Are you a gun enthusiast who might have wondered how law enforcement agencies choose their issue firearms? One data point is the California Highway Patrol, with somewhere around ten thousand sworn members patrolling that state. Here, a retired CHP rangemaster with lots of institutional knowledge (and a dry sense of humor!) shares the inside story from the agency he served. It runs a little over half an hour.
Or watch video here.
Great video. Very informative. I love slugs, as long as they are loaded below 1600 feet per second.
Love Gregg’s videos.
I did ask why he didn’t cover Pythons like Ponch and John wore. My understanding is that the producers worked with the CHP to ensure accuracy.
Having gone through several changes in issue firearms-and watching other agencies do so, this brings back some memories. We traded .357 revolvers for 10 mm semis-the S&W 1006 in 1992. Transition was a 1 week course, and we shot many, many rounds. We did do a T&E before selection. While a Sig product was included in T&E, most of us felt the very marked transition from the DA to SA trigger wasn’t a positive feature. The S&W might not have had the same quality of SA trigger, but the difference between the two modes wasn’t as great. It was far easier to do a well placed rapid pair/triple than with the Sig.
The .40 S&W came out before the powers made the purchase decision and I strongly suggested we do a comparison test, but management was greatly influenced by the FBI and State Police choice, so we went with the 1006 anyway. [Suitability for the purpose sometimes doesn’t get the weight it should.] Post 9/11, we ended up with a mix of 10mm and .40 issue pistols. When the M&P40 1.0 came out, (and 10 mm ammo had become VERY hard and expensive to get) we got in on the ground floor of that. Our pistols were in the MPB serial number sequence.
Oddly, despite the size and reach to the trigger, everyone shot the 1006 well enough that the “qualification enhancement” program could be discontinued. I wasn’t a fan of the .40, for some reason shot it decently, but not as well as I’d have liked to. I continued my practice of buying a 9mm understudy for carry on my own time. Yes, I bought my issue 1006.
I noticed earlier, but didn’t comment on one thing in the video: the change of the safety to only working as a hammer decocker. This is a case of the 7 P principle and the lesser 6 P version.
7P: Proper prior planning prevents p**s poor performance. 6P: Proper procurement prevents the same.
Poorly designed/built holsters that allow the firearm to either engage or disengage the safety during normal use is an institutional planning and procurement issue. It’s not exactly unknown to happen even with products from quality suppliers. They can’t anticipate every situation. However, altering the safety features of the gun wasn’t a proper response. We had no issues of the safety changing positions with our 1006’s.
I discovered (about 1970) that my 1911 duty holster from an industry leader would allow the gun to work enough while seated to move the safety to the off position. My solution to the problem was, when exiting the vehicle, to slip my thumb in to verify the safety was ON. The holster was discontinued at some point.
Given the size-and bureaucracy-of the CHP, I suspect working trials with a limited number of instructors of the equipment to weed out unsuitable gear wasn’t possible, but training could have solved the problem. I don’t recall exactly when (very early ’90’s) Mas taught the thumb stab while getting the grip on the gun to flick a slide mounted safety off. Or, the simple trick I used waay back when. That would have solved the problem, but it would also mean admitting there were problems in the system. And, there’d be a lot of whining and sniveling from the troops. We experienced this when we moved to on safe carry after a couple of years.
WR Moore,
What you typed reminds me of something Jeff Cooper wrote about Colt Peacemaker six-shooters. He was referring to the transfer bar modern revolvers have, to prevent knocks on the hammer from firing a round. He said, in the 1800s, everyone knew to load five rounds, and keep the hammer over an empty cylinder. So, the six-shooters became five-shooters. Then, as times progressed, the rule was forgotten, and people in the 1950s or 1960s loaded their six-shooters with six rounds, and had negligent discharges, so the industry had to fix the new problem with a change to the original product.
My point is, the problem you describe, safe gun handling practices, was known in the 1800s.
I wonder if CHP influenced S&W to offer optional external safeties for M&Ps?” He mentioned that lack of external safeties was why Glock was rejected
Gadzooks! I proofread my comment before posting it, but didn’t notice I wrote “empty cylinder” when I should have typed “empty chamber.” Drat. And double drat.
Roger Wilco, you were at least partly right, in that the cylinder was partly empty. Other people have forgotten to load enough cylinder and then tried to fire. Somewhat similar to leaving the house with an empty pistol, without enough spare pistol magazines, or without a handgun at all. Almost like not going correctly through a checklist on a parked aircraft while preparing for takeoff and forgetting that elevator or ailerons had been tightly secured against high surface winds! Unfortunately, I have known those who have done at least one of those things, including myself. Difference is that you remembered and admitted a minor, but pertinent, verbal error. T Y again.