The U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command has paused the use of a handgun following the death of a Security Forces airman at a base in Wyoming.
The use of the M18 pistol, a variation of another firearm that has been the subject of lawsuits over allegations of unintentional discharge, was put on hold Monday “until further notice” following a “tragic incident” on Sunday at the F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, according to a statement from the command. Security Forces combat arms personnel at all command bases “will carry out 100% inspections of the M18 handguns to identify any immediate safety concerns,” the statement added.
The name of the active-duty airman, assigned to the 90th Security Forces Squadron, 90th Missile Wing at the base, and specifics of what occurred have not been disclosed. The missile wing described it as an isolated incident, assuring that there is no threat to the base or surrounding community. Security Forces specialists are tasked with protecting Air Force bases.
The firearm is manufactured by New Hampshire-based company Sig Sauer, which is currently defending against several lawsuits alleging that its popular related firearm, the P320 pistol, can fire without the trigger being engaged. Sig Sauer refutes these allegations, asserting that the P320 is safe and any issues are due to user error. The company has won some of these cases.
The P320 was adopted by the U.S. military as M17 and M18 pistols, and the M18 is now the official sidearm of all branches of the U.S. military, Sig Sauer says on its website. In 2019, Sig Sauer announced it had delivered its 100,000th M17 and M18s to the U.S. military.
The pause is so far limited to the Global Strike Command, which includes more than 33,700 Airmen and civilians. The rest of the Air Force and the other armed services have not announced any orders to avoid using the pistols.
“Our hearts are with the service members and families impacted by the recent reported event at the F.E. Warren Air Force Base,” Sig Sauer said Wednesday in a statement posted on Facebook.
The Air Force Office of Special Investigations is in charge of the investigation. The command’s statement says it collaborating with the Air Force Security Forces Center and Headquarters Air Force Security Forces “to conduct a thorough review of the M18 and develop appropriate corrective measures.” Sig Sauer said it has offered to assist.
The P320 was introduced in 2014. Sig Sauer offered a “voluntary upgrade” in 2017 to reduce the weight of the trigger, among other features. Lawyers for people who have sued the gunmaker, many of them law enforcement officers, say the upgrade did not stop unintentional discharges.
Earlier this year, Sig Sauer appealed a ban of the P320, M17 and M18 pistols by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, arguing that it appears to be based on inaccurate and incomplete information. The commission banned the weapons after a recruit said his P320 discharged while he was drawing it, even though his finger was not on the trigger.
And just this month, Sig Sauer announced that the Michigan State Police is adopting the M18 as its primary sidearm.
Several large multi-plaintiff cases have been filed since 2022 in New Hampshire’s federal court, representing nearly 80 people who accuse Sig Sauer of negligence and defective product design and marketing. That’s in addition to lawsuits filed in other states, including one in Pennsylvania last year alleging a wrongful death.
They say the P320 design requires an external mechanical safety, a feature that is optional. The most recent New Hampshire case, representing 22 plaintiffs in 16 states, was filed in March. A judge heard arguments Monday on Sig Sauer’s motions to dismiss the lawsuit or break it up and transfer it to districts where the plaintiffs live.
There also was discussion of a 2-month-old law in New Hampshire, created in response to the lawsuits, that prohibits product liability claims against Sig Sauer and other gun makers based on the “absence or presence” of the external safety and several other optional features. Claims can still be filed over manufacturing defects. The law hasn’t yet been incorporated into the case.
