According to the article Tampa PD has only have the Smith & Wesson's for not even a full 9 years. The article also mentions that the current pistols are .40 Smith & Wesson so I wonder if they're going to a 9mm and decided to switch pistols entirely at the same time
Last edited by Cypher; 06-15-2018 at 03:57 AM.
I know it's been mentioned previously, and this is not brand specific- It is often cheaper for an agency to replace guns than it is for an armorer to maintain them. For many brands a parts kit for a simple re-spring is between $25-50, assuming no hard parts need replacement. Assuming it takes 30 minutes of the armorer's time to refurbish the guns, that could easily be another $30-50 of labor cost, especially if the armorer is on OT (around here there are no dedicated armorers, just ancillary duties on top of normal job tasks). That brings the factory recommended PMS to about $100/gun every 3-5 years (if not more frequently) and does nothing to address worn out leather gear.
Now compare to the incentive packages many gun makers have to drive agency sales- margins are small, trade in values tend to be generous, and leather gear is often be supplied at significant discount if not for free. It is quite normal for agencies to pay under $100/officer to replace guns, after taking into account trading in the previous pistols and sorting the needed leather gear.
Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.
One of the largest agencies in the state had a very liberal privately owned firearms policy, and on top of that issued Glock 17/19s. Rumor was coming that issue guns were going to be the only authorized pieces. Someone with that agency had ties with a pro shooter running the early M&Ps, with the crummy reset, and suddenly the agency was offered free M&Ps. Nevermind the almost universally despised trigger...the Apex kits were authorized...until they weren't. Now the agency issues Glocks in addition to the M&Ps, officer's choice.
Another example: a friend at the time was the head of training for the State POST for firearms. Fondly recalled shooting flying clays with a G3 with Col Cooper at the original API. He was contacted by an out of state large metro SWAT team to consult on the purchase of a new issue pistol. HK was selected, not because it was reliable, accurate, etc, but because it could be had with a manual safety. Team training and SOP was that in the stack you pushed the muzzle of your pistol into the rear plate of the cop in front of you. Seems they did not care for the indoor ready position, or Sul. Manual safeties were required...you know, for safety.
I have no real opinion one way or the other. My department issues a piece that I am not in love with, and certainly would not buy for myself. I am a firearms instructor and am carrying that piece by choice right now as an example. I teach transition courses with it and carry it on patrol. I can carry almost anything I want, and when my grip work gets done on my Glock I will likely switch to that. By the way, when this issue piece was decided on and purchased I had zero input on the issue as the senior firearms instructor for the agency. That decision was made by the brass who consulted one of my subordinates using the good ol' boy network, since the LT making the decision, the DC that found funds for it, and my subordinate all retired out of the same agency prior to coming to my agency. I don't object to the issue piece selected, much, considerig the apparently important parameters that were used to make the call. I would have pushed for separate parameters that would simplify purchasing of supporting gear, inventory, and ammunition. The same pistol at a better cost point would still be selected, but we would have spent less overall and not have to support the same pistol in two separate calibers that require different mags, mag pouches, holsters, and armorers kits.
pat
Last edited by UNM1136; 06-15-2018 at 08:29 AM.
Excerpt from article:Originally Posted by Tokarev
Yeah well I hope they’ve un-screwed their QC for this. Sure didn’t seem they were interested in ensuring superior firearms were being issued during Drop-gate, when they KNEW of the issue and kept sending out pistols without the “upgrade”.“SIG Sauer’s commitment to the entire law enforcement community is to provide them with superior firearms to protect and serve their communities,”
I sincerely want this platform to succeed, but Sig has a long long way to go before they’ll earn my trust back.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
If I'm stacked up...I certainly want the guy behind me to have a gun in his hand.....just not pointed at me.
And now the Texas DPS? http://www.thetacticalwire.com/story...c-19aea2f13975
According to a recent press release, the Republic of Texas is buying more 320s.
Sent from my SM-G930P using TapatalkThe Texas Department of Public Safety will acquire 4,000 SIG SAUER P320 pistols for official service use throughout the TXDPS Highway Patrol, Criminal Investigations Divisions (CID), Aircraft Division, Executive Protection Bureau, Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Texas Rangers, SWAT, and Special Operations Group.
Last edited by Tokarev; 06-21-2018 at 08:21 AM.
I wonder if Tampa and/or Texas DPS will issue or authorize the Sig P365 as a BUG to go along with the new 320’s?
If Sig had plenty of 365s on hand, they'd be smart to offer up backups included.
My agency went to G17s and offered a G43 for every officer that chose to accept one. I don't have intimate knowledge of the arrangement that my agency and the distributor made but I'm sure my agency didn't pony up cash for BUGs.
365s are somewhat scarce (starting to see them locally now) and I'm not sure the bugs are worked out to afford Sig the opportunity to do something like this.
