Clark,
I appreciate the thoughtful and considered reply.
I would offer in the background that historically being a vocal critic of Sig's past conduct in Gov solicitations and small parts support to existing contracts, I would not generally be considered biased in Sig's favor. Having participated in an agency-level recall of Sig service weapons, it's a lot of fun and lost time.
In further background, there are many agencies wherein whom might be classified overt or uniformed situationally, but not always and perhaps not even generally. One might wake-up, knock out some casework in plainclothes and wearing OWB gear, adjust their profile for an interview by going IWB, and then drive out into the afternoon for a pre-planned or more spontaneous enforcement action wherein they wear explicitly marked overt equipment over their plainclothes attire. A minority of those may even change into a specified uniform and matching overt equipment for specialty roles in the enforcement action; or may be running an overt-equivalent ensemble carried concealed for a low-vis mission set. Afterwards, most everyone doffs their overt equipment, dons OWB or IWB concealment gear, and heads on to the next task or home. If one's government provided vehicle has locking storage, then one could use the overt pistol for overt things and leave the discrete pistol locked up; but there's justifications, expenses, and logistics involved with such a setup. Especially with older vehicles at the end of their effective lifespans, many may find themselves cable locking a bagged rifle to an installed shackle point, vice any enclosing storage; that mostly precludes extra pistols being stowed there. There are policy and liability concerns at hand. Thus, whatever pistol such a person walks out the door with, is the pistol that they are most likely to use in any of the described rolls, to include the overt ones. It is for this such pattern of life that I asked after your specific definition, since until your introduction of it into the conversation, I did not see it represented here.
Ref: TLR-7 remarks, which mirror the underlying logic that I'm presenting:
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....=1#post1326036
(As far as the subject of admin arrests, I suppose we'll have to leave that one tongue-in-cheek. It's a sore subject this last 13 months...)
As far as the hand-wave remark, at a previous workplace I spent several years optimizing firearms training for those at the radical ends of physical demographics; this was very often an uphill experience against the well-intentioned but staid opinions of some of my peers. Our authorized weapons list at the time was not ideal, and very few were truly served better by our smaller offering, though it was an easy if unsupported attempt at a solution for other instructors to issue them out rather than work with a shooter. (Hilariously, my own experience wearing a size 4 USGI Nomex flyer's glove and size 2 of other USGI gloves was that I was capable of greater precision and shorter splits with the single-stack, but that I was capable of faster and more consistently successful manipulations (to include reloads) with the double-stack; and with the double-stack I remained.) I thus imagine that there's a lot uncovered past the point of "good enough" or "acceptable," and it is not so easily simplified to either conclusion upon any significant scrutiny.
FWIW, I've mulled over the exact same RFI as Gadfly has, and to no particular satisfaction. The optics aren't mandatory, but they are coming; there's certainly plenty of them floating about in the field already and for some time. For many, it's a potential lifeline to make it to mandatory retirement without the additional stress from qualifications with diminishing eyesight and without accruing potential liability on the march to 57 (or 60, for those chosen few...). I think it's a question that quite a many have been asking themselves, in isolation.
Originally Posted by JCN
@Clark Jackson
Reply With Quote
