Question for our resident po-pos
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=171512
Printed Date: 03 March 2026 at 5:52am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Question for our resident po-pos
Posted By: Rambino
Subject: Question for our resident po-pos
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 2:32pm
|
Found this article on Fark: http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20071116/NEWS/111160149 - http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20071116/NEWS/111160149 Scary story, but my question relates specifically to where the officer holsters his weapon when the three unarmed assailants close in on him. Thoughts on whether that was the correct course of action, and if not, what he should have done? ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Replies:
Posted By: reifidom
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 2:38pm
|
I'm not a law enforcement officer, but that action grabbed my attention as well.
I supposed it was because he needed to free up both of his hands to defend himself rather than responding to their approach with deadly force. Just an idea. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 2:42pm
|
That seems clearly to have been his intent - he obviously didn't want to start shooting at unarmed folks just because they approach him in a threatening manner. But this seems like a lose-lose for him. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 2:44pm
|
hmmm... i've always thought that they may keep their weapons out if they feel that they are in danger. obviously he was, and i'm surprised he'd holster his weapon back up instead of keeping it out and warning the guys that were coming at him. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 2:51pm
|
It sounds like he only drew his weapon when he saw one of the alleged reach towards his waistband as if he had a fire-arm. Once he assessed that no firearm was in the individual's possession, he holstered his duty weapon with the safety on as per carrying standards. It's a good thing he kept that safety on as well. He followed standard procedure as far as my law-enforcement buddies can tell. Of course, SOP is different from dept to dept. It's clear he did not want to use excessive force when there was no eminent danger of being fired upon, this is how an officer should react in a situation, especially after seeing the NYPD gun down another unarmed man just days ago. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 2:55pm
|
I tend to agree with that, tallen, but this places the officer in the very difficult/dangerous situation of facing three assailants unarmed. Was he perhaps in the process of transitioning to his baton, and they were too fast? I wouldn't expect any officer to face this situation unarmed. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 2:57pm
Same here. ------------- 
|
procarbinefreak wrote:Posted By: NotDaveEllis
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 3:01pm
| BUG. That kid should have some fresh holes. |
Posted By: Pezzer
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 3:22pm
|
I guess this would have been a good situation to use a TASER, though he could only take down one person with it.
------------- Suck, sqeeze, bang, blow, and GO! 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 3:52pm
My guess is that he was indeed reaching for a less-lethal weapon or his radio. The problem with having a firearm out and three assailants who are obviously not afraid to attack and armed officer is that you're going to have to shoot all three of them, as they aren't going to stop regardless of one going down. All of them un-armed, and you're going to wind up losing your job and being sued into bankruptcy as well as cause hell for the entire force on top of it. As it is, I guarantee the one that attempted to fire the weapon will get life in prison. The other two will be accessories to attempted second-degree murder on a police officer (carries extra time) as well as aggravated assault on a police officer and will wind up spending the rest of their formidable years in prison. At least the kid will have plenty of time to get his GED while in there. They'll try the 17 year old as an adult as well. he's too close to the line to get juvie-charges, especially considering the severity of his actions. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: FlimFlam
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 3:56pm
|
That was really... um... not smart. No way I'd have holstered my weapon if 3 people were advancing on me... Maybe if I had readied pepper spray or a baton, but that just seems stupid... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Belt #2
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 5:51pm
|
I'm suprised I wasn't reading about three teens with six fresh .45 holes in their chests. That cop has a pair the size of the Epcot center. Holstering a wepon as three people aproach you, all with rather unfriendly appearences?
Sometimes I just don't know... ------------- Most importantly - People suck. |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 6:08pm
|
That comment about one down with the Tazer isn't true, depending on the model. Most recent ones work as a contact Stun Gun after the probes have been fired. The problem is multiple assailants isn't the arena for stun guns. While they do work well, and the effects are instant you need to keep them on the assailant for compliance. Pistol, pepper spray or baton was the propper tool to use. Was the gun functional? Thats the only reason i can think why i'd holster my gun. I couldn't see what make of gun the guy was using, but if the perp knew to cycle the slide i'm surprised the safety fooled him.
One of the requirement to use lethal force for a cop is disparity in force. This is different for cops to civilians cos of all the cool toys you have on your belt, but 3 on one is impossible, unless your department issues kick ass tear gas spray or you jackie chang it can't be done. Outnumbered for the lose. It is just by sheer luck this cop is still alive. I'd have had no qualms dropping the closest attacker. That'll probably cause the other two to stop. But three on one is dangerous and potentially life threatening and a board wouldn't have any trouble passing it as good shoot. |
Posted By: Snipa69
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 6:29pm
|
My buddy is a Washington State Patrolman and I just read this to him and got an ear-full about how the officer acted accordingly. I wont make all of you live through it, but the short hand is this: Three attackers closing in on an armed officer=turkey shoot *my words, not his* If the sight of the weapon doesn't make you want to back down, a bullet will. As much as my buddy loves tazers, he agrees that being solo with 3 suspects would be a less than ideal time to use the tazer. If a less-lethal weapon were to be chosen, pepper spray would have been it. However, one suspect made a motion similar to one reaching for a concealed weapon so that goes right out the window. ------------- http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/857/sig9ac6cs1mj.jpg - |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 6:46pm
|
I bet he's thanking his lucky stars that he wasn't carrying a Glock... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 16 November 2007 at 6:53pm
|
It is hard to tell from the story, but I have a hard time endorsing a policy that allows officers to open fire whenever three people head his way. Versions of that scenario just happen far too often too have "shoot" be the official response. If the baddies were basically charging him then I say fire away, but I didn't get that impression from the article at all. Shooting has to be the last option for a PEACE officer. My guess is that this officer misinterpreted the situation. ------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Snipa69
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 2:52am
|
Perhaps, and maybe I missed something, but I don't recall the officer discharging his weapon. Yes, he drew down after seeing one perp make a hostile movement but then re-holstered his weapon until it was turned on himself. ------------- http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/857/sig9ac6cs1mj.jpg - |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 6:29am
I agree, but from the sounds of the story (and I realise this is a one sided account of the events) three people menacing a cop is a shoot situation. As it played out it very nearly cost this cop his life. I don't know the closing speeds of the badguys, or how much they crowded him, but from the story the suspects did something (reached for a possible weapon) which caused the cop to draw his firearm. This is SOP. Not only did he draw his firearm he also tried to put distance between himself and the badguys. Again, this is not only SOP it is basic combat skills. You do not let three people who are non compliant and possibly threatening get in arms reach of you. However if they were still refusing to comply, and they still hadn't shown the cop what they were reaching for and they were still advancing in a threatening manner, there is no need for him to put his gun away, unless it is inoperative. It seems to me he followed the ladder of force as needed, verbal commands were interupted by the suspects actions to make the officer draw his firearm. THIS IS WHERE IT IS DOWN TO THE PERPS TO NOT GET SHOT. When a cop draws his gun you can be fairly certain he's done it because he's in fear of his life. If you don't want to meet 9x19mm speeding death, STOP WHATEVER THE **unicorn** YOU ARE DOING! As it is the cop holstered his weapon for some reason and the situation went **tulip** . Not only was he now in a contact fight with multiple opponents, one of them managed to access his firearm. This is B.A.D. The exact reason he didn't drop them like they needed to be was probably his nagging thoughts "But they are unarmed" and "My department will **cup cake** me up the **fairy dust** like a 10c prostitute and hang me out to dry". Both of those thoughts were brought on by this **lolipop**ing PC'dness that unarmed people aren't dangerous, that cops are pigs with guns who want to blatt everything in sight and that criminals are innocent until proven guilty. These guys weren't criminals awaiting trial and able to be granted the benifit of the doubt, they were active attackers and they attempted to murder this cop. Unarmed people aren't not dangerous, they are just less dangerous than armed people, but not when they had the advantage of numbers, how long did they stay unarmed? And cops don't want to blatt everyone, but people must realise cops are there to firstly uphold the law, then protect themselves, then protect others. Cops have guns for a reason, to stop **tiara** like this happening to the people who put their lives on the line to protect others. As for the bosses hanging his ass out to dry, this stems from the same BS politically correct mindset where people supply cops and others with the tools to use lethal force, and once they have they get treated like criminals, with no benifit of the doubt. There are very very few cops who will gun someone down in cold blood. Those people don't become cops. Beat them maybe, but not shoot them. Too much is erred on to the side of "protect the criminal in case we get sued". Bull**rainbow**ing-**dreamy date**You give a cop the equipment to protect himself, send him into situations where he may need to do just that and then don't support him 100% when he's had to. Personally I'd have fired two rounds center mass to the biggest, nearest threat while backing up and trying to find more cover. If the badguys carried on advancing, wash, rinse, repeat. It is only by the smallest margin of luck that this potentially lethal encounter didn't end up with a dead cop, a dead cop's gun on the streets and three murderers running around the strees with even less regard for people's lives. KBK Fixed for angry dumb rant. Honestly dude it's the interwebz take a chill pill and take this as your one and only get out of jail free card. Merry X-Mas Mod staff. ------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2 |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 11:17am
This ties in nicely with the other discussion thread surrounding the 13 year old rapist who got 60 years in prison. I.e. many forumers would say that we have a juvenile system for a reason and judges should not have discretion in applying it. With this line of thinking, the 17 year old should be tried as a juvenile and released upon reaching the age of 18. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dye Playa
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 11:39am
|
To everyone who said he's an idiot for not shooting them, he shouldn't have holstered, ect, if he did shoot them, we would all be against the cop right now, even if he did have a reasonable cause to do so. It's a double edged sword here, because think about if he did cap all 3 of them-one was a minor, and none of the 3 were armed. The didn't do anything yet except run at him, and he shot all three. He would probably be facing prison time right now. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 1:38pm
|
Duh, he should have shot them all in the feet. Then they would have stop coming towards him.
Or a Walker Texas Ranger roundhouse kick that stops all 3 at one time. |
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 1:49pm
|
saw kayback's second post ( the SUPER long one and stopped, no offense) Gotta kind of agree with hades, If three people attacked me, and I had my gun drawn, I'd go for leg shots. Not only would it stop at least one of them, the shots would attract attention to the scene, and might cause the others to stop as well, or run away. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 2:18pm
|
Regarding shooting for the legs: What color is the sky in your world? If he had shot, it is most likely that he would have aimed for center of mass. The reason for this is it is the largest target area and has the least movement relative to the point of aim. The difficulty of hiitting someone in the leg, or even more difficult, in the foot, when the individual is moving toward you and the target (legs/foot) have an independent back and forth motion separate from the motion of the entire target is not an easy task. (Hint: The Lone Ranger shooting the guns from bad guys hands was fiction.) Additionally, a miss or a through and through puts bystanders at risk because once the bullet hits the sidewalk/street it's hard to tell where it will ricochet to. More on the advantages of aiming for center of mass:
I have to wonder if the decision to holster his weapon was based as much on the risk to bystanders as it was on the fact the assailants were unarmed. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 3:47pm
Not to mention the fact that a leg shot with Blue-Cap or Hollow-point rounds can very easily kill. Police rounds are designed to impact the body and spread out, transferring the maximum amount of energy into the target. Blue-Caps are frangible rounds that "shatter" on impact to keep the round from going through someone and into someone else, or to keep them from punch through walls, cars, etc, and hitting a bystander. Should a frangible round be fired into someone's leg, the chances of lacerating the femoral artery are very high. This artery can "bleed-out" in a matter of minutes causing a rather painful death. A hollow-point also increases the chance of laceration to the femoral artery. Let's not forget how easily it would be to cripple the individual for life by shooting them in the leg. Shattering the Fibula or the Tibia would do so. Accidentally shattering the Patella would mean loss of motion in the leg forever. Those factors in addition to what Mack pointed out are why you can't do stupid movie-stunt crap like so many have suggested. This isn't Die Hard or Beverly Hills Cop, we're talking real life with very real consequences. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 4:59pm
|
Kayback, tell us how you really feel.
But yeah, once a firearm comes into play, it is a situation of deadly force. You do NOT risk the use of a lethal weapon in a deliberately non lethal way, as the person you're shooting at will likely simply assume it to be poor marksmanship, and if he wasn't already intent on murder, he would be now- as it's an all or nothing situation once firearms come into play. Once you provoke a person into a deadly force situation you do not deescalate until that person is no longer a threat. If he happens to go down with a wound, but not dead, awesome. But you don't risk him killing you because you were too reticent to kill him, and then perhaps going on to kill members of the public as he tries to escape the inevitable manhunt. Criminals have the option to not escalate a situation to the point of deadly force. As long as the police escalate appropriately, the onus is on the offender for whatever happens. They take their own life into their hands when they decide not to comply with the cops. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 5:11pm
|
When confronted by multiple assailants who are aggressive and making motions like they are coming at you to fight, you draw your gun.
If and when they continue to come, you keep one hand on the gun pointed at them, use the other hand for the OC spray and just spray it in front of you, effectively creating a barrier that they have to go through to get to you. If they continue, and you don't have a taser, you're allowed to use deadly force. That is, of course, if he felt his life was in danger. If I was out numbered 3:1 I'd feel in danger for my life. In regards for shooting the legs: In ANY profession that you are given a firearm, be it police or military, you are trained to shoot to kill. There is no such thing as shoot to injure. If the need for deadly force arises, you use deadly force and nothing less. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dye Playa
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 5:49pm
Yea, you never shoot to hurt someone. A gun is a lethal weapon, shooting for the legs is all move nonsense. You shoot to kill if the gun has to be fired, no questions asked. -------------
|
Posted By: Dom
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 6:54pm
| Why does shooting always have to be deadly? What happened to just poppin em' in the leg. If he dropped one person on a leg shot(21 year old male would be my choice) then he would have a better chance at maintaining the situation. IE easier to fight off a woman and 17 yr old, stereotypically. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 7:03pm
Wow, you didn't read any of the page you posted on did you? We just went over all of this....  ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 8:25pm
Of course he didn't, that would just be too logical! -------------
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 8:26pm
|
Some people here in this thread need to relax. Discussion is good but keep it civil. Or you will face the concequences. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dye Playa
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 8:57pm
lulz. -------------
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 11:17pm
|
I'm assuming you've never fired a pistol at a moving target... ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: Brian Fellows
Date Posted: 17 November 2007 at 11:52pm
BUT THEY DO IT IN THE MOVIES ALL THE TIME. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 12:32pm
|
Based on the fact that this was covered by several posters immediately before you, I will assume that the "o" in your user name has an "uh" sound when pronounced. -------------
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 1:24pm
|
Maybe we should raise the bar with who we hire to carry guns. I mean, come on if they cant hit a thigh from a few feet away, should they really be firing their weapons?
I can hit targets twice as far in the center most of the time. If I can do that shooting someone in to feet should be a walk in the park. |
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 3:26pm
|
My sarcasm detector for Hades isn't registering today... so I'll direct it to the other guy asking about leg shots...
I can hit targets at distance too. But then again, those targets aren't shooting back at me or rushing at me... and I don't have half a second to draw and make the decision to shoot/not-shoot. Hitting targets at the range... does not equal hitting targets in "combative" nature. What is shown on TV isn't what happens in real-life. Hit probability takes a tumble when the stress factor is raised. Regardless of abilities otherwise, or level of training. You don't shoot to "wound". Ever. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 3:29pm
These men rushing the cop were unarmed, leg shots would have been entirely possible.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 4:21pm
|
Not going to lie, but I don't see why it would be so hard to shoot someone in the leg? I know you don't even use a gun unless you plan to kill and shoot for the biggest target(IE: Chest). I just don't think it would be that hard for a trained shooter even in stressful situations. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 5:58pm
QFT The Air Force Office of Special Investigations* lost an agent in a convenience store hold-up about 10 years ago. According to the Threat Brief/After Action Report that was disseminated the agent walked in on a robbery in progress while on personal business. When confronted with an armed robber pointing a gun at him, he drew his duty weapon and fired two rounds exactly as he was trained to do. He then reholstered his weapon and was shot an killed by the perpetrator who he had missed entirely. There was speculation based on witness statements that the agent had gone against training and tried for a wounding shot (shoulder) as opposed to aiming center of mass. The final decision from the investigation however was training failure coupled with stress. To explain further; stress was blamed for the misses, the training failure was related to holstering the weapon. A common range safety practice for the AF at the time during pistol training was to have trainees return the pistol to the holster after firing all of the shots from each phase training and it was determined that this reholstering had become so ingrained that both special agents and security personnel were prone to doing the same thing when it was not appropriate to do so. (Such as during actual incidents and during exercises with blanks/MILES.) The training was changed after that to keeping the pistol on target after it was engaged. As an added note, this was an agent with over 10 years of experience but facing his first "actual" situation. On top of which, he had the disadvantage of facing it at an entirely unexpected time/place. My point is, when the adrenaline is flowing, anything can happen. The best solution is to rely on muscle memory established by training. And the training is done the way it is for a reason. *USAF version of NCIS -------------
|
Posted By: ShortyBP
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 11:15pm
While I don't have any experience in being in such a stressful situation, nor do I hope I ever am... as someone who now shoots handguns, and having read/heard more actual LEO AARs regarding shooting situations, it's easier to comprehend. With probably little effort, you could do some research into just how low the hit-ratio is in police shootouts in general. Even when they ARE aiming for center-mass, and not a smaller extremity. If it were easy for a cop to shoot someone in the leg or arm... you'd never read about someone dying from police inflicted gunshot wounds. And much of today's less-lethal hardware probably never would've come about, as the need wouldn't have been there for them. Handguns have their limitations. And those limitations are not just limited to their users. Creating a SOP that states that 'wounding' shots be required puts officers at needless risk, puts perpetrators at needless risk (disincentive for less-lethal), puts the public bystander at risk, and raises the liability factor thru the roof. All reasons why 'shoot to wound' would be a disastrous SOP to hold LEOs to. I can't think of one [sound] good reason why cops should even consider such an action. As to the original question, which I don't think I ever addressed... do I think the officer made the right decision in re-holstering his weapon? I can't and won't say. Wasn't there. Certainly wasn't in his shoes. I could understand and agree with both those who think that he did the right thing by not using deadly force... and those who think he would have been in the right by shooting any of the unarmed assailants. Off topic a bit... but I'm curious as to what type of sidearm he was issued? I can only assume a Beretta? In all of my handguns with manual safeties, and any manual-safety handgun I've ever handled... the safety is frame mounted and you can not rack the slide with it on. The only exception I know of, are Berettas with slide mounted safeties. I always thought it was stupid to put them there... but in this case, it clearly saved this guy from buying the farm. |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 18 November 2007 at 11:27pm
|
Don't Berettas automatically put the safety on when you rack? I was thinking Beretta for the same reason. The cop might actually have had the safety off, but the gangsta wannabe automatically racked because that's what they do in the movies, and thereby setting the safety. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 19 November 2007 at 2:08am
|
I'd also like to know what firearm it was.
The firearm I carry on duty is a Z-88, the slide mounted saftey version of the Beretta 92. This weapon does allow one work the slide with the safety on, but the weapon design is ancient and Beretta changed with with the 92FS didn't they? As for shooting people in the legs and arms, this is not SOP. Firstly for all the reasons stated above that it isn't as easy as you think, especially with low light, high adrenaline and movement. However the other reason is using a firearm is lethal force. It stops the target by applying penetrating trauma to their body, breaking bones, damaging internal organs, and generally messing things up. These things are not predictable. This is why using a firearm is always regarded as lethal force. A shot to the leg can sever the femoral artery, causing your target to bleed out and die. In the OIS they will want to know why you shot him "without lethal intent" yet he died. If you weren't justified in dropping one in his center mass, you shouldn't have been using lethal force. Even if you say you weren't trying to use lethal force, SOP says firearms are, so what were you doing shooting him in the first place? I'd very much like to know what weapon he was using.... KBK |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 19 November 2007 at 10:53pm
|
Seeing as how it was a "service weapon" my guess is indeed that it was a Beretta as the vast majority of issued 9mm police pistols in this country are Berettas. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Snake6
Date Posted: 19 November 2007 at 11:00pm
|
I believe it was a Beretta also. Our Beretta 92F's have slides that can be locked to the rear with the safety on. I don't know about it engaging the safety when you rack the slide though. I'll ask one of my buddies who is an Armorer tomorrow.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 19 November 2007 at 11:31pm
Not true. 9mm doesn't have the stopping power that is needed/desired, so many PDs use .40 now. Plus many PDs that I know of, like Detroit and Flint, give police recruits a list of pistols they can have, and the recruits go out and buy the one they want and get re-reimbursed. Majority of the cops I know have either a Glock or SS. The Beretta 9mm is often issued to military personnel though. -------------
|
Posted By: impulse!
Date Posted: 20 November 2007 at 12:31pm
|
All law enforcement in AZ carry Glock. ------------- 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 20 November 2007 at 1:06pm
you're right, at one point in time, 9mm was the standard issue of police weapons and a lot of the country had them, but that was somewhere in the '80's I think. Anywho. I know a lot of departments are looking very interestingly at the .45GAP round right now. Should be interesting to see how well it works. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 21 November 2007 at 12:16am
|
Is the .45GAP really getting that much attention? I heard it had kinda fizzled, not enough performance increace over the .40S&W already in use.
KBK |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 21 November 2007 at 12:20am
| Can someone briefly tell me the big deal about .45GAP? |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 21 November 2007 at 12:42am
|
It's a shorter, higher pressure round than the .45ACP.
It allows large bullet diameter, with .45ACP equivalent speeds from a shorter case. Basically it allows you to build double stack .45 weapon that fit normal hands. The normal .45ACP round gets rather big in the paw when you stack 15 of them on top of eachother. As for how much of a "big deal" it is, I'm not too sure. It seems a solution to people who want .45 caliber, but not the bullet size. But like I said, I thought this gap was more or less filled by the .40S&W. For example the Glock 21 in .45ACP , it holds 13 rounds of .45 but it weighs 39oz, 5.5 inches high, 7.6 inches long and 1.3 inches wide. The Glock 17 weighs 31oz, is 5.3 inches high and 7.3 inches long, it's 1.1 inches wide. The Glock 37 holds 10 .45GAP rounds, ins a 35oz frame thats 5.3inches high, 7.3 inches long and 1.1inches wide. You can put .45ACP "firepower" in a 9x19mm sized weapon. Problem is Glock have issues with high pressure rounds..... KBK |