RCMP New Firearms Required Discussion- Split From New MP Decal Thread

[Humphrey Bogart]

I know one guy who can shoot a P226 like a SA MS gun, I view him as the exception that proves the rule.

I even find the old 225 can have its uses. It's size makes it a great choice for the folks with small hands and lack of grip strength.

It's also great in confined spaces, or on a ship/boat that is rolling and yawing in heavy seas. You won't hit the broad side of the barn if you're rolling heavy in those conditions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

VPD bought the 226 with the DAK trigger which is DA only. Never had a chance to fire one. I bought an ex-SQ Sig 2342, it had a trigger made to imitate a revolver and it was utterly horrible.

 

[RedFive]

Another RFI, this time with the confirmed specifications and testing procedure.

And apparently we need to re-invent the wheel, because we've decided to do a 20,000 round testing procedure along with all kinds of other meaningless drivel. Can't just assess for which pistol meets the criteria best and take it on face value that if other Police forces/departments elsewhere are using them without issue, we can too. I guess when the first RFI said a pistol would be selected mid-December, that was a lie.

We'll probably have a new pistol around the same time other Police forces are saying stuff like "set phasers to stun".

 

[CBH99]

Another RFI, this time with the confirmed specifications and testing procedure.

And apparently we need to re-invent the wheel, because we've decided to do a 20,000 round testing procedure along with all kinds of other meaningless drivel. Can't just assess for which pistol meets the criteria best and take it on face value that if other Police forces/departments elsewhere are using them without issue, we can too. I guess when the first RFI said a pistol would be selected mid-December, that was a lie.

We'll probably have a new pistol around the same time other Police forces are saying stuff like "set phasers to stun".

I know I sound like a pessimist - I’m truly not…But the stupid people who sit on some committee’s, and the stupid people who seem to be in charge of everything these days, need to GOOOOO.

Then I’m optimistic that people with some common sense & practical experience can move into those vacant positions and cut down on needless red tape & redundant processes, and introduce a more results oriented culture.



Because you’re 100% right - if other agencies are using that weapon and there haven’t been any major issues identified, it’s probably safe to assume the weapon will work for its intended purposes.

Wouldn’t someone have called & got some candid user feedback from an agency thats using the pistol being considered, prior to contract being finalized?

Like if I do a quick Google search, I’d see NYPD or Nashville or Halifax (for example) had transitioned to the system we are considering. Wouldn’t I then be calling them (especially the armourers) to ask them how it’s working out for them thus far, and get the good/bad/ugly before I finalize & award a contract for thousands of them?

(I think it’s called due diligence…)


Edit - The law enforcement community as a whole would know if a particular service weapon had major issues, people talk. Now in more ways than ever.

 

[OldSolduer]

I know I sound like a pessimist - I’m truly not…But the stupid people who sit on some committee’s, and the stupid people who seem to be in charge of everything these days, need to GOOOOO.

Nice sentiment but as long as we have pork barrel politics here it won't happen.

 

[brihard]

My best guess is this is simply because they’re stuck with standard federal procurement processes.

 

[RedFive]

I know I sound like a pessimist - I’m truly not…But the stupid people who sit on some committee’s, and the stupid people who seem to be in charge of everything these days, need to GOOOOO.

Then I’m optimistic that people with some common sense & practical experience can move into those vacant positions and cut down on needless red tape & redundant processes, and introduce a more results oriented culture.



Because you’re 100% right - if other agencies are using that weapon and there haven’t been any major issues identified, it’s probably safe to assume the weapon will work for its intended purposes.

Wouldn’t someone have called & got some candid user feedback from an agency thats using the pistol being considered, prior to contract being finalized?

Like if I do a quick Google search, I’d see NYPD or Nashville or Halifax (for example) had transitioned to the system we are considering. Wouldn’t I then be calling them (especially the armourers) to ask them how it’s working out for them thus far, and get the good/bad/ugly before I finalize & award a contract for thousands of them?

(I think it’s called due diligence…)


Edit - The law enforcement community as a whole would know if a particular service weapon had major issues, people talk. Now in more ways than ever.

Air Carrier Protection already uses the Glock without issue, as does arguably most Law Enforcement in North America. To me, the answer is simple.

But I agree with brihard, I suspect there's some institutional silliness in trying to avoid an almost inevitable lawsuit from whomever loses.

 

[KevinB]

If you want to ensure you don’t get a gun that can’t/doesn’t meet the requirements, then lifecycle testing is the best way to ensure that.


Every credible entity does that.

 

[Haggis]

But I agree with Brihard, I suspect there's some institutional silliness in trying to avoid an almost inevitable lawsuit from whomever loses.

Perhaps a lesson was learned from DND's attempt to buy pistols.