.40 and Law Enforcement

[sojournerhome]

Fort Worth issues Sigs

In Fort Worth a little while back they swtched to Sigs in .40.
They also gave the officers the option to buy their old psitols.

 

[RustyShackelford]

The rise of the .40S&W/.357sig.

I would say the .40s&w started back in 1990 when the CHP(CA Highway Patrol) issued the new S&W 4006 model pistols as duty weapons.
When more major LE agencies started to use the .40 pistols in the early/mid 1990s, the trend spread over to the civilian market.
As the .357sig became more popular in the late 1990s-early 2000s, it started to shift the LE/protection use of the .40s&w away. I like the .357sig more than the .40s&w. If I had to choose a new LE duty weapon or issue a weapon to a large dept I would use the HK P-2000 LEM or the SIGarms DAK model P-229.

 

[Outlaws]

Actually the price difference is about 4 times as much for Sigs.
I was commanding our R&D when we went to Glocks. We tested 15 different makes and models over a period of about 1 yr. When we finished Sig came out #1 followed closely by S&W and Glock. We asked for bids from the top 3. We were buying 2500 guns and turning in our 3rd gen S&W. We also asked to be included in the bid new holsters, 750 rds training ammo for every sworn officer, and 1 yrs worth of duty ammo which would also be used for quarterly training, qualifications, and carry. Glock came in at just over $1/4 mil. S&W came in at double Glock's price. SIG came in at over $1 mil. With over $750,000 price difference between SIG and Glock it's easy to see which gun got the bid.

Your math doesn't really add up.

$250,000 for 2500 pistols would = $100 each. Then all the ammunition and holsters would have to be free. Even at $500,000 ($200/ea) it would seem way too cheap for everything you are getting.

 

[isp2605]

Your math doesn't really add up.

$250,000 for 2500 pistols would = $100 each. Then all the ammunition and holsters would have to be free. Even at $500,000 ($200/ea) it would seem way too cheap for everything you are getting.

I know exactly what the cost was. And your figuring is correct on the costs however you neglected to figure in the costs associated with our S&Ws in exchange.
Also, if you don't understand the reason for such prices then you don't understanding marketing. Companies will make some real deals to get a particular market. Glock isn't the only one who does it. S&W did it for many years. Chevy, Dodge and Ford all did it. It's called marketing.
Sig did it too not long after they came out with the 357 rd. A local PD was carrying S&W 6906s for several years and they were looking to swap for newer. In exchange for their 12+ yr old 6904s Sig gave them new SIgs in 357, transition and qualification training ammo (I forget now how much per officer but transition training was 1 week long, 2 yrs of duty and qualification ammo, and new holsters and mag carriers. Sig also said if the 357 rd didn't catch on in 2 yrs then Sig would give the PD new barrels to convert their guns over to .40. Total deal was a few over 300 guns. Even exchange. Didn't cost the PD a dime.

 

[kellyj00]

don't our boys in Iraq get issued a Baretta 92 sidearm?
I know it's a 9mm, not sure if it's a baretta 92 or a H&K, i've heard both sides.

 

[isp2605]

M9 = Beretta 92.
Not everyone in uniform is issued a sidearm. Actually few are.

 

[Edmond]

Not everyone in uniform is issued a sidearm. Actually few are.

Isn't it pretty much officers, MP's and SF's?

 

[Edmond]

Actually the price difference is about 4 times as much for Sigs.

Wow, that's much higher than I could've imagined. Personally, I think the Sig is a finer firearm. But when it'd be very difficult to justify a price difference that big to the tax payers. If the firearms were bought personally, it'd be a different story.

 

[isp2605]

Isn't it pretty much officers, MP's and SF's?

As a general statement that's pretty close. There will be others depending on their MOS and duties at the time but the usual man/woman in uniform may never fire a handgun while in the service.

 

[isp2605]

Personally, I think the Sig is a finer firearm. But when it'd be very difficult to justify a price difference that big to the tax payers.

That's so true. If you can show 1 is as suitable as another but the cost is over $3/4 mil more then you're not going to convince the legislature to fund it only on a 'but we want it' reason. As a taxpayer I wouldn't want an agency spending $3/4 mil for something when they could adequately use something cheaper. Additionally as a dept manager I could use that $3/4 mil for other toys that my agency needs.

 

[jkomp316]

the .40 is a good round. despite certain opinions. its a good balance of velocity, size, capacity, and cost. the .45 is a great round, but its a bit of a resource pig, 230 grains of lead can really add up when your producing millions of rounds. there's a reason our military round is a .223. its cheaper to make, and our soldiers can carry more. ever pick up 100rds of .223 and 100rds of .45? what would you rather have stuffed in your backpack?

 

[Coronach]

Your math doesn't really add up.

$250,000 for 2500 pistols would = $100 each. Then all the ammunition and holsters would have to be free. Even at $500,000 ($200/ea) it would seem way too cheap for everything you are getting.

As was explained, yes it does.

Everyone needs to read what isp2605 wrote again. This is exactly what gun makers and departments do. It is not at all unusual for a deal to be brokered like this:

You give us all of your old guns, and for each one you give us we give you a new Sig-Glockenwesson & Koch. Which holster will you be using? We'll supply that, too. You need ammo? OK, how many rounds per gun for your orientation and first qualification? Done. City of Anytown, it has been a pleasure doing business with you, and we look forward to the decade or decade and a half that you will be locked in as customers of Sig-Glockenwesson & Koch, buying a new gun for every new officer you hire.

Mike

 

[Alphazulu6]

Quote:
Not everyone in uniform is issued a sidearm. Actually few are.

Isn't it pretty much officers, MP's and SF's?

Depends on the MTOA (Modified Table of Allowances) for that particular unit. Very few get an M9 pistol as the Army is pathetically short on every type of firearm. We had units that were deployed that didnt even have a weapon (let alone an M9) for every one of its Soldiers until they got to Kuwait and were outfitted by Rock Island Armory deliveries.

Back to the M9s and issue to Soldiers, Mechanics in Forward Support Companys, Tankers, and some of the Service Support branches get pistols. The majority of the Army gets M16s, Shotguns, and M14s... I had an M9 as an XO but only carried my M16 as it was the only thing I trusted. My driver got my M9 as he was the one who really needed it because you can't really fire an M16 out the window and drive.

 

[isp2605]

we look forward to the decade or decade and a half that you will be locked in as customers of Sig-Glockenwesson & Koch, buying a new gun for every new officer you hire.

....and for letting us use as advertisement the fact that your agency is now carrying our SGW&K.
The year we went to Glock, after 32 yrs with S&W, the Glock Annual featured a story on our transition to Glock. Advertisement. That kind of move sells a lot of guns to the non-LEO community.
As I wrote earlier, this kind of deal is not just limited to the gun market. In the early 80s Dodge/Chrysler was hurting. They offerred real deals to LEAs which is why the big market then was for St Regis, Aspens, and Diplomats. See enough cars to the fleet operations, the public starts seeing more of them, and the public will follow the market and start buying. In 1991 Chevy redesigned the body style of the Caprice from the square body to the rounded body. As a result the public didn't like the new style and wasn't buying it. So Chevy cut some real deals to the LEA market and other fleet operations to get the new style Caprice out there in front of the public. Their plan was to get enough new Caprices out there so the public became use to seeing the new style and would start buying. It was a moderate success for them.

 

[Edmond]

For that reason, I think Glock is genius. They do spend a lot of money in almost giving the guns away. But they make it up and then some when every Tom, Dick and Harry goes out to buy a gun because a certain PD carries it.

What's the manufacturing cost on a Glock without figuring in R&D? Then again, they're all pretty much the same so R&D, I'm sure, has already been covered in terms of money. I think I read somewhere that it costs somewhere in the $180-200 range. I can't cite my source or recall where I read that from, though.

The "supervisors" in my company all went out and bought G23's because "the .40 is what LE has switched to now." Combine that with their policy of having only Glocks and that leaves them really with 1 pistol choice.

 

[W.E.G.]

I believe Glock also has a really good exchange program where a department can turn in old Glocks in exchange for new ones and only a small amount of boot. Real hard for a police department to turn down that deal.

I think Glock still sells the trade-ins after factory refurbishment. I'm not sure whether refurbishment includes a new frame, or just re-serializing an old frame.

 

[obxned]

It's 'new and improved'. Never mind that the problem of an accurate, reliable handgun cartridge was solved in 1911.