Sig Sauer P320 pistol and law suits over accidental discharge

quote:

---

How has the P320 not gone under a mandatory recall?

---

quote:

---

Could the visable modifications to this P320 have led to an accidental discharge




Short answer: Yes, the visible modifications could plausibly contribute to an unintentional/accidental discharge — but none of them automatically mean the gun will fire on its own. It depends on what was changed, how it was installed, and whether tolerances were affected.

Here’s what’s visible and why each matters:

1. Aftermarket trigger (flat / skeletonized)

This is the biggest red flag.

Many P320 aftermarket triggers reduce pre-travel, sear engagement, or overtravel

If tolerances stack up poorly, this can:

Reduce striker/sear engagement below spec

Make the striker easier to release from shock or inertia

Improper installation or worn engagement surfaces absolutely can increase AD risk

This has come up repeatedly in P320 AD investigations and expert testimony.

2. Weapon-mounted light

Not a direct cause, but relevant:

Adds mass to the frame

Can slightly change recoil dynamics and flex

In a marginal trigger/sear setup, that extra impulse can be enough to release the striker

On its own? No.
Paired with reduced sear engagement? Potentially yes.

3. Optic-cut slide / mounted optic

This matters more than people think:

Optic cuts remove material near the striker channel

If tolerances are off or debris enters the channel, striker movement can be affected

Some aftermarket slide work has been implicated in striker drag or incomplete resets

Again, not inherently unsafe — but it narrows the margin.

4. No visible manual safety

Relevant because:

The P320 relies heavily on internal safeties and sear geometry

When those are altered, there is no redundant mechanical safety to block movement

---

quote:

---

Here's what AI says

---

quote:

---

So I don't own a SIG. Hence AI.

---