HR 4789 Introduced--Would Allow Fed LE to Purchase Retired Service Handgun

[echo5charlie]

This is the Reserve, we don't have SAMG's - these are all support units. Possible exception being the NM Air Guard Rotor wing Aviator guys I ran through on their shiny new M4A1's and M9's a couple years back they were surprisingly cool dudes.

The absolute scariest range I ever ran was a medical unit full of doctors and nurses and what not. Many had never handled an M9 anywhere except for the ranges. On many I had to give up everything else to focus only on safety and getting them qualified.

I'd love to get SAMG school, but it's a struggle to even get my NCOES schools.
LOTS of slots and funding for UPL/SHARP/EO classes though!

That actually explains everything.

[Screwball]

Please... I’d love for this to get through. Hell, even if there was a stipulation where we couldn’t resell, I’d be onboard.

Also glad I didn’t jump on the bandwagon that the gun only had to last two years when was at FLETC.

[JonInWA]

I am only aware of Check-Mate having a .mil contract for M9 mags dating back to 2000. Maybe @JonInWA can shed some light?

Of note, I have experienced zero issues with the heavy phosphate CMI mags, but this was all in State-side use. Obviously mileage varies between our experiences but I'd never trust the suspect CMI mags to anything but range use, regardless.

My familiarity with (and association with) Check-Mate dates subsequent to the introduction of the dry-film magazines (the first production run of which was 02/04).

As many of you know, I'm one of Check-Mate's sponsored Team shooters, and while I use both their 1911 and 92 magazines, the ones I run most heavily are the 92 dry-film magazines, which I've been provided examples from multiple lots; all but 3 of which were standard production DoD contract magazines (the 3 non-standard ones were 1 2005 one with an experimental stainless steel spring, and 2 that I received earlier this year with an experimental teflon coating finish on the tube interiors and exteriors). The original phosphate/crackle finish magazine tubes which were (and are) likely to be problematic in fine dust/sand/dirt environments were intended primarily for temperate climate deployment use-thing US and Western Europe, which were our primarily theaters of operation when the M9 came into service around 1985.

Mine are not babied, but used for duty, carry and IDPA. On my receipt, I disassemble the magazine, wipe down the tube interior wit Dri-Slide, a molybdenum disulfide dry-film lubricant/anti-corrosive, and also treat the spring and inside floorplate wit the Dri-Slide. Reassembled magazines are wiped down with a thin film of Weapon Shield, and buffed dry, leaving a thin film of protestant on the exterior surfaces.

In using the Check-Mate dry-film magazines extensively over a 12+ year period in my Beretta 92D, I've encountered precisely 2 issues: one magazine had a slightly out-of-spec tube, and wouldn't drop free; the other issue was a single failure to lock back after the last round in the magazine was ejected; analysis established that was a failure of relativity weak ammunition (Federal Champion Aluminum case 115 gr and likely an insufficient stiff grip to fully facilitate slide reciprocation (I was shooting weak-hand only when the failure to lock-back occurred). I totally trust the magazines, and they're used for all of my handgun venues, including duty and defensive/concealed carry.

Nothing's perfect, but for those encountering issues with magazines, I suggest a detailed look at weapon lubrication, recoil spring (and all other operational springs) replacement intervals, ammunition and grip/stance be objectively reviewed. My current "go to" cartridges of choice for practice and IDPA are now 124 gr Sellier & Bellot and/or American Eagle; for duty, my preferences are towards Speer 124 gr Gold Dot and Hornady Critical Duty. If you don't know the provinence of a used gun and/or magazines, I counsel immediate spring replacement. Organizational weapons maintenance overall and organizational magazine maintenance I am usually highly suspect of the adequacy (or even performance) of.

Best, Jon

[RJflyer]

Military weapons training is generally a joke to non infantry units.

In my own experience through five overseas deployments, this is definitely the case for the USAF as well. There is a small subset of USAF career fields who take small arms seriously. From what i've seen, that is ALO/TACP, CRO/PJ, STO/CCT, and law enforcement specialties. Everyone else receives the same "joke" small arms training that only serves to check the box for deployment readiness. Again, for most deployed USAF members it doesn't matter because the only combat they see is an occasional IDF attack. But every once in a while, your average non-combat service member has to actually use their weapon to save their life. And in those rare cases, that service member simply hasn't been trained/prepared to an acceptable level.