Which law enforcement agencies have publicly released their internal P320 incident reports and what do they show?
Executive summary
A limited set of government documents and memos tied to the Sig Sauer P320 controversy have entered the public domain: an FBI Ballistic Research Facility evaluation of an M18/P320 that was obtained and circulated publicly, several agency memoranda halting or restricting P320 use (notably ICE and some military commands), and investigative summaries from state training commissions such as Washington’s WSCJTC; these materials show inconsistent findings—FBI testing raised plausible mechanical pathways for an “uncommanded discharge,” agencies reacted with precautionary bans, while Sig Sauer and some police practitioners insist the pistol is safe and point to other explanations [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. FBI Ballistic Research Facility — a leaked evaluation that energized the debate
The most consequential internal document that reached the public was an FBI Ballistic Research Facility (BRF) evaluation of an M18 (military variant of the P320) tied to a Michigan State Police incident; shooting influencers and media obtained and circulated the FBI’s testing notes, which described scenarios where “movements representing those common to a law enforcement officer” could allow the striker/sear safeties to disengage and permit a discharge without an intentional trigger pull [1] [2] [6].
2. ICE — a publicly posted internal memo banning P320 carry and ordering replacements
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement publicly posted an internal memo in July 2025 barring authorized officers from carrying P320 variants and directing procurement of Glock 19s as replacements; that memo and agency action were cited in multiple outlets as a direct operational response to the FBI evaluation and to multiple injury reports involving ICE agents [7] [3] [5].
3. Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission — investigatory report and ban
The WSCJTC publicly outlined a four‑month investigation after a recruit’s P320 discharged while being drawn during training, injuring two people; the commission moved from a temporary suspension to a permanent ban at its facilities and convened a 30‑plus member working group (including Sig Sauer representatives) to examine unintentional shootings involving the platform [4] [8].
4. Military commands and training agencies — selective pullbacks, not always full reports
Several federal and military units—most notably elements of the Air Force including the Global Strike Command—halted use or pulled the M18/P320 variant after review of incidents and the FBI material; reporting indicates some commands published memos or orders halting use, but full internal testing reports beyond the FBI BRF evaluation have not been widely released into the public record in the sourced reporting [3] [9].
5. What the released materials actually show and their limits
The publicly circulated FBI BRF evaluation did not deliver a definitive universal verdict but documented testing where failure modes could permit a discharge without a trigger pull under certain mechanical conditions—essentially a plausible pathway rather than a categorical failure for every pistol—and the BRF’s conclusions prompted agencies to take precautionary steps; however, the BRF work was described as inconclusive in some accounts, and sources stress gaps in chain‑of‑custody, sample size, and how broadly findings generalize to all P320 variants and production years [6] [1] [2].
6. Conflicting narratives: manufacturer defense and institutional caution
Sig Sauer’s public posture has been emphatic: the company asserts exhaustive testing shows the P320 cannot fire without a trigger pull and has pushed for full disclosure or publication of complete federal testing so it can rebut perceived misinformation; at the same time, the patchwork of agency memos and bans—ICE’s public memo, WSCJTC’s report and bans, and various military command orders—shows agencies prioritizing officer safety and legal risk even as disputes about causation, holster compatibility, and user handling continue [10] [5] [8].
7. What remains unknown in the public record
Beyond the FBI BRF evaluation and the agency memoranda and bans mentioned above, there is no comprehensive, publicly released set of internal incident reports from every law enforcement agency that has pulled the P320; many local police departments cited in prior reporting have removed the pistol from duty but have not released detailed internal forensic reports into the public domain, and the sourced material does not provide full investigative files for the Michigan State Police or for most municipal agencies [4] [11].