Another LEO story

W

Wingspan

New member
After reading the "lady Cop" thread, I feel compelled to share a conversation I had earlier this week...

One of my coworkers is a part time LEO. He is aware of my interest in firearms and we frequently talk guns. The other day he mentioned that about two months ago he had traded in his old duty gun, a Glock 22, for a new Glock 22. He liked his old G22 but wanted the new style frame with finger groves and accessory rail.

I asked him how the new pistol shot. His reply, "I don't know, I havn't shot it yet".

I said, "you've been carrying this pistol on duty for 2 months and havn't test fired it AT ALL?"

"Nope, my old gun was a G22 so they should shoot the same. I've got awhile before I have to requalify."

"What about reliability", I asked.

"Glock test fires the guns at the factory, if there was anything wrong they wouldn't have shipped it........."

:eek:

[This message has been edited by Wingspan (edited January 11, 2000).]
 
I am told the loudest sound in the world for a gun owner is a "bang" when he expected a "click". The loudest sound in the world for a gun fighter is a "click" when he wanted a "bang".
 
Please tell me that he's the exception, not the rule...

------------------
...save the 2nd. No fate but what we make...
 
Exception yes. But not often enough. Local cheif wanted to try 147g silvertips so I sold him some. "I didn't care for them myself" A few months later "almost 3" I was by and asked them how he liked them. "Fine" Do they shoot lower then the 115g? "Don't know. Haven't tried them yet" I asked what he was carrying. "The 147g you sold me".
He went to a subsonic round and never tested it.
 
foxfire: I am afraid that he is not an exception. Returning to those thrilling days of yesteryear, when my old department reissued new M-66 S&W's we had a chance to test fire them before going on back on the street. Only three of us on my shift did that. We fired 18 rounds apiece, that is not much I know but at least we had some idea if the revolvers would work. There were at least two that had to be sent back to S&W for re-work that we did not find out about until the next time to shoot. One of them would not chamber the ammo marketed under Smith's name.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
A friend of mine was a LEO for a number of years. I am told that when he was a rookie he was on the street for a while before he had to qualify with his weapon. He even had several occasion to draw it. However, when he went to qualify, it would not work at all and had to be sent to the gunsmith. He was just fortunate he did need it.
 
This is total lunacy.

I would not even carry a gun until I put a minimum of 100 rounds through it, and wouldn't really feel comfortable until that was closer to 500 rounds.

I have a buddy who is a cop in Houston. He carries a P-14, and has for the seven years he's been on the force there. But he didn't just slap it on his hip and go to work. He shot it. Lots. He understood that his life may well depend on that weapon, so he better get to know it.
 
We recently issued the SigPro and required all of the Semi-Auto (Trained ) officers to shoot about 200 roundsincluding qualification and night fire'excuse me("dim light fire") You should have heard all the bitchin and gripping. We sent all the revolver shooters through a three day transition school with lots of work on clearance drills including one-handed drills. Some officers qualified but had to be 'marginally passed' on the clearance drills which we called the practical test. The marjority did a great job and appreciated the training. Funny thing was all the revolver shooters took it in stride and were apprecitive for the training. Some of the macho guys had difficulty with the .40 versus the 9mm.

[This message has been edited by bobo (edited January 12, 2000).]
 
Unfortunately these guys are no longer the exeption, but are becoming more and more prevelant. It used to be that cops were proud to never having had to use thier weapons in real life, now we are proud of them if they never use them at all. The range I belong to often has local PD come by because they are the only one around with animated targets. When they show up I pack up and leave. They are unsafe, pay little to no attention to range rules and pretty much just disgust me with their keen shooting ability. Before I made my decision simply end my session we had a guy who refused to keep his gun at the firing line. He wanted to back away from the line and get under the heat lamps and reload; notonly his mags, but also his gun. Same guy put a round into the ceiling shooting a rapid fire string with a 9mm. Time to pack up and get behind the barricades.
 
I know that I would never rely on a tool that was essential to my saftey without understanding how I should use it and without knowing that it works the way it should.

However, it is also true that the murder rate for LEOs is very near the rate for the country as a whole. 65 LEO murdered in a sworn population of 730,000 gives a rate of 8.9 per 100,000 for 1997
(http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/97killed.pdf)

In 1996 55 LEO murdered (7.8 per 100,000 est)

the US murder rate is 6.8,(1997) 7.4 (1996) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

In this light the officers who do not properly prepare for ugly reality by weapons training are not much more foolish (statisticaly) than Joe Average who does not have "any" training. (That is, the consequences in the two populations are not greatly different.)

It is also interesting to note approximatly 300 citizens are killed by police in unjustified shootings each year (Kleck estimate), and that nearly as many police die from accidental causes as felioniously each year.

In the decade 1988-1997 629 officers died from accidents 71% in vehicles, 5% from accidental shooting (crossfire etc.) In the same decade 688 died feloniously (8% fewer died from accidents than feloniously).

In 1998 the nation as a whole had a motor vehicle related fatality rate of 15.3 per 100,000. (http://www.fedstats.gov/index20.html)

I have never hear anything like this type of comparison of murder rate and accidental death rates. It looks like death rates for LEO are less than that of the general population when looking at murder and accident. I have not looked at health statistics and life expectancy.

Since most accidental deaths are caused by cars (or other vehicles like motorcycles and aircraft) "officer saftey" should statisticaly address safe driving training as well as weapons training.

The shame of it is that the craven politicians use officer saftey as a method to force more idiotic legislation through --no politician can afford be accused of being against officer saftey--so there is a race to see what ridiculous laws can be passed so politicians can claim credit for crime fighting and officer saftey. What seems worse is the police organizations that assist the politicians in selling the idea that "the police are outgunned" on the street. The rank and file cops I know despise the big city chiefs that stand beside politicians for the announcement of new gun legislation.

I believe that Law enforcement is a very difficult career and that LEOs deserve respect and support. I give all the LEOs I meet, and deal with, the respect and support they deserve.

I do not agree with the political howling and crys of outrage that our officers need the additional protection that would be afforded them by limiting the rights and freedoms of the other citizens in society.

I frankly believe that officer saftey is reduced with each new law that makes more distinctions between LEO and other citizens. By emphasizing the difference (LEO only magazines and weapons) the other citizens feel they are given less value in the society.

I hope that this does not offend the LEOs here, that is not my desire. I do wish to remove the status of "sacred cow" awarded to any hare-brained scheme a venal (not venereal-look it up) politician can concoct to increase officer saftey by stupid legislation.

I also respecfully request that the cops here help the chiefs and supervisors get out of the siege mentality.

With highest regard and hope of enlightening discussion,

Noel
 
Guys, go back and re-read the story. He said it was a GLOCK. That means it will definitely go BANG when he pulls the trigger. Duh!

JK, we all know that even Glocks can malfunction - In fact, aren't there quite a few people who have had light primer strikes with Glocks?
 
Don't know if this will make anybody feel any better - BUT our department requires that ALL weapons be examined and inspected by the department armorer AND the officer must qualify with it BEFORE it may be carried in any law enforcement capacity. For example, if an officer were involved in a shooting, and his/her weapon is taken as evidence or for testing, he/she will be issued a replacement weapon - BUT he/she must still have the replacement examined by the armorer AND they must shoot and qualify with it before carrying. All ammunition carried on on duty or in duty weapons must be only that which is issued by the office. Duty ammo is not issued until after qualification.

Side note - All officers' weapons are inspected annually and all must shoot and qualify every year (as a minimum) in addition to passing a decision making test (FATS) and completing continuing education classes.

Not everyone thinks all guns are the same.

DWJ

[This message has been edited by saylerman (edited January 13, 2000).]
 
Several years ago a local small town officer was carrying a 1911 clone in stainless steel. I had the same model pistol and asked him if he ever had trouble with it functioning. He said that he had never fired it. I told him that the manufacturer recommended firing at least 300 rounds to break the pistol in as the steels had a tendency to gall and a special lube was recommended. I told him that mine went through about 400 rounds before it became reliable.
He said he wasn't worried as he carried it cocked and locked and only needed one shot to solve any problem.
The last time I heard of him he was an unarmed security guard in a store.

Neil Casper
 
As a former trainer in a small agency, I confess that such ignorance is all too often the RULE, and not the exception. A supervisor whom I respected asked me,"How do I take apart this Glock agail?"
The admin's attitude is that Qual's are a "necessary evil". They would prefer not to have the expense or the bother. It's done simply for it's civil liability benefit, more than for a genuine concern for safety and training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top