Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by johnmcl, Aug 2, 2019.
A sign of the times...
The SIG and the Glock are dead eqaul in quality, reliability, durability, accuracy etc. No harm, no foul there.
However I wonder how much money can be saved by the Director of the Department of Homeland Security order all agencies under his authority to use the same pistol and ammunition?
I'm surprised that they (and the rest of the gov't) doesn't follow the Army with the m17/m18.
Apparently Glock has learned that the gov't agencies are price sensitive (which is why they lost the Army contract in the first place).
Since it didn't happen unless there's a photo, this guy started as a .357 Sig and is now a 9mm:
What is this logical thinking of which you are speaking and who authorized it?
I thought the whole idea behind going 9mm for our military was ammo compatibility with NATO. Argument made sense to me. Seems like this idea makes sense also.
Not sure how much they practice, but I'd assume it's a fair bit more than the typical municipal police officer. Using the price difference for lowest non-reman practice ammo prices for each cartridge on gunbot, these guns will pay for themselves in ammo cost within 3,000 rds. That assumes a purchase price of $450 for the Glock and a trade in value of zero for the sig.
Is there any training on the new guns or are they passed out and that’s it new holsters accessories etc all add up plus the loss they take purging excess ammo they have hand all add to the true cost of it all. You constantly hear of agencies switching guns out all the time but imagine the cost savings had they not just serviced those gen2 g17s that were bought in the early 90s. Police trade in guns are constantly sold with the same slogan carried lots shot little. I bet a sig p 22x or any Glock model has no significance between the model they carried in the 90s. We see surplus guns that are being phased out in other countries that have been in service for 50yrs all the time.
I don’t see much here to disagree with. My math was based mainly on the switch away from .357 Sig, and is likely nowhere near the math involved with a .gov contract.
The cynic in me thinks most of these “phasing out of ABC platform in favor of XYZ” is due to “use it or lose it” funding, and not wear and tear on the hardware.
Read: Firearms are inexpensive, ammunition is expensive.
Now, I wonder how much and where to whom the real grease went. The wheels of the Stone only turn when properly paid...
RMR isn't perfect in every aspect, but they are tough, hold zero, and easy to use. Changes are coming. Thinner, lighter, clearer.
I've been shooting for a long time. I dont claim world class expert status, but judging by what I see at ranges and competitions, I'm better than most.
I went with optics as age affected my vision. The RMR put my scores back up to where I was. Since cataract surgery and dedicated practice, I have improved above and beyond even my best scores and times in my 30's and 40's. By a lot.
I'm now shooting tighter groups at longer ranges than I could have 20 years ago. I'm not saying this is due to just the RMR. I practiced more when the eyes started going, I felt vulnerable. It's a combination of several things. But, the RMR was the key part in how well I shoot now. I have no doubt of that.
Anyone who doesn't think that red-dot sights are a massive advantage on combat/service-type guns just doesn't know what they're talking about. They make hitting moderately small things at distance easier. They make shooting fast easier. They make shooting a moving target way easier.
If I were a LE procurement person or agency head, there is a 0% chance that my next round of handguns would not have dots on them. In a few years, this will be as thorough a change-over as revolver-to-semi-auto.
I have one dot equipped pistol, and don’t plan to buy anymore going forward that can’t be milled or already have the ability to mount a red dot sight.
As well as the advantages ATLDave touches on, the ability of the dot to make hits on low contrast targets easy is another advantage. Maybe more hunting oriented, but still an advantage.
The dot reduces the shooter’s workload considerably by taking out needing to manage visual focal points. Just stay threat/target focused and put the dot where you need it. Frees up the mind a smidge to make decisions about shooting or not shooting based on what your problem is doing. After that all you have to do is manage the trigger.
I have been through several issue gun changes. When my agency went to the .40 S&W and the BERETTA in the mid 1990's, it took years to complete. We had 4 different divisions and my division had to wait over 2 years before we transitioned. We were sent to a 2 day course where we were issued 600 rounds of REMINGTON hollow point and shot most of it. When I transitioned to the H&K P2000, it was a one day affair and we shot only about 200 rounds. Now we will go to the GLOCK (eventually).
We also spent a lot of time testing the guns. After the first round of tests, ALL THE GUNS FLUNKED! The BERETTA did not pass, the SIG failed and all the others did as well.
We held a second round of testing with revamped guns and ONLY BERETTA and SIG PASSED. We went with BERETTA because they were cheaper. No bribes involved.
Different divisions of HOMELAND SECURITY have different needs. Also, it you think you can convince ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY to buy somebody else's choice of equipment, you have never worked for a government agency!
When I traded in my BERETTA 96D Brigadier, the locking lugs were so worn, that the slide was moving slow enough for me to actually see it go back and forth. The H&K'S have not worn out nearly as quick. I had to trade in the gun I was issued in 2006 in 2016, as it had become an unreliable feeder.
So guns do wear out. Especially police guns. You may find an "UNISSUED" item as I did with a BERETTA 96D Brigadier and then again, it may be beaten to death.
There is a lot to the "USE IT OR LOSE ARGUMENT", but it is more than that. After 9-11, many federal agencies took advantage of the "FREE MONEY" to buy new equipment and switched guns to something more modern, more powerful or more popular with the officers.
My agency switched from the BERETTA 96 for several reasons, one was all the complaints from officers who wanted a smaller gun to carry off duty. Now we are going back to the 9m.m., so well will get a lighter, if not smaller gun.
That right there is funny no matter who you are.
Perpetuate the tired old myth.
For every DEA agent with a Glock, there's a Tex Grebner with a 1911.
What are the different needs?
A handgun is just a platform for sending a bullet downrange with the hope it will hit the target in the right vital area to cause them to stop whatever they are doing.
Consider ammunition. There are enough differences in the Officers tasks to make a case for different bullet designs but using 9mm as a example the choices are fairly small...115, 124 and 147 gr. bullet weights.
As gun nuts we obsess over the smallest details and differences in design. Using myself for example I much prefer all metal DA/SA handguns. Beretta and SIG meet my preferences. I dislike plastic striker fired pistols. Glocks are near the bottom of the list. It does not fit my hand well and I think any design that requires pulling the trigger to disassemble is a poor one. I personally will not buy one. However if I was required to carry one I would train and learn to shoot it as well as possible.
When the FBI decided to blame the 9m.m. Silvertip bullet for the poor performance of it agents in the Miami shoot out, it could have gone with the SIG 220 in .45ACP. NOPE, it had to have a new caliber, the 10m.m. A round that already had a reputation for heavy recoil in full power loads and could be hard on guns and shooter. So it bought a 10m.m. in a LARGE pistol and it was a disaster. So they went back to the 9m.m. till the .40 came along. WHY?
My agency went to the .40 only when it was decided to replace our issued .357 magnum revolvers. I was carrying a 9m.m. loaded with +P+ and saw no advantage in it. We went to a very powerful load and got exactly what was wanted, a .357 magnum equivalent 12 shooter. What was the difference. My agency did not have the trauma of getting shot up like the FBI did. So we picked a round for our needs, not as a security blanket to over come a mess that we had to blame on a single round of ammunition.
Other agencies went to the .357 SIG and discovered what the FBI did with the 10m.m., qualification scores dropped and every agency knows a miss may be worse than a hit if it hits an innocent bystander.
Also, different divisions inside large divisions of agencies issue different guns, why? To show their independence, not really for a need. My agency issues .40 caliber H&K's while another division has SIG's. Why, same agency, different guns. If there is money to burn, you can bet they will buy a new gun and it will be different from everyone else!
Agencies are bureaucracies and they are every bit as emotional and irrational in what they do as people.
My experience in the Federal bureaucracy has taught me that.
Separate names with a comma.