How often are Sig Sauer P320 pistols identified in post‑shooting forensic reports and what controversies surround that model?
Executive summary
The Sig Sauer P320 has appeared repeatedly in post‑shooting and forensic investigations — described in reporting as implicated in scores to hundreds of alleged uncommanded discharges — and that pattern has produced courtroom losses, agency pullbacks and a newly public FBI ballistics evaluation that reignited scrutiny [1] [2] [3]. Sig Sauer and some institutions dispute that the pistol is defective, citing testing and follow‑up work; the contested facts are now split between anecdotal/claim counts, courtroom verdicts, and limited, sometimes conflicting, technical reports [4] [5] [6].
1. How often the P320 shows up in post‑shooting and forensic reports
Reporting documents that the P320 has been linked to “scores” of unintentional shootings and that hundreds of incidents or complaints have been reported nationwide, with at least dozens of post‑incident forensic evaluations and multiple high‑profile cases going to trial or verdict [1] [7] [8]. News outlets and legal trackers cite more than 80 plaintiffs alleging they were shot when their P320 fired without a trigger pull, others claim “hundreds” of incidents overall, and over 100 lawsuits have been filed, producing several plaintiff verdicts in 2024 and 2025 [1] [7] [8]. Those tallies come from journalists’ compilations, plaintiff law firms and public court records rather than a single centralized forensic database, which makes precise incidence rates in forensic reports difficult to quantify from the available reporting [1] [7].
2. The most consequential forensic finding: the FBI Ballistic Research Facility review
A pivotal development was an internal FBI Ballistic Research Facility (BRF) evaluation made public in 2025 that documented an M18 (the military variant of the P320) firing without a trigger pull in the circumstances examined, a finding that reporters say prompted further agency reviews and helped catalyze some bans and policy changes [3] [9]. The FBI assessment — which followed a Michigan State Police request after an accidental discharge — is frequently cited by outlets as technical evidence that at least one examined pistol could discharge absent trigger manipulation [3] [9].
3. Institutional reactions and patterns in law‑enforcement forensic practice
Multiple police departments and federal units have removed or suspended P320 models from service over concerns tied to misfirings and training/holster incidents, and organizations such as ICE and some local agencies have either paused use or shifted purchases; meanwhile the U.S. Army has kept its M17/M18 in service and several military branches reported no immediate change based on the BRF disclosure [2] [10] [6]. Those administrative moves often follow internal incident investigations and forensic reviews at the agency level, but public reporting makes clear that responses vary widely by organization and by the conclusions of internal testing [2] [10].
4. The contested technical and legal landscape
Sig Sauer maintains that documented incidents are attributable to improper handling, holster incompatibility or user error and that extensive testing has not shown a systemic defect prompting a recall; the company has launched public information campaigns asserting the P320’s safety record [4] [6]. By contrast, plaintiffs and some juries have found design liability in specific cases, and a Georgia jury and other verdicts awarded damages after concluding the firearm fired while holstered or without trigger contact [2] [3]. The contradiction between manufacturer testing claims and some independent forensic findings — including the FBI BRF report — is the core of the controversy [5] [3].
5. What reporting cannot yet tell — limits and open questions
Available sources aggregate incident counts, cite courtroom outcomes and disclose at least one FBI evaluation, but none provide a comprehensive, public audit of all post‑shooting forensic reports across agencies that would let researchers calculate an objective incidence rate per rounds fired or per pistols fielded; that gap limits precise answers about “how often” in statistical terms and leaves much to piecemeal public records, litigation filings and agency memos [1] [8]. Until an independent, centralized forensic review is released or a peer‑reviewed technical study discloses broader failure‑rate metrics, the evidence will remain a mix of documented forensic anomalies, legal findings, manufacturer testing and agency policy choices [3] [4].