There been a lot of controversy over the SIG P320 Pistol, especially after a false narrative was shared following the death of an Air Force Airman last summer at the hands of another Security Forces Defender. Rather than take responsibility for the death of his fellow service member, the perpetrator claimed the M18 Modular Handgun, a P320 variant, fired in an uncommanded discharge. Despite that being a lie, the internet went wild for it.
Quite a few instructors as well as some professional organizations and ranges joined in on the hysteria and banned use of the firearm in events and classes sponsored by them. While many revised their position after the truth came to light, some continue the ban.
This week, the Texas Tactical Police Officer Association released a statement regarding reinstatement of the P320 TTPOA-sponsored events and training. However, it should be read in full.
Here is the statement:
The Texas Tactical Police Officers Association (TTPOA) Executive Board has completed an extensive due diligence review regarding the Sig Sauer P320/M17/M18 platform and has voted to lift the prior restriction on the use of the P320/M17/M18 in TTPOA-sponsored training and events.
The original restriction was implemented in response to numerous publicly circulated incidents and videos alleging the Sig Sauer P320/M17/M18 platform were capable of firing without a trigger press, including incidents where the firearm was reportedly holstered at the time of discharge. Additional online videos and demonstrations attempted to replicate these occurrences outside of the holster environment. Due to the seriousness of these allegations and the potential risk to law enforcement personnel, the TTPOA Executive Board elected to temporarily prohibit the use of the P320/M17/M18 platform during TTPOA events pending further review.
In evaluating whether the restriction should remain in place, the Executive Board conducted a comprehensive review process that included independent testing data, consultation with subject matter experts, direct engagement with Sig Sauer leadership, and review of current litigation and industry information related to the platform.
As part of this process, the TTPOA reviewed independent testing conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety (TXDPS) Firearms Unit. The testing involved ten Sig Sauer P320/M17/M18 pistols, including five new pistols and five pistols currently in service use. The testing was digitally recorded from multiple angles and included multiple test parameters designed to evaluate and confirm the function of the internal safety mechanisms incorporated into the P320/M17/M18 design. The TTPOA Executive Board was briefed on the findings and methodology utilized during the testing process. TXDPS currently maintains approximately 7,000 Sig Sauer P320/M17/M18 pistols in operational inventory.
Additionally, Sig Sauer leadership met with the TTPOA Executive Board during the TTPOA Annual Conference to discuss the restriction and provide detailed information regarding the design and operation of the P320/M17/M18 platform. Participants included Sig Sauer executive leadership, legal counsel, law enforcement sales representatives, and subject matter experts familiar with the internal striker assembly and safety systems of the pistol. TTPOA and Sig Sauer legal counsel participated in the discussions, and questions from the Executive Board were addressed in an open and transparent manner. Sig Sauer also offered TTPOA representatives’ direct access to company facilities and manufacturing operations for further evaluation. Subsequently, two members of the TTPOA Executive Board traveled to Sig Sauer Headquarters and manufacturing facilities to conduct an on-site review and meet further with company leadership and technical experts. The visit included discussions with Sig Sauer law enforcement and military sales leadership, legal counsel, and subject matter experts on the P320/M17/M18 design, manufacturing, testing, and quality assurance processes.
Based on the totality of information reviewed through this due diligence process, the TTPOA Executive Board determined sufficient information exists to support lifting the prior restriction on the Sig Sauer P320/M17/M18 platform for TTPOA-sponsored events and training. While TTPOA has lifted its organizational restriction on the P320/M17/M18 platform, TTPOA recognizes and respects the authority of individual contract instructors, host agencies, and host ranges to establish and enforce their own firearms policies and safety requirements. TTPOA cannot compel contract instructors, host agencies, or range operators to permit the use of the P320/M17/M18 platform during training events conducted on their facilities or under their direction. Any such restrictions imposed by those entities remain within their discretion and authority.
The TTPOA recognizes firearms safety remains a shared responsibility among manufacturers, agencies, instructors, armorers, and individual officers. TTPOA will continue to monitor developments, testing, and relevant information regarding duty weapon platforms and reserves the right to reevaluate policies should new information emerge in the future.
TTPOA Executive Board
Additional resources are available here.
I understand why after consulting with “legal counsel” from Sig Sauer (or Sig, Inc. or any of the other numerous shell companies which operate from the main Sig) this statement would need to be written in extensive legalese. But can anyone elaborate on what was shown to alleviate the concerns? The 5 steps to fire video has been removed from the materials cited but is still available on YouTube. It’s not like they changed the striker design. I think that became the biggest point of concern combined with substandard MIM parts failure.
SIG didn’t write the statement, TTPOA did. Unless of course, you’re claiming some grand conspiracy?
What are your concerns? Are you the only person on earth who can explain the phenomenon and can replicate it? If so, there are loads of people who want to talk to you.
MIM parts failure? Do you have any actual evidence, or is this, “I heard it on the internet?”
Eric, I’ve been commenting here since 2008. I’m not alleging a grand conspiracy. I’m speaking on common sense. I understand Sig didn’t write it, but their legal counsel clearly drove the language used. I am not the only person who can replicate a striker drop on a striker fired gun with a preloaded striker. This is not an exclusive trait of the P320 as it can be shown in some preloaded trigger arrangements on other striker fired guns. Do I really need to deeply go in to MIM technology? Should a man trust a MIM part to hold a striker back? What if that part is made in God knows where? I don’t think this a hard question.
You are going to need to back up your claims with actual facts that SIG’s legal team told TTPOA what to say.
No one has been able to recreate the unexplained “unintentional discharge” phenomenon. If they had, SIG would have changed the design by now and the legal office suing SIG in every venue would be pulling in win and after win.
If you can only get a trigger group to release a firing pin by sticking items into a trigger group, the trigger group is working properly.
Yes, you do need to go learn about MIM technology. MIM was created for the aerospace industry. It is used in aircraft as well as other machinery which undergo much higher stresses than a firearm. Also, it doesn’t matter which country it was manufactured in. What matters is that the part was designed properly and manufactured to tolerance. There has been no evidence that any parts, MIM or otherwise have failed in the P320.
You need to stop reading BS on the internet and go do some actual research.
May should we return to the Colt Walker..?
A well prooven design, not for everyone…a bit finiky to silence…
but a workhorse.
With a reddot – perfektzion!
It’s a pistol. The burden of proof is on the manufacturer here, not the concerned public. To pretend the airman incident was the only example of fault with the 320 is disingenuous at best. If sig wanted to put this to rest they would have a very public redesign, and plenty of transparency. It’s private equity. It’s not a grand conspiracy, its just cheaper to pay people off than it is to redesign a pistol. See the Ford Pinto.
Not even. The manufacturer has offered extensive evidence that the firearm is safe. Those who have alleged otherwise have NEVER been able to replicate what they claim the firearm has done.
That is called a clue.
Guns going off by themselves is a claim straight out of the anti-gun playbook, or by someone who doesn’t want to take responsibility for their actions.
This whole nonsense defies logic. With millions of P320s in the wild, they would be going off everywhere, all of the time, if this were real. They aren’t.
If, someone can demonstrate how the alleged phenomenon is supposedly happening, I’ll be the first guy to listen. Change my mind, with facts.
Eric, Chuck, you both make interesting points regarding how much weight we should give to official organizational reviews versus independent technical data. Speaking of how strict due diligence and regulatory compliance are handled, I’ve been looking into how independent digital auditors verify platform credentials and risk management protocols in other highly regulated sectors. Does anyone know if the methodology used by international compliance experts, like the digital integrity audits detailed on https://guiadef0rbetcolumbia.com, aligns with the standard firearms unit testing procedures mentioned by the TTPOA, or are we looking at completely different compliance baselines here?
Kelvin,
It’s a good question, but if I understand your question correctly, it’s apples to oranges. Different agencies put importance on different things, and so do the various related organizations. A large part of reason is, first, everyone wants to build their own kingdom, and not be subjected to the will of another (unless of course that happens to be the outcome they want). Secondly, there isn’t a lot of trust for testing by other organizations. I’m aware of a large federal contract a few years back where the range persons involved secretly modified/ swapped parts. Think about changing a 9mm extractor for a 40 cal, that is the sort of thing I refer to. The results of their testing was good results for the guns with swapped components, but much better for the guns they wanted and hadn’t modified.
There are far too many videos out there of Sig P320 issues.
I’ll also point out that I have been in the room when a firearm company has made threats to sue a range Sgt personally as well as the department because of a similar issue. I am not going to name who that company is, or who the rep was, but I can’t pretend that legal threats don’t happen to cover the backsides of certain players in the industry.
There are videos and you’re told what happened in the video. When someone takes that very same gun and attempts to make it do what we’ve been told opened, they can’t. They have never been able to. If there’s a problem, what is it? Identify it. The P420 is readily available for anyone who wants to try. Experts have had access to the guns in question. NO ONE can demonstrate how this happens. There are theories but when tested, they fail or require the pistol to be modified outside of its design parameters thereby demonstrating the efficacy of the design.
And then there are the those who just flat out lie about the firearm discharging. This thing is so ridiculous that the ambulance chasers had Airman Johnson’s mother making statements regarding the safety of the P320 before it was revealed that her son was shot by another service member.