Wasn't that also when Blackhawk holsters were the "in" thing and their draw usually dropped the trigger finger over the trigger?
Sidearms & Scatterguns Two more P320s discharge in Holster.
- Thread starter ut755ln
- Start date
That holster didn’t help, but back then it was much more the trigger pull. Then very few people had ever touched a striker fired weapon, and the revolvers were a 12 to 14 pound double action pull. Then with minimal training now they have a fiveish pound trigger pull, and they had spent possibly decades with the finger on the trigger. Those holsters came later(at least a decade), but they definitely caused a new round of trigger pulls.
Thank you @Jgault for this report !!!
James TERTIN report CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Sig Sauer P320 is functionally a single-action pistol because the striker is under full tension prior to the trigger pull.
2. The P320's trigger pull does not meaningfully cock the striker, and only serves to release the striker.
3. Single-action pistols must have an external safety that blocks the trigger from being inadvertently discharged because the extremely short distance the trigger must travel to release the firing mechanism creates a high risk of accidental discharge.
4. The Sig Sauer P320, as designed, is generally not equipped with any manual safeties.
5. The subject P320 was not equipped with any manual safeties.
6. The inclusion of a manual thumb safety on the military model of the P320 proves that it is possible for P320 to be equipped with a manual thumb safety.
7. Sig Sauer could have easily included a manual thumb safety, grip safety, or tabbed trigger safety on the P320.
8. The P320 is the only single-action firearm on the market that does not come equipped with any sort of manual safety.
Note:This opinion is rendered based upon the undersigned's over fifty years' of experience working in the firearms industry, as well as extensive market research performed in preparation of this report. To the extent the undersigned is made aware of a single-action firearm available without any sort of manual safety, the undersigned reserves the right to amend this report and/or issue a supplemental opinion.
9. The P320 is unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed because the combination of its extremely short single-action trigger-pull and lack of external safeties makes it far too easy for the trigger to be accidentally actuated.
10. An ordinary user of the P320, without detailed knowledge of the internal mechanics of the pistol, would likely not recognize how dangerously defective and out of the ordinary the P320's design is.
11. Sig Sauer was aware that some users would carry the pistol with a round in the chamber, despite acknowledging in some manuals that the practice was dangerous.
12. In the event Mr. Slatowski's trigger was touched by his finger or a foreign object, the firearm most likely would not have discharged if it was equipped with a manual safety.
13. In the event Mr. Slatowski's trigger was touched by his finger or a foreign object, it would have been much more difficult for the trigger to fully actuate if the pistol was a double-action pistol like those manufactured by Glock.
14. In the event that Mr. Slatowski's trigger was touched by his finger or a foreign object, it most likely would not have discharged if the gun was safely designed.
15. The defective design of the P320 was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's accident, in the event that his finger or a foreign object touched the trigger.
16. If Sig Sauer had not made the only single-action pistol on the market without any manual safeties, Plaintiff's accident most likely would not have occurred, in the event it was caused by his finger or a foreign object touching the trigger.
17. The P320's internal safeties are disengaged by a trigger depression of under seventy-five one-thousandths of one inch, with 1.5 pounds or less pressure. If the P320's internal safeties are disengaged by pressure against the holster or a foreign object, the P320 is susceptible to a discharge if the gun is impacted.
18. The P320's defective design accounts for the dramatic increase in unintended discharges within ICE since ICE approved the P320 for use.
Last edited:
My opinion is that this right here is the most significant contributing factor. Study enough of these pistols, and my guess is that you'll find one that either disengages the firing pin block at full trigger return, or does so with trivial rearward moment.
It's a design totally unsuitable for the intended purpose and needs to be pulled from the market.
Sig sent dealers a letter yesterday that includes, among other things, a phone number to report ranges and instructors that have banned the 320.
You can read it here: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/SIG-Official-Statement/5-2806870/
You can read it here: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/SIG-Official-Statement/5-2806870/
Regarding James TERTIN report sourced by @Jgault
Sig Sauer Loses Bid to disqualify Experts in Accidental Firing Case
MARCH 19, 2025
The Sixth Circuit’s denial of Sig Sauer’s petition leaves intact a published Jan. 27 decision finding a pair of experts could testify that the design of the pistol made it easier for the gun to be discharged unintentionally.
Law360 (March 19, 2025) — The Sixth Circuit on Tuesday rejected Sig Sauer’s petition for the full court to disqualify expert testimony that its P320 pistol was defectively designed because it lacked safety features used in other firearms.
The gunmaker had sought en banc review of a decision allowing the experts to opine in support of claims that the Sig Sauer Inc.-made gun is prone to firing unintentionally. Sig Sauer is the target of numerous personal injury lawsuits across the country from gun owners who say their P320 pistols discharged without pulling the trigger.
The Sixth Circuit’s denial of Sig Sauer’s petition leaves intact a published Jan. 27 decision finding a pair of experts could testify that the design of the pistol made it easier for the gun to be discharged unintentionally when compared to rival products, and that Sig Sauer failed to use external safety mechanisms found in other guns.
The appellate panel’s 2-1 ruling in the case revived the claims of Timothy Davis, a P320 owner who sued Sig Sauer after his gun discharged into his leg while he was getting out of his truck.
Experts James Tertin, a professional gunsmith, and William Vigilante, a risk analysis expert, were disqualified by the Kentucky district court judge presiding over Davis’ case. The judge had tossed Davis’ suit entirely because expert testimony is required for a product liability action under Kentucky law.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit majority found the experts were correctly excluded from testifying about what caused the gun to go off inadvertently but should have been permitted to testify about the design of the P320 and alternative safety features Sig Sauer could have used.
Sig Sauer has defeated other defective design cases brought by P320 owners in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma by disqualifying their expert witnesses.
Keith Gibson of Littleton Park Joyce Ughetta & Kelly LLP said in a statement that Sig Sauer was “disappointed” by the Sixth Circuit’s decision but endorsed Judge Amul R. Thapar’s dissent from the panel’s January ruling, in which the judge had observed that the pistol’s lack of a manual safety was “a feature, not a bug.”
“To citizens who exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves and their families by carrying a firearm, it makes good sense. It allows them to draw, aim and fire at a moment’s notice, warding off danger and saving themselves and their loved ones from harm. That’s a feature, not a bug. And so long as the owner follows the golden rule of gun safety — don’t place your finger inside the trigger guard until you’re ready to fire — he can feel confident carrying such a firearm, even with a round in the chamber,” Judge Thapar wrote.
Robert Zimmerman of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendensky, who represents Davis in the Kentucky case, said he agreed with the Sixth Circuit’s decision to deny Sig Sauer’s petition.
“Mr. Davis’ case has survived all legal challenges to date, and his case should be resolved by a jury of his peers,” Zimmerman said.
The gunmaker has been hit with multimillion-dollar verdicts in Georgia and Pennsylvania in unintentional discharge cases involving the P320 brought by plaintiffs represented by Zimmerman and his firm, Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendensky.
Sig Sauer has appealed the Georgia jury’s $2.3 million verdict to the Eleventh Circuit. Davis is represented by Robert W. Zimmerman of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky and Doug Morris and Lea Player of Morris & Player PLLC.
Sig Sauer is represented by Brian Keith Gibson, Jonathan T. Woy, Kristen E. Dennison and Robert L. Joyce of Littleton Park Joyce Ughetta & Kelly LLP and Marshall R. Hixson, Robin E. McGuffin and Kyle S. Schroader of Stites & Harbison PLLC.
The case is Davis v. Sig Sauer Inc., case number 24-5210, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Source : https://www.smbb.com/news-article/sig-sauer-loses-bid-to-dq-experts-in-accidental-firing-case/
Sig Sauer Loses Bid to disqualify Experts in Accidental Firing Case
MARCH 19, 2025
The Sixth Circuit’s denial of Sig Sauer’s petition leaves intact a published Jan. 27 decision finding a pair of experts could testify that the design of the pistol made it easier for the gun to be discharged unintentionally.
Law360 (March 19, 2025) — The Sixth Circuit on Tuesday rejected Sig Sauer’s petition for the full court to disqualify expert testimony that its P320 pistol was defectively designed because it lacked safety features used in other firearms.
The gunmaker had sought en banc review of a decision allowing the experts to opine in support of claims that the Sig Sauer Inc.-made gun is prone to firing unintentionally. Sig Sauer is the target of numerous personal injury lawsuits across the country from gun owners who say their P320 pistols discharged without pulling the trigger.
The Sixth Circuit’s denial of Sig Sauer’s petition leaves intact a published Jan. 27 decision finding a pair of experts could testify that the design of the pistol made it easier for the gun to be discharged unintentionally when compared to rival products, and that Sig Sauer failed to use external safety mechanisms found in other guns.
The appellate panel’s 2-1 ruling in the case revived the claims of Timothy Davis, a P320 owner who sued Sig Sauer after his gun discharged into his leg while he was getting out of his truck.
Experts James Tertin, a professional gunsmith, and William Vigilante, a risk analysis expert, were disqualified by the Kentucky district court judge presiding over Davis’ case. The judge had tossed Davis’ suit entirely because expert testimony is required for a product liability action under Kentucky law.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit majority found the experts were correctly excluded from testifying about what caused the gun to go off inadvertently but should have been permitted to testify about the design of the P320 and alternative safety features Sig Sauer could have used.
Sig Sauer has defeated other defective design cases brought by P320 owners in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma by disqualifying their expert witnesses.
Keith Gibson of Littleton Park Joyce Ughetta & Kelly LLP said in a statement that Sig Sauer was “disappointed” by the Sixth Circuit’s decision but endorsed Judge Amul R. Thapar’s dissent from the panel’s January ruling, in which the judge had observed that the pistol’s lack of a manual safety was “a feature, not a bug.”
“To citizens who exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves and their families by carrying a firearm, it makes good sense. It allows them to draw, aim and fire at a moment’s notice, warding off danger and saving themselves and their loved ones from harm. That’s a feature, not a bug. And so long as the owner follows the golden rule of gun safety — don’t place your finger inside the trigger guard until you’re ready to fire — he can feel confident carrying such a firearm, even with a round in the chamber,” Judge Thapar wrote.
Robert Zimmerman of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendensky, who represents Davis in the Kentucky case, said he agreed with the Sixth Circuit’s decision to deny Sig Sauer’s petition.
“Mr. Davis’ case has survived all legal challenges to date, and his case should be resolved by a jury of his peers,” Zimmerman said.
The gunmaker has been hit with multimillion-dollar verdicts in Georgia and Pennsylvania in unintentional discharge cases involving the P320 brought by plaintiffs represented by Zimmerman and his firm, Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendensky.
Sig Sauer has appealed the Georgia jury’s $2.3 million verdict to the Eleventh Circuit. Davis is represented by Robert W. Zimmerman of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky and Doug Morris and Lea Player of Morris & Player PLLC.
Sig Sauer is represented by Brian Keith Gibson, Jonathan T. Woy, Kristen E. Dennison and Robert L. Joyce of Littleton Park Joyce Ughetta & Kelly LLP and Marshall R. Hixson, Robin E. McGuffin and Kyle S. Schroader of Stites & Harbison PLLC.
The case is Davis v. Sig Sauer Inc., case number 24-5210, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Source : https://www.smbb.com/news-article/sig-sauer-loses-bid-to-dq-experts-in-accidental-firing-case/
Last edited:
The end user R&D model is highly profitable though.
Let me stop you right there in your legal mumbo jumbo spiel...
The SIG P320 is available for anyone to purchase with a manual thumb safety.
Just like the P365 is available for anyone to purchase with a manual thumb safety.
Anyone can go out and purchase the P320-M17 or P320-M18 or the P320MS and have a manual thumb safety if they wish.
The USERS or the purchasing agents of agencies, WILLINGLY chose NOT to get the manual thumb safety versions.
(Some like me, specifically ONLY bought manual thumb safety versions).
Look at about all the writers of the gun mags and even most of the "knowledgeable" folks here on SH
They almost always ridicule any form of manual safety and viciously make fun of anyone wishing their pistol to have a manual safety.
So trying to claim SIG was evil because they didn't make the P320 with a manual safety is going to fall flat the first time Sig shows up with their catalogue clearly listing the Manual Thumb Safety as an option that was available.
However there are also some reports that even with a manual thumb safety things might still have an uncommanded discharge.
That is still yet to be proven.
Hi @W54/XM-388
I just copy/paste the conclusions of James TERTIN’s report.
The purpose of the report was to analyze the adequacy and sufficiency of the safety mechanisms on Keith Slatowski's duty-issued Sig Sauer P320C Nitron Compact pistol.
5. The subject P320 was not equipped with any manual safeties. (This is just a fact regarding Keith Slatowski’s P320C)
Some users aren’t able to choose their pistol.
Manual thumb safety is an additional safety barrier, congratulations for your choice.
The trigger safety lever incorporated into the trigger of other brands could also be an additional barrier
Above is the Swiss cheese model (James REASON), a conceptual framework for the description of accidents based on the notion that accidents will happen only if multiple barriers fail, thus creating a path from an initiating cause to the ultimate, unwanted consequences, such as harm to people
For example, GLOCK choose to not use a Manual Thumb Safety, as they considerer other barriers are sufficient.
But if for some reasons, losses occur, something has to be done to put additional barriers.
Last edited:
The manual safety was not available for the first several years.
SIG SAUER P320 documentation :
The internal safeties on the P320 are designed to prevent it from firing without the trigger being fully pulled.
SIG SAUER P320 recent declaration:
The P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without the trigger first being moved to the rear.
The internal safeties on the P320 are designed to prevent it from firing without the trigger being fully pulled.
SIG SAUER P320 recent declaration:
The P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without the trigger first being moved to the rear.
Last edited:
Blackhawk holsters were never the in thing for anyone not retarded. Massively flawed design than allowed debris or a broken latch to cause discharge when drawing. We knew 20 years ago they were a liability. Virtually all the competent trainers banned them from their classes early on.
All holsters are suspectable to foreign objects. ( Don't wear a starter jacket or something with Chinese buttons that hang down). That's why you look into the empty holster and then holster slowly to ensure nothing is hanging up or potentially caught on the trigger.
What they are saying In lawyer terms now is the gun won't fire without trigger moving to rear. What they conveniently leave out is it doesn't take a finger to move the trigger to the rear. That's like saying a gun won't fire without the firing pin striking the primer. Well no shit. Sig is super fucked and keeps backing themselves into a corner. Those bribes and payoffs won't come in handy now those people are all retired.
Don't forget to register your p320 as a DD. Don't need ATF charging you when it grenades.
Some orgs were issued them. I think I still have one or two that I was issued for deployments. I used a different holster that I ran instead, but still.
I think those fall under, good intent but poor execution? That might be a nice way of saying it?
Last edited:
Sig Sauer, faced with lawsuits over a popular pistol, gets protection in New Hampshire
Sig Sauer, faced with lawsuits over a popular pistol, gets protection in New Hampshire
Faced with mounting lawsuits over a popular pistol, New Hampshire-based gunmaker Sig Sauer has gotten protection in the form of a new state law that makes it harder to take the manufacturer to court.
apnews.com
BY KATHY MCCORMACK
Updated 6:06 AM UTC+2, June 20, 2025
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Faced with mounting lawsuits over a popular pistol, New Hampshire-based Sig Sauer asked for — and got — protection in the form of a new state law that makes it harder to take the gunmaker to court.
Supporters in the Republican-led Legislature said the law was needed to help a major employer. The lawsuits say Sig Sauer’s P320 pistol can go off without the trigger being pulled, an allegation the company denies.
The law covers all gun manufacturers and federal firearm licensees in product liability claims regarding the “absence or presence” of four specific safety features. One of those features is an external mechanical safety that people suing Sig Sauer say should be standard on the P320, based on its design. Claims can still be filed over manufacturing defects.
Oh I remember. Moron Supply SGTs who couldn't qualify with a pistol making unit PC purchases. Compared the green flap us army holster then were nice, but just about everyone either had a tanker (shoulder holster) or ran a safari land.
You rarely saw them in use with units that actually test equipment to vet it before buying it. Unfortunately that is like 98% of the Army and Marines. When I got back and started building guns professionally and taking training, it was quickly taught by the OGs (Vickers, Rogers, Mac, Leatham, Hackathorn, Barnhart, Howe) that they were not welcome in classes.
Amazingly, Glock/HK/S&W/Walther and a whole list of other manufactures can make a striker fired gun without a manual safety, that does not go off without someone or something actually PULLING the trigger.Sig Sauer, faced with lawsuits over a popular pistol, gets protection in New Hampshire
Sig Sauer, faced with lawsuits over a popular pistol, gets protection in New Hampshire
Faced with mounting lawsuits over a popular pistol, New Hampshire-based gunmaker Sig Sauer has gotten protection in the form of a new state law that makes it harder to take the manufacturer to court.
BY KATHY MCCORMACK
Updated 6:06 AM UTC+2, June 20, 2025
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Faced with mounting lawsuits over a popular pistol, New Hampshire-based Sig Sauer asked for — and got — protection in the form of a new state law that makes it harder to take the gunmaker to court.
Supporters in the Republican-led Legislature said the law was needed to help a major employer. The lawsuits say Sig Sauer’s P320 pistol can go off without the trigger being pulled, an allegation the company denies.
The law covers all gun manufacturers and federal firearm licensees in product liability claims regarding the “absence or presence” of four specific safety features. One of those features is an external mechanical safety that people suing Sig Sauer say should be standard on the P320, based on its design. Claims can still be filed over manufacturing defects.
Might be worth reading about USDJ Douglas Harpool, who signed the Order. I would bet his decision to sign this Order came with awareness of the public criticisms found on social media, and what sort of mess he takes his court into by signing this Order.
en.wikipedia.org
M. Douglas Harpool - Wikipedia
You just predicted the plaintiffs' lawyers strategy for questioning SIG USA's mechanical engineering or "human factors" expert(s). And you can see how SIG USA is absolutely boxed in here.
Yep. "State of the art" is very much a real thing in product liability lawsuits, and the mere existence of those other guns that don't go off by themselves will be an enormous problem.
Imagine trying to defend the decision to fully cock the striker and deactivate the firing pin block with the slightest rearward trigger travel, when other pistols that have been on the market for more than three decades took a far more conservative approach.
I’ve avoided the Sig P320/M18/M17’s since they hit the market, partly because I think a fully-cocked striker isn’t a great idea for a duty gun IMO, but mostly because I knew where the P320 came from: the shittier than shitty failed DAO P250 that Sig tried first a few years earlier.
When I heard they were trying to redesign a new gun to fit inside the frame of an already failed weapons system to save/recoup on their investment instead of designing it from the ground up, I knew Sig couldn’t be trusted to not fuck it up.
I owned and put a ton of money into running (or more like trying to get to run) an MPX for far too long, so I’m kind of an expert in how “new Sig” does things lol.
That said, while the P250 sucked, at least it didn’t go off on its own and could be used as a tool instead of being a roll of the dice that might kill you.
Seriously, look into the failed P250 debacle if anyone is wondering how Sig could’ve messed this up so royally…
(P.S. if anyone thinks the manual-safety variants are any safer, if you know how these guns work, you’re wrong. The manual-safety variants may prevent the trigger from moving, but IDK how they can prevent the sear from falling off the striker-tang, and that’s what’s happening when these things are going bang un-commanded.)
When I heard they were trying to redesign a new gun to fit inside the frame of an already failed weapons system to save/recoup on their investment instead of designing it from the ground up, I knew Sig couldn’t be trusted to not fuck it up.
I owned and put a ton of money into running (or more like trying to get to run) an MPX for far too long, so I’m kind of an expert in how “new Sig” does things lol.
That said, while the P250 sucked, at least it didn’t go off on its own and could be used as a tool instead of being a roll of the dice that might kill you.
Seriously, look into the failed P250 debacle if anyone is wondering how Sig could’ve messed this up so royally…
(P.S. if anyone thinks the manual-safety variants are any safer, if you know how these guns work, you’re wrong. The manual-safety variants may prevent the trigger from moving, but IDK how they can prevent the sear from falling off the striker-tang, and that’s what’s happening when these things are going bang un-commanded.)
Similar threads
