I have some comments with respect to an earlier post.
>First, Glocks are carried by the vast majority of American police agencies, federal law enforcement agencies, special forces groups, and elite forces.
Agreed.
>Many cop detectives cherish the Glock 27/26 for its small package but 10 round capacity plus one in the tube.
That is a size/capacity compromise that they have chosen to make, rather than carrying a full size firearm. It is a valid consideration.
>One of my best buds is a brick wall of a DEA agent who knocks down most doors without a ram, and his entry teams carry Glock 30s.
I do not see how this makes Glocks better, although it is a personal recommendation of a particular entry team that should be considered.
>Second, most purchasing depts for the government buy based upon "value" not price alone. For a gun with only 34 parts that is under $500 and known to be accurate and has survived incredible torture tests, what other gun COULD you spend taxpayer dollars on?
I think there's a little more to it than that. There are training, ammo and transition costs. There are litigation and judgment costs that often are not considered.
>Third, for most shooters' needs well beyond self defense/killing zone ranges, there are no finer tanks built than Glocks.
Maybe. They certainly are up there with the best.
>Fourth, I've had springs and levers break, slides rust, slide come off when the BG grabbed it, magazines eject in battle, etc in my Kimbers, Sigs, Colts, Berettas, and the like. But never in a Glock.
You are luckier or more skillful than me.
>Fifth, during the Desert Storm campaign, tons of Glock 21's were shipped to the Middle East for our folks in the armed forces. Nobody else's guns made the must have list.
The military has ammunition constraints that civilians and police agencies largely do not have. That limits firearms choices right from the start. I also should add that the public trough from which government feeds is usually deeper than the ammo budget of most non-LEO people, and Glocks may have a particular problem in that regard.
>Sixth, if you really want to know what the boys in blue want, its an HK MP5 not a pistol. Great for riot control, dynamic entries, and chicks really really dig those guns.
Pulse fire baby!
Actually, an MP5 is a firearm that shoots a pistol cartridge at a high cyclic rate of fire. I would prefer a rifle cartridge, or just give me a Remington 870 with slugs if I can't have that. I really don't care what chicks dig. (I'm just poking fun here, because I'm sure it was meant in jest.)
>I'd rather survive a gunfight with an ugly gun than die with a nickel-plated pimp gun in my cold dead hand.
I agree 1000%. I also agree with the converse, that I would rather survive a gunfight with a nickel-plated pimp gun than die with an ugly tank of a perfect gun in my cold dead hand.
>I've owned all type of semi-autos, revolvers, .32 acp up to 454 Causall, and if I can only have one gun, it's going to be a Glock!
Wow, that's a tough call. My choice might be a Glock, but it also could be a .357 mag revolver or a .44 mag revolver. Glad I don't have to make a choice!!!!
>As to training issues, we all know that cops these days are not shooting enthusiasts.
That is a good reason why the decision that an LE agency makes should not be an automatic reason to adopt a specific firearm.
All of the points made are entirely valid, but they do not require a specific choice as a matter of general principle. If we went back to 1985 and relied entirely on what LE agencies were using, Glocks wouldn't even be considered. Every person has to work out their own salvation. While the choice that an LE agency makes is a valid consideration, it is not the only consideration. Popularity polls do indicate preference, but that does not automatically make them correct.
