Sig Sauer Class Action Alleges P320 Pistol Unsafe Compared To Competitors

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Sig Sauer P320 Pistol Safety Class Action Lawsuit Overview: 

• Who: A Missouri law enforcement officer is suing the maker of his handgun, Sig Sauer.
• Why: The plaintiff says the company’s model P320 handgun lacks safety features and that Sig Sauer conceals this from consumers.
• Where: The lawsuit was filed in Missouri federal court.

One of the most popular handguns in the United States lacks a safety feature that makes it discharge inadvertently at higher rates than comparable guns, a new class action lawsuit alleges. 

Plaintiff Joshua Glasscock, a longtime law enforcement officer, filed the class action complaint against Sig Sauer Apr. 18 in a Missouri federal court, alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). 

According to Glasscock, Sig Sauer designs, manufactures and markets the striker-fired pistol known as the P320, one of the most popular handguns in the United States and the selected service model for several law enforcement agencies and the United States Army.

However, the P320 “lacks safety features of comparable pistols sold by Sig Sauer’s competitors, and it inadvertently discharges at a higher rate than comparable pistols,” he alleges.

“Sig Sauer conceals and omits this material information from consumers about the enhanced risks associated with the P320,” the class action lawsuit states.

Sig Sauer Does Not Warn Consumers of Increased Discharge Risk, Class Action Alleges

Glasscock said he purchased his Sig Sauer P320 in April 2020 in Polk County, Missouri. He paid approximately $400 for the pistol. 

“Glasscock would not have purchased the P320, or would have paid substantially less for it, had the defective nature of the P320 as outlined herein been disclosed to him and/or publicly confirmed by Sig Sauer prior to the time of purchase,” the class action states.

He alleges that, unlike its primary competitors and its M17 and M18 counterparts, the civilian version of the P320 lacks any external safety features: no trigger toggle and no manual safety.

“Sig Sauer does not warn, advise or tell consumers about the increased likelihood of the P320 inadvertently discharging due to the absence of these external safety features,” according to the class action.

Glasscock alleges Sig Sauer also doesn’t warn consumers that they will need to engage in enhanced and heightened safety procedures because of the P320’s lack of any external safety procedures.

He is seeking certification of the class action lawsuit, damages, fees, costs, interest and a jury trial. 

Glasscock is looking to represent anyone who purchased a Sig Sauer model P320 pistol in the State of Missouri from Sept. 1, 2017, through the present. 

Meanwhile, in 2021, a veteran Federal agent claimed he was shot by his own Sig Sauer P320 semi-automatic handgun because of a defect that causes the service weapon to fire without anyone pulling the trigger. He is suing the company, seeking $10 million in damages. 

Do you own the Sig Sauer P320? Let us know your experience with the gun in the comments! 

The plaintiff is represented by Matthew L. Dameron of Williams Dirks Dameron LLC.

The Sig Sauer Class Action Lawsuit is Joshua Glasscock, v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-DPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri Southern Division.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Dick’s Sporting Goods Wants Customer’s Return ‘Risk Score’ Claims Sent To Arbitration
• Gun Owners Accuse Top New York Police Officers, New York City of Violating Second Amendment
• Minor League Players Class Action Lawsuit Claims They Were Underpaid, Argue MLB Is Too Late to Request Dismissal of Expert Testimony
• Dick’s Sporting Goods Class Action Claims Website Not Accessible to Blind People