Police Dept:Should Issue or Let Pick

The least convincing, IMHO, is the "compatible ammo" theory. This theory states that in a crunch, an officer low on ammo can obtain extra ammo from another officer at the scene. First, there are seldom those kinds of extended firefights. Second, if an officer has already used up his own supply of ammo and there is still a serious shoot-out going on, you question the effectiveness of his shooting.
Click to expand...
In 1983 I was involved in just such a situation. We were carrying 439s at the time. The issued mag pouch was for a single mag but we could carry double pouches if we bought our own. Another Troop was involved in a shooting against 2 individuals. When I got there he had already fired both of his mags. One subject was down and the other was armed and on foot. When I got there we could have waited until he reloaded his one mag. It was about 2 AM and his first mag was on the ground in the dark so it was out of play. It was a lot quicker to toss him one of mine and we went after the 2nd subject. Not tossing him a mag would have been a stupid move.
The other argument often heard is "If he shoots up all his ammo then why should I trust him with some of mine?" People who say that don't think very deeply thru a situation and show a lack of real world experience in such situations. Think about it. Your partner and you both engage a subject who is returning fire. With both firing the subject has 2 threats facing him from different angles. If one of those firing is no longer a threat then the subject only has to worry about the remaining person firing his way. That means if your partner is dry and no longer firing but you're still firing, guess who is the focus of the returning in-coming fire. If people still have difficulty figuring it out, turn the tables and think about it. 2 people are firing at you and 1 goes empty and quits firing. Would you rather the bad guy with the ammo be the only one still firing at you or would you rather him toss his bad guy partner additional ammo so the 2 of them can engage you?
Just because your partner ran dry does not say anything about his shooting ability or his lack of control. I was at one shooting situation where I was only 5 ft away from another officer. I never could see the bad guy from my location but the other officer had a clear view and could engage. Had the bad guy moved just a couple of feet in either direction I would have had a clear view but the other officer would have lost sight of him. Now had the other officer run dry would it have been a smart move to tell him "You shot up all your ammo - heck if you think I'm giving you any."
 
FBI studies have shown that the incidents involving officers having to give ammo to each other during a firefight were virtually nonexistent.
What was considered more important was having officers carry weapons with which they were proficient and comfortable.
I was fortunate to operate under this policy and the dept. supplied a 15rd 9mm S&W to all officers. A approved list of calibers and weapons (which was very generous) was provided along with a voucher covering the price of a new weapon.
The amount was the same for all but was adequate in most cases.
Top drawer factory ammo was supplied for duty and the same ammo was used at the bi-monthly qualifications. The theory being that inferior bulk reloads were causing damage to weapons and endangering officers.
Also, it was felt that qualifying with factory duty ammo was the best way to train.
Not cheap, but I think it was the best way for a PD to go if they have the funds.
 
and yet the FBI does not allow a choice. They only allow the glock. They don't seem to practice what they preach. Not that it matters any. Only HRT and swat carry the 1911. And I would not be surprised if they went to the glock for that as well.

Another huge cost issue is maintenance and repair. if you department has to maintain your weapons it is much easier and cost effective to do it ti one type of gun that many different types. Standardized ammo is cheaper as well. Bulk purchase reduces cost.
 
So if an officer goes down and another officer tries to use his pistol, he has to call timeout while he figures out how to work it? And common ammo does not seem like a bad idea either for logistics reasons.

Another factor not mentioned is that if there is no standard pistol, and an officer's choice of handgun is considered "politically incorrect" in some way, the department could be looking at a big lawsuit. (Never forget the lawyers - they rule the country.)

Jim
 
Its nice to think of choices but it's the perspective point of view that will decide

This "choice" is from your perspective so it's nice to think about what would be better but it's your department that will choose (or allow you to select).

This all comes down to the size of your department and how it's run. If you are talking about a very small unit of less than 10 to a large city where you are talking about hundreds or even thousands of officers the simple decision of logistically and financially would be better for the department will be decided above your pay grade.

You can look at it as a personal choice and what the military does. In the military you don't see many choices. M9 and??? unless you are in special ops.

Same goes for the following as to what the department has budgeted and at what priority level it was set to for that year - training since you have to modify for each type of firearm everyone carries, frequency of qualification and personal use ammo if any since now you have to carry different calibers or not.

So, this is a basic individual versus large group question. In the end when you look at large organizations, such as the military, federal and state agencies you pretty much are issued your sidearm.

Which is better - really depends on what size your department is.
 
Considering how little importance and money is attached to training and maintenance it really doesn't matter. As a former trainer I have encountered far too many LEOs that would be better off not having a weapon at all. I know that sounds harsh but you would not believe the skill sets of a lot of our police today. In their defense, it's not their fault.
 
drail, agreed, however, those leo's should not be leo's. If you can't carry/shoot a gun for any reason, then you should not be an leo.
 
Most modern police departments spend quite a bit of their budget on training. I'm not so sure that it is driven as much by officer safety, as it is by reducing liabilites. I've worked for two major departments, and several security companies. The police departments both were more motivated more by officer safety. And that was reflected in the training. The security companies were more motivated by insurance, or legal mandates.

Most police departments indemnify it's officers, and take responsibility for the officers action (in a shooting) as long as the officer is acting within the law, and within department policy.

As far as police officer's carrying a firearm while not qualified?... I doubt that any department would allow a person to be armed without proving a minimum level of proficiency on a regular basis. In the dept I retired from... every sworn member had to qualify every six months, and shoot a minimum score of 70% Anything less the officer would not leave the range until he/she qualified. If He/she failed after three cycles his/her authorization to carry firearms was revoked, and their ID card got a perferated stamp " NO FIREARMS" The officer would then be re-assigned to the range, and be re-trained. After further training if the officer still failed to qualify they would be re-assigned to admistrative duties, and recieve a medical review. After the review there would be some administrative hearings, and the officer terminated with forfeit of pension, and retirement benifits. If the officer happens to have some medical reason for not being able to qualify it's the departments option to retain them in a non policing capacity. Or they may be severed from service on a disability pension. If an officer with a vested interest in the pension system may opt to vest is pension and seperate from the department with minimum benifits.

I know I'm somewhat long winded, but thats just one departments way of dealing with officers who cant shoot.... Oh yeah... if a rookie in the academy proves he/she is incompetent with his/her service pistol... they are dismissed. In fact some rookies have a hard time qualifying because of the stress of loosing their career before it begins... Just because they cant qualify, dis-assemble, and re-assemble their pistol with competence.

Everyone must keep in mind that (depending on the officers assignment) Firearms is probably the least used of the officers tools. (thank GOD) Most police work is done with pen and paper... well maybe a keyboard these days.

Enough of my ranting.
 
Glenn Dee I agree with most of your points but the minimum level of proficiency for most departments is woefully inadequate. I have worked at several ranges that held police quals and it was pretty shocking to see the gunhandling and scores posted by the majority of officers. The deparments you speak of would have to be a rare exception in my experience. Like I said, it's not the fault of the officers, it's the adminstrations that don't think they need to spend funds on ammo and training.
 
Let pick, but from a limited set of choices.

Of course, some of the best discounts by manufacturers come to departments that go with only one model or limited models from one manufacturer. As I recall, Midland and/or Odessa, Texas went with 2 or 3 models of Sig in just one caliber, the differences in the guns allowing for differing hand sizes and hence better conforming to the individual officers, all while getting the manufacturer's discount and keeping the maintenance fairly homogeneous.

I seem to recall that several departments have done the same with Glocks.
 
I hear ya DeRail... and I have to agree... There are a few PD's who dont take firearms and officer safety seriosly. In fact now that you mention it... I have seen it first hand... yep... yer right. Without getting into politics, or what is or isnt politically correct. I'd think that most less than professional departments are nothing more than a source of revenue, or in existance for insurance reasons.
 
I think the example Double Naught Spy provided is a good idea. Everyone is familiar with the same make of gun. If you learn how to operate one Glock or SIG P22#, and you petty much know how to operate the other similar models.

As for caliber, I think for cost and uniform safety reasons it is best to stick with one caliber. If an officer thinks that the required caliber (be it .38, 9mm, or .40 S&W) isn't strong enough and decide they want more power they needn't worry because most agencies have 12 gauges in all the patrol cars. More than that, I think hitting the target is far more important than whether you're hitting them with 9mm or .45 ACP.
 
and yet the FBI does not allow a choice. They only allow the glock. They don't seem to practice what they preach. Not that it matters any. Only HRT and swat carry the 1911. And I would not be surprised if they went to the glock for that as well.
Click to expand...

the fbi allows choice. you can pick from 9mm, 40cal, 357sig, 45acp, and 357 magnum.

although the g23 is general issue, you can also pick sigs, s&w revolver (not sure if the m&p is approved yet), and hk.




if i got to choose, i would prob carry a midsize m&p chambered for 357sig.
 
the fbi allows choice. you can pick from 9mm, 40cal, 357sig, 45acp, and 357 magnum.
although the g23 is general issue, you can also pick sigs, s&w revolver (not sure if the m&p is approved yet), and hk.
Click to expand...
You better recheck your sources. The FBI has not authorized the carrying of a revolver for several years.
The standard issue is either the 22 or 23.
The personally owned weapon program has been suspended for a few years too altho I've been told that it may soon be reinstated but with a lot fewer guns on the authorized list. That means the SAs can only carry their issued guns unless they had others approved prior to the suspension of the program.
 
Do you think it's better for police departments to issue a standard gun or let officers pick one they like from a list?
Click to expand...

Many pros and cons to either method.

NYPD uses a list and I think they are real happy with it. I understand they are now testing the Smith M&P series to see if they want to add it to the list of allowed weapons.

Others, like the Texas DPS, specify only one (226 I believe) and will allow another choice (239) if for some reason they cannot grip the 226 well. Either of them has to be in .357 Sig.

And a few department allow very very broad choices, not only weapons, but ammunition to.

I perfer the NYPD route. Enough of a selection so the cops find one that fits them, and all the choices work pretty much the same. Even the ammo is the same (but not the mags.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top