Sig Sauer P320 No Safety Against Inadvertent Discharges Missouri Class Action

The Sig Sauer P320 pistol is very popular in the US. The complaint for this class action describes it as “the selected service model for several law enforcement agencies and the United States Army.” But the complaint alleges that the striker-fired P320 does not have the safety features of pistols sold by Sig Sauer, Inc.’s competitors, and that it is therefore susceptible to inadvertent firings.

The class for this action is all persons who bought a Sig Sauer model P320 pistol without an external safety in Missouri, between September 1, 2017 and the present.

The complaint explains a feature of striker-fired pistols versus hammer-fired ones: “Because there is no hammer to cock or release, the trigger pull of most striker-fired pistols are incredibly easy to pull and have low pull-weights.”

Some striker-fired pistols have safety features to compensate for this. The complaint describes one, a “trigger toggle,” or “a small tab in the face of the trigger that has to be fully depressed for the trigger to move rearward and fire the pistol.”

The Sig Sauer catalog, as quoted in the complaint, brags about the P320 being the professional choice in pistols: “Chosen by all branches of the US military, as well as law enforcement agencies across the country and around the world, the P320 redefines the modern handgun.” But it doesn’t mention one thing, the complaint alleges: “Sig Sauer never discloses that the military version of the pistol contains an ambidextrous manual safety.”

The default consumer version contains no such safety precaution (although an ambidextrous manual safety is offered as an option). The complaint alleges that it is therefore much more susceptible to inadvertent firings, that is, discharges of the pistol without a trigger pull, and that the company “does not warn, advise, or tell consumers about the increased likelihood of the P320 inadvertently discharging due to the absence of these external safety features.”

Not even the Owner’s Manual discloses this to consumers, the complaint claims. Also, it alleges, “Sig Sauer also never warns consumers that they will need to engage in enhanced and heightened safety procedures because of the P320’s lack of any external safety procedures” and it “omits any instructions about how to properly and safely use such a firearm.”

In 2017, Sig Sauer offered a voluntary upgrade program (VUP) that the complaint claims “‘updated’ the P320’s slide and its trigger, but [] did not add a safety feature to the trigger. … Thus, Sig Sauer’s VUP did not enhance the firearm’s external safety features…”

Page 7 contains a chart showing more than twenty lawsuits that have been filed against Sig Sauer since 2018 (that is, after the VUP), alleging that the P320 discharged without the trigger being pulled.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Firearm Inadvertent Discharge or Firing, Firearms, Safety or Sensing System