Florida State Representative (R) Danny Alvarez penned an Op-Ed for Florida’s Voice entitled “Florida must prioritize safety: The case for ending law enforcement use of the Sig Sauer P320 pistol.” He bases this opinion on anecdotal evidence, the FBI Ballistics Lab Report, and the Air Force Global Strike Command’s safety stand down following a fatality earlier this week.
SIG SAUER responded by sending the following letter to Law Enforcement agencies in Florida. We have obtained a copy and the entire letter can be downloaded here.
The entire episode caught us off guard but we share it because we are located in Florida and we have received repeated feedback that SIG is not defending the pistol from the onslaught of online criticism. The letter is the most succinct and complete response we have seen from SIG on the issue.
The letter is respectful yet asserts their position on the P320. It states in part:
SIG SAUER is in direct contact with Representative Alverez and will continue to maintain an open, respectful, and direct dialog. While we respect Representative Alvarez as both an individual and elected official, we reject his assertion that the P320 poses an undue risk to Florida’s law enforcement community. We strongly disagree with his position, accusations, and inaccurate statements. His statements, while heartfelt, are misguided, misinformed and fueled by rhetoric as opposed to facts.
The letter goes on to address Rep Alverez’s concerns and then finishes up with:
The P320 cannot, under any circumstance, discharge without a trigger pull. Lawsuits with claims that the P320 is capable of firing without a trigger pull have been dismissed in twelve (12) separate federal district courts, including a decision by a unanimous eight (8) person jury. In addition, five (5) other lawsuits against SIG SAUER regarding the P320 with different liability theories have also been dismissed. Plaintiffs’ own experts have abandoned their theories that the P320 can discharge without a trigger pull after not being able to replicate it. Further, plaintiffs’ own experts have repeatedly admitted under oath the P320 cannot discharge without trigger actuation – in direct contradiction to Representative Alverez’s accusations.
and…
SIG SAUER has always and will continue to put the safety and security of the law enforcement community, the U.S. Military and our consumers first. We stand by Representative Alverez’s desire to increase the safety of public officers; however, a P320 ban does not accomplish that goal. Part of fielding safe firearms – regardless of type or manufacturer – requires extensive education and training at every level and are open to working with Representative Alverez on fact-based solutions.
Sig’s own CEO wears a Glock during interviews about how safe the P320 is. He knows all of the details of the problem and chooses to wear the competition’s pistol himself.
That’s not true. You’re thinking of Phil Strader who is Vice President Consumer Affairs. He shoots competitively and uses a Glock.
Ron Cohen is CEO.
Seems like you are making the point for Forest. It’s still an employee of Sig, someone who shoots competitively as you point out, who elects to use a product that seems to be the inspiration for the 320. It would be like the VP for Consumer Affairs for Coke seen always drinking a Pepsi yet claiming Coke is the better product.
He said it was the CEO. He’s not the CEO.
Horrible decision by this FL “Republican”. Does it bring awareness to the issue? Yes. Is it necessary, legal, or responsible? No.
Many agencies are dumping Sig and the 320 like hot rocks, many more will soon.
There is no need or constitutional basis for a state to try and ban a particular handgun from LE use.
If he wants to prevent FL State agencies from procuring them that’s one thing, but a ban on local agencies from making their own procurement decisions is unsat.
Not trying to stoke the drama around this tragedy, but some of SIG’s assertions just rankle me.
Didn’t the Army testing of the XM17/18 find that the P320 design was prone to firing without the trigger being pulled?
“During drop testing in which an empty primed cartridge was inserted, the striker struck the primer causing a discharge.”
Cite: https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/army/2017mhs.pdf
Why does SIG say things publicly that are so easily rebuttable?
I went back and forth with PEO Soldier about this when the report was released. There were very mad at me because I wouldn’t let this go. Since I’ve already addressed when it happened, it’s best to just read my story on it.
https://soldiersystems.net/2018/02/02/modular-handgun-system-things-arent-as-bad-as-the-dote-report-implies/
Is it time for Ralph Nader to enter the chat and declare it unsafe at any speed?
JK. But this saga is starting to remind me of the Corvair witch-hunt…
New data shows that the P320 can go off without pulling the trigger. Sig has insisted that it cannot.
What’s the data? And don’t reference the video of the guy who pins the trigger back and then shakes the hell out of it. All he did was demonstrate that the gun works as designed. It won’t go off unless you depress the trigger.
I will refer to that video…
Did you watch the whole video and his explanations? He proved that the weapon can go off with the trigger not being pulled. He used the tip of a screw to simulate 1 or 2mm of play, of the trigger along with the loose slide can make the weapon go off.
Anyone who has cleaned their duty/work/carry weapon will tell you that eventually common debris like lint and dirt will get in there. I don’t know how many times I cleaned my M&P 1.0 and have found things like lint the trigger assembly.
Instead of dismissing the video outright, why don’t you watch it?
I probably saw it before you did. Moving the trigger is moving the trigger. If you don’t move the trigger, it doesn’t go boom. At least we can all agree on that? I mean, people are all over the place trying to explain why the P320 decides to go off on its own.
You’ve decided that a depressed trigger is what is causing this. Okay, I can think of no situation aside from a finger engaging a trigger or debris being present in a holster that would cause the trigger to be depressed. If a P320 trigger does not return to its return position after being depressed and binds up, something is wrong with the gun and it should be inspected. It means that the mechanism is not working as designed.
Guys are seeing this acting like they’ve discovered something but if this were an actual design flaw, P320s would spontaneously go off every time they were carried by someone running or shaking the hell out of them, and it would have been identified long ago as the culprit. It hasn’t been alleged in any of the instances nor detected in post incident forensics.
People have starting applying the experiment to other models of handguns and began making similar videos. In each of these cases, they are demonstrating that the firearm will not discharge without the trigger being depressed.