I don't have any idea what sort of people are registered or reading this forum. It has nothing to do with the place. Guns are political, people sometimes go off the deep end about political stuff and I don't want to mix business and pleasure.Originally Posted by Tom_Jones
It sounds like SLG does the same thing, so I don't understand the problem. Sorry if my wish to remain private has offended you.
So.....how's about that new Glock 17M?
Everyone screws up. My agency has. I have.
The FBI has screwed up. It doesn't mean it's a bad agency... It means it is run and staffed by human beings.
I don't consider the word of the FBI to be Gospel, but I surely don't discount it either. This is because they have, as any good agency should, worked to learn from their screw ups and improve. The improvements weren't, nor will they ever be perfect... but the more improvements we can analyze, the better off we will be. My agency, which isn't small, has recently made some big changes in terms of equipment, ammunition, etc., and some additional changes will hopefully come soon. Each of these changes was influenced in one way or another by things done by the FBI and other large agencies. This isn't to say that we were lock step. In fact, in some of the big decisions we made markedly different choices.
The problem I see with people wanting an easy answer to questions is that there is no easy answer. Agencies can't just throw information out there because of contract law, chain-of-command, liability, etc. Those who demand "the answer" have clearly never had to really provide one and shoulder the responsibility for an agency. People may not be happy about that, but it's reality. When you see guys like SMG (I don't know him but he speaks a language I understand... and he seems more fluent) and DocGKR (I don't know him but by reputation) saying something on this forum... That advice is a big friggin' deal.
If I don't like what my agency does, you (hopefully) won't see me complain on a public forum. I work to change it... This has met with some success and some failure. If I like what my agency does, I'll likely post about it. When you see guys with serious credentials saying something is good... It just might be a really good idea to listen. It isn't Gospel... but it's a pretty good benchmark.
From what I have heard, the FBI Glock exists, but both the FBI and Glock have done a really good job of keeping it out of the public eye. Since the contract (for whoever wins) hasn't been announced, that's a good thing and I'm pretty impressed. I look forward to seeing it.
These are not 9mm 124gr gold dots. They are an example of "undocumented" revisions in a specific JHP over the course of 15+ years.
These are .357 158gr Hydra Shoks (loaded by Federal) and 158gr Gold Dots (loaded by Georgia Arms). Both were purchased new sometime in the late 1990s.
This is a product image of the .357 158gr Hydra Shok in current production
Ask the internet for documentation of this revision. You'll hear crickets. And yet they happened.
Amongst other changes, the hydra shok has a flatter meplat and a narrower cavity. The gold dot has what appears to be a sharper, better defined petals in the cavity.
And this all says absolutely nothing about changes not visible to the naked eye. Changes to lead alloy, changes to the jacket alloy, changes to the electrolysis process, etc.
Last edited by jh9; 05-29-2016 at 03:55 PM.
Is there any indication that the new handgun, once selected and orders start coming in, will be pushed out to the field, or will the existing agents continue to be assigned their .40s long-term? It seems to me that commonality of ammo and mags in the field, as well as the other benefits of the 9mm (as described by the FBI in their 9mm justification white paper), would be something that the FBI would want to start seeing the advantages of sooner rather than later. To have a significant mixture of new 9mms and the older .40s (and older 9mms that were issued to problem shooters) in the field, and with the possibility of new non-Glock 9mms (SIG, M&P, etc.) depending on what's selected, would run counter to that commonality benefit.
Talked to one of their team guys yesterday, they've all turned in their 1911's and have been issued Glock 17's with G2 ammunition. The majority of the guys are not happy about giving up their 1911's, but admit it's because they've always been a bit of a status symbol.
Tell them not to fret. They can still tell each other apart in street clothes because their G17's are green.
The commonality benefit is way over stated in domestic LE. I am not aware of a single instance CONUS where LEOs had to share mags. Plus, if you suck so bad you ran through all your ammo and / or you don't carry spare mags I'm not giving you my ammo.
Commonality of ammo itself is a great administrative advantage but in a large organization it will likely take a few years to transition everyone. Plus most cops are not gun guys. They may not want to put forth the effort to transition to a new gun.
Preach it brother, preach it!!!
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
They're out there, but they're few and far between. It took me a long time to find one, and in that case the first back up officer was carrying a different gun than the primary officer, and they couldn't share when the primary asked for more ammo.
I'll try to find the video.
EDIT: Found it. I don't know how to embed the video.
They try to share mags around the 5:20 mark.
And, for the record, I'm with you 100% on the "commonality of ammo" issue.
Last edited by Tom_Jones; 06-09-2016 at 02:29 PM. Reason: embedded video
Reply With Quote
