RE: FBI re-evaluation of issue weapons ->Re: Armored cars

["Eric Benson" <ebenson@xxxxxxxx>]

>	Hmmm, that's not so smart, I mean, that brings the possibility of
> forcing a person to use a weapon they are not comfortable with.

Depends.

There are advantages to everyone having the same weapon.  Very few weapons
designed today use the same magazine (about the only standard is the NATO
STANAG for the M16 magazine), which makes it difficult to exchange magazines
in a group.  The controls work slightly different on weapons from different
manufacturers, making it just a little harder for someone else to pick up
and safely use a someone else's weapon.  A good example is the H&K USP.  The
controls are *mostly* similar to the M1911, however, the magazine release is
push down to release instead of push in to release.  On some weapons, it's
up to safe or decock, down to fire.  A different weapon may flip the two.
Decocking - or worse yet, going to safe - when you meant to fire could cost
someone their life.

Logistics are a lot simpler when everyone has the same magazine and caliber.
In the past, anyone could order any size magazine.  Today, non-law
enforcement, high capacity Glock magazines are pushing the $100 mark.
Para-Ordinance mags run $100 - 150.  It's a lot simpler for the
department/agency to order case lots of high capacity magazines rather than
sign reams of paperwork authorizing individual members to purchase the
magazines from different distributors.

As far as maintence, how do you deal with each person having a different
weapon?  You can't really keep spares on hand, it's going to be difficult
for the armorer to stay current on all of the weapons in the
department/agency.

Having said that, I agree that some level of selection is a good thing.  As
an engineer, I love the Glocks; as a shooter, I hate them.  Selection from a
short list of weapons gives both the freedom as well as standardization
required.

> I would never take it as a duty sidearm.

Remember the first rule of a gunfight: Have a gun.

-Eric