Police Duty pistol firearms T&E procedure, COF

[BehindBlueI's]

My department's progression since my hire date:

Glock 22 Gen 2
Glock 22 Gen 3
Glock 22 Gen 4
Glock 17M

During the Gen 2 and 3 days, plain clothes officers could get a Glock 27 instead. How's that for crazy...

I still have my original gun belt and holster for "parade ready" occasions and it still works just fine. Even fits, almost too big.

[jnc36rcpd]

The former chief of my former department wore what every rookie patrol officer wore. The current chief wears a radio, a cell phone, and the only Glock 26 issued by the agency. I suspect we might need to mention to executives who carried be bothered to carry a Glock 17 or 19 that they will pack a gun carried by actresses on TV cop shows to avoid them carrying a pistol that seems larger than they are.

[AMC]

The former chief of my former department wore what every rookie patrol officer wore. The current chief wears a radio, a cell phone, and the only Glock 26 issued by the agency. I suspect we might need to mention to executives who carried be bothered to carry a Glock 17 or 19 that they will pack a gun carried by actresses on TV cop shows to avoid them carrying a pistol that seems larger than they are.

The issue is that they aren't really carrying a gun. They're wearing a symbol of office. That thing on their waist is just a heavy gun-shaped rabbits foot. And command types aren't the only ones who fall into this trap.

[Rick R]

The issue is that they aren't really carrying a gun. They're wearing a symbol of office. That thing on their waist is just a heavy gun-shaped rabbits foot. And command types aren't the only ones who fall into this trap.

Aren’t Glock 26 / 27 pistols the S&W Model 36 of the modern age? I’d be happy they carry ANY gun as I’ve seen a lot of executives and senior staff that couldn’t be bothered. We had some kind of executive confab a few years ago where a belligerent drunk street person barged into the conference room and none of the Chiefs, Sheriffs or hangers on in attendance had a gun or cuffs.

As to the original question and parameters, since you’re stuck with limited testing I’d get your experts to fire the T&E guns on your normal qualification course to judge the new guns against a known standard. Then I’d try to get them in the hands of as many different sized/experienced/tasked officers as I could to at least try to dry fondle any issues to the surface.

[jlw]

As a baseline, you have to include your agency qual course. From there, I would suggest picking several well known drills/tests such as the Five Yard Roundup, the Baseline Assessment Drill, etc. All of this is for hard numbers data.

From there, I'd do some shooting from non-conventional positions and some stuff with forced movement (not necessarily shooting on the move). The point here is to try to see how the guns perform with "not perfect" grips. This is going to be really telling with some weaker performing shooters. Pistols that run fine in a traditional shooting stance may not perform as well in less than ideal conditions.

Another consideration is all of the support gear that would be needed; especially duty holsters. While you have stated that you aren't making the ultimate decision, providing information on that issue might influence the decision makers.

I've been on several ends of this process. I was a rookie officer when the decision was made to simply by new copies of the pistol that we already had simply to not have the new duty gear costs to being an agency instructor making the proposal to the decision maker to being the chief who made a unilateral decision (I did implement an approval process for people who wanted to carry something other than the issued pistol). Feel free to send me a private message if you wish.

[msstate56]

As a baseline, you have to include your agency qual course. From there, I would suggest picking several well known drills/tests such as the Five Yard Roundup, the Baseline Assessment Drill, etc. All of this is for hard numbers data.

From there, I'd do some shooting from non-conventional positions and some stuff with forced movement (not necessarily shooting on the move). The point here is to try to see how the guns perform with "not perfect" grips. This is going to be really telling with some weaker performing shooters. Pistols that run fine in a traditional shooting stance may not perform as well in less than ideal conditions.

Another consideration is all of the support gear that would be needed; especially duty holsters. While you have stated that you aren't making the ultimate decision, providing information on that issue might influence the decision makers.

This is essentially what I have.
Agency Qual course (with different targets w/ better defined scoring zones. It’s not hard to shoot a 100 with all in the “Q” on our normal targets.)
Several other known drills with a timed/scored standard
Manipulation type drills (reloads, dummy rounds)
Night qual course
A few extra things- like spraying optics w water, and attempting to condensate the lens (mostly to show the benefits of enclosed emitter optics)

[msstate56]

So who here issues Sig 320s? How do they perform? What, if any, are your concerns about the “unintended discharge” issues? Has this problem been 100% fixed if you are ordering current production 320s?

[WobblyPossum]

@HCM @Gadfly

We issue P320s to the vast majority of something like 14k gun carrying personnel. I have not heard of any of the agency guns firing uncommanded/without user input. I heard there was an officer who claims their gun went off on its own but witnesses stated the officer had their finger on the trigger. I have no concerns of uncommanded discharges with regards to the agency guns. I can’t speak to commercial guns or the SKUs that other agencies issue.

Reliability wise, I see issues periodically with our training ammo which is a really dirty 115gr Winchester round. Our duty ammo is Speer 124gr +P GDHP and I rarely see issues during quals and training when people are firing the duty ammo.

I wasn’t with the agency prior to the changeover to the P320. I think I was in the second or third academy class to be issued the P320. The prior pistol was a P229 DAK in .40 S&W. I hear that qual scores immediately improved when the P320 made its way to the field and most people I speak to greatly prefer the P320. They say it’s much easier to shoot. The guns are definitely accurate. The trigger pull is a little lighter than I would prefer, especially once the guns have a few thousand rounds through them and are starting to break in.

ETA: since your agency is going towards optics, we are transitioning to the Sig Romeo 1 Pro with the protective metal shroud. Anyone going through the academy now is issued a gun with an optic. The field is in the process of transitioning those who want an optic. It’s not mandatory for those already in the field. I’ve heard of a few optics having issues but I think that’s to be expected when you’re talking about such large numbers. Periodically you’ll find a lemon. I think I’ve seen more problems with the iron sights on the tactical team pistols staying in their dovetails than I’ve seen with the optics so far, but the optics are still a very new thing. I’ll have more valid observations after the optics have been in the field agency-wide for a while. The guys on the tactical team have been running pistol mounted optics for the last two years or so, but that’s a small number of people compared to how large the agency is. Now that the average joe has an optic, we’ll really find out how easy they are to break.

[HCM]

@HCM @Gadfly

We issue P320s to the vast majority of something like 14k gun carrying personnel. I have not heard of any of the agency guns firing uncommanded/without user input. I heard there was an officer who claims their gun went off on its own but witnesses stated the officer had their finger on the trigger. I have no concerns of uncommanded discharges with regards to the agency guns. I can’t speak to commercial guns or the SKUs that other agencies issue.

Reliability wise, I see issues periodically with our training ammo which is a really dirty 115gr Winchester round. Our duty ammo is Speer 124gr +P GDHP and I rarely see issues during quals and training when people are firing the duty ammo.

I wasn’t with the agency prior to the changeover to the P320. I think I was in the second or third academy class to be issued the P320. The prior pistol was a P229 DAK in .40 S&W. I hear that qual scores immediately improved when the P320 made its way to the field and most people I speak to greatly prefer the P320. They say it’s much easier to shoot. The guns are definitely accurate. The trigger pull is a little lighter than I would prefer, especially once the guns have a few thousand rounds through them and are starting to break in.

ETA: since your agency is going towards optics, we are transitioning to the Sig Romeo 1 Pro with the protective metal shroud. Anyone going through the academy now is issued a gun with an optic. The field is in the process of transitioning those who want an optic. It’s not mandatory for those already in the field. I’ve heard of a few optics having issues but I think that’s to be expected when you’re talking about such large numbers. Periodically you’ll find a lemon. I think I’ve seen more problems with the iron sights on the tactical team pistols staying in their dovetails than I’ve seen with the optics so far, but the optics are still a very new thing. I’ll have more valid observations after the optics have been in the field agency-wide for a while. The guys on the tactical team have been running pistol mounted optics for the last two years or so, but that’s a small number of people compared to how large the agency is. Now that the average joe has an optic, we’ll really find out how easy they are to break.

Yes we issue P320s and have transitioned to issued optics (Romeo1PRO) via a slide swap program.

Some caveats: We issue and authorize personal P320s but all P320s (issued or POW) must be an agency specific (DHS) SKU FCU. No commercial or even regular IOP/Blue Label guns. DHS SKU / SN prefix FCUs only.

On agency approved personally owned guns officers can use any SIG OEM slide as long as it does not have porting or extra holes in the slide such as lightening cuts and any OEM grip except the gray tungsten infused polymer grips. SIG does not recommend these for duty use as the tungsten makes the polymer more brittle / fragile.

Given the fact, the grip in leading determines a the amount of engagement between this sear in the FCU and the striker in the slide, sticking to OEM grips is probably a good idea.

There have been user induced ND’s but there have been zero “uncommanded” discharges with the DHS SKU 320s.

There is an individual with our agency in Pennsylvania who has a lawsuit against SIG, claiming an uncommanded discharge for an incident in which this individual shot themselves in the leg. This incident occurred during agency training outdoors in the winter. The individual was wearing gloves and was using a personally owned Serpa holster, which was made for their previously issued SIG P229R. The incident was witnessed by agency firearms instructors, who saw the individual putting their finger on the trigger as they drew the weapon. The pistol was examined both by the agency’s national armory, and by SIG, and had no mechanical defects. The basis, for this individual’s claim is that as a former marine and a former correctional officer, he believes himself to be a firearms expert, making it impossible that he could shot himself -roll eyes here.

In this individual‘s lawsuit he claims that a similar incident occurred with a member of our agency in NYC due to an “uncommanded” discharge. However, the Pennsylvania officer is misrepresenting the facts of that incident. The New York incident occurred during firearms training and was witnessed but the witnesses saw the New York officer put their finger on the trigger during the draw, examination of the New York gun found no defects, and most importantly, the NY Officer acknowledged he put his finger on the trigger and ND’ed.

While there are real issues with the original 320s, including the original design 320s, which have been through the factory upgrade there are a lot if bullshit claims by people just looking to get paid too.

We authorize the Romeo1, Romeo1PRO, Romeo2 and Type 2 RMR 06/07. We issue the Romeo1PRO because our contract for the 320s was for the P320 pistol “system” so we can buy P320 related items, like SIG optics via the existing contract.

For those unfamiliar, solicitation, testing and contracting for new equipment, then dealing with the protests, that always result is a lengthy and resource intensive process. So we could have SIG Optics right now for the perfect optic 3 to 5 years from now.

The Romeo, 1 pro is durable and reliable, in terms of surviving high round counts on a reciprocating slide. Battery life with the 1632 and shake awake is decent (1 year, though we change batteries every 6 months). Part of that aspect of durability and reliability is due to SIGs direct mount option being quite robust. The downside to the R1P is like the DPP from which it is derived, it’s a bit fragile in terms of drop and crush durability.

If you wind up doing a package deal for Syd, guns with sick optics, I would definitely push to get the Romeo2 over the Romeo 1 PRO. The Romeo, too, is not a true closed emitter optic due to the removable hood, but it addresses the weaknesses of the R1P.

The last field test of the other one pee before general issue was six months of youse by tactical team members across the US. During that testing, there were issues with iron sites coming loose and three guns were deadlined due to people, bending ejectors while doing gorilla style, magazine changes. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect some of those people are slamming the mags in as hard as possible, hoping to get the slide to auto forward.

The fact that the ejector is a piece of bent sheet metal, which is an integral part of the chassis of the fire control unit is probably the Achilles heel of the P320. If you use magazines that don’t have base pads that stop on the mouth of the magwell, or you have idiots who slam mags in as hard as possible trying to auto forward the gun, and you bend the ejector you have just deadlned the gun.

For commercial customers sick charges $200 to replace an FCU if you’ve been the ejector. How they handle LE guns depends on how big a client you are….

[TGS]

The last field test of the other one pee before general issue was six months of youse by tactical team members across the US. During that testing, there were issues with iron sites coming loose and three guns were deadlined due to people, bending ejectors while doing gorilla style, magazine changes. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect some of those people are slamming the mags in as hard as possible, hoping to get the slide to auto forward.

The fact that the ejector is a piece of bent sheet metal, which is an integral part of the chassis of the fire control unit is probably the Achilles heel of the P320. If you use magazines that don’t have base pads that stop on the mouth of the magwell, or you have idiots who slam mags in as hard as possible trying to auto forward the gun, and you bend the ejector you have just deadlned the gun.

For commercial customers sick charges $200 to replace an FCU if you’ve been the ejector. How they handle LE guns depends on how big a client you are….

I'm curious how the logistics are working out on this given the quicker/easier repair of swapping out modular FCUs was one of SIGs selling points for agency customers. @WobblyPossum and @Gadfly, feel free to answer as well...

Do you guys keep extra FCUs on hand for this reason? As in spare FCUs which aren't already assigned to a chassis. Or, is the problem rare enough that the agent just gets an entire new gun anyways, as if they had a normal pistol like a Glock/HK/P229?