While I’ve never been a cop, the topic of government issued handguns has certainly been an important part of my job for more than a decade. Eight years was spent at Beretta & SIG dealing primarily with big federal agencies and military entities. From 2009 to 2010 I acted as the outside consultant to the largest non-military small arms procurement in U.S. history, giving me an incredible opportunity to see the process from the other side. Obviously, I also see a lot of law enforcement officers on the range, both in open enrollment classes (like AFHF) and closed/contract classes.
The number of different policies and philosophies regarding department/officer handgun selection might amaze you. At one end of the spectrum we have what many people think is typical: a single uniform gun, issued by the department, that every person, regardless of assignment, regardless of hand size or shooting skill, must carry at all times. But in fact, that isn’t a very common approach.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is what I call “Cops as Anarchists,” where the department policy says little more than it should use smokeless powder. Officers buy their own whatever-they-want, go forth, and conquer. Often, the officer is also responsible for buying his own duty ammo and proper maintenance of his pistol. This approach, I am sorry to say, is extremely common in some parts of the country.
As a gun guy, I’m philosophically opposed to shoehorning the same gun into every hand or expecting one gun to serve ideally in every role from SWAT to plainclothes detective. But at the same time, I’ve seen the brutal evidence of what happens when individual officers are given carte blanche to buy anything they want… because often they want really, really bad guns. The simple truth is that not every cop is a gun guy. Not every cop knows what to look for in a quality firearm. Not every cop is qualified to be his own armorer. All too often, decisions are made on appearance, size, and price rather than functionality, shootability, and reliability. Is the officer who struggles to qualify each year and avoids in-service firearms training like it causes AIDS really the best person to pick a duty weapon that he, his partners, and the local populace may need to depend upon in a critical incident?
For what it’s worth, the best programs I’ve seen follow a fairly balanced line between the two extremes. If someone made me Chief of Anytown, USA tomorrow my firearms policy would be as follows:
- Issue a standard handgun. This gun would be proven both through objective testing at major agencies and actual real world use by officers around the country over a number of years. We don’t need to do our own tests and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. Neither will we run a quick evaluation/backyard BBQ party and pick the one we think is most nifty. Off the top of my head if I had to pick one, it would be the Glock 17. Expect every officer to qualify with the issued gun.
- Allow individuals to chose from a limited list of tested, proven handguns in other sizes, calibers, and possibly brands. Department provides duty ammo; this provides a reasonable justification to limit choices to just two or three calibers. Department performs all maintenance on the pistol; this also helps keep the list of approved guns small, as the department needs to have both qualified certified armorers and spare parts for each brand & model it authorizes. For purpose of this example, I’d limit it to Glock, S&W, and HK pistols in 9mm, .40, and .45 calibers. And if I had to give one up, either .40 or .45 could go away without me losing a wink of sleep. Nine plus “something bigger” should be enough to satisfy everyone.
- Officers are responsible for buying holsters, mags, and pouches for personally owned duty weapons (all based off of approved lists). Requirements for in-uniform duty retention holsters could limit which pistols can be carried in that role.
- Upon selecting a personally owned duty weapon, the officer would first have to deliver it to a department armorer for inspection and test firing. If the pistol fails to meet inspection or proves unreliable during testing it is rejected. The officer still has his issued gun, with which he has qualified, until he can find a functional alternative.
- Once a pistol has been selected and approved by the armorers, the officer must qualify with it. Qualification standard with a personally selected pistol would be higher (say 80%) than with the issued gun (say 70%). This would prevent officers from purchasing guns they struggle to shoot well and, perhaps more importantly, motivate officers to become better shooters. If you want a “better” gun, you have to earn it.
- With the exception of undercover officers, there would be no special handguns that only some units/people could carry. For example, SWAT would not get a special gun. I’ve never understood the idea behind giving a supposedly “better” gun to your SWAT guys (who presumably do 90% of their work with long guns) and leaving a “lesser” pistol to your patrol officers (who presumably do 90% of their work with their handgun). I’ve met plenty of SWAT/tac guys who shoot better because they get more government-funded range time and ammo. I’ve yet to find a team that was better because they had a cooler gun. (undercover guys, by definition, sometimes need guns that are specifically not authorized by any local law enforcement agencies)
- When an officer is involved in a shooting and his pistol is seized as evidence, he is issued another (if he was carrying the standard issued gun) or he can go back to his issued pistol until such time as either his personally owned gun is returned from evidence or he acquires a new one.
Of course, it’s easy for me to type all that out. I don’t have budget considerations. Buying every officer a new gun, plus ammo, leather, spare parts, etc. will be costly. Neither do I have political considerations. You don’t want to be the guy telling Officer Tex Manly that the homemade 1911 he’s been carryin’ since ’79 is no longer authorized.
But neither do you want to be the FI (firearms instructor) or armorer that is called to the stand and asked under oath whether Officer Manly’s gun was one you would personally trust enough to carry on duty…
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
(special thanks to Chuck, Steve, Allen, and SLG for their professional input on this article)
I like your policy. That’s similar to the way my department used to be until the 1911 craze him. Now we’re close to the “anything goes” category. BIG MISTAKE!
I also would add in a line about modifying duty guns. Guys that buy their own guns have a habit of making changes to them on their own. I found a Glock 22 last week during an armory inspection where the owner had polished the chamber with a dremel, installed the trigger return spring upside down with a Ghost connector and installed the extractor plunger backwards. The gun still functioned, but I wasn’t thrilled.
We used to specify only Safariland Level II or Level III holsters for uniformed carry and I think we should go back to that.
KevH — I didn’t address modifications but personally I’d limit it to factory-option sights and similar items that were supplied by the manufacturer. I’m sympathetic to the desire for a tuned up gun but the whole idea behind a DUTY gun is that it’s a proven entity. No one has put a Ghost-equipped Glock through the kind of testing that ATF, FBI, and ICE have done. While such a policy might annoy (or even hinder) a tiny fraction of a percent of officers at the top of the skill tree, the potential risk and liability of open-ended modification policies isn’t worth it IMHO.
Joe — Some departments have specific separate quals for BUGs. I’d be ok with that as long as the BUG could only be carried when the primary (which passed the regular qual at 70% for the issued gun or 80% for a personal gun) was also being carried. Too many places let their guys default to carrying ONLY the BUG, and I think that’s a mistake especially if the BUG has an easier qual. As for models, given that my “policy” allows for G26, G27, M&P Compact, M&P Shield, and HK P2000SK pistols I feel like it’s covered. When you start adding things like j-frames you dramatically increase complication in terms of ammo, armorer support, etc.
What about BUG’s? Would that follow under the BYOG philosophy of an 80% qual test?
I know local PD will let LEO carry whatever as a BUG. Several carry j-frames in ankle holsters for instance.
#notacopjustcurious
Spot on Todd. I have experience with the “single uniform gun” dept. Expect if your on SWAT you get a different brand gun in a larger (.45) caliber because you need the “knock down” power more than the street cop. Street cops don’t get lights on their guns because its too much of a liability, expect if your on a special unit (that works %90 day time hours and is made up of street cops) Then you get a light kit.
I’ve seen officers in court with black electrical tape on there rear sight from the 2 month old mandatory point shooting (because you wont look at your sights anyway) class that they forgot about. I pointed it out and got a shrug from him……unbelievable.
I would be thrilled if they would authorize different sights over the stock trijicons. But every gun must be exact same. For someone who spends lots of money training outside the mandatory training it is VERY frustrating. I would be friggin’ elated if they implemented your plan Todd.
In all the departments I’ve been associated with, the only driving force behind gun selection was cost.
Which gun could be had for the cheapest.
Glock was always the top dog in that category.
One invoice I saw years ago for a 300 gun purchase order had this particular department paying roughly $300 for each gun, night sights and three mags. Glock also took all our older guns AND holsters in on trade and issued us a credit through a Safariland dealer for duty holsters.
At no time was caliber, ammo capacity or size ever entered into the equation. At no time was any one outside the uppity, upper echelons of the command staff asked for input into the process either.
I think providing 38+P for j-frame bugs adds more value than providing 40 and 45 duty ammo, personally.
If I ran a department, I’d issue the M&P9FS and a 442 BUG. Personally owned 9Pro and FS authorized for uniform carry, any personally owned 9mm M&P (including the shield) or 38+P revolver for plainclothes/off duty.
But, I’m just a random guy on the internet.
Good write up Todd. I think weapon selection and more importantly firearm training are very important, but in reality in most agencies it is not a priority by the Command Staff.
Getting Command Staff to the range to even qualify is like pulling teeth.
Todd, you outlinded plan is basically what my department went to several years ago, prior to that we were a “one gun fits all” department. Basically, if you don’t want to purchase your own handgun, we’ll issue a Sig P220R and the duty gear to go with it. If you want your own handgun, myself or one of the other range masters has to approve it (much like you outlinded), and you have to qualify with it. You also have to purchase your own holster, mag carrier, etc… As for back up guns, if you only carry it as a true back up, there is a condenced qual course you have to pass. However, if you are in plain clothes, and you want to carry your secondary handgun, then you have to pass the entire qual course (this is what I did while I was in plain clothes, and kind of developed it into our policy/standard practice, this was not previously the case).
Everyone carries a .45acp handgun (with the exception of one person I’m aware of, this is due to the increadibly small size of hands this person has), because the department provides the ammunition.
Personally, I, and several others, had problems with the issued handgun, so I purchased something different.
I am a huge believer/supporter of back up guns. To me (this is just my opinion), a back up gun should be of suffient size to be servicable as a defensive gun. Meaning, I’m not a fan of pocket .32’s or .380’s (although if it comes down to it, better to have some type of functioning handgun than none), and I believe you should be able to load your back up with magazines from your belt. So for me, I carry a full size HK45 as my primary, and an HK45c as my back up (which also serves as my off duty concealed carry handgun, and is my plain clothes duty gun as well). When I was carrying a P220, I carried the now out of production P245 as my back up. To me, it is a must that I can reload my back up. If stuff goes bad enough that I need my back up (primary breaks or is lost, or whatever) I want to have bullets for my back up, because in my experience when something goes wrong, it will go horribly wrong.
As for modifications, I agree 100% with Todd, only factory approved mod’s. As for lights, etc… I am a believer in weapon mounted lights, but if my guys are going to mount/carry one, they have to qual with it.
Someone mentioned 1911’s and the prob’s that has caused at their agency. We too have that issue. We (dept) got a group buy rate from a 1911 manufacture (sort of) for guns with a ton of features and our badge and dept crest laser engraved on them. I bought one, knowing I’d never carry the gun, but rather as a cool looking handgun representing my time as a cop. I still have not shot mine. These guns are nice, but they are not duty guns by any stretch. Now matter how many times I point this out, and no matter how many failures some guys experience in training, they insist on carrying them. Sure, they get all kinds of T’d off when they have malfunctions and/or breakage at the range, but they won’t change. At the last shoot we had (last month) myself and one of the other senior range guys flat told some of these guys, “if you want a reliable gun that will shoot every time, buy a Glock or an HK, otherwise get real good at clearing malfuncions.” Now it should be said, the guys who regularly experience malfunctions, are not gun guys like Todd mentioned. There are a couple gun guys who run thier 1911’s and don’t have a high number of malfunctions, but they are clearly in the minority.
Someone else mentioned the decidging factor at their dept was the cost, plain and simple. Now, while Glock can provide a reliable handgun and a very low/competitive price, that doesn’t hold true for all manufactures, and can be a dangerous path to take. Personally, I chose to spend some $$$$ on my primary and back up handguns. My choice was based on research I did, to inlcude finding a handgun that fit me like a glove. Obviously, my choice isn’t going to fit/be right for everyone.
Anyway, I think Todd has it right, a happy middle point between one gun fits all and allowing cops to purchase their own handgun. But there has to be a balance, we don’t want guys running around with low quality handguns.
I read a pretty good article in Law Officer Magazine about this topic. I believe the article was about the 1911 but there was paragraph in his department’s policy on hand guns. The 1911 was approved a few years ago and was an opposition to carry if you paid for one out of packet and the holster and mag pouch. The article talked abut ho his department issued out a Beretta Cougar 40 cal. The range staff and the department knew that there was no size fits all gun. The officer can purchased out of pocket pretty much any handgun chambered in a 40 cal. I like that policy. My department will not do that.
Todd, are you sure you’ve never been a cop because this is SPOT-ON. A superb, common-sense commentary.
I’m a career cop, long-time SWAT guy, and firearms instructor. Point 6 stabbed me through the heart because it is RIGHT despite my own past practices and feelings. Thank you for adding your valuable input on caliber considerations in point 2, particularly not being bothered by issuing quality 9mm duty ammunition to patrol officers.
Exactly “I’ve yet to find a team that was better because they had a cooler gun”
I don’t understand the reasoning behind why a budget would be broken up like that. The officers are using their pistols more frequently than the SWATs are using their pistols. Why not just give everyone the same gun and save some money for ammo or training or gasoline!
Todd, On point #2, I find it interesting that you left the two brands you used to work for off the “approved” brand list. Do you really think allowing (or not allowing) a whole ‘brand’ of guns is a good idea? I can see having a list of approved models as opposed to brands. After all, would an officer really be better off with a Sigma instead of a 92G or a P226?
wecole — valid points. I was simply trying to be concise rather than list each individual model. I should have said the Smith M&P series specifically.
I’ve got no problem with a well built Beretta or SIG. But given their popularity relative to Glock and the M&P, greater expense, and more complicated armorer requirements, allowing them would simply over complicate the system or require ditching another brand in their favor. Of course, one could say much the same about the HK, but I have far more faith in the HK so they’re in my personal approved list.
I’m not a cop but your recommendations make sense to me from an organizational standpoint. Still, one of the points you have long made is that it’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian. From what I have seen, issues related to what pistols cops carry pale in comparison to the fact that most departments only provide a miserly allowance of ammo to train with annually. I think cops would be better off with a Hi-Point and 1000 rounds per year than a G 17 or an M&P 9 (two excellent pistols in my view) and 50 rounds a year. Anyway, I think the lack of adequate firearms training caused by ridiculously low ammo budgets is the biggest gun-related issue many cops face.
SteveJ,
Ammunition budgets are a small part of the problem. The cost of getting the officers to the range; replacing those officers at the range on the street is far more expensive.
The other factor is participation. Most cops are not firearms people. Many would rather do something else than shoot. The last week of a qualification period at the range can be a scary place.
This was a good read (comments too), spot-on logic from TG.
Sadly though, I think Todd might be too correct on one point: the individual who “avoids in-service training like it causes AIDS” is indeed more often the type who’s overseeing procurements (and usually training) than any of the “gun guys” or day-in/day-out officers at most agencies from what I’ve seen. Many times there’s no T&E process whatsoever.
JMHO, but a lot of this kind of stuff boils down to inter-agency politics; we have a lot of people in positions at agencies out there that don’t know much about what they’re charged with overseeing. Sometimes that leads to a “me too” philosophy in copying other agencies in order to disguise their lack of knowledge (can you say .40s&w), and other times, to people teaching firearms training who learned 98% of their stuff from watching TJ Hooker in the 80’s because they’re higher up the ladder.
If the person who gets to make the call thinks that what they know is best (whether they do or not), and has an opinion about which brands/platforms they like, or don’t like, i.e. a hatred of Glocks because they do not have a safety (even though they have 3), then Glocks probably will not be what ends up getting issued…
I really wish more agencies (mostly my own) would consult experts more often on matters such as these.
Great article Todd. Your points pretty much mirror the suggestions I’ve been making to my department. About the only difference is the caliber options. I suggested we limit it to 9mm (our current duty caliber) due to budget reasons.
Unfortunately, my agency is big on uniformity (which I find ironic because we currently have 2 different brands and four different models of issued weapons). I’m not optimistic about changing their minds, but I keep at it.
Aside from the glaring omission of the P226, which I still shoot better then any other gun (including the 1911) and have since the academy, and yes that includes time behind the Glock, M&P, and HK. It’s a sound plan. I just don’t get how you would omit the 92 series and P220 series guns when they’re the two most issued in the US military and many police officers are former military and already have time with those platforms.
Very good article. Last year we went through a transition from the Hk USP 45 compact to the M&P 45 Mid-size. Prior to that I asked if I could carry my G-17 because I loathed the HK. Even though our policy said this would be acceptable I was denied by the admin. The mentality of the bean counters was/is that we need to have the same caliber/weapon just in case something bad happened and another officer had to use anothers ammo. Ehhh…I understand that logic but…anyway.
Someone mentioned that based on budgetery consrtaints that Glock was the cheapest. I disagree. During our bidding I went through 2 different Glock distributors trying to get a decent price…both were given 2 opportunities to produce valid/acceptable quotes and they both failed (did I mention that I really wanted Glocks). One of their quotes was above $10,000. The lowest was just under $5000. S&W came in and more-or-less gave us the guns…and holsters for less than $500 with their first bid.
I originally didnt want to go w/ the M&P and wanted to change to 9mm. However, the M&P has proven to be a reliable platform and everyone seems more comfortable with it over the HK. As for the caliber choice…somethings/attitudes/perceptions never change.
My dept issues a uniform gun to everyone regardless if they can safely use or even draw the gun. I’ve asked why we couldn’t issue different people different weapons systems based on our their needs and I always get the “remember if you run out of ammo you need to be able to use somebody else’s magazines”. If that was really the case, then why saddle us with a platform that allows us to carry 25 rounds of duty ammo total on our belts????
Jacob: I wonder. Have there been many documented cases of cops needing to use some other cops’ magazines, or is this simply a way of deflecting unwanted questions?
I will split the difference: Years ago our reserve officers could carry just about any weapon they wanted as long as it was a TDA gun in 9/40. From a logistics stand point it sucked having to maintain 5 difernt makes of guns. We have now standarized on M&P 40’s for all and allow the officers to use whatever back strap fits them best. Life is much simpler and so far knowbody is complaining,actually the opposite guys are buying M&P compacts with thier own money and not griping about it.
Pablo:
I think there is a reason for that. Have you ever fired a .40 with less recoil and muzzle flip than an M&P? In my experience it really is an excellent weapon (though given its firing mechanism it is double action by only the barest of margins).
If I were a boss..I’d let folks carry just about whatever they wanted as long as it worked. But I would make sure it was inspected 1x per year and I would ensure the pistol was maintained like dept. issued pistols. I’d probably issue no prior experience (LE/Mil/or otherwise) recruits either a Glock 17 or M&P40 along with a standard holster. One to ensure a basic level of training and two becuase these new folks tend to be broke as it is…
If I were in charge, I’d give each officer an individual budget and approved list of polymer handguns in 9MM or .45 to choose from. If they went over budget they could pay the difference. I would allow sight modifications, grip modifications, ambi safety, left handed controls, etc and other work with armorer approval. 1911s would probably be out due to money (you can’t get a reliable 1911 for the price I’m thinking of). An agency doesn’t have a right to tell an officer what they carry off duty though, as long as it’s legal. I don’t see the problem with a small revolver as a last resort backup gun either (Smith j frame, etc.)
The idea of carrying one gun because everyone should have the same magazines “in case” is a tired argument. If you’ve run through all your duty ammo in today’s standard duty guns and are still in a fight you’ll have bigger problems than someone else arriving to help you and not carrying the same gun as you. And the odds are they’ll need their ammo anyway. Maybe you should have carried more.
When I was a kid, sometimes my parents would explain “Why?” with “Because.” The modern day version of this is “Chief doesn’t like it.” Which is no reason at all.
When I first came on we had the option of the 96D or unemployment… no back ups. As time has marche on we adopted the USP compact LEM .40 for plain clothed agents. Now, you are issued a 229 DAK. But at least you have the personal purchase option of a 229 DA/SA, a UPS compact LEM or P2000sk, Glock 17 or 26. Back ups are 239’s or J frames. Not a ton of options but it beats the hell out of 96D or nothing… I am sure Todd had a small amount of input in my agencies policy.
(Our local SO is still a “carry anything” type of office. When I see what shows up at the range it is SCARY to say the least. just looking at the tops of holsters reveals rusted up guns tha look like they only come out once per year to qual.)
Wow, I need spell check… or I need to not post from my phone.
Our agency issues one weapon, the Glock, for Duty carry. We are looking into issuing a coupld other makes and models that have been tested and reasonable. We do allow officers who wish to buy and carry other weapons that have been approved to do so, but they must pay the gun for all holsters, magazines etc. (Never liked having people carry their own weapons, as if they are in a shooting, the weapon could end up sitting in a court property room for a long time.)
Some minor issues come up, such as having trained armorors for the other weapons. Most of the time the officers must go pay someone to do the yearly armororing, as the department does not have everyone trained on each alternate gun.
Another issue was with the variety of guns, we didn’t have the same training guns for the simunition training, so guys had to train with the Glock Sim guns, instead of what they were carrying on duty, which was a mistake in my book.
Another issue was with the 1911 and other weapons with safeties, decockers etc, range staff had to be very careful with operatiors with those weapons to maintain safety on the line while doing our dynamic training.
Then you get into the “wanna” be gun toters who believed they were trained enough to carry a 1911 style weapon without ongoing training or practice. It was hard to watch them struggle to run the gun proficiently, forget to manipulate safeties and not get shots off when they should have.
Keeping in mind that most police officers are not gun guys, the simple one gun issue worked very well.
And for liability purposes, any weapon carried off duty under color of authority as a police officer, the Agency absolutely has the right to dictate what you carry and require you show proficiency with it. In most states with your concealed carry or state allowed concealed carry, if you as an individual wish to carry whatever gun you wished, then you would not be covered by the agency should you be forced to use that weapon.
I think that many agencies are waking up to the importance of gun fit – the market shift to models with replaceable grip panels, and companies quoting “trigger reach” and even trigger reset specs in their sales literature indicates a much higher level of understanding about the factors that facilitate good shooting than existed 10 years ago, maybe even 5 years ago.
Austin PD just standardized on the M&P .40, after decades of having an approved list that included 1911s, Glocks and many DA/SA models.
Todd, you had me right up until “no J frames”.
With the 642 being, IMHO, one of the very best BUGs ever made, I think dumping those off of the approved list would be a diservice to the street cops.
As we discussed, I look at the service pistol as a system, it needs to have factory/parts/armorer support, good holsters available, the ability to fit a wide range of shooters, and I wouldn’t have any pistol approved that I couldn’t get a Sim gun or kit for. FoF training is that important.
Although I am very much a gun guy and tend towards the anarchist end of the scale, I have seen what happens when Joe “I’m a gunfighter” Cop makes his own decisions with poor judgement and training. Sometimes those decisions cost the whole agency dearly.
THIS!!! Eric, you couldn’t have said it better.
“The idea of carrying one gun because everyone should have the same magazines “in case” is a tired argument. If you’ve run through all your duty ammo in today’s standard duty guns and are still in a fight you’ll have bigger problems than someone else arriving to help you and not carrying the same gun as you. And the odds are they’ll need their ammo anyway. Maybe you should have carried more.
When I was a kid, sometimes my parents would explain “Why?” with “Because.” The modern day version of this is “Chief doesn’t like it.” Which is no reason at all.
By Eric L. on Oct 22, 2012”