By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A Bothell, Washington resident has reportedly filed “a proposed class-action lawsuit” against Sig Sauer, alleging that the P320 semi-auto pistol has a safety defect which can result in unintentional discharges.
According to KIRO News, the CBS affiliate in Seattle, plaintiff Patrick Schreiber alleges the P320 pistol “becomes fully energized the moment a round is chambered, has an unusually light and short trigger pull, and lacks any external safety.”
Sig Sauer has devoted a website to respond to such claims. According to Sig Sauer, “The P320 CANNOT, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull. This is verified through extensive testing by SIG SAUER, the U.S. Military, elite law enforcement agencies, and independent laboratories.”
While the company has not responded to this specific action, on its website, Sig Sauer maintains, “Verified incidents of unintended discharges are all attributed to improper handling, incompatible equipment (i.e. holsters), trigger access vulnerability, or a lapse in firearm safety, not to any defect in the P320.”
TGM reached out to Schreiber’s attorney but did not receive a prompt response. He is represented by Amanda M. Steiner with the Terrell Marshall Law Group of Seattle. On their website, the firm lists Class Actions as one of their fields of endeavor.
In the lawsuit, plaintiff Schreiber is described as a citizen and resident of Washington (state), who purchased and currently owns a P320 without a manual safety. This pistol was purchased in Bothell, a Seattle suburb, in November 2021. He paid “approximately $1,093.82” for the pistol, and he claims to have reviewed Sig Sauer’s website “prior to purchase and saw Sig Sauer’s representations concerning the safety of the P320. Nowhere did Plaintiff see anything about the Defect.”
As noted in the KIRO report, “Schreiber seeks to represent all Washington residents who bought a P320 without a manual safety after November 2021.”
The lawsuit alleges that Sig Sauer has violated the Consumer Protection Act “and Plaintiff and the proposed Class have been injured in their property by those violations.”
“Thus,” the complaint asserts, “Plaintiff and the proposed Class have standing to seek an injunction to protect the public interest from future violations.”
There is one allegation in the document which does not ring true with nationally recognized firearms expert and author R.K. “Bob” Campbell, and it involves Paragraph 71, which mentions “comparable” pistols to the P320.
“Other comparable pistols,” the complaint says, “like most model 1911s, use a combination of a grip safety and a manual thumb safety along with a longer, heavier trigger pull to require more intentionality to fire. Most model 1911s also include a de-cocking lever to safely de-energize the weapon before holstering. The Walter P99 and the Sig Sauer P229 also incorporate de cocking levers.”
Campbell, who has authored three books on the Model 1911 pistol scoffed at this paragraph.
“I can state firmly that the 1911 is not a comparable handgun to the SIG P320,” said Campbell via email. “There are no 1911 handguns with a decocking lever.
“The Glock 17, Walther PDP, Heckler & Koch VP9, and Smith & Wesson Military & Police are comparable pistols,” noted Campbell, who is a contributing editor to TGM. “They are striker fired and polymer frame handguns.”
The Model 1911 is an exposed hammer single-action semi-auto, and it has a steel, or in some cases, an aluminum alloy frame.
“The thumb safety of the 1911 is necessary because the 1911 is a single action design in which the trigger releases the hammer,” he explained. “It does not load a striker against spring pressure from rest. Striker fired handguns do not have a manual safety; they have safety features such as the firing pin block pioneered by SIG.
“Whoever wrote this has no knowledge of the two pistol types and no fundamental grasp of handgun design,” he concluded.
The complaint lists several personal injury lawsuits filed against Sig Sauer concerning the P320.
On its website, Sig Sauer states, “The P320 meets and exceeds all industry safety standards. Its design is thoroughly tested and validated by military and elite law enforcement agencies worldwide.”
In an article appearing at Police 1 on Aug. 29, writer Donald J. Mihalek, executive vice president of the FLEOA Foundation and an ABC News contributor, wrote, “the majority of accidental discharges stem from human error, not mechanical failure. Negligence, improper training or unintentional trigger activation are often at the root.”
The story, headlined “Sig Sauer P320 controversy: Separating fact from fiction in safety claims,” states in the subhead, “Despite lawsuits and viral claims, evidence points to training and handling — not design flaws — as the real factors behind P320 safety concerns.”
Mihalek is a retired senior Secret Service agent, former police officer and a regional field training instructor.
TGM reached out to Mihalek via the FLEOA Foundation, but he did not immediately respond.
In his article, Mihalek wrote, “Agencies that conducted their own tests — including the FBI — have been unable to reproduce unintentional discharges. After an alleged accidental discharge involving the Michigan State Police, the FBI and SIG engineers conducted joint testing and concluded the P320 did not fail. Michigan State Police continues to issue the pistol.
“Similarly,” he continued, “despite internal DHS memos suggesting ICE might suspend P320 use, ICE extended its P320 contract for another two years. DHS has never raised formal safety concerns.”
Mihalek added that of all the P320s in circulation, “there have likely been countless unreported drops in training and operations.”
“Yet,” he wrote, “there has not been a single verified case of discharge under those conditions. Most complaints appear to occur in off-duty or personal use scenarios, raising questions about context and handling.”
The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
