Sig P320 spontaneous discharges?

Just saw a couple of updates on this model. One is that I found out that another Sgt. friend flatly prohibits them at his agency (and that's among his duties and authority) based on the same kinds of reports I referred to earlier in this string. I also saw that there have been two recent documented in holster discharges that were NOT NDs, but ADs. One was in a clearly secured holster during a fight with a resistant suspect (who could not have gotten to the trigger) (Milwaukee PD, IIRC); another was a fed with an also secured holster. I know of the sources of these reports; they are credible (no, I do not belong to ARFcom).
 
Doug M. said:
Just saw a couple of updates on this model. One is that I found out that another Sgt. friend flatly prohibits them at his agency (and that's among his duties and authority) based on the same kinds of reports I referred to earlier in this string. I also saw that there have been two recent documented in holster discharges that were NOT NDs, but ADs. One was in a clearly secured holster during a fight with a resistant suspect (who could not have gotten to the trigger) (Milwaukee PD, IIRC); another was a fed with an also secured holster. I know of the sources of these reports; they are credible (no, I do not belong to ARFcom).
Click to expand...
What federal agency is issuing Sig P 320s for duty sidearms?
 
No idea. It could have been an off-duty gun, or a personally owned department authorized pistol. There are well over 100 federal law enforcement agencies. Before someone has a screaming cow about that, federal agencies are not like local agencies - they are generally specialized entities with relatively limited fields of endeavor. The federal government does not have agencies that are general authority and about the only ones you will see that look and act like real cops are folks like rangers in the big national parks. Most feds are criminal investigators, the 1811 job classification. They are not radio slaves who go to every unfortunate call that there is.
 
If the federal agency can't be stated, I'd have to question if the "documented" Sig P320 AD case is valid. Only a few National Park Rangers are armed. The vast majority aren't. Actually, I think your take on federal officers compared to "real cops" is flawed. I know of no federal agency, outside of the military, that issues Sig P 320 pistols.
 
Last edited:
BE Mike said:
If the federal agency can't be stated, I'd have to question if the "documented" Sig P320 AD case is valid. Only a few National Park Rangers are armed. The vast majority aren't. Actually, I think your take on federal officers compared to "real cops" is flawed. I know of no federal agency, outside of the military, that issues Sig P 320 pistols.
Click to expand...

ICE issues the P320.
 
CAJUNLAWYER said:
Except that SIG never recalled the pistol. They offered a "voluntary upgrade" which is WAYYYYYYYYYY different from an urgent safety recall-do not fire or carry this gun until returned to the factory recall. SIG scrupulously avoiding using the word "recall" and specifically stated that it would make the pistol "even more safe" without indicating in any way that there were instances of the gun going off without the trigger being touched. If this is in fact provable, this ranks up with the Pinto exploding gas tank fiasco.
LVSteve in the scenario you posted, I completely agree with your analysis and conclusion, but a careful reading of the allegations contained within the petition indicates, if proven, a lot more at work here-close to an actual cover up. If that is the case I hope SIG gets torn a new one, not for the mistake but for the coverup
Click to expand...


I "love it" when company's call it a "campaign":rolleyes:
 
BE Mike said:
Thanks for the information. It looks like Air Marshals, Secret Service and DHS carries the Sig P320, as well. I saw where the Border Patrol is transitioning to the Glock.
Click to expand...

The Air Marshals issue the Sig 229 in .357 Sig for now. Soon to change to the Glock 19. I think the USSS still have 229 .357s, too.

I know DHS put in an order for a slew of 320s. I wouldn’t be surprised if they held off on issuing them.
 
sigp220.45 said:
The Air Marshals issue the Sig 229 in .357 Sig for now. Soon to change to the Glock 19. I think the USSS still have 229 .357s, too.
Click to expand...

I believe USSS will be going to the Glock 19, too, if they haven't started issuing them already.
 
The agency was not identified. The fed was just referred to as a fed. As for my take, that's my experience. "Criminal Investigators" under job classification 1811 are not like uniformed radio slaves. Rangers: I meant LE rangers, not the uniformed tour guides. They are different classifications. The LE rangers are 1805s as far as I know.
 
Just to clear up a point, how many for certain, factory modified or new 320's that included the modification, have actually discharged without some operator help.
 
Doug M. said:
The agency was not identified. The fed was just referred to as a fed. As for my take, that's my experience. "Criminal Investigators" under job classification 1811 are not like uniformed radio slaves. Rangers: I meant LE rangers, not the uniformed tour guides. They are different classifications. The LE rangers are 1805s as far as I know.
Click to expand...
I still don't get your point about "real cops". Are you unhappy that you are in a uniformed position within a police department or do you think that officers in soft clothes have it too easy? What does any of it have to do with Sig P 320 pistols and incidents supposedly involving them discharging in holsters without being handled?
 
Neither. A fed "Criminal Investigator" and a local officer have very different duties, a fact not known to most people outside the system. Local cops, more or less, have to deal with everything that comes their way, at least initially. I would not care to be a fed; I liked being a uniformed cop when I did that. Among other things, I rarely had to put up with working dayshift, which is for me the utter armpit of policing. I never voluntarily worked a dayshift.

Feds have very limited authority and duties. I've seen cases with for example, drugs and guns, which are sometimes taken by DEA, some times by ATF, based on criteria internal to the agencies. EPA criminal investigators are very specialized, etc. Federal Criminal Investigators are limited to specific areas, and will not even response to things outside that (topic) area. There are no federal agencies that have the general authority to respond to anything. They tend to have very detailed knowledge about what they do ... but not stuff outside that.
 
Last edited:
Doug M. said:
Neither. A fed "Criminal Investigator" and a local officer have very different duties, a fact not known to most people outside the system. Local cops, more or less, have to deal with everything that comes their way, at least initially. I would not care to be a fed; I liked being a uniformed cop when I did that. Among other things, I rarely had to put up with working dayshift, which is for me the utter armpit of policing. I never voluntarily worked a dayshift.

Feds have very limited authority and duties. I've seen cases with for example, drugs and guns, which are sometimes taken by DEA, some times by ATF, based on criteria internal to the agencies. EPA criminal investigators are very specialized, etc. Federal Criminal Investigators are limited to specific areas, and will not even response to things outside that (topic) area. There are no federal agencies that have the general authority to respond to anything. They tend to have very detailed knowledge about what they do ... but not stuff outside that.
Click to expand...
Myself, having some intimate knowledge on the subject, agree and I think it is a good thing that we don't have a federal police force. Probably the closest thing we have to it is the U.S. Marshals. We'll just have to see how the facts regarding the Sig P320 allegations shake out.
 
Yup. Some folks have a cow about so many federal LE agencies, but the reality is that this is a pro-liberty reality. I have a friend at ATF who has been a great resource for various things like the impact of certain court orders that I am assessing for my client agency. She is assigned to a task force in which her limited authority is a problem and it frustrates her. I am helping her think about and spec personal rifle consistent with her needs and capabilities, including that she is very tiny.
 
Although I haven't read every single line of every post concerning the alleged spontaneous discharge of a P320 while still in a holster, I've read enough to have a few questions that I haven't seen addressed.

1. What was the experience level of the officers involved with a striker-fired handgun? Historical note: I was originally trained on DA revolvers and later transitioned to DA pistols, both in the military and civilian sectors. I did shoot competition with SA pistols, but never carried them as duty weapons. One drill that was practiced (fortunately not too often) was the "speed rock" or speed draw. In this drill, where you are engaging a target at very close range with a holstered weapon, you were trained to apply trigger pressure as soon as the muzzle cleared the holster, so that when the muzzle was on target (horizontal or nearly so), the weapon would fire. So if an officer has been trained on a traditional DA auto, and has recently transitioned to a striker-fired auto, there may be an issue with un-learning habits appropriate for the previous weapon, but certainly inappropriate for the new weapon. The Deputy from Virginia is an eight year veteran of the department. What weapon was she trained on in the academy, what weapon did she carry before the P320, what type of holster is she accustomed to carrying? All of these questions are pertinent.

2. There is a mention of holsters in the court proceedings of Virginia deputy. I had one of the poly multi-fit SIG holsters (I believe they're made by Fobus for SIG) and my P320 did not fit well in it. As it was only a $10 holster (on sale from CDNN), I threw it out. In this case, and others (such as the Canadian case where a P320 discharged when it was placed in a SIG P226 holster), I'd question what holster was being used, and especially if the holster was made for the P320 and was the right size, i.e., was a full size P320 being placed/carried in a carry/compact size holster. Another question would be if there is an internal retention device on the holster that engages the trigger guard, i.e. Serpa-style. Could this internal locking device apply pressure to the trigger in such a manner that minor jostling of the holster would allow the striker to move forward and hit the cartridge primer, firing the chambered round? Back to history, I remember product warnings about trigger shoes on DA revolvers, and even 1911 autos, that could hang up on the edge of a holster as the weapon was being holstered, causing the weapon to fire inadvertently.

In my over 50 years of experience with firearms, I've never seen one fire all by itself.
 
I find it interesting that of all the 320 owners, only 20% have taken Sig up on the voluntary recall. 80% trust the gun or don't know about the issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

biku324
SIG P320 Discharges?
6 7 8
Replies
155
Views
7K
Thaddeus Beauregard
T
Mainsail
Testing my P320 for Undesired Discharge
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
sparkyvega
sparkyvega
S
Is the tabbed trigger safety necessary? Part 2
Replies
4
Views
3K
tops
tops

Latest posts

Back
Top