In several threads recently there have been discussions regarding large agency handgun tests. Apparently, this is quite an undertaking, and small agency/departments don't have either the budget or the expertise to do it properly. Again apparently, this is more than sending a large number of rounds downrange at a shooting range.
Leaving aside shenanigans such as predetermined winners, what does a good handgun test with several competitors entail?
Needs more context.
An agency in Mexico needs to test different things than an agency in Alaska. A 10,000 man agency may have different concerns (re maintenance, personally owned weapons, and so on) than a 10 man agency. Etc.
IMnotsoHO, an agency needs to start from an honest, unbiased analysis of the capabilities and features they need & want ("need" and "want" are not the same thing). Saying "we want a polymer framed striker fired gun with three internal safeties and the word GLOCK on the slide" is not a matter of capabilities and features. It's about making sure you get a specific gun you've chosen in advance.
Mission is important is selection as well. Alaska State troopers may face cold, ice, heavy clothing, and large animals. Border Patrol faces sand, dust, 140 degrees in the trunk of the car, no large animals, but long open terrain and lots of vehicles. Chicago PD faces high rise housing, crowded conditions, multi family tenements... Game wardens are all alone, middle of nowhere, and almost everyone they stop has a hunting rifle on them (and is often drunk). Not exactly what NYPD would face. All of those agencies are uniformed and carry in a duty rig.
Now look at FBI or Secret Service. Must be concealed, yet not too small to sacrifice capacity or reliability...
As Todd mentioned about agency size, agency mission and working environment will (or should) drive the testing criteria.
I was told that when Border Patrol ditched the .357 revolver for an auto, they wanted an auto round that balistically equivalent to the old .357 158 grain duty load. So they tested multiple calibers and weights, and settled on the 155 grn JHP at 1250 fps as the closest thing they could get into an auto pistol. They actually did testing on projectile energy and bullet drop at 100 yards. Because in BP training back then, part of the scored qualification course was shot at the 50 yard line, and they practiced (not scored) hitting at 100 yards. The thought was, out in the brush of Arizona, back up is along way off, and you can see for miles, and you may have to engage at that distance. Do you think NYPD cares about that capability? BP also shoots a lot around vehicles. So they wanted something that punched a windshield with authority. That would also be something a highway patrol officer would want. Each agency has a specific mission, and is likely to encounter different threats than other agencies.
So BP/INS defined their mission, selected a round to accomplish their perceived mission, and they tested guns to see if they would run using the round they selected.
Is that the "right" way to test? I cant say. But at least in court, they can show some logic for their selection, other than "well, the chief really liked the way the gun looked".
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
Well, a gun is a bullet launcher and the bullet is what actually stops bad guys so that approach makes sense. In our case we have a good 9mm round in the 124 grain Gold Dot so we will want something which runs well with that ammo.
Okay, context - something that would interest me as a CCW holder. Call the requirement a 9mm pistol for concealed use with high capacity magazine that will fire the 124 gr Gold dot or HST in +P.Originally Posted by ToddG
How would they test for that? (Also, at this point I'm not interested in the selection shenanigans - just the legitimate tests.)
I do think defining the mission and most probable conditions of a shooting incident are a good start in procurement. What goal do we want to achieve?
As HCM said, the bullet is what stops the bad guy, not the gun. Define the mission. Define a goal. Select the appropriate projectile. Then find a launcher that works every time with that round. That is a good start.
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
This is really well written and honestly an angle I've never really thought of before. Makes you wonder "fits the needs of military and law enforcement" is anything but marketing with how diverse those needs can be.
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
What is your budget for testing, both in terms of cash and manpower? What is your expected budget per gun when ready to procure?
What it can entail and what it should entail are two different things. Look at any test that resulted in a big LE agency or the US military adopting a particular pistol and you’ll see three distinct parts, all of which affect each other.
- Guys in lab coats abuse the candidates according to buyer-specific standards. Major buyers (FBI, US military, etc.) test for a vast range of variables (mechanical aspects of the pistol itself, plus human factors like how trained/untrained users do with it, etc.) in great detail, which a pretty good reason for other buyers to take a very long, hard look at their results for this part.
- Bean counters look at total cost of ownership (TCO) over a set period of time. This includes price of the new pistol plus long-term costs (ammo, spare parts, maintenance up to and including the depot level, new holsters and mag pouches, training, how it integrates with other weapons systems, etc.) Most folks focus on sticker price and ignore the rest. Also bear in mind that big buyers pay a lot less for everything on a per-unit basis than small buyers.
- Salespeople/lobbyists/attorneys/politicians/hookers do what it takes to close the deal. In too many cases, this IS the test.
The tests that gave us the M-9 are a classic example. Is it a good fighting handgun (#1)? Sure. But it’s equally important that the government got a good deal on the support package (#2) that lawmakers could defend during election years (#3), and that Beretta was willing to build a plant in the US to produce them (#3).
Okie John
5° of separation
Reply With Quote