NEWINGTON, N.H., (July 31, 2023): SIG SAUER has the following statement relative to a reported unintentional discharge from an officer at the Montville, CT Police Department on Monday, July 24, 2023:

“We have seen the news reporting of the incident involving a P320 discharge at the Montville (CT) Police Department.  We are confident, as is the case in all instances, that when the factors and evidence are reviewed this will be proven to be an unintentional discharge as a result of inadvertent contact with the trigger, and that the pistol did not fire without a trigger pull.

In reviewing the video footage of this incident currently available, it appears that the involved firearm was not fully seated in its holster and the holster retention hood was not fully closed over the pistol at the time of discharge (images below).  This improperly holstered condition would have left the firearm’s trigger exposed and vulnerable to actuation.  Even if properly holstered, the features of the involved holster allow for foreign object intrusion and interaction with the trigger, as has been seen in other incidents. 

We regret that the involved agency jumped to conclusions regarding the cause of this discharge without first carefully examining the footage of the incident and providing SIG SAUER with an opportunity to assist in the examination of the involved firearm.

The P320 model firearm is used effectively and safely every day, by both civilians and armed professionals.  Despite years of litigation and extensive discovery, no one has ever been able to replicate a condition under which the P320 could discharge without a trigger pull, and experts who have attempted to assert such a claim have been repeatedly thrown out of court as unqualified and/or unreliable.  Three separate federal courts (in the matters of Frankenberry v. SIG SAUER, Mayes v. SIG SAUER, and Hilton v. SIG SAUER) have concluded that the two experts who have proffered a theory of uncommanded discharge are unfit to testify in court because they are unqualified and/or their opinions are untested and unreliable.  In the only case regarding a P320 discharge to proceed to a full trial (Guay v. SIG SAUER), a jury of 12 rejected these experts’ unproven and unscientific theory, and found unanimously in favor of SIG SAUER.  SIG SAUER stands behind the proven safety and reliability of the P320.”