5 ms·

A few notes: - Sig has known about it for years[1] - A company recently filed a patent for a fix[2] and they offered Sig the rights to it before filing, but S

A few notes: - Sig has known about it for years[1] - A company recently filed a patent for a fix[2] and they offered Sig the rights to it before filing, but Sig refused. - The Air Force has cleared the 320 for use[3]. In my pessimistic opinion, they probably determined the cost to procure new weapons would exceed the cost to replace lost airmen. [1] https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-of-pistol-risks-for-years/ https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-o... [2] https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-news/patent-says-the-sig-sauer-p320-is-unsafe-but-offers-a-fix/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-news/patent-says-the... [3] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/25/m18s-cleared-use-air-force-global-strike-command-following-airmans-death.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/08/25/m18s-cleared-...

WillPostForFood 1y ago
They didn't just clear the gun for use, they arrested the airmen who shot the guy and lied about it. It totally changes the framing of what happened. In a Friday statement, a Department of the Air Force spokesperson said that the unidentified arrested person is accused of making a false official statement, obstruction of justice and involuntary manslaughter. In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/08/08/air-force-makes-arrest-in-airmans-shooting-death-involving-m18-pistol/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/08/08...
- lupusreal 1y ago
  > In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. That's the Air Force's accusation.
- shepardrtc 1y ago
  Right, but that doesn't address the issues that all 320's have. In that case, the airman lied, but the guns still have those issues.
  - jibe 1y ago
    You are begging the question, in the classic meaning of the phrase. What issue specifically? I haven't seen a claim yet that ultimately didn't boil down to: "and the trigger was pulled". Maybe the issue is that the 320 is too close to a competition trigger, and it isn't appropriate for a duty gun. But the gun has been under a microscope for years now, and no one has shown a design defect that causes the gun to fire by itself.
    - stronglikedan 1y ago
      This issue: https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-of-pistol-risks-for-years/ https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-o...
      - jibe 1y ago
        There is nothing in there except a sensational headline. The military asked Sig to come up with every possible theoretical failure mode for the gun, and assess the risk. There is nothing about a specific flaw that would cause the gun to fire uncommanded. The document is being misrepresented here.
    - vmh1928 1y ago
      The issue is the gun goes off by itself without the trigger being pulled. Remember that all this type of gun has the firing pin under spring tension all the time. The only thing keeping it from firing is a latch mechanism that is supposed to only activate when the trigger is pulled but if the mechanism is defective and too close to the edge the latch can disengage without the trigger being pulled or touched. There are numerous YT videos of this occurring.
      - jibe 1y ago
        There is no evidence of this, no reproduction of it firing without the trigger being pulled, and not even a good theory on it. The YouTube videos are involve pulling the trigger far enough to disengage the internal safeties.
- runjake 1y ago
  > In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. I think we need to await the facts of the case and the judgement. The only public information I've seen strikes me as unusual. The accused airman is being charged with involuntary manslaughter, which coupled with the extensive issues with the P320 brings up more questions than it answers. I could come up with my own conjecture based on that information, but there's enough people doing that already. The fact remains that the P320 malfunctions. There's been countless documented cases, and numerous recorded demonstrations of the issue on YouTube and elsewhere.
  - _mlbt 1y ago
    Even if the Airman’s firearm did fire on its own without them pulling the trigger, it begs the question, why was this loaded handgun pointed at anyone that they didn’t intend to kill. It can be both Sig and this Airman’s fault at the same time.
    - runjake 1y ago
      Right. But we don't know any of those details, so it's just conjecture at this point. We shouldn't form opinions based on very limited information.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Try conceal carrying or outside the waistband without ever pointing a loaded handgun at something you don't want to kill. It is pretty much impossible, unless you're using a pretty unusual holster. A waistband holster will pretty much always end up pointing it towards some part of your body at some point, and even a shoulder holster it is pointing at someone else. Carrying a handgun relies on that rule not being followed and instead the holster preventing anyone from pulling the trigger, but if the gun can go off without a trigger pull all bets are off.
      - _mlbt 1y ago
        Holstered guns shouldn't have a round in the chamber. That's also very negligent.
- 0xffff2 1y ago
  IANAL and the article is light on details, but charging involuntary manslaughter seems significant here? If the arrested airman negligently caused the trigger to be pulled with no confounding factors (e.g. poor firearm design or poor holster design), surely that would be regular manslaughter at least?
  - dghlsakjg 1y ago
    It depends on jurisdiction, but involuntary manslaughter can just mean that someone died and you didn’t intend to kill them. You can still be negligent (playing with a loaded gun) and have it be involuntary.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    No, criminal negligence or even recklessness would be involuntary manslaughter. “Regular”, voluntary, manslaughter requires intent to kill (but differs from murder in that it does not require malice aforethought). The textbook example is heat-of-passion killing.
    - devilbunny 1y ago
      Really? I thought heat-of-passion killing was indeed murder. Whereas voluntary manslaughter is more like when you punch someone in the face and they crack their head on a curb and die. You intended to hurt them, but you had absolutely no intent to kill. But IANAL, and to the extent I pay attention to the law, that kind of basic criminal law isn't it.
      - 0xffff2 1y ago
        I linked the UCMJ articles in a sibling comment. I think gp's description is correct for the UCMJ. Part of the problem IMO is that there are ~52 definitions of manslaughter/murder in the US (one for every state, civilian federal law and the UCMJ) so that answer is always highly context specific.
        devilbunny 1y ago
- _mlbt 1y ago
  Even if the gun went off by itself the Airman is still most likely negligent. The first rule of firearms is that you only point it at things you intend to destroy.
  - jakogut 1y ago
    I agree and disagree. A holstered pistol is intended to be treated, for all intents and purposes, as deactivated and "on safe" for practicality reasons, even when loaded. Plenty of people carry loaded guns pointed at their bodies daily in holsters, safely at that.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Absolutely no one who carries holster relies on the rule of it not pointing at anyone. Surely they don't disarm every time they go up a second story, separated by the first only by 3/8" bit of plywood and sheetrock.
- lazide 1y ago
  Eh, or that’s a coverup. As is classifying all the documents about the pistol and its issues. There is nothing even remotely credibly related to national security about the P320 or issues related to it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the military has a very long history of covering up issues with corruptly procured weapons.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    Yes, the US military has been known to throw people under the bus to cover up their own fuck ups. Just one particularly notorious example of many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion > The first investigation into the explosion, conducted by the U.S. Navy, concluded that one of the gun turret crew members, Clayton Hartwig, who died in the explosion, had deliberately caused it. During the investigation, numerous leaks to the media, later attributed to U.S. Navy officers and investigators, implied that Hartwig and another sailor, Kendall Truitt, had engaged in a romantic relationship and that Hartwig had caused the explosion after their relationship had soured. However, in its report, the U.S. Navy concluded that the evidence did not show that Hartwig was homosexual but that he was suicidal and had caused the explosion with either an electronic or chemical detonator.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Even worse, the Navy knew many of these powder bags were getting increasingly unstable as they were near/over their intended lifespan (many were made in WW2 and had not been treated gently), so what Sandia concluded was a likely accidental overram setting them off was likely a consequence of the Navy’s policies. Policies that people had objected to at the time, but had been pushed through regardless due to ‘stop being a worry wart’/no one wanting to spend the money. They still have the accident down as ‘Unknown causes’.
- albedoa 1y ago
  > In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. This might be true, but nowhere in the article you posted does it say that.
mothballed 1y ago
The "fix" only works on models with a manual safety and only when the safety is engaged. If you release the safety, like many people tell you (as a matter of subjective opinion) that you should while conceal carrying, it won't do dick. Or even just release the safety because you're going to fire soon but not sure when -- same deal -- same flaw and it could go off without pulling the trigger. So the fix is as good as commercially useless, although better than nothing, the market is basically the guy who wants to be able to take it to the range and then always have it downrange while the safety is off.

WillPostForFood 1y ago

They didn't just clear the gun for use, they arrested the airmen who shot the guy and lied about it. It totally changes the framing of what happened. In a Friday statement, a Department of the Air Force spokesperson said that the unidentified arrested person is accused of making a false official statement, obstruction of justice and involuntary manslaughter. In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/08/08/air-force-makes-arrest-in-airmans-shooting-death-involving-m18-pistol/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/08/08...

lupusreal 1y ago
> In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. That's the Air Force's accusation.
shepardrtc 1y ago
Right, but that doesn't address the issues that all 320's have. In that case, the airman lied, but the guns still have those issues.
- jibe 1y ago
  You are begging the question, in the classic meaning of the phrase. What issue specifically? I haven't seen a claim yet that ultimately didn't boil down to: "and the trigger was pulled". Maybe the issue is that the 320 is too close to a competition trigger, and it isn't appropriate for a duty gun. But the gun has been under a microscope for years now, and no one has shown a design defect that causes the gun to fire by itself.
  - stronglikedan 1y ago
    This issue: https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-of-pistol-risks-for-years/ https://smokinggun.org/court-records-reveal-sig-sauer-knew-o...
    - jibe 1y ago
      There is nothing in there except a sensational headline. The military asked Sig to come up with every possible theoretical failure mode for the gun, and assess the risk. There is nothing about a specific flaw that would cause the gun to fire uncommanded. The document is being misrepresented here.
  - vmh1928 1y ago
    The issue is the gun goes off by itself without the trigger being pulled. Remember that all this type of gun has the firing pin under spring tension all the time. The only thing keeping it from firing is a latch mechanism that is supposed to only activate when the trigger is pulled but if the mechanism is defective and too close to the edge the latch can disengage without the trigger being pulled or touched. There are numerous YT videos of this occurring.
    - jibe 1y ago
      There is no evidence of this, no reproduction of it firing without the trigger being pulled, and not even a good theory on it. The YouTube videos are involve pulling the trigger far enough to disengage the internal safeties.
runjake 1y ago
> In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. I think we need to await the facts of the case and the judgement. The only public information I've seen strikes me as unusual. The accused airman is being charged with involuntary manslaughter, which coupled with the extensive issues with the P320 brings up more questions than it answers. I could come up with my own conjecture based on that information, but there's enough people doing that already. The fact remains that the P320 malfunctions. There's been countless documented cases, and numerous recorded demonstrations of the issue on YouTube and elsewhere.
- _mlbt 1y ago
  Even if the Airman’s firearm did fire on its own without them pulling the trigger, it begs the question, why was this loaded handgun pointed at anyone that they didn’t intend to kill. It can be both Sig and this Airman’s fault at the same time.
  - runjake 1y ago
    Right. But we don't know any of those details, so it's just conjecture at this point. We shouldn't form opinions based on very limited information.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Try conceal carrying or outside the waistband without ever pointing a loaded handgun at something you don't want to kill. It is pretty much impossible, unless you're using a pretty unusual holster. A waistband holster will pretty much always end up pointing it towards some part of your body at some point, and even a shoulder holster it is pointing at someone else. Carrying a handgun relies on that rule not being followed and instead the holster preventing anyone from pulling the trigger, but if the gun can go off without a trigger pull all bets are off.
    - _mlbt 1y ago
      Holstered guns shouldn't have a round in the chamber. That's also very negligent.
0xffff2 1y ago
IANAL and the article is light on details, but charging involuntary manslaughter seems significant here? If the arrested airman negligently caused the trigger to be pulled with no confounding factors (e.g. poor firearm design or poor holster design), surely that would be regular manslaughter at least?
- dghlsakjg 1y ago
  It depends on jurisdiction, but involuntary manslaughter can just mean that someone died and you didn’t intend to kill them. You can still be negligent (playing with a loaded gun) and have it be involuntary.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  No, criminal negligence or even recklessness would be involuntary manslaughter. “Regular”, voluntary, manslaughter requires intent to kill (but differs from murder in that it does not require malice aforethought). The textbook example is heat-of-passion killing.
  - devilbunny 1y ago
    Really? I thought heat-of-passion killing was indeed murder. Whereas voluntary manslaughter is more like when you punch someone in the face and they crack their head on a curb and die. You intended to hurt them, but you had absolutely no intent to kill. But IANAL, and to the extent I pay attention to the law, that kind of basic criminal law isn't it.
    - 0xffff2 1y ago
      I linked the UCMJ articles in a sibling comment. I think gp's description is correct for the UCMJ. Part of the problem IMO is that there are ~52 definitions of manslaughter/murder in the US (one for every state, civilian federal law and the UCMJ) so that answer is always highly context specific.
      - devilbunny 1y ago
_mlbt 1y ago
Even if the gun went off by itself the Airman is still most likely negligent. The first rule of firearms is that you only point it at things you intend to destroy.
- jakogut 1y ago
  I agree and disagree. A holstered pistol is intended to be treated, for all intents and purposes, as deactivated and "on safe" for practicality reasons, even when loaded. Plenty of people carry loaded guns pointed at their bodies daily in holsters, safely at that.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Absolutely no one who carries holster relies on the rule of it not pointing at anyone. Surely they don't disarm every time they go up a second story, separated by the first only by 3/8" bit of plywood and sheetrock.
lazide 1y ago
Eh, or that’s a coverup. As is classifying all the documents about the pistol and its issues. There is nothing even remotely credibly related to national security about the P320 or issues related to it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the military has a very long history of covering up issues with corruptly procured weapons.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  Yes, the US military has been known to throw people under the bus to cover up their own fuck ups. Just one particularly notorious example of many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion > The first investigation into the explosion, conducted by the U.S. Navy, concluded that one of the gun turret crew members, Clayton Hartwig, who died in the explosion, had deliberately caused it. During the investigation, numerous leaks to the media, later attributed to U.S. Navy officers and investigators, implied that Hartwig and another sailor, Kendall Truitt, had engaged in a romantic relationship and that Hartwig had caused the explosion after their relationship had soured. However, in its report, the U.S. Navy concluded that the evidence did not show that Hartwig was homosexual but that he was suicidal and had caused the explosion with either an electronic or chemical detonator.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Even worse, the Navy knew many of these powder bags were getting increasingly unstable as they were near/over their intended lifespan (many were made in WW2 and had not been treated gently), so what Sandia concluded was a likely accidental overram setting them off was likely a consequence of the Navy’s policies. Policies that people had objected to at the time, but had been pushed through regardless due to ‘stop being a worry wart’/no one wanting to spend the money. They still have the accident down as ‘Unknown causes’.
albedoa 1y ago
> In this case, the whole "it want off by itself" claim was a lie. This might be true, but nowhere in the article you posted does it say that.

mothballed 1y ago

The "fix" only works on models with a manual safety and only when the safety is engaged. If you release the safety, like many people tell you (as a matter of subjective opinion) that you should while conceal carrying, it won't do dick. Or even just release the safety because you're going to fire soon but not sure when -- same deal -- same flaw and it could go off without pulling the trigger. So the fix is as good as commercially useless, although better than nothing, the market is basically the guy who wants to be able to take it to the range and then always have it downrange while the safety is off.