If You Owned a Gun Shop, Would You Still Sell the P320

[Shoots Left]

Why are gun shops still selling the SIG Sauer P320?

Before I get to the gist of this post lemme just say that I have no personal animus towards SIG Sauer. I own two SIGs (no P320) and really like ‘em – no complaints. Also I’m not trying to peddle some sort of conspiracy here. I’m just thinking out loud.

SIG Sauer has lost two pretty big lawsuits against it within the last six months resulting in around $14 million in awarded damages to the plaintiffs. Naturally these cases are being appealed but for right here, right now these are two court judgements against the company and their product.

Furthermore, there are two more, potentially high profile, cases about to get underway in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. One involves a fatality and the other is a quasi-class action suit with 22 plaintiffs. In spite of SIG’s initial success in getting lawsuits against it dropped over this matter, it seems now that the blood has been spilled and the sharks know it!

If these legal victories for the plaintiffs begin to gain traction resulting in a new frenzy of lawsuits, I can see enterprising lawyers/law firms casting broader nets which may result in gun shops being part of the bycatch. By that I mean since the plaintiffs’ lawyers are already in court suing SIG why not drag in the gun shop that sold the gun to the client(s) citing their culpability as well. I can see this as being a real possibility as the claim would be that the shop should have known better than to sell a “faulty” firearm and thus try to establish the shop’s blame for the alleged incident along with SIG.

Regardless of whether the owner of a gun shop agrees or not that the P320 is safe, why would they sell such a firearm to a customer knowing now that a couple of juries found this firearm may capriciously discharge and cause harm to the user?

If you owned a gun shop and given the current environment would you be comfortable selling such a firearm? Me personally, no!

Thoughts?

[glider]

I have to think that Sig has researched this extensively and found their product to be safe. Practically all firearm manufactures have been subject to frivolous lawsuits and some of them have been won. After all there are a lot of bleeding-heart liberals that hate guns and would love to put them out of business. Well, the damn has broke so to speak, so Sig may as well stop making them since even gun enthusiast are jumping on the band wagon!

[Aguila Blanca]

I am neither a Sig fan-boy nor a Sig hater. Sig has made some excellent handguns over the years. The P320 appears to have been an engineering mistake. While I realize that you may consider the lawsuits about unintended discharges of the P320 to be frivolous, I can't help thinking that it's more than coincidence. ALL these lawsuits involve the P320, not any of Sig's other handgun models. And it's not just one or two lawsuits.

I know there's a saying that "The plural of anecdote is not data," but that applies when "plural" means two or three. At some time, when the number of strikingly similar anecdotes builds up to some critical mass of a number, it DOES become data. Your mileage may vary, but I've seen enough that I would not want to own or carry a P320.

[Nathan]

Without more transparency on Sig’s part, we are left to guess if they fixed it. In this market, there are too many other good guns to buy/sell.

[4V50 Gary]

Nyet. Ditto with Lorcin, Raven and that other cheap brand of pocket pistols. Stream of commerce type of thing.

[jmr40]

This is similar to the Remington 700 trigger issue. Remington knew in 1946 that the trigger design was flawed but kept it in house. They also knew that the odds of something happening were pretty close to a million to one. They decided to play the odds and if one of their rifles did discharge, they believed they could convince a jury that the operator had in fact pulled the trigger.

That worked for them in the 1940's 50's and 60's. But by the 1970's word was getting around and the lawsuits started adding up. Rather than just admit there was a problem they took the "That's my story and I'm sticking to it" approach. They believed to admit a problem would just invite more lawsuits and make it harder to defend. They settled over 100 lawsuits out of court BTW. All with non-disclosure agreements. Sig being sued twice is nothing.

The difference is that the problem with the 700 trigger is easily identified. Once you understand how the 700 trigger works, and how it's different from any other trigger the flaw is obvious.

I've yet to see any clue as to what may be causing the current Sig 320 issue.
They had issues with dropped guns discharging. Sig admitted to that issue and fixed it.

But with the current problem I've not even heard a theory other than operator error. If Sig knows what the problem is it is in their best interest to keep quiet about it and just quietly fix the problem. But you'd think someone would do enough experimenting, identify the problem (if there is one) and inform the public.

I've seen a 700 drop the firing pin with no trigger pull and understand why. I've not seen a problem with Sig as of yet, and no one has proposed a theory as to why.

For now I'm remaining neutral.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by jmr40

That worked for them in the 1940's 50's and 60's. But by the 1970's word was getting around and the lawsuits started adding up. Rather than just admit there was a problem they took the "That's my story and I'm sticking to it" approach. They believed to admit a problem would just invite more lawsuits and make it harder to defend. They settled over 100 lawsuits out of court BTW. All with non-disclosure agreements. Sig being sued twice is nothing.

But haven't they been sued a lot more than 2 times? Not hundreds, but a lot more than two. I read so many articles about firearms that I get them confused, but my fuzzy recollection is that Sig has recently lost two lawsuits over unintended discharges of the P320, and that there have been something like twenty other, similar suits filed. I found eight cases by name that were (at the time of the article) unresolved. I found two that Sig lost, one in Georgia ( https://www.thetrace.org/2024/06/sig...safety-issues/ ) and one in Philadelphia ( https://apnews.com/article/sig-sauer...04c92856964f21 ).

https://www.seacoastonline.com/story...y/82755027007/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301783659.html

[Dfariswheel]

If A. you own a gun shop, and B. intend to stay in business you better be selling the guns your customers want to buy.

If they're wanting Sig P320's and Lorcin's you better meet their needs.
If you think they're unsafe, tell the customer your concerns, but if that's what they want.........

[Double Naught Spy]

I have to think that Sig has researched this extensively and found their product to be safe.

I am sure they researched it thoroughly like Remington did with the 700 and they figured that enough profits would still remain after any lawsuits.

Practically all firearm manufactures have been subject to frivolous lawsuits and some of them have been won. After all there are a lot of bleeding-heart liberals that hate guns and would love to put them out of business.

It wasn't bleeding heart liberals suing Remington, but gun owners and their families.

It doesn't look like Sig is being sued by bleeding heart liberals, either. 22 more lawsuits pending...
https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2025-03...nintentionally

As of Jan 28 of this year, they were down over $13 million with just 2 lawsuits.
https://thereload.com/sixth-circuit-revives-liability-lawsuit-against-sig-sauer/#:~:text=Last%20November%2C%20a%20Philadelphia%20jury%20awarded%20$11,another%20shooting%20incident%20involving%20a%20holstered%20P320.

[Jim Watson]

Consider Ruger. They got tired of being sued when users winged themselves by violating 20th century safety standards with 19th century designs. So they redesigned their guns.

[Metal god]

I kinda remember this topic coming up a few years ago, not gun store sales but the 320 and AD’s . If I recall the theory then was that they admitted to the drop test fails in order to fix the problem They knew they had as it relates to the AD’s with plausible deniability .

The theory was , if they change the trigger for no apparent reason . That would lead to questions and more lawsuits. Therefore, if they could change the trigger for a different reason than what most lawsuits were claiming. They then can fix the known problem covertly under the guys of a different problem.

Isn’t the new military pistol basically a fancy 320? Is that trigger different? If that trigger is the same as the one in the 320s people are suing about. There’s no way they will ever admit a problem with that contract still in effect .

Anyways, that’s an interesting question. If I own a store, would I sell that firearm At this point, maybe not cause I think there is some reasonableness to the idea of gun store owners being sued next.

[44 AMP]

It wasn't bleeding heart liberals suing Remington, but gun owners and their families.

and their lawyers!

Its not a popular view but I always felt there was nothing "flawed" about the Remington trigger. Yes it does need more care to be safe and reliable than many other designs, something few gun owners do, or are even aware of, but making that a design flaw puts money in lawyers pockets, because the "evil big corporations only care about their profits, and deliberately put us at risk".

How about the person holding the gun?? Unless you're Alex Baldwin, aren't we all responsible for where the muzzle is pointed?? (sorry for the rant, bit of a hot button issue for me)

What about Remington "settling" with the families of the kids killed by a wack job using a Bushmaster (owned by Rem at the time) rifle? It was in all the press...

except, it was a lie. The press made is a big deal, making it sound like Remington was admitting fault and paying damages.

But they never did. They never did, because at the time of the settlement, Remington no longer existed. The people who made that settlement worked for the law firm that handled Remington's remaining assets, paying off debts with what was left AFTER Remington was dissolved. THEY made a settlement, because they felt it was in their best interest. Remington had nothing to do with it, they no longer existed, but somehow the press never mentioned that.

SO, Sig has been / is being sued. IF I were a gun shop owner, because of the controversy I would not stock that model pistol. If the customer wanted one, I would order it for them, but i wouldn't tie up my own (shop) money to stock them.

Mark Twain observed that "A jury is 12 men chosen to decide which side has the better liar." True then, and I think still true today, though its no longer just men in the jury box.

[Shoots Left]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Isn’t the new military pistol basically a fancy 320? Is that trigger different? If that trigger is the same as the one in the 320s people are suing about. There’s no way they will ever admit a problem with that contract still in effect .

Yes as a matter of fact