Sometimes these sort of decisions take much longer than we'd like, don't they?
We've been considering adopting new service weapons since 1999, and after having finished a long T&E period with several makes, models & calibers ... now we're told that the office wants to start another T&E session.
Our current weapons were purchased and placed into service back in 89/90, so we're reaching a point where they're starting to "age", and we're seeing some increased smaller parts starting to require replacement. I've got somewhere around 30-35K through one of the older issued weapons, but only approx 7K through a "new" issued SW99 .40 S&W, of which we bought a small quantity for some extended in-service evaluation. We've had excellent service from our TDA weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the people that determine such things don't eventually simply "upgrade" to the latest versions.
I'd be surprised if a decision is actually made before I retire in another 2-3 years ... and we're not a "big" agency, either, having only approx 400 armed positions.
Oh well ...
Good luck to you, and don't lose any sleep over it.
One of the local agencies just transitioned from their Beretta 92's in 9mm to a .40 S&W model. I've only qualified one of their folks (assigned to one of our special enforcement units) with his new Beretta .40, and all I had time to notice was that it was DA/SA, equipped with a spring-loaded decocking assembly. Nice weapon ... but probably somewhat large for plainclothes work, as you mentioned.
Personally, since I've been training & instructing with issued TDA (DA/SA) weapons since we adopted them to replace our revolvers ... and having fired an embarrassing amount of rounds allocated through our annual ammunition budget
... I've become very comfortable with DA/SA transition, and am comfortable making even long range shots (50, 75 & 100 yards) using the DA or first-shot trigger stroke, although SA is "easier", obviously.
But that doesn't mean our next weapon may not be one of the latest DAO variations. I'm interested to see if we can obtain a T&E model of the latest HK weapon.
Since I'm on the donwhill slide to retirement, and probably won't be carrying whatever's eventually adopted, I really don't care what the rest of the office wants, as long as they provide us with sufficient training & practice time. Also, I hope whatever we adopt is something that can be easily used by the majority of folks in our agency.
Naturally, if we decide to adopt an Approved Personally Owned Weapon policy, there may not be a "rush" to replace our current weapons with new ones, depending on how many folks decide to carry their own weapons.
A question for you, though ...
Does your agency have armorer support for various weapon makes & models? If not, and you're faced with the possibility of "providing" your own armorer-type weapons inspections, maintenance & repair, that could become a bit annoying ... especially if you have to locate another L/E armorer that would be "approved" by your agency to maintain a "service weapon", or you have to have such things done by a factory authorized service technician. It's amazing the variation that's around among different agencies when it comes to such policies ...
Ammunition? That's another issue entirely ...
We went from having an issued brand/bullet weight, with an option to use a wide variety of "Approved" factory ammunition for service use, to "Issued Only" service ammunition ... but budget issues don't allow us to provide the same premium service ammunition for personally owned off duty weapons, so we're back to having an "Approved" list of factory ammunition for off duty weapons.
It's always something, isn't it? :banghead:
At least that's the educated rumour. For sure we're getting new weapons. Either the SIG 226 or the H&K. By the way, we've had the Beretta 96D for years and most of us don't like it. DAO trigger is llooooonnngg. I prefer my H&KUSPcLEM. Lately there have been more reliability issues also. There have always been spring problems, but lately there have been other issues.