Why do LEO's "SWITCH" every 5yrs?

With a "few" exceptions, SS protective detail, swat, or HRT, most leo's wear often and shoot seldom. This is a "good" thing, and we all want ot live in that kind of area. Why then, does almost every dept. of any size seem to change pistols every 3 to five years? Am I missing something, or is this another way to spend taxpayer $$$?:confused:

I don't think you are missing anything... They are spending someone else's money.

I think with the Federal Government it's simply a regulation that most contracts are not allowed to run more than 5 years. Cost us some money yes, but also prohibits a "sweetheart" 30 year deal with a manufacturer who sent some money to the right people.

As for local Departments not sure. Might be union issues "Your sending our guys out there with 10 year old worn out guns!". Or might just be them following the Fed's lead without even knowing why. Wouldn't be the first time for that:rolleyes:

Though I like older guns and use some for selfdefense, a 10 year old gun carried by mulitple people who may not know how to treat a gun, cared for by a "armorers" of questionable skill would not be my first pick for a duty weapon. While many are not shot much it seems to sometimes be a rather tough life of being neglected, dropped (sometimes on purpose in training) and genereally beat on. I've seen some pretty rough guns after only a few years of service.

5-7 years seems a reasonable service life for those conditions to me and $4-500 every half dozen years (much less with trade-in) is a drop in the bucket to keep an officer on the road or streets that long.

Howdy,

The advent of new defense rounds like the .40S&W and 357SIG also have a lot to do with it. A lot of departments when with the 9mm in the mid to late 1980s. They are now looking for an excuse to change to a "better" caliber.

I experienced a "duty gun switch" at a department I worked for. When I started there I was issued a Beretta 92SB 9mm that the department bought in 1983 when the Beretta was selected over the HK P7M8 as a duty weapon. In 1999 about half of the Berettas still in use were bought in 1983 and were worn out, mine included. Obviously the cheaper way to go would have been to buy 50 new Beretta 92G pistols (the last Berettas the department bought were the 92G with night sights). That way spare magazines and leather could stay in use. However, we used the excuse of needing some new guns to buy all new guns, leather, mags, and ammo. We went with the HK USP40 Compact. It wasn't necessary to get all new guns, but the firearms guys didn't want to stick with a 9mm, so all the Berettas got sold off and we got the HK.

"most leo's wear often and shoot seldom."

That's an internet belief I'm getting real tired of hearing. The agency I used to work for required us to shoot every three months and encouraged us to shoot every month with free ammo. The average officer averaged about 1200 rounds a year. That's no where near as many as some hobby shooters but these were rounds sent down range in focused structured training and not just blasting away at a hillside.

There are agencies that don't take shooting seriously but they are becoming the exception rather than the rule.

That's still only 6000 rounds over five years or so, which I agree isn't enough to wear our a good gun. New guns for police departments have as much to do with politics as they do with reality just like anything else.

Regards,
David

If it's a personal purchase for duty use, why for tax deduction as a bizness expense, what else?

Loudernhel,

For a police officer, whose life might depend on his skill with a gun, it would seem to me that every 3 months is still not much shooting

The people that make firearms decisions for agencies have personal biases just like all of us........if for years they've had to carry a certain gun they hated, they're going to change guns when they get in that decision making role. Human nature.

My dept got rid of steel framed 10yr old 45s because they were worn out(?). They were shot about 3 times a year!.......all they really needed was some PM and new springs.......can you imagine carrying a gun for 10 years and never changing mag or recoil springs? When I was issued my 45(which was used), it's mag springs were half the length of a new spring. I asked for new springs, and they went out and bought brand new mags.......great for me, but a really stupid waste of taxpayer money.....it's like they aren't aware that springs can be changed. And these people are making decisions about what gun I carry.

It's maddening!

Dave

I don't think you are missing anything... They are spending someone else's money.Actually, I suspect some of them aren't spending any money at all. Typically an officer is issued 6 magazines. For many departments, they originally purchased pre-ban 9mms. Consequently, those 6 magazines were worth at least $600. I suspect that many of the departments that "upgraded" to .40S&W were able to do so without spending any money at all. After all, where do you think all those "reconditioned" Glocks came from. I suspect that Glock told a bunch of departments that they'd exchange their 9mms for .40s even-steven, as long as the pre-ban magazines were included in the deal.

M1911

You can buy used hi caps for most glocks for more like $60, over the internet. And that's retail. I dont know how much LEO's are getting for their used guns, but I suspect its a wholesale price, and less than $60.

Plus, remember the used guns they are trading in would have to be made prior to 1994, or else the mags would be labled "LEO only" and therefore not available on the civilian market at all.

Most major handgun manufacturers now have a LEO firearm lease/buyback program.

Most firearm manufacturers price their guns so that the distributor can tack on a 20% market-up as well as the retailer.

Under the program, the LE agency buys the guns at 75% retail. The lease contract is sold at a 15 to 20% discount to a bank.

The manufacturer get his profit as though it was a sale. After the lease, if the manufacturer financed the lease they get back the guns. If a bank financed the lease they sell back the guns to the manufacturer for dirt (2-10% of the original purchase price).

The manufacturer rebuilds the guns at 25% or less of the cost of building a new gun and then sells them to distributors at 60% new.

Retailers sell them at 25% less than new.

The industry earns a gross profit equal to a new gun twice--once on the original sale and once on the resale. The manufacturer gets to compete with lower priced goods.

For example a person can buy a recycled Sig for the cost of a Taurus.

The LE agency gets new guns on a schedule. No big buget outlay, reduced costs.

Dave,

I understand your point on the springs, but I can see there side as well. You know what your doing and everything would have worked out fine just ahnding you a spring. Next guy assumes it's a mag spring causing his mis-feeds gets a new spring as well. Puts it in upside down and backwards and on top of that finds out in a gunfight that his feed lips were really the problem. Sorry to say that sometimes you gotta play to the lowest denominator.

Now a Department *could* train each officer to about the level of your average department armorer (competent at maintence and minor parts changing), plus have a full time real company certified smith on site with all the skills and tools to do serious repairs and refurbishing, plus keep track of how many rounds are going through each officers gun (who's shooting on there own dime and who's not) to know what the service intervals would be for each officers weapon. OR they could do as most departmants do and swap out old guns to new guns for $2-300 every 5-7 years. Which sounds like it has the lowest liability, is simplest and cheapest ;)

"Sorry to say that sometimes you gotta play to the lowest denominator"

You are correct of course.

I'm just irritated that they took away my steel 45 that would eat anything, and gave me a plastic 40 that I can't reload for because it might blow up(ammo is like gold where I work so it'd be nice to be able to reload for practice).

Dave

Lone_Gunman

I would agree that more is always better but we seem to do ok around here. Our hit rate in gunfights is in the high 80' to low ninties, percent wise. It depends on whether you include statistics for moving for legged animals or not.

I think the difference is that the rounds we fired in training were focused to developing a specific set of skills. I find that when I go shooting on my own, I have a bad habit of just blasting rounds down range, as most people do.

Quaterly is probably the most frequent interval that is realistic. I know some small SO's that shoot monthly but most larger departments can't swing that.

I'm just tired of the internet image of the average cop as being an incomeptent dufus with a gun who cares nothing about training. Their may be departments like that but they are getting few and farther between.

Regards,
David

RobertodeTejas, former LEO here. Had to pay my own way. Ddin't switch.:D Draw your own conclusions.

WHAT?!?! You mean to tell me that some police departments participate in programs that result in their weapons being put "on the street" and "in the hands of gangbangerdrugdealerfelonyrecordsotheycantlegallybuyfirearmsanyways" instead of melting them down into slag when they're done with them? Heavens! Think of the children!

"...cared for by a "armorers" of questionable skill..." Most of 'em have been to the manufacturer's school. They're working on the issue piece daily. Unskilled they ain't.
Up here, the Toronto cops are required to shoot twice a year to qualify. It was a total of 24 rounds per year when they still had revolvers. Most of 'em had never seen a firearm of any kind before becoming cops. And most don't shoot as a hobby. Most of 'em know absolutely nothing about firearms. Even the ones they're issued. And the so-called elite ETF(SWAT) is no better. They leave training ranges in a big mess, leave firearms behind after they've shot, shoot over back stops with SMG's and they shoot each other. And their was a case of a Chief(not TO) selling confiscated firearms to anyone with money.
There are seemingly regular incidents of cops shooting each other or extremely unsafe range practices that would get you and I arrested. They're good guys for the most part but geezuz, they're not safe to be around when there are firearms concerned.
And they switch because they can. The budget for the Toronto cops is $500,000,000 Cdn. Mostly pay cheques. A first class copper gets $50,000 plus.

loudernhel, when Texas Bob said "most leo's wear often and shoot seldom"

It seemed to me as if he meant at people or things, not practice wise. Which he said was a good thing, because most people don't want to live in these kind of areas. "That kind of area" being one where police are shooting all the time.

That is just how I read it though.

Oh and to stay on topic. Greenville NC PD uses, and has since they switched from reolvers, a Smith an Wesson .45 semi auto. It would seem to me they would switch to a better gun, but they seem to be sticking it(didn't mean to offend any smith owners out there, but personal experience dictates that they should have stuck with revolvers)

Because the bookkeepers & accountant leader types who don't have any REAL field/patrol experience know whats good for the ordinary cop.:D

I know several people who are involved in procuring police guns for departments, and they all tell me the same thing.

Cop guns are NOT the beloved personal treasures of hobby shooters, they're working guns.

They're carried by cops, many of whom don't even really like guns.

The guns are not owned by the cops, so they have no real desire to baby them past making sure they go BANG when the trigger is pulled.

The guns are carried at least 40 hours a day in all kinds of weather, heat, cold, rain, dust, and dirt.

The guns get banged up just from constantly being dragged in and out of a patrol car day in and day out, much less being ground into the concrete during scuffles on a regular basis.

They get dropped.

They often get improper, or insufficient maintenance from the cop.

In spite of training, cop guns often get used as saps, hammers, and pry bars.

In short, cop guns take a beating few "civilian" shooters would subject their prized, expensive gun to.

Modern police guns are often aluminum or plastic framed, which of course, gets battered much faster than steel.

So, police officials figure that about 5 years is an "average" service life for a cop gun. Some of the department guns will be like new, and some of them will be battered to junk.
They have to base changeover decisions on the WORST condition guns.

Then there's the legal aspect of having badly worn guns.

(SCENE IS A COURT ROOM. A POLICE CHIEF IS BEING QUESTIONED BY SOME SCUMS LAWYER)
"So Chief, your trigger-happy Gestapo-Fascist cop shot my poor client by accident, didn't he?" "Why just LOOK at his gun, the sights are knocked out of alignment, the finish is mostly gone, and it's actually got RUST and PITTING on it". "Obviously you forced this incompetent boob to carry a WORN OUT GUN".
(TYPICAL LIBERAL BIG CITY JURY GLARES AT CHIEF).

There is a lot of competition between Glock and Smith & Wesson for the police market. Distributers (I can only bet with factory backing) are making some fantastic trade in offers to police departments to get them to switch.

In 1992 we transitioned from revolvers to semi-autos. S&W 65 and 66s were replaced with S&W 5906 autos. We had few problems with the autos and were generally satisfied with them. In 2001 we were needing to replace the tritium night sights. S&W wanted appox. $130 a weapon to replace the night sights. Since it was going to be that expensive and we wanted to go to a bigger caliber then 9mm, we started looking into trade ins. Glock (through a large LE distributer) gave us new Glock 21s for what S&W wanted to replace the night sights plus our old 5906s. Officers were permitted to buy their old weapon from the distributer for $300.00.

So for an out of pocket cost of $130 per weapon we got new Glock 21s. I rather doubt that the distrubter wholesaled those 5906s for $300 a pop.

Not that a 23 man department is going to get it's name in a Glock ad, but they seem to be cutting all sorts of deals so that if you look in a police officer's holster, you'll most likely see a Glock.

I think you'll see this constant changing stop as more and more politicians make police departments stop trading in their used weapons. They will no longer be able to afford to upgrade constantly.

Jeff

Blueduck's and GeorgeH's answers cover the vast majority of situations where departments of one size or another seem to play revolving pistols.

The rest are covered by serious cases of "we gotta have what the other guys have." (Not really understanding why the others may have them.)

---

My agency mandates that I qualify quarterly.
It provides a minimum of 250 rounds a quarter for practice and qualification. (I merely have to ask for more, and as long as it is available, I get it. Apparently it is nearly always available.)

Politics, politics, politics.

75 percent of decisions like these are often made for political reasons. The chief can look good to the mayor and say he is keeping the department up to date.
Besides gun makers have to earn a living too.

I don't know about all cities but the ones I have covered the officers tend to put less than 1000 rounds down range in a year.

The guns are carried at least 40 hours a day
Huh?week?

Get'em all stainless Ruger GP 100's and be done with it.