<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Beastmaster:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Toadies:
Indeed. Nothing like having your pistol blow up in time of need.
Most LE are forced by departments to carry those ****ty pieces because Mr.Glock sucks major LE cawk. They practically give them to departments compared to Kimbers, HKs, Sigs, etc.
I wouldn't use one for a doorstop. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, these are the primary reasons why Glocks have won out over the years versus any other major manufacturer:
1) Weight. My duty belt (with a Colt Double Eagle, of all things!) had the DE, Surefire, two handcuffs, 4 magazines, stun gun, and ASP. Taking a few ounces off helps the duty officer. (I also had a S&W 945 in a belly band holster off of my body armor). That's a lot of stuff to haul around.
2) Ammo count. The S&W 39 and 59's (made famous by the Illinois State Police when they went to it in 1968) started the trend of high capacity duty carry. Glock's G17 with 16+1 perpetuated that even further. Add the gangbanger FUD (Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt), and you've got something there.
One patrol officer I used to know had a G21 with 4 spare magazines. He used to give me crap (since I only had Wilson 8 rounders x4 spares with me) all the time. He fell into the FUD....hook, line and sinker.
If I really need that much firepower, out came my FN/FAL. Screw the .45, screw the AR-15 or the Ruger Mini-14 or the Remington 870 with slugs- give me .308 with the FAL.
3) Perceived Durability. When I was going through Instructor training, there was a rather hilarious video about how this one southern state Sheriff's office did their Glock "testing". I now wish I kept or made a copy of it. It shows the G17 getting tortured by:
- Multiple Helicopter Drops
- Mud dunk
- Run over by a patrol car
- Thrown onto a brick wall
- and some other stuff I don't remember.
What was hilarious about the video was that the lead tester (who might have been the elected Sheriff too), took the G17 after each torture test, loaded it, shot off all the rounds in the magazine in a really haphazard fashion, then tossed it onto the nearest flat surface (most of the time which was the concrete floor.). He eventually knocked off the front sight.
Well, that video helped sell Glocks. Many departments, stung by the failures of many various shotguns other than the Remington 870, saw this video as the ultimate torture test.
What also helped was that the same G17 that was beaten up by that backwater department made its rounds to other departments....and beaten up even more.
And with realism - how many officers really keep their duty pistols clean? I still clean mine every month if they are unused, and after each use when I take them on the range. But I've been drilled so many times on the aphorism "a clean gun is a happy gun" that all of my firearms are happy. Police departments look at reliability - will the pistol fire when you pull the trigger and if it's abused like most officers abuse their pistols?
4) Armorer's school....or the simplicity of it. Take one punch bought at Sears, and you can fix most stuff (short of sights) with a Glock. Win over the hearts of the poor souls that have to fix the pistols that get abused by the officers that don't take care of them, and you get good reports back up the chain of command.
5) Finally, it comes down to training. When Glock came out of the shadow, many departments still used revolvers. Glock was the first manufacturer who could prove to training departments that the overall basics of firearms training remained the same, and that you needed to just teach the issues/differences of loading/unloading and clearing jams. No external safeties, no other niggling issues, just teach the same basics (which are the same basics no matter which pistol you use, really), and add the esoterics of magazine handling.
This is where Glock won out. This is where Glock continues to win - convincing the departments of the last two items are cost savings. This is how Glock has won 60% of the Police Departments and the FBI. I'm not saying it's right, but with a decent product and excellent marketing - they really did a number on the competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lies and Frapications.
Most LEs are not gun enthusiasts and therefore could care less about their carry. Hence giving them a lighter weapon with plenty of "pray and spray" potential. Any ability to use the weapon adequately are backseat to the primary objective that is making sure Barney Fife doesn't blow his foot off just like the monkey DEA agent on that video. But you see the biggest safety hazard for a weapon is a LE type who sucks at self preservation and WILL NOT invest time and effort let alone the fact that a majority of departments are tighter than a 10yr old chinese twat. They will not spend the funds to give their officers the best weapons and training let alone give their officers a fine quality weapon like a Sig, Kimber, Wilson, etc. It is simply easier to pay out the life insurance policy when Joe Law fails at his chosen occupation in life.
LE officers PWND by taxpayers and Gastons tupperware guns.