4 minute read

The secrecy battle over the Army’s Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) for Sig Sauer’s P320 has followed Glasscock v. Sig Sauer to the Eighth Circuit. A media intervenor is now asking the appellate court to keep key records open—and their brief places Practical Shooting Insights (this site) squarely in the middle of the story.

What’s new

  • The Trace intervenes in the appeal. The newsroom moved to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing sealed filings tied to class certification and the FMECA, arguing the public’s right of access and noting the district court cited the FMECA nine times when it certified the class.

Screenshot 1

  • Sig Sauer says “national security” and asks for deference to the Army. In opposing intervention, Sig Sauer urges the court to leave FMECA-related material sealed and to give the Army time to weigh in, framing the dispute in terms of protecting “military secrets.”

Screenshot 2

Screenshot 3

  • A second FMECA document emerges. Sig Sauer’s opposition confirms there are two FMECA records in the class-certification exhibits: a FMECA Spreadsheet and a FMECA Memorandum—the latter not previously described in public filings—raising fresh questions about what the memo contains and who authored it.

Screenshot 4

  • PSI’s reporting is part of the record. The Trace’s filing tells the court the unredacted FMECA was found on CourtListener, de‑obscured, and published on Practical Shooting Insights, where it “remains available”—and it recounts Sig Sauer’s own executive discussing it on a podcast while pointing viewers to this website.

Screenshot 5

Screenshot 6

The FMECA document was previously published here.


The Trace’s pitch: This isn’t secret anymore

The Trace walks the appellate court through how the FMECA left the bottle: it was posted on this website and then widely republished; a YouTube explainer discussing it surpassed 100,000 views. The filing quotes Sig Sauer’s VP of Consumer Affairs Phil Strader being asked on the Behind the Lens podcast why the FMECA shouldn’t be public and responding, “No, there’s not” (nothing to hide), while directing viewers to this website to see the document and describing its contents.

Screenshot 7

Screenshot 8

The reporting regarding Phil Strader’s interview was previously published here

How many times has the unredacted FMECA been “shared”? The filings don’t give a precise share count. What they do document is widespread republication and discussion, including the 100k‑plus video and multiple re‑posts mirroring the PSI copy. In other words, the genie is out of the bottle.

The Trace also points to DoD Instruction 5230.24, the policy Sig Sauer invokes, noting it does not authorize withholding unclassified information about evaluations of performance and reliability of military equipment—and that the PSI‑hosted FMECA bears no DoD distribution markings.

Screenshot 9


Sig Sauer’s response: Let the Army decide—and keep the lid on

Sig Sauer tells the Eighth Circuit The Trace lacks standing and that parallel briefing is already underway in the district court. Substantively, Sig Sauer leans on military‑secrets concerns, requests time for the Army to opine on release, and characterizes the FMECA as controlled technical information created under the MHS contract. (The company also recounts how the spreadsheet briefly became public in another case before being pulled down.)

Screenshot 10

Two details in Sig Sauer’s papers matter going forward:

1) The “FMECA Memorandum.” Sig Sauer identifies the memo alongside the previously published spreadsheet. If the memo is Sig Sauer‑authored, it could reveal how the company framed the Army analysis internally—an issue directly relevant to notice, risk mitigation, and marketing claims.

2) Ongoing Army communications. Sig Sauer’s litigation counsel filed a declaration stating he asked the Army about the FMECA’s distribution status and that key Army decision‑makers were unavailable the week of the deadline; Sig Sauer says the Army may submit information and seeks additional time.

Screenshot 11


The transparency question, distilled

  • Is the FMECA “national‑security” material? The Trace says no—and points to DoDI 5230.24’s carve‑out: it does not provide authority to withhold unclassified evaluations of performance and reliability—exactly what a FMECA is. It also underscores the lack of any DoD marking on the PSI copy.

  • Is secrecy even possible at this point? The record shows the unredacted spreadsheet is online on this website, has been reposted broadly, and has been discussed by Sig Sauer’s own executive on air—who told listeners where to find it. One video discussing it has 100,000+ views.


Why this matters to the class action—and to owners

The district court relied on the FMECA repeatedly when certifying the Missouri class, including on notice and risk‑mitigation questions—the very issues consumers care about. Keeping the heart of that analysis under seal on appeal would blunt the public’s ability to scrutinize a product‑safety fight with real‑world consequences.


My role, plainly

Practical Shooting Insights is an independent site covering the shooting‑sports and firearms industry. The Trace’s filing names PSI as the first publisher of the unredacted spreadsheet and quotes Strader pointing viewers here. I will continue to publish filings and analysis so readers can compare the arguments to the documents themselves.


What to watch next

1) Whether the Eighth Circuit permits intervention and applies the strong presumption of public access to class‑certification records.
2) If the Army weighs in—and on what basis—regarding the FMECA’s distribution status.
3) Disclosure of the FMECA Memorandum. If it’s Sig Sauer-authored, it could illuminate internal framing of hazards and fixes—material at the core of consumer‑protection claims.