Guide to Investigating and Litigating SIG P320 Cases

Counsel needs a working understanding of the pistol and the alleged mechanism to evaluate the evidence with qualified firearms, engineering, and human-factors experts.

Parts 1 and 2 cover the mechanical and human-factors foundation. Parts 3 and 4 examine the P320 and P365 parts, springs, and tolerances. Part 5 identifies dated court records and their coverage limits. Parts 6 and 7 address plaintiff and defense approaches. Part 8 covers class actions, state enforcement, and multidistrict litigation. Part 9 addresses expert work and preservation. Part 10 provides model language that requires case-specific facts, governing law, and counsel's review. The appendix supplies case citations and source links.

1. 01The pistol, the platform, and the partsRead ›
2. 02The four safety rules and human factorsRead ›
3. 03The alleged defect, in mechanical detailRead ›
4. 04The P365, in parallelRead ›
5. 05The docket and the recordRead ›
6. 06Plaintiff strategyRead ›
7. 07Defense strategyRead ›
8. 08Class actions, MDLs, and state AG suitsRead ›
9. 09Expert work, protocols, and evidence preservationRead ›
10. 10Sample pleading and filing languageRead ›
11. ACase appendix and sourcesRead ›

This book is a reference for counsel. It is not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client or expert-client relationship. Retain qualified counsel and a qualified expert for any actual matter.

The SIG Sauer P320 is a striker-fired, polymer-framed, modular pistol. Modular means the serialized part is not the frame the shooter holds. The serialized part is a small stainless-steel chassis inside the pistol called the Fire Control Unit, or FCU.

SIG Sauer released the P320 in 2014. The U.S. Army selected a variant, the M17, as its service pistol in 2017. The compact variant is the M18. The Air Force and the Navy adopted the same platform. Federal, state, and municipal police agencies followed. By 2026 SIG had sold more than three million pistols on this platform in the United States. The P365 is a smaller pistol released in 2018. It shares the striker-fired architecture but not the trigger group.

Figure 1

The Fire Control Unit is the gun

The Federal Firearms License and the serial number stay with the FCU. The shooter can drop the FCU into a Compact grip module, a Full-Size grip module, or an X-Carry grip module. The shooter can change slides. The pistol looks like a different gun after the swap. The gun in the eyes of ATF is the small stainless part in the middle.

Figure 2

Preserve, photograph, and measure the FCU under a documented expert inspection protocol. Examine the slide, striker, safety components, holster, and other evidence relevant to the alleged mechanism. If the FCU is unavailable, identify the resulting limits and assess what other evidence can support.

Naming the parts

Counsel needs a working vocabulary. I use these definitions consistently in reports and depositions.

1. StrikerThe spring-loaded rod that hits the primer of the cartridge. In the P320 the striker is under tension whenever a round is chambered. The pistol is fully cocked at that point, not partially cocked as some competing designs are.
2. Striker springThe coil spring that drives the striker forward when the sear releases the striker. The stored energy in this spring is what fires the round.
3. SearThe small metal lever that holds the striker back against spring pressure. The sear is the primary mechanical block against discharge.
4. Striker safety leverAn L-shaped tab on a torsion spring inside the slide. It moves into the path of the striker when the trigger is at rest, and moves out of that path when the trigger is pressed. This is the secondary mechanical block. In P320 documentation SIG has also called this the striker safety.
5. Trigger barThe long lever that runs from the trigger, through the FCU, and up to the sear. Pressing the trigger drives the bar rearward, which pivots the sear off the striker.
6. DisconnectorA mechanical part added by SIG in the 2017 Voluntary Upgrade. It prevents the striker from releasing if the slide is out of battery.
7. SlideThe steel top half of the pistol that reciprocates during firing. The striker, striker spring, and striker safety lever live in the slide.
8. Grip moduleThe polymer frame the shooter holds. This part is not serialized. The shooter can buy it separately, in different sizes and colors.
9. MagazineThe removable box that feeds cartridges into the chamber. Preserve the magazine and its contents for examination with the firearm and ammunition.

The M17 and the M18

The M17 is a P320 with a full-size slide and a coyote-tan frame. The M18 is a P320 with a compact slide and the same coyote-tan frame. Both carry a manual thumb safety, unlike the commercial P320. The U.S. military required a manual safety in the contract. This fact matters in the Air Force chapter of the docket, because the M17 and M18 have an external safety and the commercial P320 does not.

Figure 3

The P365, briefly

The P365 is a subcompact, single-stack, striker-fired pistol released in 2018. SIG designed the P365 as a ground-up striker gun, not a conversion of a hammer-fired predecessor. The internal architecture is different from the P320. I cover the P365 in Part 4.

Figure 4

Use the four rules of firearm safety to organize handling questions for the armorer, officer, and expert witnesses.

I trained under Colonel Jeff Cooper's four rules of firearm safety. They are the standard of care in every firearms training program I know of. They are also the standard I apply in every case in which a firearm has caused injury. I have rewritten them for greater specificity, and this is the version I use.

Rule 1. All guns are always loaded.

Rule 2. Never allow a gun to point at anything you don't want to see destroyed.

Rule 3. Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on your target.

Rule 4. Always be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

The four rules, as I teach and apply them

The four rules provide overlapping protections. A violation can create danger, but the number of violations does not determine whether someone will be injured. In an uncommanded-discharge claim, examine finger position, other possible trigger contact, firearm condition, and the sequence of handling. A finger outside the trigger guard does not by itself rule out trigger movement or a design-related contribution.

How the four rules structure the investigation

Human factors, not victim blaming

Human factors examines how people interact with equipment, including under stress. Evaluate foreseeable handling, instructions, holster fit, trigger access, and the design features intended to reduce unintended discharge. Explain which observations support each proposed mechanism and which remain uncertain.

The holster and the trigger guard

Rule 3 says the finger stays outside the trigger guard until the sights are on target. A holster's job is to keep everything else outside the trigger guard too. The cases discussed here include claimed discharges while the pistol was holstered. The holster is therefore evidence. Counsel who does not preserve, photograph, and inspect the holster has lost a central piece of proof.

P320 plaintiffs allege different mechanisms. Some allege discharge without trigger movement. Others challenge unintended trigger actuation, omitted safeguards, warnings, or manufacturing conditions. Identify the mechanism and the applicable claim before assessing the evidence.

The two-lock architecture

The P320 has two mechanical blocks between the striker and the primer. The sear is the first. The striker safety lever is the second. Normal firing requires the sear to release the striker and the striker safety lever to clear the striker’s path. A claimed abnormal discharge requires examination of how each barrier functioned.

When the pistol is at rest with a round chambered, the striker is under full spring tension, held back by the sear. The striker safety lever sits in the path of the striker, blocking forward movement even if the sear were to fail. The pistol is not partially cocked in the way a Glock is. In the Glock design the striker is only partially tensioned at rest; pressing the trigger completes the cocking cycle. In the P320 design the striker is fully tensioned at rest.

Figure 5

What the trigger does

When anything presses the trigger, the trigger bar moves rearward. The pistol does not know or care what pressed it: a finger, a drawstring, a shell casing in the holster, or an internal component under inertia will all initiate the same sequence. Two things happen. First, a cam on the trigger bar lifts the striker safety lever out of the striker's path. Second, the rear of the trigger bar pushes the sear downward, off the striker. The striker is now free. The striker spring drives the striker forward. The striker tip hits the primer. The round fires.

In the intended firing sequence, trigger-bar movement releases the striker. An alleged discharge outside that sequence requires a supported account of the sear, striker safety, trigger bar, and their condition.

The plaintiff theories

The following mechanical allegations require support from the subject pistol, reliable testing, and the incident evidence. They are not an exhaustive list of claims, and listing an allegation does not establish that an expert proved it.

1. Sear cliff theoryThe sear-striker engagement surface is measured in fractions of a millimeter. Plaintiffs argue that manufacturing variance and metal fatigue reduce the effective engagement over time, and that a jarred or dropped pistol can bump the sear off the striker without a trigger press.
2. Striker safety lever bypassThe L-shaped tab that blocks the striker sits on a torsion spring. Plaintiffs argue the tab can be pushed out of position by slide-to-frame play, by the striker itself under retention-spring decay, or by aggressive holster reinsertion. If the lever is out of the way and the sear fails, the pistol fires.
3. Trigger bar geometryPlaintiffs point to the trigger bar's angle of contact with the sear. Small changes in slide-to-frame play, they argue, can allow the trigger bar to move enough to release the sear even without shooter contact with the trigger.
4. Retention spring decayThe spring that holds the striker safety lever in position may lose load over thousands of cycles. Plaintiffs argue that a decayed spring cannot resist small displacements, and that this could explain an alleged discharge after extended use. Test that hypothesis against the subject spring, documented use history, and competing mechanisms.

Trigger actuation and alleged rollover

In Coleman, the complaint defines an “un-commanded discharge” to include discharge without a trigger pull and discharge after a foreign object contacts the trigger. The plaintiffs allege a combination of trigger characteristics, omitted tabbed-trigger and grip safeties, and internal-component conditions. They also allege that some P320s contain “rollover,” a manufacturing condition that permits the striker foot to slip from the sear. These are allegations recited on a motion to dismiss, not inspection findings about Coleman's pistol. (Coleman, Dkt. 18, pp. 1 to 4.)

Trigger contact therefore does not answer every design or warning claim. Separate whether or not the trigger moved from whether the proposed safeguard would have prevented the incident, the relevant functional tradeoffs, and the user's conduct. For an alleged internal release, account for the sear, striker safety, and other barriers in the actual configuration; a claimed sear condition alone does not establish the complete discharge sequence. (Coleman, pp. 4 to 9.)

The defense response

The defense relies on the sear and striker safety as separate mechanical barriers and challenges whether plaintiff testing reproduces the alleged discharge in an intact pistol with the relevant upgrade parts. Compare the tested configuration and conditions with the incident. Failure to reproduce a discharge limits a test result but does not, by itself, establish what occurred.

The 2017 Voluntary Upgrade Program

In August 2017 SIG announced a Voluntary Upgrade Program for the P320. The upgrade is free. It has no expiration. SIG describes the changes as a lighter trigger, a lighter sear, a lighter striker, and a mechanical disconnector added to prevent the striker from releasing when the slide is out of battery. The program followed reports that early P320s could discharge if dropped at a specific angle onto the rear of the slide. Determine the subject pistol’s configuration and whether the upgrade addressed the alleged mechanism. For an un-upgraded pistol, investigate notice, availability, and whether the proposed changes would have prevented the claimed event before assessing any defense based on nonparticipation.

The P365 is not a small P320. It is a separate design. Litigation involving the P365 is now open, and the mechanical theories differ from the P320 record.

SIG released the P365 in January 2018 as a subcompact concealed-carry pistol. It fires the same 9mm cartridge as the P320. It shares no fire control parts with the P320. The FCU is smaller. The sear geometry is different. The striker safety is a plunger, not a lever.

Plunger, not lever

In the P365 the striker safety is a spring-loaded cylindrical plunger that sits in the striker's path. Pressing the trigger drives the plunger down, out of the way, as the trigger bar releases the sear. This is the same architecture used in the Glock and the Smith & Wesson M&P. It is not the L-shaped lever architecture of the P320.

Compare the P365 plunger and P320 lever by examining their geometry, operating clearances, condition, and relevant testing. Do not infer comparative reliability from the mechanism label alone. Identify the particular component and failure alleged in each P365 case.

The 2018 striker breakages

In early 2018 SIG identified a heat-treatment issue in the striker tip on some P365s. The tips could break off after firing, leaving the pistol unable to fire. SIG replaced the affected strikers. The problem was a manufacturing defect, not a design defect, and it did not cause uncommanded discharges. It is mentioned in some P365 pleadings as evidence of quality-control failures at SIG. Counsel should be careful to keep the striker-tip issue separate from the current design-defect claims. Connect any asserted notice or causation inference to the particular alleged failure.

The 2026 P365 docket

The P365 cases below have different procedural histories. A pleading-stage ruling does not establish a defect, and a dismissal for failure to prosecute does not decide the alleged mechanism.

• Harvard v. SIG Sauer, N.D. Ga. 1:25-cv-06891-TWT. Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. denied SIG's partial motion to dismiss on August 7, 2026. The court rejected the Second Amendment defense at the pleading stage but expressly allowed SIG to raise the defense again after discovery. The order concerns allegations involving a P365X; it is not a final constitutional or defect ruling. (Harvard order, Dkt. 23, pp. 10 to 12.)
• De Souza v. SIG Sauer, M.D. Fla. 6:26-cv-01571-JSS-RMN. David Araujo De Souza alleges that a holstered P365 discharged as he sat down on November 5, 2024. The complaint appears as Document 5, filed July 21, 2026. (Complaint, pp. 1 to 3.) SIG answered September 25. The public docket now reaches November 2 and lists an October 15 case-management scheduling order, Dkt. 23, followed by a November 2 local-rule notice. The available descriptions do not establish the order's actual deadlines or the notice's substance. (Docket, entries 15, 21, and 23 and November 2 notice.)
• Ashe v. SIG Sauer, federal Northern District of New York, 1:23-cv-01281. On January 9, 2026, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), initially without prejudice to refiling by new counsel within 30 days, with automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice absent refiling. The docket lists judgment entered February 24, 2026. This was not a New York state-court action, and the docket no longer supports a pleading-stage description. (Ashe docket, entries 48 and 49.)

Read the operative pleadings, inspection evidence, expert disclosures, and subsequent orders before applying any P365 allegation to another pistol. Keep the P365 and P320 designs separate, and identify whether or not the proposed mechanism involves trigger movement, internal component failure, or both.

Research reviewed November 9, 2026. The entries distinguish allegations, rulings, verdicts, and later filings. Public docket coverage varies by case; the appendix identifies the available record dates and unresolved checks.

Additional September to November 2026 developments

• Coleman, September 23. Judge Amanda K. Brailsford denied most of SIG and Palmetto State Armory's dismissal motion. She dismissed only Count Four and the express-warranty theories within Counts Three and Seven, without prejudice, and allowed 21 days to amend. (Order, pp. 10 to 12.)
• Schreiber, October 19. Judge James L. Robart granted the stipulated scheduling modification. The class-certification motion is due August 13, 2027, under that order; the ruling does not certify a class or resolve liability. (Docket entry 44.)
• New Jersey alert, reported October 29. An October 29 report describes an October 28 officer-safety alert concerning P320 handling. The original alert was not obtained in this review; the attributed account and its limits appear in Part 8. (We Are The Mighty report.)

Selected decisions and procedural records

MDL status

The JPML's November 2, 2026 pending-docket report lists no P320, P365, or SIG Sauer MDL across its five pages. The report does not establish whether a transfer motion is pending or exclude panel activity after November 2. (JPML pending MDLs by district, all five pages.) Verify later panel activity before filing, and distinguish informal discovery coordination from Section 1407 centralization.

The M17 and M18 and the Air Force facts

In July 2025 the U.S. Air Force grounded the M18 after the death of Airman Brayden Lovan at F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Initial reporting framed the death as an uncommanded discharge. The Associated Press subsequently reported, and Air Force filings confirmed, that a second airman named White-Allen fired the pistol and initially concealed the fact. Airmen involved in the incident pleaded guilty to false statements. The Air Force ungrounded the M18 in August 2025 after inspecting 7,970 pistols and identifying 191 with discrepancies in the safety lever, striker, or sear.

August 2026 military review

Military Times reported an August 7 statement describing the M17/M18 as safe and reliable after a review of the Modular Handgun System. The statement attributed the investigated alleged uncommanded discharges to trigger pulls. The military pistols have manual safeties, so their configuration and the reviewed incidents must remain distinct from claims involving other P320 variants. (Military Times report.)

This chapter is the plaintiff playbook, drawn from verdicts, denied motions to dismiss, and the strategies that have failed.

Evidence developed in plaintiff verdicts

1. A uniformed officer or veteran with a duty holsterThe two large P320 plaintiff verdicts, Lang (N.D. Ga.) and Abrahams (Phila. C.C.P.), each involved a documented shooter, an agency-issued or personally-carried holster, and preserved physical evidence. The training and carry pattern were established. Compare testimony about finger placement with the physical record, including evidence that supports or contradicts the account.
2. An expert opinion supported by the actual evidenceDocument what the expert inspected or tested, why the method fits the issue, and how the results apply to the subject pistol and holster. Address any limits of exemplar or document-based work. Do not treat personal testing, or its absence, as a universal admissibility rule.
3. Preservation letters within daysSend a preservation letter to the agency, the department armorer, and the manufacturer within days of the incident. Include the pistol, the FCU, the slide, the holster, the belt, the clothing, the magazines, and any ammunition remaining in the magazine.
4. Facts supporting the actual claimIdentify whether the claim concerns internal release, unintended trigger actuation, omitted safeguards, warnings, manufacturing, or a representation made during the sale. Plead the known supporting facts under the applicable pleading standard; do not insert an unsupported sear or tolerance theory into every complaint. Coleman illustrates why a court must consider the combination actually alleged. (Coleman, pp. 4 to 9.)
5. Video and scene geometry. Preserve available body-camera footage and prepare a scene diagram showing witness positions and visibility. Explain what each view establishes about handling and what it cannot show.

Problems illustrated by defense dispositions

1. Expert disclosure deadlines. The Jordan account identifies missing expert reports among the litigation problems. Calendar the governing disclosure dates, seek any needed relief promptly, and assess the consequences under the applicable rules and orders.
2. Evidence of trigger contact. Determine what contacted the trigger and how that evidence affects the pleaded theory. Trigger contact can contradict a no-trigger-movement theory without resolving a distinct claim about foreseeable intrusion, safety features, or warnings.
3. Limits of exemplar and document-based opinions. Identify material differences between the exemplar and subject pistol. Require the expert to explain why the chosen evidence and method support the incident-specific opinion.
4. Class definition and injury. Read Glasscock’s standing analysis against the proposed injury theory. A class limited to pre-upgrade owners who did not participate in the upgrade still requires a supported injury and the applicable certification showing.
5. Upgrade status in the pleadings. Identify the subject pistol’s configuration and the relevance of the upgrade to the alleged defect. Address any supported assumption-of-risk or mitigation issue under the governing law.

Human factors, presented to the jury

Present the handling evidence alongside the mechanical theory. Show which safety rules the evidence indicates the operator followed or violated. A hand away from the gun does not exclude contact by clothing or another object, and a rule violation does not establish that design played no role. Explain the proposed causal sequence without predicting how jurors will respond.

Defense analysis should distinguish challenges to defect, incident-specific causation, warnings, injury, and the admissibility of particular expert opinions. The selected dispositions illustrate these issues, not a single explanation for all defense outcomes.

Coleman: a partial pleading-stage decision

Aaron and Mendy Coleman sued SIG and retailer Palmetto State Armory in the District of Idaho, No. 1:25-cv-00650-AKB. Aaron Coleman alleges that his P320 X5 Legion discharged while holstered on May 14, 2024, as he bent to reach a target-reset rope. Judge Amanda K. Brailsford accepted the pleaded facts for the September 23, 2026 motion, not as findings after discovery or trial. The complaint alleges overlapping internal-mechanism, trigger-characteristic, external-safety, warning, and warranty theories. (Coleman, Dkt. 18, pp. 1 to 4.)

• Optional equipment: The court declined to predict that Idaho would adopt New York's optional-equipment doctrine without an adequate signal from Idaho law. Even if the doctrine applied, the complaint did not establish that Coleman actually knew a manual-safety option was available. His firearms experience alone did not establish that knowledge on the pleadings. (Coleman, pp. 4 to 6.)
• Functional utility: The court distinguished Wasylow's Massachusetts summary-judgment record. Functional tradeoffs remain relevant to defect analysis, but the court did not accept categorical immunity for a feature because the feature affects firearm operation. The alleged combination required a developed record. (Coleman, pp. 6 to 8.)
• Second Amendment: The court assumed without deciding that private tort liability could implicate the amendment. It declined dismissal of the combination of defects actually alleged, rather than treating the complaint as a categorical ban on pistols without external safeties. The record did not establish the asserted market consequences. This was not a final constitutional ruling. (Coleman, pp. 8 to 9.)
• Warnings: The court distinguished ordinary firearm dangers from the alleged risk of a holstered discharge without deliberate trigger actuation. The pleadings did not establish that the particular alleged risk was open and obvious. The ruling did not decide that a warning defect caused the injury. (Coleman, pp. 9 to 11.)
• Express warranties: The complaint lacked facts connecting the alleged representations to the transaction. The court dismissed the express-warranty theories within Counts Three and Seven, not those warranty counts in their entirety. Idaho law did not require a separate strict-reliance allegation, but plaintiffs still needed facts connecting the statements to the bargain. (Coleman, pp. 9 to 10 and 12.)
• Retailer liability: The pleadings did not establish all conditions for PSA's nonmanufacturing-seller protection under Idaho Code § 6-1407(1). The plaintiffs alleged retailer notice of prior discharge reports. The court separately dismissed Count Four under § 6-1407(4) because the complaint did not allege the statutory service, insolvency, or judgment-enforceability conditions. Uncertainty about SIG's future ability to pay was insufficient; the court did not find SIG insolvent. (Coleman, pp. 10 to 12.)

The court dismissed Count Four and only the express-warranty portions of Counts Three and Seven without prejudice, allowed 21 days to amend, and otherwise denied the motion. SIG did not seek pleading-stage dismissal of every internal-mechanism theory. Neither that litigation position nor the surviving claims establish a defect or causation. This review did not fully verify subsequent amendment activity or a later disposition. (Coleman, pp. 4 and 12.)

Defense approaches to examine

1. Investigate trigger movement. Compare possible finger or foreign-object contact with the alleged internal failure. Ask witnesses what they observed and what they can reliably exclude, without assuming that every discharge originated inside the trigger guard.
2. Evaluate the 2017 upgrade. Establish the pistol’s configuration, the owner’s notice and opportunity to participate, and whether the upgrade addressed the alleged mechanism. Assess assumption of risk and mitigation only under the governing law and supported facts.
3. Examine the basis of the plaintiff expert’s opinion. Identify what the expert inspected and tested, why the method was selected, and how the results apply to the subject FCU, slide, and holster. Base a Rule 702 challenge on specific deficiencies rather than lack of personal testing alone.
4. Preservation demands. Request preservation of the pistol, holster, ammunition, clothing, and related evidence. If an item is missing, investigate the duty to preserve, circumstances of loss, substitute evidence, and resulting prejudice before seeking relief.
5. Government contractor and statutory defenses. Investigate the contract, specifications, alleged defect, and governing law before pleading Boyle or any state contractor defense. Service-weapon status alone does not establish those defenses.
6. State shield laws where applicableNew Hampshire HB 551 enacted RSA 507-D:6, effective May 23, 2025. Its listed-feature limitation includes an external safety, but the text preserves specified claims for actual manufacturing defects and failures to operate consistently with express warranties or representations. Assess the alleged mechanism, statutory exceptions, timing, and applicable law. (HB 551, sections 6 to 8.)

Defenses requiring qualification

1. Second Amendment defenseHarvard denied SIG's partial motion to dismiss on August 7, 2026. Judge Thrash expressly permitted SIG to raise its constitutional argument again after discovery. Do not describe the pleading-stage ruling as a final merits rejection. (Order, pp. 10 to 12.)
2. Support any trigger-contact theory. Identify physical, testimonial, or testing evidence for the proposed contact and address contrary evidence. Do not substitute a general accusation of shooter error for a supported mechanism.
3. Focus impeachment on material inconsistencies. Relate any credibility challenge to the witness’s observations and the evidence. Do not infer why jurors reached a verdict from the plaintiff’s occupation or the tone of cross-examination.

Focused discovery

• Rule 34 request for the holster, in the condition it was in at the time of discharge, with instructions not to clean or alter.
• Rule 34 request for the belt, the outer garment, the shirt, the pants, and any keys or coins carried at the scene.
• Deposition of the disclosed testifying expert under Rule 26(b)(4)(A), with any production or inspection arranged under the applicable discovery rules and court orders. Rule 30(b)(6) concerns organizational testimony, not the examination of an individual expert. (Rule 26; Rule 30.)
• Evaluate a Rule 702 motion directed to specific deficiencies in the expert’s methods, factual basis, or application to the subject pistol.

A single officer's uncommanded-discharge claim can be won or lost on the officer's own facts. A class claim is a different animal. The pleading, the class definition, and the proof of injury are different.

How to plead a P320 class

Glasscock concerns a proposed economic-loss class and a named plaintiff whose pistol had not manifested the alleged defect. Schreiber allowed a different omission-based theory to proceed at the pleading stage before the Glasscock appellate ruling. Neither disposition establishes that a narrower class automatically has standing or satisfies Rule 23. (Glasscock overview; Schreiber order.) Evaluate the named plaintiff's actual injury and the controlling circuit's law.

1. Pre-upgrade owners who did not receive the upgrade. Establish the configuration of their pistols and the evidence for the asserted economic loss or retained-risk injury. Nonparticipation alone does not establish a legally sufficient injury.
2. State consumer-statute classesSchreiber (W.D. Wash.) pleads Washington's Consumer Protection Act. State consumer statutes may relax reliance and causation requirements that trip up common-law fraud classes.
3. Public entities as sub-classAgencies that issued pre-upgrade P320s to officers face a distinct economic injury: the cost of replacing or upgrading the fleet. Sub-class them separately from individual retail purchasers.

Glasscock: manifestation and concrete injury

The Eighth Circuit vacated class certification on July 16, 2026, and directed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Glasscock's pistol had not manifested the alleged defect. The court rejected the asserted risk and benefit-of-the-bargain injury on that record. It did not decide that the P320 was defect-free, require a gunshot injury for every economic-loss claim, or identify upgrade participation as a substitute for concrete injury. (Glasscock, No. 25-2707, official opinion.)

Schreiber scheduling and related actions

The October 19, 2026 docket entry confirms that Judge Robart granted the scheduling modification. Fact discovery for class certification closes March 31, 2027. Initial expert reports are due May 14, rebuttal reports June 21, and expert discovery closes July 23. The certification motion is due August 13, opposition October 13, and reply October 27, 2027. These are the dates in that order, not a representation that no later scheduling change has occurred. (Schreiber docket entry 44.)

The parties' scheduling filing identifies related actions in Illinois, New York, Florida, and Oklahoma and describes discovery coordination. Those references establish what the parties represented in October, not the current disposition of every related case. None establishes an MDL transfer. (Schreiber scheduling filing, pp. 2 to 3.)

• Shepherd v. SIG Sauer: S.D. Ill. 3:25-cv-02023-SMY. (Related-action listing, p. 2.)
• Farrell v. SIG Sauer: E.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-05701-NCM-LKE. (Related-action listing, p. 2.)
• Altman v. SIG Sauer: N.D. Fla. 3:26-cv-03862-MCR-ZCB. (Related-action listing, p. 2.)
• Schnau v. SIG Sauer: N.D. Okla. 4:26-cv-00274-SH. (Related-action listing, p. 2.)

What to avoid in class pleading

• For a nationwide state-law class, analyze choice of law and material differences among the applicable laws before assessing predominance.
• For owners who received the upgrade, determine whether the alleged defect or claimed loss remains and whether the injury theory supports standing.
• Assess whether punitive-damages issues can receive common treatment under the applicable law and the proposed proof.

Multidistrict litigation

The November 2, 2026 JPML pending-docket report contains no P320, P365, or SIG Sauer MDL on its five pages. It is not a list of every transfer motion and does not resolve later activity. (JPML report.) A Section 1407 analysis should address common factual questions, discovery overlap, case-specific differences, convenience, and efficient pretrial management. Different verdicts do not by themselves establish whether or not centralization is appropriate.

State attorney general suits

New Jersey announced its P320 enforcement suit on October 16, 2025, alleging violations of the Firearms Industry Public Safety Law and Consumer Fraud Act. The requested relief includes a recall, refunds, penalties, and restrictions on sales; the announcement does not establish that the court ordered those remedies. (New Jersey attorney general announcement.)

Schreiber is a private Washington Consumer Protection Act action, not a Washington attorney general suit. Judge Robart's May 27, 2026 order allowed the omission-based claim to proceed and addressed requested injunctive relief; it did not grant a recall. (Schreiber order.) Do not treat private injunctive relief as categorically unavailable. Compare the particular statute, plaintiff's standing, alleged injury, and remedy sought.

New Jersey's reported officer-safety alert

We Are The Mighty reported on October 29, 2026, that New Jersey's Office of Policing Strategy and Innovation issued an October 28 officer-safety alert at the attorney general's request. The report describes distribution through the Fraternal Order of Police, concerns about the P320, and precautions when officers encounter the pistol during arrests or investigations. This review did not obtain the original alert and does not present the report as a complete statement of agency instructions. (Miguel Ortiz, October 29 report.)

The same report records SIG's rejection of the uncommanded-discharge allegations and its reliance on military testing. The alert account is not a judicial defect finding or a court-ordered recall. Keep the reported alert separate from New Jersey's pending allegations and requested remedies; this review did not independently confirm the enforcement action's current removal or remand posture. (Alert report and SIG response; New Jersey complaint, October 16, 2025.)

The Second Amendment defense

In Harvard, SIG argued that imposing liability for the absence of an external safety would burden Second Amendment rights. On August 7, 2026, Judge Thrash denied the partial motion to dismiss while expressly allowing SIG to raise that argument again after discovery. The court treated the allegations as true for the motion; the ruling neither established a defect nor finally resolved the constitutional defense. (Harvard order, pp. 1 and 10 to 12.)

Expert work should address the alleged mechanism, the handling sequence, and the connection between the evidence and the incident. Review those opinions alongside the claim elements, defenses, and procedural requirements.

Retain a qualified expert early

Match expert qualifications to the opinions required. Document relevant firearms, engineering, testing, or human-factors experience and assess the proposed method and its application. Document review alone is neither an automatic disqualification nor a sufficient basis for every mechanical opinion.

The evidence-preservation protocol

1. Isolate the pistolThe pistol goes into a sealed evidence bag with the FCU intact. Do not disassemble. Do not clean. Do not dry fire.
2. Isolate the holsterThe holster goes into a separate sealed bag. Do not shake out debris. Do not clean.
3. Isolate the ammunitionEvery round remaining in the magazine, and every round in the shooter's carry gear, goes into a separate bag. Note the manufacturer, the lot number, and the round count.
4. Photograph in situPhotograph the pistol, the holster, the belt, and the scene before anything moves. Include a scale in each photograph.
5. Chain of custodyEvery transfer of the pistol between agency, laboratory, plaintiff expert, and defense expert is documented in writing.

The inspection protocol

1. External inspection firstPhotograph every external surface of the pistol. Note any tool marks, deformations, or missing parts.
2. Function check dryVerify the pistol is unloaded three times. Confirm the striker resets, the trigger returns, and the slide cycles.
3. Trigger-weight measurementUse a certified trigger-weight gauge. Record ten pulls. Report the mean and standard deviation.
4. Slide-to-frame play measurementWith the slide fully forward, measure vertical, lateral, and rotational play at multiple points along the slide. The 2017 upgrade tightens tolerances; a well-played slide on a post-upgrade pistol is a finding.
5. Sear-striker engagement measurementWith the slide removed and the FCU secured, measure the sear-striker overlap under magnification. Photograph. Compare to SIG's published specifications where available.
6. Striker-safety-lever movementVerify the lever moves freely under the retention spring. Measure the spring load if a jig is available.
7. Sear-movement testThe protocol described in Part 3. Document the force at which the sear releases under vertical pressure. Compare to a control pistol of the same generation.
8. Reassembly and function checkReassemble under video. Confirm the pistol returns to normal function. Note any parts that were replaced during inspection.

The blocks below are model language, drawn from surviving complaints, answers, and motions in the current P320 docket. Adapt to the facts of the case and to the local rules.

Complaint: strict liability, design defect

Complaint: breach of implied warranty of merchantability

Complaint: state consumer-protection act (class)

Answer: general denial and affirmative defenses

Motion in limine: identify unsupported expert opinions

Motion for class certification: narrow, injury-bearing subclass

Preservation letter (plaintiff or defense)

Cases cited in this book, with docket numbers where available and links to the underlying court records or contemporaneous reporting.

Verdicts and appellate decisions

• Lang v. SIG Sauer, N.D. Ga. 1:21-cv-04196-ELR. Plaintiff verdict of $2,350,963.43 on June 20, 2024; new-trial motion denied February 6, 2025. The Eleventh Circuit's official listing records oral argument in appeal 25-10810 on February 24, 2026. This review did not verify a later appellate disposition. (Verdict analysis; court argument listing.)
• Abrahams v. SIG Sauer, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Original November 20, 2024 verdict: $10 million punitive and $1 million compensatory damages. The court vacated the punitive award in June 2025, leaving $1 million compensatory damages. The original verdict releases do not describe that later change. (ASIS post-trial reporting; original trial-counsel release.)
• Slatowski v. SIG Sauer, 3d Cir. 24-1639, 148 F.4th 132 (August 1, 2025). The court affirmed exclusion of causation opinions, reversed summary judgment, and remanded for trial. Its holding does not support describing the exclusion as an abuse of discretion. (Third Circuit opinion.)
• Herman v. SIG Sauer, 10th Cir. 23-6136 (W.D. Okla. 5:21-cv-01038-R), summary judgment for SIG affirmed (Jun. 13, 2025). Read this Oklahoma case, not the older reporting that conflated case names. Tenth Circuit order and judgment.
• Frankenberry v. SIG Sauer, D.S.C., summary judgment for SIG (Feb. 4, 2022) after Daubert exclusion of the plaintiff's expert. A separate case from the Philadelphia Abrahams verdict. Defense counsel summary.
• Cole v. SIG Sauer, D. Me. 1:23-cv-00327-JCN. Defense verdict August 7, 2026; judgment August 10; Rule 59 motion September 8, opposition September 29, reply October 13. The October 14 order permits excess reply pages. The reviewed docket contains no new-trial disposition through that date. (Judgment, Dkt. 225; docket, entries 232 to 236.)
• Jordan v. SIG Sauer, DeKalb County (Ga.) State Court, dismissed with prejudice (Aug. 26, 2026). Soldier Systems coverage.
• Colwell v. SIG Sauer, 2d Cir. 24-2724 and 24-3047, May 28, 2026. Summary judgment vacated and remanded; incident-specific causation opinions remain excluded. The decision concerns the sufficiency of the remaining trial evidence, not pleading sufficiency. (Second Circuit opinion.)
• Glasscock v. SIG Sauer, Eighth Circuit No. 25-2707, 182 F.4th 740 (July 16, 2026). Class certification vacated; remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The named plaintiff lacked a manifested defect and a concrete injury on that record. (Official opinion.)
• Northrup v. SIG Sauer, Fla. 2d DCA 2D2024-0869, per curiam affirmance for defense (Feb. 28, 2025).
• Harvard v. SIG Sauer, N.D. Ga. 1:25-cv-06891-TWT. The August 7, 2026 order denies the partial motion to dismiss but allows SIG to renew its Second Amendment argument after discovery. (Order, Dkt. 23, pp. 10 to 12.)
• Desrosiers v. SIG Sauer, D. Mass. Judge Saris ordered judgment for SIG on the remaining Chapter 93A claim September 9, 2026. The report describes a design-defect finding alongside a successful Correia unreasonable-use defense, not a jury finding that no defect existed. (Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, September 24, 2026.)

Coleman: Idaho pleading and retailer issues

Aaron and Mendy Coleman v. SIG Sauer and Palmetto State Armory, D. Idaho 1:25-cv-00650-AKB, September 23, 2026. Dkt. 18 dismisses Count Four and the express-warranty theories in Counts Three and Seven without prejudice; otherwise it denies dismissal and allows 21 days to amend. Part 7 separates the optional-equipment, functionality, Second Amendment, warning, warranty, and Idaho retailer-liability holdings. Subsequent amendment or merits activity requires a current docket check. (Memorandum decision and order.)

Consolidated mass-joinders and class actions

• Hartley v. SIG Sauer, W.D. Mo. 4:18-cv-00267-HFS, order granting final approval of nationwide class settlement Jun. 25, 2020. Case-rupture claims only (the settlement's defined "Cartridge Failure Event": a ruptured cartridge case damaging the extractor, grip module, or frame). Does not cover drop-fire, uncommanded discharge, or personal injury. Final approval order. Long-form notice.
• Armendariz v. SIG Sauer, D.N.H. 1:22-cv-00536-JL (Judge Laplante), motion to sever denied Jun. 27, 2023, 2023 WL 4204666. Anchor mass-joinder in SIG's home district; 56 additional plaintiffs since consolidated. Order denying motion to sever.
• Anderson v. SIG Sauer, D.N.H. 1:25-cv-00113-JL, motion to sever multi-state consolidated plaintiffs denied Jul. 29, 2025 (2025 DNH 084). Order denying motion to sever.
• Glasscock v. SIG Sauer, W.D. Mo. 6:22-cv-03095-MDH, class certified Jul. 28, 2025, vacated by the Eighth Circuit Jul. 16, 2026 (No. 25-2707), case dismissed Aug. 21, 2026.

Enforcement and P365 records

• New Jersey v. SIG Sauer, announced October 16, 2025. The attorney general seeks remedies including a recall, refunds, penalties, and restrictions on sales. The announcement states allegations and requested relief, not adjudicated findings or an issued recall. (New Jersey attorney general release.)
• Schreiber v. SIG Sauer, W.D. Wash. 2:25-cv-02303-JLR, filed Nov. 17, 2025. Washington Consumer Protection Act class action out of the Oct. 9, 2024 Spokane police-academy discharge. Motion to dismiss denied May 27, 2026. Order on motion to dismiss.
• De Souza v. SIG Sauer, M.D. Fla. 6:26-cv-01571-JSS-RMN. The July 21, 2026 complaint alleges a holstered-P365 discharge on November 5, 2024. SIG answered September 25. The public index reaches November 2 and includes the October 15 scheduling order, Dkt. 23; its full text and actual deadlines were not obtained. Neither the pleading nor those entry descriptions establish a defect. (Complaint; docket.)
• Ashe v. SIG Sauer, N.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-01281. Rule 41(b) dismissal for failure to prosecute January 9, 2026; judgment entered February 24, 2026. The January order allowed 30 days to refile through new counsel before automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice. (Docket, entries 48 and 49.)

Voluntarily dismissed cases

• Green-Berrios v. SIG Sauer, D.P.R. 3:22-cv-01002-JAG-HRV. Judgment entered March 11, 2025, dismissing with prejudice on the plaintiff's voluntary motion, without attorney's fees or costs. March 13 dates SIG's press release. The plaintiff's statements in the motion are not a defect finding after trial. (Motion, Dkt. 162; judgment, Dkt. 169; SIG release.)

Statutes and programs

• New Hampshire HB 551, Chapter 40, effective May 23, 2025. RSA 507-D:6 limits specified listed-feature claims, subject to the express manufacturing-defect and warranty/representation exceptions. It is not a blanket exemption from firearm product liability. (Enacted text, sections 6 to 8.)
• SIG Sauer 2017 P320 Voluntary Upgrade Program. Free, no expiration. Program page.
• Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, report and resolution of Feb. 2025. Prohibits carriage of the P320, M17, and M18 on commission-owned or leased properties. Referenced in the Schreiber complaint. CJTC report. Spokesman-Review coverage.
• SIG Sauer 2017 Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA). Two documents produced under seal in Glasscock (ECF 128-13 spreadsheet; ECF 128-14 memorandum). SIG moved on Aug. 29, 2025 to unseal after the U.S. Army stated it does not seek protection. Coverage of the unsealing motion.

Air Force M18 documentation

• Associated Press reporting on the Lovan case and the false statements by other airmen. AP coverage.
• Air Force M18 grounding (July 2025) and ungrounding (August 2025) after inspection of 7,970 pistols and identification of 191 with discrepancies in the safety lever, striker, or sear.
• August 2026 M17/M18 review: Military Times reported an August 7 military statement that investigated alleged uncommanded discharges involved trigger pulls. The report concerns the military configuration and the incidents reviewed, not a finding about every commercial P320. (Military Times, August 19, 2026.)

Linked analysis and investigative reporting

• Jason Tenenbaum, “Sig Sauer's $11 Million Misfire: What Gun Owners Need to Know.” Originally published July 30, 2025; the page reviewed here displays an October 14, 2026 update. Read it as a secondary legal overview, not a court record. (Full article.)
• Verdicts and appellate posture. The article's “Georgia Verdict Survives Appeal” heading describes the trial court's refusal to order a new trial; the accompanying text says the Eleventh Circuit appeal remains undecided. The heading is not evidence of appellate affirmance. Its discussion of Slatowski also overstates the expert-admissibility holding; use the court's opinion. (Georgia section; case-outcome discussion; Slatowski opinion.)
• Case-specific sections. The overview provides separate discussions of Abrahams damages, Desrosiers, Colwell, Schreiber, and the P365 docket. Consult the underlying records cited above for holdings and procedural dates.
• Champe Barton, The Trace and Bloomberg Businessweek, February 9, 2026. The investigation reports former employees' manufacturing and quality-control concerns, internal documents, and competing accounts from former managers. It also records SIG's denials. These reports identify potential discovery subjects; they do not establish the condition of a subject pistol or the cause of a particular discharge. (Full investigation.)

Research date and limits

This revision reflects public sources reviewed through November 9, 2026, not a complete current PACER review. The public Cole docket still identifies October 14 as its last known filing; Schreiber identifies October 19 and confirms the signed scheduling order. Colwell's public index reaches November 6, but the review did not obtain the full recent order text or independently confirm the reported November 16 trial date against the court calendar. (Cole docket; Schreiber docket; Colwell docket.)

Coleman's September 23 order and Harvard's August 7 order support the holdings described here; subsequent merits or amendment activity was not fully verified. The available Lang appeal index reaches June 5, and this review did not verify a later appellate disposition. Related-action references establish the October coordination account, not current status in every court. (Coleman order; Harvard order; Lang appeal docket; Schreiber related-action filing.)

The MDL check uses the November 2 JPML report. The New Jersey alert account relies on October 29 reporting because the original alert was not obtained. Secondary reporting supplies the Desrosiers and Abrahams updates, and the Jordan account remains attributed to defense counsel. These limits preclude treating this revision as confirmation that no later ruling, appeal, or calendar change exists. (JPML report; New Jersey alert report.)

The review does not replace an exhaustive PACER search or a qualified expert's inspection and testing of a particular firearm. Mechanical allegations and reported manufacturing concerns require incident-specific support; this revision does not adopt a new expert opinion about the cause of any pending incident.

Non-legal sources

• Col. Jeff Cooper, The Four Rules of Firearm Safety. Foundational source. The four-rule text used in Part 2 is my own rewording for greater specificity.

This book is a working reference. Verify every citation and docket number against the current record before filing.

Steve Wolf is a firearms and safety expert witness. He testifies in state and federal courts on firearms design, human factors, and safety. He is the lead firearms expert witness against Alec Baldwin in the Rust shooting case arising from the on-set death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. He has worked pyrotechnic and on-set safety, wildfire, climbing and recreation, SCUBA and maritime, and electrocution matters. He is the author of the Wolf Safety Series of illustrated guides for counsel, journalists, and the public.

Retention inquiries: steve@stevewolfexpertwitness.com. Website: stevewolfexpertwitness.com.