Pistols: Capital assets or consumable goods?

[john c]

My dept is going through it's biannual capital budget. Among the items requested were tablets for the officers to use in the field. An issue came up about issuing them, tracking them, dealing with inevitable breakage, etc. I raised an objection that we were treating the tablets like pistols, whereas they should be consumable goods. Decent tablets are like $200, why not issue one to each officer every one or two years? Let the officer keep it when a new one is issued.

The thought occurred to me that considering the cost of training a new officer (something like $75k), a fully equiped patrol car ($60k), and paying for a veteran officer ($160k/yr, fully loaded), why do we treat guns ($300 as agency purchase) as capital equipment? Shouldn't this be a consumable item? Like replaced every 5,000 rounds or 5 years? We're considering civilianizing our range and armorer positions due to budget cuts. So it seems like there could be cost savings to taking the Amazon approach to procurement.

The current MHS procurement brings this to mind. I was in 20 years ago, but most units had an armorer to maintain unit weapons. Besides combat zones, or operational/line units where it might be cost effective, why not have the supply clerk send broken/malfunctioning pistols back to the manufacturer for repair instead of having the Army fix it? Sort of like jet engines, the Air Force does basic maintenance, but GE has field staff to do the serious fixing. Alternately, why not have units in Iraq or Afghanistan hacksaw the frame of malfunctioning weapons in two, and getting a replacement on the next resupply?

Are we stuck in the 1940s when supply chains couldn't handle such variety?

(I deliberately waited a day to post this so everyone wouldn't think this a joke)

[SLG]

I completely agree that pistols are consumables, but 5,000 rds, while representing around 5 years of service for many, is just warming up the service life of a duty gun. I have been issued at least one new pistol for every year I have been working, but that is because I have worn them out or broken them during that year. If it isn't worn out or broken, I can't see replacing it.

[HCM]

My dept is going through it's biannual capital budget. Among the items requested were tablets for the officers to use in the field. An issue came up about issuing them, tracking them, dealing with inevitable breakage, etc. I raised an objection that we were treating the tablets like pistols, whereas they should be consumable goods. Decent tablets are like $200, why not issue one to each officer every one or two years? Let the officer keep it when a new one is issued.

The thought occurred to me that considering the cost of training a new officer (something like $75k), a fully equiped patrol car ($60k), and paying for a veteran officer ($160k/yr, fully loaded), why do we treat guns ($300 as agency purchase) as capital equipment? Shouldn't this be a consumable item? Like replaced every 5,000 rounds or 5 years? We're considering civilianizing our range and armorer positions due to budget cuts. So it seems like there could be cost savings to taking the Amazon approach to procurement.

The current MHS procurement brings this to mind. I was in 20 years ago, but most units had an armorer to maintain unit weapons. Besides combat zones, or operational/line units where it might be cost effective, why not have the supply clerk send broken/malfunctioning pistols back to the manufacturer for repair instead of having the Army fix it? Sort of like jet engines, the Air Force does basic maintenance, but GE has field staff to do the serious fixing. Alternately, why not have units in Iraq or Afghanistan hacksaw the frame of malfunctioning weapons in two, and getting a replacement on the next resupply?

Are we stuck in the 1940s when supply chains couldn't handle such variety?

(I deliberately waited a day to post this so everyone wouldn't think this a joke)

During my career, my agency has treated pistols as consumables. The target service life was 10k rounds, which normally would be 10 years. Until a few years ago you were issued your pistol with a log book to track your rounds fired. When the gun hit 10k rounds it went back to the national armory and you got a new one. national armory would then either re-build the gun, convert it to a red or blue handle training gun or destroy it. If your gun broke - back to the national armory and you got a new one. There is a field armorer program but we are very limited on what we can do (swap sights, change springs etc).

There are agencies, like the FAMS, which closely track round counts, regularly perform preventive maintenance and keep guns running through high round counts but they are the exception. For most agencies, the labor costs and / or shipping costs of tracking rounds counts and re-building guns is higher than just buying new guns every 5-10 years.

I've seen SIG 229's with 80-100k rounds of 40 and .357 through them and HK USPC's with 40-50k still going strong IF proper PM is performed.

[Chuck Haggard]

I completely agree that pistols are consumables, but 5,000 rds, while representing around 35 years of service for many, is just warming up the service life of a duty gun. I have been issued at least one new pistol for every year I have been working, but that is because I have worn them out or broken them during that year. If it isn't worn out or broken, I can't see replacing it.

Fixed that for you.......................

[Jeep]

I completely agree that pistols are consumables, but 5,000 rds, while representing around 5 years of service for many, is just warming up the service life of a duty gun. I have been issued at least one new pistol for every year I have been working, but that is because I have worn them out or broken them during that year. If it isn't worn out or broken, I can't see replacing it.

Doesn't that mean you are often carrying a pistol that is near the breaking/wearing out point, or do you get a separate pistol as a training gun to put lots of rounds through?

[Hauptmann]

Most LE agencies will never wear their guns out to the point that they need to be gotten rid of. An agency is more likely to try to get rid of old guns because they have transitioned to the latest and greatest and the old guns are viewed as obsolete junk. Heck, many state and local agencies will change guns and calibers when ever a new chief is sworn in. In the Federal system, getting rid of old guns is a PITA. We use them till they wear out, which may be never. As HCM pointed out, we have many 20 year old Sigs in our inventory with 10s of thousands of rounds through them and they just keep on running since they get serviced every 3 or so years. We still have some Vietnam era M16 lowers that still run fine with overhauls.

Most computers will be too old to serve a user's needs after about 5-6 years......so they are definitely a consumable item and when they are gotten rid of they are usually scrap. LE trade-ins have decades of life in them, and getting rid of them was really a waste of good equipment. Unless the LEO is part of a special unit that burns through 5-10k rounds a year, LEO firearms are a capital asset.

[RevolverRob]

Capital Assets or Consumables? Both. Just circumstance dependent.

Concealed carry gun? Consumable.

Novak's Custom Sig P210? Capital Asset.

Novak's Custom Sig P210 used as a concealed carry gun? An expensive consumable.

-Rob

[GardoneVT]

I'd view guns as capital assets, easily. While unusual in that they are small and relatively affordable, modern handguns have service lives of decades. Much like buildings, plants,etc. The DoD has worked with the Beretta 92 design for the past 30 years.Plenty of officers are walking around with guns that old and more on duty and manage fine.

Further the intellectual capital behind a specific firearm is also substantial,and yet is frequently overlooked in cost benefit calculations. The man hours of training a group or individual has with Firearm A must be re-trained into operating the nuances of Firearm B. Tactics which worked for Issue Weapon A may need to be modified for New Issue Weapon B. Details matter, and some of them you won't know about until Murphy puts in his word.

[SLG]

Doesn't that mean you are often carrying a pistol that is near the breaking/wearing out point, or do you get a separate pistol as a training gun to put lots of rounds through?

I've done it a few ways over the years. I won't go into detail on that right now, but suffice it to say that there are times when I probably was carrying a gun that was closer to failure than I might prefer. The truth is though, all of us are carrying guns that could fail at any moment, regardless of how we have maintained or used/abused them. I say that because some of the things that have deadlined my guns over the years are not items that anyone would ever expect to fail, nor perform any kind of PM on. One example is that my front dovetail on a Sig stopped holding the sight in place. Maybe it was because I shot the gun so much, but I never touched the front sight, so it wasn't worn out or abused from changing POI or anything like that. One day the front sight simply fell out. We peened the dovetail, but that only lasted so long. Never saw that on any other gun before or since.

A similar thing happened to a Glock of mine, though obviously it wasn't a dovetail.

Most of the time I shot a spare and then replaced that one as needed.

[GardoneVT]

Capital Assets or Consumables? Both. Just circumstance dependent.

Concealed carry gun? Consumable.

Novak's Custom Sig P210? Capital Asset.

Novak's Custom Sig P210 used as a concealed carry gun? An expensive consumable.

-Rob

I would define a carry gun as a capital asset ,regardless of cost.

A carry pistol isn't likely to be fired in self defense, in many places the confiscation won't be permanent if it is used that way, and odds are it will be useful for decades . If I bought a Glock, a Toyota, a cell phone and an Apple laptop new in the year 2000 and tried to use them through this year, only the Glock and the car would be serviceable. Note that a MacBook retails for way more then a factory Glock, as does a cell phone.

[Moshjath]

From an Army perspective, the current property accountability piece of it would make that difficult. Its a sensitive item requiring a high level of accountability, heck, It's tracked through multiple computer systems, PBUSE for property management and SAMS-E/GCSS-Army for maintenance. From a company XO perspective, it would make my life and my supply Sergeant's life hell if instead of just dead lining an item and ordering the parts against it to repair it, we had to code every one of them out and draw a new one. Easier to just assign the Soldier another functioning weapon while the downed weapon is repaired.

Following your line of thought (as I interpret it) that the pistol should no longer be treated like a durable, sensitive end item and rather an expendable item may be doable in other contexts, but I don't think it would fly in the US Army. Just look to the amount of currently issued "surplus" equipment available on eBay as an explanation.

[john c]

I completely agree that pistols are consumables, but 5,000 rds, while representing around 5 years of service for many, is just warming up the service life of a duty gun. I have been issued at least one new pistol for every year I have been working, but that is because I have worn them out or broken them during that year. If it isn't worn out or broken, I can't see replacing it.

I hear you, but I'm talking more about mindset or institutional mindset. The numbers could be 10 years/100,000 rounds, or 6 months and 500 rounds in the harsh sands of Tattooine.

Besides, 5k rounds is WAY over the average rounds fired I'm many/most officer's LIFETIMES.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theJanitor]

One day the front sight simply fell out. We peened the dovetail, but that only lasted so long. Never saw that on any other gun before or since.

This happened to a unit SIG of a good buddy. He called me after that training day just to mention it.

[ST911]

For most, the only consumable part of a service pistol is in the sights and magazines. Replacement cost of which is often higher than the cash you boot when trading for new. Residual value of the gun itself (60-75%) can be quite high compared to other goods, and they are properly considered capital assets.

When you look at life-cycle costs of LE equipment, guns are one of the cheapest and most durable widgets you'll give a cop.

[john c]

From an Army perspective, the current property accountability piece of it would make that difficult. Its a sensitive item requiring a high level of accountability, heck, It's tracked through multiple computer systems, PBUSE for property management and SAMS-E/GCSS-Army for maintenance. From a company XO perspective, it would make my life and my supply Sergeant's life hell if instead of just dead lining an item and ordering the parts against it to repair it, we had to code every one of them out and draw a new one. Easier to just assign the Soldier another functioning weapon while the downed weapon is repaired.

Following your line of thought (as I interpret it) that the pistol should no longer be treated like a durable, sensitive end item and rather an expendable item may be doable in other contexts, but I don't think it would fly in the US Army. Just look to the amount of currently issued "surplus" equipment available on eBay as an explanation.

Yes, instructional mindset would need to change. But the .mil has millions of sensitive, disposable items that they get rid of every year. Treat them like classified data laptops, and follow the process of de-mil-ing those.

Again, what I'm talking about in conceptual.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[john c]

Capital Assets or Consumables? Both. Just circumstance dependent.

Concealed carry gun? Consumable.

Novak's Custom Sig P210? Capital Asset.

Novak's Custom Sig P210 used as a concealed carry gun? An expensive consumable.

-Rob

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Guys say "don't carry an expensive gun, what if it sits in evidence for 2 years after a shooting?"

My thought is that I'll grab a backup from the safe. Besides, defending yourself from a shooting probably costs $50-$100k. Losing the Novak's custom p210 is the cheap part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matt O]

I may have missed this, but is there a budget line implication for the way in which this equipment is categorized? I would think firearms for an agency could easily be categorized as a depreciable asset, particularly if there's intent to do a police-trade-in sale of said firearms once it has fully "depreciated." For example, 5 year useful life, pick your depreciation method, set a salvage value and then sell the item and purchase a new set of firearms.

[RevolverRob]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Guys say "don't carry an expensive gun, what if it sits in evidence for 2 years after a shooting?"

My thought is that I'll grab a backup from the safe. Besides, defending yourself from a shooting probably costs $50-$100k. Losing the Novak's custom p210 is the cheap part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe we are talking past one another here. From an institutional perspective, firearms, firearm accessories, and generally issued field-grade equipment should all be considered consumables, along with ammunition, and even training time. To a concealed carry person, it should be largely the same. Field-grade equipment are consumables.

But a Novak's P210 that is hanging out in your gun safe and not getting carried and shot a lot in training? That's a capital asset, by virtue of it has a much lower probability of becoming a "consumable" in the given (self-defense scenario).

__

I assume if you're viewing an item as a consumable, regardless of cost, you're prepared to eat whatever the cost is. Me? I'm not made of big dollar bills, so Novak's P210s are impractical consumables for me. However, I've got some friends who view them as precisely that...Then again they view $75,000 cars as consumables.

-Rob

[Hambo]

but 5,000 rds, while representing around 35 years of service for many,

Fixed that for you.......................

Cops used to retire with the same revolver they carried their entire career. Modern LE, like the military, perceives software problems (training) to be hardware problems (guns). Plus you have the gear dudes who want newer, shinier toys. The truth is that LE will wear out far more cars than guns.

[ST911]

Cops used to retire with the same revolver they carried their entire career. Modern LE, like the military, perceives software problems (training) to be hardware problems (guns). Plus you have the gear dudes who want newer, shinier toys. The truth is that LE will wear out far more cars than guns.

Retirees doing leosa (hr218) quals regularly show up with their duty 2nd/3rd gen Smiths, Beretta 92s, early Glocks. As time goes on, far fewer revolvers. Two vets from agencies that were early Glock adopters are still using their original first generation guns from the late 80s. One, with original magazines.

Contrast that with a young troop I know that started 5 years ago, now on his third gun.

[SLG]

I hear you, but I'm talking more about mindset or institutional mindset. The numbers could be 10 years/100,000 rounds, or 6 months and 500 rounds in the harsh sands of Tattooine.

Besides, 5k rounds is WAY over the average rounds fired I'm many/most officer's LIFETIMES.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with the first half. Unfortunate if the second half is true. Our guys shoot right around 1000 rds a year, if they only show up for quals. Many shoot at least some more than that.

In my first agency, which shot the least of anywhere I have worked, guys still shot at least 500 rds a year. Not much, and they could still retire with their original gun, as most did. 10,000rds over 20 years of service is not a lot of shooting or wear.

I'd like to see every cop at least wear one gun out during their career. I'd also like world peace, so I guess I'll just keep watching Miss America.:-)

[SLG]

This happened to a unit SIG of a good buddy. He called me after that training day just to mention it.

Interesting to hear, as I have not seen or heard of that since. I love Sigs, and a good Sig is as good a gun as was ever built, but they have their own QC quirks, that's for sure.

[Beat Trash]

I'm with an agency of around 1,150 officers that shoots twice a year for a minimum of around 800-1,000 rounds per officer per year. Many shoot more.

I've started my 24th year and am carrying my 4th issued 9mm. I'm carrying my second issued M&P.

The Gen3 S&W's had issues develop around the 35k mark, and their extractors were defiantly a"consumable item". But what I've seen is that about the time an agency has to look at replacing night sights or is starting to have issues, someone comes along and makes you a deal that you really can't pass up, and all of the sudden you have new guns.

Case in point is the M&P. We were one of the first to adopt the M&P9. Our original T&E guns were pre-production prototypes. About 4-5 years into the M&P, S&W wanted us to upgrade each gun for a minor cost. But the minor cost times the amount of guns on hand, both issued and spare was a substantial amount of money. Once the S&W sales rep stopped by and saw flyers and stickers form his competitor's company, all of a sudden we get a screaming deal on the parts upgrade package. And it's shipped inside of a brand new gun. The new gun reset the service life of the night sights back to zero also.

There was a time when a rookie officer would purchase or be issued a brand new revolver and it would last their entire career. Now, after about 8 years, the sales reps start smelling commissions and start leaving T&E guns and start making deals. Especially if they can pull a "Glock Agency" from Glocks or a "S&W Agency" from S&W's. Because the new guns you have to buy each year for recruit classes are at the normal price. Once the sales rep finds that his competition is trying to steal "his agency" away from his product then that sales rep gets serious. I've seen it happen twice. It's best described as trying to watch a three legged cow try to swim through a pool pf piranha's.

In my mind, in order to call an agencies weapons a capital asset, you would have to be willing to sell them off, liquidate the capital and invest it somewhere else, like cars, radios, ect. You obviously can't do that as a police agency needs weapons. With this thought in mind, I would say that weapons are a consumable item and not a capital asset. And when you take into consideration how little actual capital an agency has to invest to obtain the weapons, and the projected service life of this consumable item, it's actually one of the most cost effective things an agency owns.

[john c]

I'm frankly (pleasantly) surprised at the high annual round counts that some of the agencies represented here are having their officers shoot. My agency has officers shoot the minimum qual of 36-38 rounds twice a year. Many officers shoot much more than that, but many shoot the minimum.

The S&W K, L, and N frames and similar Colts are/were very mature designs. There would have been no reason to buy a new revolver in a career. My agency used them along side the 3rd gen Smiths it bought in 1988 or so. In 1995, we changed to Sig P226s. In 2012/3 we changed to Gen4 Glock 17s. We're in a period of rapid development of pistols, mostly in ergonomics and tactical enhancements, like weapon lights.

With all of this in perspective, I think it makes sense to start buying pistols in a 10 year cycle. Buy new weapons for 1/10 of your officers every year and always have rolling change in the works. Perhaps when the Gen5 Glocks come out, start buying those for the new academy and the oldest Gen4 on the street. Then roll the change through the department until after 10 years all the Gen4s are gone. By then, we'll have Gen6s. Rinse and repeat.

This military could have done this with M9, M9A1, M9A3, etc.

This is in contrast to the current practice of convincing the city council we need new guns. Haggling 2 years to get the budget allocated, then testing all of the guns out there, making a large purchase, and transitioning the whole department in one madcap month. Then dealing with the inevitable drama of all the problem children not qualifying and blaming it on the new gun, etc.

The biggest advantage to constantly rolling the gun inventory is that failures would not affect the entire department. We never had to send a whole lot of guns back to the manufacturer, but others have.

This is a bigger mindset. My agency has this problem with the entire equipment purchasing process, with the exception of patrol cars. "Why do you need new laptops in the patrol cars? Didn't we just buy you some 7 years ago?"

[GardoneVT]

I'm frankly (pleasantly) surprised at the high annual round counts that some of the agencies represented here are having their officers shoot. My agency has officers shoot the minimum qual of 36-38 rounds twice a year. Many officers shoot much more than that, but many shoot the minimum.

The S&W K, L, and N frames and similar Colts are/were very mature designs. There would have been no reason to buy a new revolver in a career. My agency used them along side the 3rd gen Smiths it bought in 1988 or so. In 1995, we changed to Sig P226s. In 2012/3 we changed to Gen4 Glock 17s. We're in a period of rapid development of pistols, mostly in ergonomics and tactical enhancements, like weapon lights.

With all of this in perspective, I think it makes sense to start buying pistols in a 10 year cycle. Buy new weapons for 1/10 of your officers every year and always have rolling change in the works. Perhaps when the Gen5 Glocks come out, start buying those for the new academy and the oldest Gen4 on the street. Then roll the change through the department until after 10 years all the Gen4s are gone. By then, we'll have Gen6s. Rinse and repeat.

This military could have done this with M9, M9A1, M9A3, etc.

This is in contrast to the current practice of convincing the city council we need new guns. Haggling 2 years to get the budget allocated, then testing all of the guns out there, making a large purchase, and transitioning the whole department in one madcap month. Then dealing with the inevitable drama of all the problem children not qualifying and blaming it on the new gun, etc.

The biggest advantage to constantly rolling the gun inventory is that failures would not affect the entire department. We never had to send a whole lot of guns back to the manufacturer, but others have.

This is a bigger mindset. My agency has this problem with the entire equipment purchasing process, with the exception of patrol cars. "Why do you need new laptops in the patrol cars? Didn't we just buy you some 7 years ago?"

As a former military bean counter, I have to question the need to buy new guns period.

Setting aside cool factor and marketing buzzwords, if I snapped my fingers and magically turned every Glock Gen 3 and Gen 4 into Gen 2 pistols , there'd be little practical difference in day to day capabilities.

Rolling changes introduces unexpected logistical snafus when parts from Gen A don't fit Gen B.
Were I the Dude In Charge, I'd keep the stock of guns until they materially wore out - and ensured there was a funded training system in place to make sure they got wore out.

Keeping functional gear and training troops to use it doesn't sell magazines or get folks promoted, so here we are.

[L-2]

There were a couple of things mentioned so far relating to the governmental, regulatory, and business-end of things.

-Firearms are generally tracked by serial number, regardless of cost (whether unit cost or group of firearms), by the Federal and State entities. Being in the evidence and legality business, we tend to want to track a firearm to various types of crimes. Motor vehicles, regardless of value, are a similar type item. A person may buy a used car for $500, but if used on a public road, will still be tracked by its VIN and license plate number. The public is also concerned with the accountability of firearms from a political or public safety/interest aspect. The lethal nature and potential for tragedy is just so great. It's a matter of degree regardless of cost.

-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Whether government or private business, there are ways to account for assets, expenditures, and expenses which provide a financial track record for managing an entity. It can provide a way to financially/fiscally measure that entity's managerial successes or failures. Whether a specific firearm or group-of-firearms is expensed or depreciated can be discussed between the management and auditors to determine if it's somehow beneficial on the financial statements to do so.

-I like the idea of expensing a weapon to an individual with some policies regarding its return or accountability due to breakage, loss, theft, or employment termination. This is separate from the financial accounting aspects.

-I like the maintenance ideas and have seen this done in the motor vehicle area where some things are fixed under warranty rather than having the government garage fix it. This can make for some constraints to having available spare vehicles, however. This is also separate from the financial accounting aspects. Where I work, we now use the Glock 17 Gen4. If a small part breaks, this can be easily replaced. If it's something larger, another G17Gen4, whether new or used, is issued and an immediate qualification is needed. Some Glocks may need to go back to Smyrna, GA, say, for broken frame. California likes to track the gun and have paperwork by serial number if the gun is destroyed. A replacement is a separate issue and tracked whether the replacement is free under warranty or a new one needs buying at any price.

-Where I work, it seems to be a very big deal, whether I agree or not. When someone retires, there's no guarantee they can buy their weapon and it's surely not given to them. The union will buy a retiree a flat-badge & case which is handed to the retiring employee as other equipment is returned. The retiring employee can buy their old badge if leaving in good standing.

L-2, a cop, but a former CPA

[ST911]

Setting aside cool factor and marketing buzzwords, if I snapped my fingers and magically turned every Glock Gen 3 and Gen 4 into Gen 2 pistols , there'd be little practical difference in day to day capabilities.

Subject to some clarification, I don't know about that. There are some shooters with definite gains in a gen4 transition. Seen also when some Sig folks went to the E2 grips. (Though admittedly, the latter didn't require a gun swap.)

[john c]

[QUOTE=GardoneVT;427959]As a former military bean counter, I have to question the need to buy new guns period.

Setting aside cool factor and marketing buzzwords, if I snapped my fingers and magically turned every Glock Gen 3 and Gen 4 into Gen 2 pistols , there'd be little practical difference in day to day capabilities.
[\QUOTE]

From a LE perspective, I disagree. The weaponlight capability from Gen2 to Gen3 was a game changer. Gen4's back straps was also a huge improvement. Each of those changes is/was worth the upgrade. I understand this is less important for military use, since handguns are an afterthought, and soldier DEFINITELY do not search with handguns as a primary weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lost River]

I completely agree that pistols are consumables, but 5,000 rds, while representing around 5 years of service for many, is just warming up the service life of a duty gun. I have been issued at least one new pistol for every year I have been working, but that is because I have worn them out or broken them during that year. If it isn't worn out or broken, I can't see replacing it.


Sadly, the agency I work for probably averages MAYBE 200 rounds per year, per LEO. It would literally take 25 years for our guns to see 5K.

That said, training classes/seminars for folks further up the food chain are almost always in Vegas, or other destination spots, and budget is not really a factor there..

[mj888844]

For me, the pistol is a noble, unattainable consumer goods.

[Jeep]

That said, training classes/seminars for folks further up the food chain are almost always in Vegas, or other destination spots, and budget is not really a factor there..

Naturally. Important stuff always gets fully funded.

[AMC]

We shoot two qualifications a year.....was down to a 38 round course. There is now a 50 round "warmup" before shooting the qual. So....under 200 rounds a year. There is no training after the academy unless you are in the SOG....SWAT or the Countersniper team. Outside training is now actually discouraged....you used to be able to get "detailed" to training. Basically you were considered on duty and got paid for it. The range would also supply ammo. No more. Unless it is a POST class....they make sure any vendors are 12B compliant.....meaning they provide domestic partners benefits to their employees, or the answer is no, you can't go. You have to take vacation and pay your own way...even the few range guys who actually pursue their own training (3 out of 10). SLG, you have no idea how bad it can get.

[SLG]

We shoot two qualifications a year.....SLG, you have no idea how bad it can get.

One for me...one for my homies.


*Box of 9mm hits the floor.*

[CADFather]

We qualify once a year to satisfy POST for Corrections. You fire the 30 round pistol qualification course and if you make it that's all you shoot if you don't they issue another 30 rounds of ammo. If you don't make it then you have to buy your own. So, if you are a decent shot and can qual. fist time you only get the 30 rounds of .38. Only our transfer guys qualify with the semi's, well them and non line personnel (read administrative, upper echelon type). Then we qualify with the rifle and shotgun, basically if you don't shoot the instructor with the shotgun you score a perfect 100. Now I realize that we are corrections and shooting is not something we would normally have to be concerned with but 30 rounds a year doesn't an Annie Oakley make. I get and encourage my officers to get as much range practice as I/they can afford, hell if they'll buy the ammo, I'll provide the revolvers and instruction/training.

Oh and to the original topic, firearms should be a consumable good albeit with a long service life, our .38's are Model 64 GSP trade-ins and I can't remember when the GSP issued .38's.

CAD

[Duelist]

We qualify once a year to satisfy POST for Corrections. You fire the 30 round pistol qualification course and if you make it that's all you shoot if you don't they issue another 30 rounds of ammo. If you don't make it then you have to buy your own. So, if you are a decent shot and can qual. fist time you only get the 30 rounds of .38. Only our transfer guys qualify with the semi's, well them and non line personnel (read administrative, upper echelon type). Then we qualify with the rifle and shotgun, basically if you don't shoot the instructor with the shotgun you score a perfect 100. Now I realize that we are corrections and shooting is not something we would normally have to be concerned with but 30 rounds a year doesn't an Annie Oakley make. I get and encourage my officers to get as much range practice as I/they can afford, hell if they'll buy the ammo, I'll provide the revolvers and instruction/training.

Oh and to the original topic, firearms should be a consumable good albeit with a long service life, our .38's are Model 64 GSP trade-ins and I can't remember when the GSP issued .38's.

CAD

I have an M&P stamped "Department of Corrections" that was born in 1930. It still works fine, though it could probably benefit from a check over by a smith. I have a British service revolver that was born c1870. It has parts that are so worn, it isn't safe to fire anymore. Stuff wears out, sure, but quality firearms should take a long time.