Police department issued weapons

[ufstuddmuffin]

I have a friend that is planning on becoming a Miami-Dade police officer and says that he thinks the department regulates what type of handgun he can use. I personally thought cops could carry whatever they want. Does anyone know if police departments regulate what guns cops can use?

 

[DMK]

I personally thought cops could carry whatever they want. Does anyone know if police departments regulate what guns cops can use?

It may be true in some departments, but definitely not all. Probably it's a minority.

I've talked with a few LEOs who were not happy with their service weapon and would rather carry something they had at home, but had no choice in the matter.

On the other hand I talked with one patrolman who bought his old service weapon for personal use when the department upgraded to newer guns. Even he liked the new gun less than the old one, but had to carry it.

 

[gmhamilton3]

I am familar with Jackson County, Tx since I know most of the deputies there. They all carry Glock 21 45 acp as their service weapon with some variant of an AR 223 in their trunks. The reasoning behind these choices is No.1 performance and No.2 practicality. There is a room in the county jail that is fully equipped for reloading both 45 apc and .223. A number of the trustees spend their entire day doing nothing but that. I have seen 5 gal. buckets completely full of both. They also have their own range and are encouraged to shoot and shoot alot. I would dare say that anybody who shoot on average 100 rounds a week is probably pretty proficient with his weapon. And No.3, Sheriff Andy Lauderback is also a first class gunsmith and can repair any of those weapons immediately with a limited number of spare parts. What would happen if every soldier or marine was able to pick his own weapon.

 

[Landor]

It is my understanding that most departments want their offices to all carry the same firearm that way they are familiar with it and can exchange magazines, ammo and other accessories while on duty. If you run out of ammo your partner can throw you one of his magazines.

 

[highorder]

in my experience with various departments, it seems that there is VERY LITTLE latitude in what they can carry.

Though I can't speak for Miami-Dade.

 

[boalex207]

Most agencies decide for you, with occasional exceptions for good reason.

 

[GRIZ22]

The larger the agency the more likely they are to regulate what can be carried on and off duty.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Local PD (1100 officers) issues G17 (9mm). Mandatory use for first probationary year. After that they can carry just about any 9/40/357/45 auto or any 38/357 revolver (yep, some still go that way) they can Q with. SA and Kimber 1911s are very popular.

 

[ARK9mm]

Our local pd requires all on-duty officers to carry G23 (40cal) and 3 hi-caps. Back-up weapon is not regulated. Their philosophy (IMO it makes sense) is that if you are in a gun fight then ammo and mags are easily traded. I believe this started a national trend after the big bank robbery in LA when there were so many different types of handguns in use. No one could swap or share and the bg's had body armor so it drew out the Code3.

my .02 is free.

 

[sgt127]

It is my understanding that most departments want their offices to all carry the same firearm that way they are familiar with it and can exchange magazines, ammo and other accessories while on duty. If you run out of ammo your partner can throw you one of his magazines.


I'm not sure how that would work in the real world. If you and I are in a gunfight, and you managed to fire off all the rounds in your gun and spare magazines and NOT kill the bad guy, chances are, I'm not going to give you any of my ammo.

Actually, its pure logistics. One ammo to buy at the range. One holster to buy, armorer's only have to work on one gun, one training style, boxes of spare magazines, one sight pusher etc. One gun to defend or justify at a trial if the Officer is involved in a shooting. Alot of agencies pick a family of guns in the same caliber, all Sigs with TDA or DAK. All Glocks, whatever. Some agencies, somebody decides what the best gun is for everybody. You are issued that gun and told it is the best gun. Your hand size, grip strength and abilities are not important. But, logistically, its the best gun for the department.

 

[Trebor]

The vast majority of PD's either issue the weapons, sometimes with a choice of a couple different types, or require the officers to buy a certain weapon (or choose from one of a few types) from their own funds.

A very few PD's will let the officers just carry whatever they want. Even then they have to qualify with whatever weapon they carry.

There is usually more latitude with off-duty weapons, although some departments are still pretty strict with those.

 

[sargespd]

ARK9mm, just for the record, there was no such issue at the North Hollywood shootout. Almost all the LAPD officers were carrying issued Beretta 92FS 9mms, perhaps a handful of plainclothes officers were carrying something else, and maybe an old-timer carrying a grandfathered .38spl. In fact, what happened afterwards was the LAPD officers lobbied for and got the option to carry S&W 4506 in .45acp, thus increasing, not decreasing the number of different weapons in use. And as much as I love my fellow officers, if they have managed to shoot up all 55 rounds of ammo in their gun and two spares, they are flat nuts if they think they're getting any of mine!

 

[DPris]

Varies, as noted. Some depts issue all weapons, some allow anything an officer can qualify with as private purchase, others offer a choice of an issued weapon or a private purchase weapon from a list of approved models and calibers.

Ark,
Commonality of weapons and ammo was a guiding thought long before the Hollywood bank heist.
Theory was that it was easier for department armorers to work on one gun, it was easier for department firearms instructors to teach one gun, if an officer went down any other officer could immediately scoop up that gun & use it if necessary, and if one officer ran dry during en extended engagement his or her fellow officers on the scene could toss spare ammo over.

Much of that (dating way back) finally went by the wayside as height restrictions were done away with, women started to show up behind badges in larger volume, it was clearly demonstrated (with even a court case or two) that one size did not fit all, cops were not scooping up each others guns in measurable numbers, and those of us who were subject to the "ammo interchangeability" nonsense finally started getting through to police administrators by simply saying that "If the guy or gal next to me during a major shootout has already gone through all 18 rounds (revolver) or all three magazines (auto) without accomplishing much, I certainly am not going to toss away any of my remaining ammo in their direction in a protracted engagement."

I never saw any signs of a national trend come out of that. In fact, my PD showed the video of the shootout in several lineups, it was heavily discussed, and at about that time the list of optional approved private purchase guns was expanded.
The national trend that did emerge was the patrol rifle in more cruisers.

Denis

 

[monkeykevin]

In Seattle they all carry Glock 22, and some detective carry Glock 23 or 27. -AND- its optional to have your personal backup Glock in .40S&W model if you qualify with it.

 

[tbreed725]

here where we live in the police carry sigs p226 im not sure of the counties gun, chattanooga city carries smith and wesson 4506 , and the county theyre carries glock 22's , the highway patrol carry glock 31 in 357 sig.

 

[halfacop]

My dept (roughly 20 FT officers and 19 reserves) regulates what we carry.

Our Primary is a GLOCK 22.

We can carry pretty much anything as a BUG as long as its over a .38 caliber. Just has to be approved by the range Sgt. I carry a Kahr 9mm along with a few other deps.

Its mainly for reasons such as the need to buy one type of ammo, holsters, the ability to exchange mags if needed, training is the same for my weapon as it is yours, incase I find myself using yours instead of mine when the SHTF. etc etc etc.

 

[Archie]

My agency has an issue gun; currently a Glock 17 changing - someday - to an H&K P2000 in .40S&W. No personal weapons.

There are several reasons for this. From what I observe, there are the official reasons and the real reasons. These overlap, and they are all valid to some degree or other.

Official reasons:

Simplicity in logistics. Only one brand of doodad, only one type of magazine, only one type (caliber, anyway) of ammunition. The agency armorer only needs to know how to service one shooting polymer.

Uniformity among the troops. Everyone knows how to operate everyone else's weapon. Weapons and ammunition can be exchanged between troops.

As has been mentioned, if someone blasts out all their ammo and hasn't solved their problem, they aren't getting my ammo. Our normal loadout is 52 rounds of 9x19 ammo; so if the 'empty' officer doesn't have near 30 dead bodies when he or she is empty, I'll take it from here. Frankly, if a gunfight goes more than about 10 rounds, it's time to get shotguns, rifles or airstrikes. Taking on a reinforced platoon sized group of evil doers is not a task for a handgun.

Ease of training. One type of firearm makes training simpler. Especially since most new hires know nothing about guns and many have never touched one. Not only that, but the range staff isn't that much more experienced. They've been through the official Range Officer training, but many of the range officers at my location don't shoot other than at work and several don't own a gun of their own. One cannot expect a one trick pony to teach a variety of tricks.

Liability. As long as the agency has issued a weapon and provided 'proper training' - which is bureaucratise for the least amount to barely satisfy whatever standards have been imposed - the agency is not liable in court for wrongful death suits. The officer may be, and the agency will end up paying, but the agency can claim they are not at fault.

And lastly, it is another way in which some know nothing administrator can push his or her authority on those helpless to resist. And that just makes some people feel like they're really worth something.

 

[ufstuddmuffin]

Thanks for the replies, guess I was wrong for the most part.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

I think all LEOs in a department should have a unified weapon, though be allowed to carry a personal weapon as a backup with no restriction on small arms.

--edit--

But to all the people talking about shots fired and reloading and needing more ammo, have you seen real gunfights or read after actions? Whether or not its policy, in a lot of instances the officers fire A LOT. And since this isn't a movie, you can easily miss 80% of your shots, when faced with running targets, heart rate, moving vehicles, etc.

And let us not remember the North Hollywood Shoot Out. So there are instances where more ammo could be needed, they're just not common.

But I've yet to see anyone on THR recommend NOT being prepared for uncommon situations.

 

[Rexster]

My agency requires us to furnish our own weapons, except for certain specialized-assignment weapons, Tasers, and beanbag shotguns. Up to a certain date in the late 1990's, duty pistols could be DA or SA autos or DA revolvers from .38/9mm up to and including .45, standard or magnums. Believe me when I say that was a VERY wide-open policy, based on conversations with officers from all over the USA. Starting on that certain date in the late 1990's, all duty pistols carried by uniformed personnel had to be certain DA autos firing the .40 S&W cartridge. (A "grandfather clause" meant nobody had to switch if they wanted to keep carrying their existing weapon.) At that time, there were a mere three approved pistols on that list; it has grown to about three times that many today, with certain models being removed from that list, such as the Beretta Cougar, which had a high failure rate over time. I am very grateful that we have some degree of choice, as I shoot a SIG P229 MUCH better than a Glunck, for example.

 

[DPris]

Bobby,
Have to disagree.
Way back when, my PD (newly formed in 1980) issued the S&W Model 64. Some gals had problems with the only existing grip options at the time & the long DA trigger. When the switch to autos first began, the first option was a SIG 220, which also did not fit smaller hands well at all. Later, the Glock 17 was the issue weapon for uniform & the 19 for dicks. The plainclothes guys benefited from the slight gain in concealability. Scores went up substantially with the Glocks.
In 1980 the state highway patrol here was still issuing N-Frame S&W .357s, which certainly did not fit the majority of female troopers hiring on.
One size does not fit all, and the very real advantages of allowing an officer to choose a sidearm that fits that officer and adds better scores & more confidence far outweigh the theoretical advantages in weapon & ammo interchangeability under what-if scenarios. )

Bobby, if you don't have street time in handling street problems, the idea of one weapon for all may sound valid, but in actual practice it isn't.
It's not a matter of potentially firing a lot, it's a matter of actually firing effectively.

And, as we've pointed out above, if you've blown off 30-50 rounds of your own & the fight is still running, the only way I'd be tossing you any of mine would be if I was no longer able to use it myself.

Denis

 

[Brenainn]

I posted this somewhere else too...

I've been interested in possibly doing F B I or going into law enforcement one day, but since I can barely hold a Glock .40 (my hands are very small) would there be any exceptions made for a female because of that such as different weapon type, etc?

This was always one thing that I felt like would be a downside to joining...

The pistol that fits me perfectly in the Kahr 9mm or .40 - supposed to be comparable to the Glock.

What do you think?

 

[DPris]

The FBI was one agency that was sued over this issue, and lost, by female agents.
Denis

 

[Brenainn]

So, there would be an exception?

I mean I guess if I was an agent, I could adapt to whatever and may very well have to, but when it is physically hard for a female to hold a Glock .40, seems like they would have to have exceptions for small females?

Not being able to hold a Glock very well affects my accuracy, which isn't a good thing, and I am sure there are pistol qualifications just like in the military. When you are confident in your shooting ability and your weapon, you would be confident all around.

I suppose they could just not except women who can't at least qualify with a Glock 40., but they may be missing out on some good agents if thats what they do IMO.

 

[Super Trucker]

I have 3 family members here in MI that are LEO's and they are all told what they can carry. One was issued a gun the other two were told what they had to buy.