even close. The "point" of the lawsuit is financial compensation by "claiming" the gun design in question is somehow solely responsible for the accident.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Other mods were done not associated with drop safety.

I can see exactly why the other mods were done, they didn't want the ATFE on them. (Never would have paid any attention if not for that video). That's a blast from the past for sure. Kelly would be proud.

 

[Astro14]

Yes, I know. But it going off when not dropped, and going off if manipulated somehow without touching the trigger (if that is indeed the case), is what I'd call defective and a safety issue.

I don’t disagree.

But the US Army tested this gun over hundreds of thousands of rounds and chose it over the Beretta (which I still like), Glock 19, FN, CZ and S&W.

So, defective? I just don’t see it.

Room for improvement? Maybe. Like Ruger putting a transfer bar on every single action revolver after the fact.

It’s important to note that, at this point, the circumstances of this discharge are claimed. Not proven. A whole lot can happen between the initial claim and proof in court.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Long video, but interesting.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Follow up video from the same guy.

 

[Astro14]

Long video, but interesting.

One guy’s opinion, predicated on the same lawsuit we are discussing. So, nothing new, really, it’s a repeat of the same information, parroted by a different source.

You’re right, it’s long. He rambles.

 

[Tikka]

HaHa … They say at a certain age not to trust it anymore

Hi
Forgive me for going off topic for one moment please lads.

Billy Connolly once said of reaching sixty.
.
'Never waste an opportunity to take a pee'
'Never waste an erection'
'Never trust a fart'

 

[Tikka]

Hi
I have a lot of experience handling firearms but none whatsoever of carrying one on my person. So i hope the following is not a silly question.

Is it acceptable practice, from a safety perspective, to remove a holster with the firearm inside rather than remove the firearm and clear it first?

 

[UncleDave]

Hi
I have a lot of experience handling firearms but none whatsoever of carrying one on my person. So i hope the following is not a silly question.
Is it acceptable practice, from a safety perspective, to remove a holster with the firearm inside rather than remove the firearm and clear it first?

You'll find a wide variety of opinions on any question like this - but I'll give you my answer.

To me it's dependent on the weapon condition.

In condition 0 - no. (magazine inserted, round in chamber, hammer is back or pin is cocked, safety off / no safety )

I personally wouldn't have holstered any weapon in condition 0. Thats simply a recipe for disaster to begin with.

The way I was raised and taught the weapon should only be in that condition just prior to firing - not transporting, wearing or handling.

...and you never ever ever hand anyone a weapon i that condition holstered or not. To me this accident was completely avoidable, but apparently at some point I missed it became OK to carry and manipulate holstered weapons in condition 0.

 

[Doc8404]

You'll find a wide variety of opinions on any question like this - but I'll give you my answer.

To me it's dependent on the weapon condition.

In condition 0 - no. (magazine inserted, round in chamber, hammer is back or pin is cocked, safety off / no safety )

I personally wouldn't have holstered any weapon in condition 0. Thats simply a recipe for disaster to begin with.

The way I was raised and taught the weapon should only be in that condition just prior to firing - not transporting, wearing or handling.

...and you never ever ever hand anyone a weapon i that condition holstered or not. To me this accident was completely avoidable, but apparently at some point I missed it became OK to carry and manipulate holster weapons in condition 0.

Then how do you holster a Glock?

 

[UncleDave]

Then how do you holster a Glock?

I won't holster any weapon in condition 0.