Choosing a police gun

Your premise is that less training time and money can be spent if we go back to revolvers for primary carry by LEO's.
Click to expand...
No, that is not my premise at all. My premise is that if typical LE went back to 6-shot K-frame model 10s with .38 Spl. +P ammo I don't think there would be any significant change in the gunfighting effectiveness of LE. Saving time and money would be an additional benefit, but that is secondary to the main issue, IMO.
 
Not to tweak you, David, but...

Quote: "If LE went back to 6-shot K-frame model 10s with .38 Spl. +P ammo I don't think there would be any significant change in the gunfighting effectiveness of LE and we'd sure save a lot of time and money thta could be better used elsewhere. My $.02." - David Armstrong post #6

So yes, part of your premise was a savings of time and money.

Cheers,

M
 
Also not to tweak, but....
adding a secondary ancillary clause through an "and" does not indicate a premise or part thereof, it instead indicates a separate and distinct thought. Saving time and money, while nice, has nothing to do with the premise of effectiveness. In fact, if we saved no money or time it would not change the premise at all.
 
However, at around this time, it seems to me that the military in particular, and police departments in general, started reducing actual hands-on training time with weapons; lengthening the time periods between recurrent training; and reducing the standards required for initial and recurrent qualification.
Click to expand...

Doesn't hold true in my area, and with the general trend in LE regarding liability and failure to train, I do not believe that is true across the nation. Of course you can still find small agencies who haven't seen the light and think that one range day a year is adequate, but those are going away as younger officers move into management positions and the dinosaurs retire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top