Sig Sauer Hit with Class Action in Missouri Over Alleged P320 Pistol Inadvertent Discharge Risk

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A Missouri law enforcement officer alleges in a proposed class action that Sig Sauer’s P320 pistol lacks the safety features of—and inadvertently discharges more frequently than—comparable handguns.

In his 19-page complaint, the officer alleges defendant Sig Sauer, Inc. “conceals and omits” information on the “enhanced risks” associated with the P320 pistol from consumers, in violation of Missouri state law. According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff would not have bought the P320, or would have paid substantially less for it, had “the defective nature” of the product been disclosed and/or publicly confirmed by Sig Sauer prior to the time of purchase. 

The lawsuit stresses that the apparent inadvertent discharge incidents allegedly plaguing the P320 are “not theoretical,” as more than 20 lawsuits have been filed against Sig Sauer over the problem since 2018. 

“Other manufacturers of striker-fired pistols have not faced the same volume of litigation related to inadvertent discharges in their firearms,” the filing reads. “In this respect, Sig Sauer is an island within the industry.” 

The suit says that the P320 striker-fired pistol is one of the most popular handguns in the United States. The case relays that because the pistol is striker-fired, meaning there is no hammer to cock or release the weapon, its trigger is designed to be easy to pull. 

Despite this, the lawsuit states, the P320 lacks a trigger toggle, a small tab in the face of the trigger that has to be depressed fully for the trigger to move rearward to fire the gun. 

According to the complaint, Sig Sauer’s design for the P320 “deviates from the industry standard” in that other manufacturers include a trigger toggle or manual safety as an added safety feature. 

“Thus, Sig Sauer’s design decision to eliminate the trigger toggle means that the P320 lacks any external safety features (i.e., no trigger toggle and no manual safety),” the suit says. 

The lawsuit goes on to state that although Sig Sauer touts in its marketing that all branches of the U.S. Military have adopted firearms based on the P320 as their official service weapon, the company “never discloses that the military version of the pistol contains an ambidextrous manual safety.” More specifically, the military version of the P320, according to the case, is equipped with safety and slide-catch levers on both sides. 

The plaintiff contends that the absence of any external safety features causes and/or contributes to the P320’s propensity to inadvertently discharge, or go off when the trigger has not been pulled. Per the lawsuit, the P320 operator’s manual does not disclose the lack of external safety features or the pistol’s higher risk of inadvertent discharge. The manual also does not warn consumers that they will need to utilize “enhanced and heightened safety procedures” because of the lack of external safety features, the suit says. 

The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who bought a Sig Sauer model P320 pistol without an external safety in Missouri from September 1, 2017 through the present. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.