Video mentions new lawsuit filed on upgraded pistols.

PDF here.
SIG Sauer
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about SIG Sauer's P320 pistol. If you own or owned a SIG Sauer P320 pi
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...oaZYyMKViIy4YgsqhI8U

YouTube · Guns & Gadgets
Sig Sauer Settles P320 Class Action Lawsuit Does It Affect You?

Here's the video on the new lawsuit.

Is The SIG P320 UNSAFE?! Lawsuit Detailing Numerous Incidents Says YES!
https://youtu.be/-SBpZBs3foA

i will sell all my glocks.....

Such a shame how far Sig has fallen. How can you trust a company with their track record?

They don't seem very fallen to me. Sales through the roof. One hit firearm after another. This "settlement" merely says "If you have a broken pistol, we'll honor our warrantee and fix it."

They're supplying to police departments, the USMC, the US Army, and the USAF. They're supplying long guns, handguns. They can't build them fast enough. The Legions are a hit.

The law suit is driven by lawyers, not necessarily by legitimate claims, or by actual incidents. It's by claims, recruited by lawyers.

I'm not in a rush to dump my sigs. Those who are, contact me. Again.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sns3guppy,

quote:

Originally posted by sg:
Such a shame how far Sig has fallen. How can you trust a company with their track record?

No way, especially when sig spokesmen have come into the forum, and according to the timelines revealed in the lawsuit, lie about the issue. Then after they couldn’t cover it up any longer, say that carrying with one in the chamber is irresponsible. That’s not even touching the out of battery issue. I’ll stick with my Swiss and German sigs.

Very old news.

The settlement is for the lawyers, not you or I.

The warranty has always been the same and I do not know a single person that has had an AD with a 320 where they didn't have their finger on the trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:


No way, especially when sig spokesmen have come into the forum, and according to the timelines revealed in the lawsuit, lie about the issue. Then after they couldn’t cover it up any longer, say that carrying with one in the chamber is irresponsible. That’s not even touching the out of battery issue. I’ll stick with my Swiss and German sigs.

Who is saying that carrying a P320 with a round in the chamber is irresponsible? Sig isn't saying it.

The upgraded P320 doesn't fire out of battery.

Sig here has managed to do something that Sig in Europe hasn't. Stay in business.

Sig did deny the problem existed, and it's evident they knew about it, because they built the "upgrade" and "fix" int the pistols that they offered to the US military. The "upgrade" was to bring civil pistols up to the military standard, all while denying there was a problem in the first place. Well established. Nothing new. Sig can't change their poor decision. It's history.

Sig did offer an "upgrade," a deceitful way of saying "recall," which was never a recall. The law suit settlement offers nothing new to P320 owners, other than a very small monetary settlement for the named owners, and a promise to honor the warranty to all. That's it.

Many of the cases of negligent discharge are so questionable in nature as to be beyond credibility. Nearly every law enforcement discharge I've read is clearly a failure on the part of the cop, with an effort to blame it on the firearm. I shoot with some cops who are fast and accurate and sharp. Most, the vast majority, are NOT, and are not "gun people." It's a tool on the sam browne belt that gets fumbled occasionally (Glock put the NYC trigger in the G17 not because people were getting shot by cops, but because cops were having negligent discharges, mostly when holstering). I don't find most of these claims believable.

A settlement is no admission of guilt. When someone throws a law suit out there, very often it's about money. Attorneys know that in many cases the best way to contain costs is to settle, and that's what's happened here. Windfall for the fat cats that drove the suit (plaintiff attorneys), and a smart settlement for Sig's defense team.

One hopes the defendants can sleep at night, knowing they blundered reholstering or dropped their weapons off their truck bed and shot themselves in the leg...and tried to claim it was something else.

Nearly every manufacturer says not to carry with one chambered. Focusing on that is stupid. Glock manuals say the same. My Dan Wesson manual says the same. If I could find the FN one, I bet it says the same.

It's an ass-covering statement.

Hey everyone:

First post here.

I'm very concerned hearing this as I had just narrowed down my first firearm purchase to the P320 M18 flavor (with the manual safety). This guns&gear video (along with all the comments there) is giving me pause.

Would the manual safety negate any of this? Or could it still fire uncommanded?

The lawsuit mentions even the upgraded trigger setup has this happening.

Also couldn't find any reference on which flavor of p320 the issue was. I was trying to find the m18 referenced but could not. But since its the same FCU in all p320s (with the exception of the safety model), I was thinking the m18 could be affected.

Was also considering purchasing the p365XL or the m&p compact/shield (my other finalists)?

I'd think if I were purchasing a brand new P320 M18 (like I'm planning to when I can *finally* find one in stock at around $600 or less) that a newly manufactured gun couldn't even possibly have any of these alleged legacy issues correct?

I actually read through the entire brief yesterday and I believe there was >1 alleged claim of it firing uncommanded even AFTER the trigger/voluntary upgrade. That's what gives me pause. I was hoping it was a problem of the past.

Unrelated; let's say the manual safety is on and the firearm is vibrated to hell. Could those vibrations free the striker in any case? I'm not clear on how the manual safety interacts with the FCU, striker, and sear. I probably need to look up some diagrams...

Unrelated; but I also searched thru the m17/m18 manual and could find no wording of "vibrate" or "vibration"

quote:

Originally posted by arooni:
The lawsuit mentions even the upgraded trigger setup has this happening.

Was there evidence cited that supported that claim?

Here's a link to the brief to the brief.

The lawsuit mentions > 1 case of the upgraded trigger allegedly still having issues.

quote:

Originally posted by arooni:
The lawsuit mentions > 1 case of the upgraded trigger allegedly still having issues.

Can you tell us where in that it is mentioned—page number, for example?
Or, even better, if it mentions any evidence other than a claim? (If I were concerned enough, I might read the entire document to try to find it; I am not, however.)

As for your questions, though, I can say with more than a little assurance that none of the mechanical things that could conceivably lead to an unintentional discharge have been discussed here. They would have been of great interest to many members and the resulting discussion would have been about impossible for a regular member to have not noticed. That was demonstrated by what happened on the forum when the pre-“upgrade” problems were reported.

Ultimately, of course, you seem to be asking for proof of an unprovable negative: “I’m concerned about these things; prove to me they can’t happen.” Despite common beliefs to the contrary, some negatives are easily proved, but this isn’t one of them. I have no personal interest in the matter other than to see if anything further develops that I should know about, but when someone tells me they’re not comfortable purchasing a product—from a ham sandwich to a house—my usual advice is just don’t do it. There are plenty of available alternatives.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

Can you tell us where in that it is mentioned—page number, for example?

Paragraph 88, Page 25:

quote:

88. In May 2018, a Rancho Cucamonga, California, officer reported that his “upgraded” P320 fired un-commanded while he was merely walking inside his department locker room; the casing of the round did not eject.

Paragraph 92, Page 26:

quote:

92. On May 19, 2019, the upgraded P320 of Lieutenant Thomas Ahern of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, SWAT team fired un-commanded inside a SWAT van with six other occupants while he was working a shift for the annual Mayfair event near Harvard Square. The round struck a metal plate affixed to his cellphone case, deflected into a SWAT gear bag, and came to rest in a ballistic helmet, narrowly missing everyone. The casing of the round did not eject. Lieutenant Ahern is a SIG-certified armorer on the P320 with significant weapons experience.

Paragraph 93, Page 26:

quote:

93. On July 23, 2019, an upgraded P320 fired un-commanded on Officer Walter Collette, Jr. of the Somerville, Massachusetts, police department, hitting him in his leg and causing substantial injuries to his leg. The next day, an upgraded P320 fired un-commanded on a Homeland Security Agent at a firing range in the Bronx, New York.

Paragraph 94, Page 26:

quote:

94. In August of 2019, a Philadelphia transit officer’s upgraded P320 fired un-commanded while fully-holstered, nearly striking a bystander in the subway. The incident was captured on video, it shows an “upgraded” P320 firing without the gun ever being touched and seated inside its holster. The officer involved, who noted that the round almost hit a bystander, was returned to duty the next day fully exonerated and with no discipline.

Paragraph 96, Page 27:

quote:

96. On September 3, 2019, another upgraded and re-designed P320 in use by the Loudoun County, Virginia, sheriff’s office fired un-commanded on another Loudoun County deputy sheriff, Carl Costello, hitting him in his leg.

Paragraphs 98-99, Page 27:

quote:

98. On October 11, 2019, a P320 fired un-commanded on Veterans Affairs police officer Frank J. Kneski, striking him beneath his lower back as he was un-holstering the weapon. Upon inspection it was found that the spent casing did not eject.

99. The Kneski discharge was investigated by Major Peter J. Villani of the United States Veterans Affairs police agency, also a SIG-certified armorer. In his report, he noted the following:
After reviewing the Officer’s sidearm, it was noted that the P-320 came from Sig Sauer to the distributor prior to the point of sale already with the “upgrade” completed. The sidearm had approximately 100 rounds through it since purchased.
Upon further examination of the internal parts of the frame module, I noticed that the foot of the striker that catches the [sear] has noticeable side to side and up and down movement within its channel along with upward movement of the slide from the frame. Also, the edge of the striker foot which has a height thickness of approximately 2mm, is only making contact with approximately .25 of a mm of the leading edge only of the disconnector hook. Since the striker has been changed with a lighter weight version during the “upgrade program”, it is quite possible that any abrupt movement or twisting of the P-320 while holstered, could cause the foot of the striker to disengage itself from the disconnector hook on its own since there is so little contact between the striker foot and the [sear].

It appears that Guay's pistol was not "upgraded." Bagnell, arguing for Guay, states that it's Sig's fault that Guay didn't get the "upgrade" done because Sig didn't make him do it with a "mandatory recall." Becasue Sig didn't force Guay to exercise common sense, Guay is at fault for shooting himself. It appears that Guay is an idiot, and wants someone to pay for it.

Thanks for all that, sns3guppy.