Duty Weapons
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
I have previously touched on “the oldest debate” about the long drawn out argument about whether bigger/slower bullets are better than smaller/faster bullets. With this blog I want to touch on the controls of law enforcement agencies over duty and off-duty weapons.
A little history: When I was in the Army as an MP the U.S. Military still used the 1911 .45ACP pistol. It was the first pistol I learned and I still appreciate it to this day. A few years after I went in - in fact the year my enlistment ended - the Army switched over to the M9 (Beretta 9mm). When I became a civilian police officer my first agency issued me a Smith & Wesson Model 10, .38 revolver. My second agency issued me a Colt Trooper Mk III .357Magnum 6″ revolver. I was authorized to purchase and carry my own S&W Mdl 15 .38 4″ revolver.
Within a couple years my second agency switched guns - they went to the SigArms P226 9mm. This was where I saw the change in outlook and administration of duty and off-duty weapons. Prior to the agency “standardizing” on the Sig duty revolvers were issued, but agency controls allowed for any 4″ or 6″ .38 or .357 to be carried. Off-duty we were permitted 2″ .38s or .357s. In fact, at one time, the agency also approved .41 and .44 for off-duty as well. When we switched to the Sig 9mms, things changed.
The agency created new General Orders regarding off-duty carry. Those orders still permitted .38 / .357 “snubbies” off-duty, but the .41 and .44 were removed from the list. What was added? Pistols that met certain standards:
- It had to be in an approved caliber to include .380ACP, 9mm, .45ACP or 10mm (.40 was pretty new then)
- It had to have at least a 3″ barrel
- It had to carry at least 6 rounds in the magazine
- It had to have an external safety
Gradually those orders changed so that Glocks were approved (no external safety requirement) and an added requirement of a passive firing pin block was added (which took most 1911 style pistols off the list of approved off-duty guns).
What I wondered one day was this: if agencies are responsible for their officers’ police actions off-duty just as much as they are on duty, then why were the controls for off-duty weapons so different from on-duty? I mean, we had to carry the issued pistol on-duty. But off-duty we had this long list of available weapons.
My next thought (because I don’t have many at a time too close together) was this: if the officer is more proficient with a specific approved off-duty firearm, why shouldn’t (s)he be able to carry it on duty?
The argument I usually hear has to do with liability management for the agency. To some extent, I understand that, but I still go back to the off-duty scenario: agencies are just as responsible for the officer’s actions. Doesn’t liability management matter as much then?
Don’t get me wrong: this blog isn’t an argument for mandating that officers carry their issued duty weapon off-duty. In fact, it’s the exact opposite: I believe that officers should have greater leeway in what they carry ON-DUTY.
Here’s what I think: I think that officers, once properly trained and qualified with the agency’s duty weapon in the academy, should be able to select their own duty weapon within certain guidelines and meeting some requirements. What are they?
- Caliber criteria: 9mm, .40S&W, .357Sig, .45GAP, .45ACP, 10mm
- 4″- 5.5″ barrel length
- Minimum magazine capacity of 10 rounds
- Passive firing pin block
Obviously those requirements could / should be modified for those working plainclothes or administrative assignments.
The other requirement I’d have in place would regard the duty holster. The officer would be required to provide a duty holster of equal security level to that of the issued item. In other words, if the agency issues a Level III security holster, but no manufacturer makes a Level III holster for the gun you want to carry then you’re out of luck until you find one.
I would really appreciate comments and opinions from officers at all levels of rank. I’m especially interested in feedback from firearms instructors and upper level management, i.e. captains on up.
Thanks for your time in reading / responding and STAY SAFE!!
I think there are several reasons for it. In a bad situation, officers would be able to borrow/switch mags because everyones is the same. 2nd, its easier for the agency to buy on caliber of range ammo, instead of several different kinds. You would have people trying to qualify on the range, but wouldnt be able too because someone didnt do their job and order the caliber they need. The agency is also able to train armorers to be experts on the one duty weapon, making it easy to iron out problems and handle maintenance issues. And I think the most important reason (and this is to the officers advantage) it that agencies would see all these officers carrying their own weapons, so to spare their budgets, would stop issuing weapons to officers and make them buy their own. You would have to know that city counsels would see that officers were buying their owns weapons and would stop buying the new guns. I think its a dangerous trend that would not be in patrol officers best interest. There are some officers out there who do not own personal weapons and would be out of luck when they are forced to buy a gun to duty purposes.
I am not on the job, but can give an opinion. I see no reason why officers should not be able to use ANY weapon that allows them to do their job to the best of their ability. Obviously everyone is different (body type, physical abilities, etc) and each will be able to handle different weapons in their own way. So why not outfit them with the best tools to do their jobs. Don’t we do this same thing in other industries?
When I lived in NYC I became friends with many of the local officers. We would see them all the time and daily/weekly. There is no way to deny that cops should be paid WAY more then they do to continue to do the job they do. I don’t face life and death situations each day when I am producing large corporate special events each week. Point being that nothing (other then being in the military) compares to being a police officer. All of that being said, in my opinion officers should have the best equipment available to them to do their jobs protecting the rest of us.
—
Political Disgust
In my opinion the trading magazine argument (and I’ve had it with many a copper) is a non-starter. My agency issues Glock 22C with 3 magazines (46 rounds). If you run through 46 rounds and the situation isn’t resolved I’m not going to give you my spare magazines so you can waste those as well. If you train as a gunfighter you should be afforded the ability to use the tool that fits you best. Why should the 113 lb female officer carry the same large bulky Glock that the 6′5″, 300 lb gorilla carries when it’s obviously too big for her hands? Don’t you want her shots to count too? Although I can’t find it right now I believe there is case law out of Naperville, IL where a PPO was terminated because of her inability to qualify with the issued pistol…and not allowed to try use her personally owned weapon which she demonstrated sufficient proficiency with. She sued and won.
I can understand officers using the firearm they are most proficient with, and my dept. does allow for a few makes and calibers for our street officers. However those of us in Detention are only allowed to carry one make and 2 models the Glock 17 and 19 (9mm). The job I had before this one I carried a S&W .40 which I became very proficient in. Now I am forced to learn a new firearm (the Glock 17) and retrain my brain to use it as affectively as the S&W. I have always been a firm believer in that an officer should carry the firearm he is the best at no matter what make and caliber it may be. It makes no sense to force an officer to carry a firearm he is not comfortable with. On or off duty the firearm carried should be the one the officer best qualifies with.
On kind of a side note Frank what is your take on retention holsters … what do you carry level 2 or 3
It is my belief that the reason that agencies only want their officer’s carrying one weapon is because it is cheaper to buy in bulk. Most large agencies do issue a duty weapon and of course their’s is always the newest and best thing out there. My agency is rather small and they require that we carry a departmental issue Sig Sauer P226 that uses a .357 PMC round. Also my boss a retired Texas Ranger and that is what they carry in DPS. I agree that weapons should be tailored to the officer who carries them but from my own experience young officers are extremely strapped for cash (usually) and have difficulty getting a pearl handle, brand new, Kimber (just an example…) brand weapon so they often have to settle for the cheapest gun on the approved weapon list which is also not good. Perhaps middle ground could be reached where a new officer, or any officer of a department could purchase a new weapon on department credit while paying the department back bit by bit. We all know that law enforcement’s mission is public safety, crime suppression, and general service but often politicians faced with shrinking budgets just go for the cheapest option out there and that is BUY IN BULK.
Matthew Blackstock:
I like your idea of letting new officers effectively “finance” their guns with the agency. And given the very sensible concerns about younger officers possibly not having enough knowledge / experience to pick a sensible gun (within the guidelines provided) perhaps this is something we should hold off on until they’re in their second or third year?
I work in a 300 person agency in Florida. My agency has taken a very common sense approach to this issue. They issue a 9mm or .40 caliber Glock and will support that weapon with holsters, ammo and equipment for it. They authorize privately owned 9mm, 10mm, .40 caliber or .45 caliber double action handguns from a list of approved manufacturers for duty use . The list covers the major reputable manufacturers and there is a provision to have another manufacturer’s weapon or a caliber evaluated by the armorer if it is not on the list. The armorer has the final decision on those weapons. The agency provides 9mm or .40 caliber ammo for whatever weapon (in those calibers) an officer chooses to carry. If an officer chooses a .357 Sig, .45 GAP, 10mm, or .45 caliber, the officer must purchase their own ammunition and gear to support it. The ammunition must be approved by the agency armorer. That takes care of agency budget concerns about what ammunition to purchase.
Many officers have chosen to make an investment in a larger caliber weapon (.45’s are popular) and the gear to support it. They write it off on their taxes. Any officer who chooses to use an agency weapon gets a quality weapon with quality gear and ammunition to support it issued from the agency.
In reference to the Editor’s comment about officers wanting to carry government models, the Para LDA single stack .45’s have become popular with several diehard .45 fans.
Revolvers in .38 special and semiautos in .380 Auto are authorized for off-duty concealed carry and as backup weapons for on-duty use. An officer is authorized to use any of the approved calibers for a backup on-duty weapon also with the Glock 26 and 27’s being popular. The backup weapon must be concealed.
This policy seems to be a common sense approach to this whole issue and allows an officer freedom of choice within guidelines. Most of our officers are happy with the policy. Now we are working on patrol carbines.
Sorry, but I think the ability to handle the weapon your issued should be a BFOQ (BonaFide Occupational Qualification). If you can’t wrap your hand around your service weapon and put a bullet pretty close to where it needs to be maybe your in the wrong profession. Legally speaking, this is a very slippery slope. After making adjustments for smaller side arms, what’s next: a smaller ASP, smaller patrol car????
Boy, this is an age old debate. In this debate and in management there are knuckle draggers and rocket scientists. What most citizents and a lot of officers do not realize is that the vast majority of LE agencies do not issue a duty weapon. Check around. I believe that the two largest local LE departments, NY and LA have and approval list of duty weapons that may be selected BUT the officer pays for the weapon at a reduced rate through payroll deduction. The agency I work for allows for any handgun of at least 38 Special caliber as long as you can qualify with it. Duty ammo is not issued, again your own purchase. While there is some gripping and complaining about a lack of issue weapons to the street officer, the individual officer had a full range of weapons that my fit his shooting abilities. build and taste. I find this policy the least restrictive and the most officer friendly. This policy also pertains to long guns. The agency issues shotguns and ammunition.
Having served with a National Police Service for 9-years that only issued ageing, poorly maintained firearms, I can only support individual purchases of firearms for duty use (generally maintained better than issued firearms with responsible maintenance). In addition, there is NO “one gun” that fits all, despite what GLOCK and many other manufacturers may claim. There should be an approved list of major manufacturers to choose from (in given, approved calibers), for which the Officer will not only have the most confidence and ability in using, but in shooting more accurately with a firearm they can handle well. Open minded policies are better than being overly restricted IMHO. I’d much rather an Officer hit their mark with a weapon they can master, rather than one they can cope with.
I feel that many agencies miss the big picture when specifying what type of duty sidearm their officers are permitted to carry. One must realize that a duty handgun is a personal defense weapon. Officers are not issued, they are individuals and by that very definition, they come in all shapes, sizes and levels of ability. The “one weapon fits all” does not always work the best. If this philosophy is correct, why don’t uniforms come in one size and police cruisers have seats and mirrors that are fixed not allowing for adjustment. As a firearms instructor, I would rather see officers carrying weapons best suited to their individual abilities. For example, a small statured officer capable of firing quickly and accurately from a 9mm sized weapon and a larger officer who is capable of firing quickly and accurately from a .45 sized weapon. Most firearms manufacturers can supply an array of calibers and sizes, all with the same operational controls. The rationale of sharing magazines in a lethal encounter are greatly dwarfed by the necessity of being able to proficiently fire what rounds the officer does have in the first place. While handguns are a necessity, officers must be properly equipped and trained to evaluate the situation. Officers must realize that a personal defense weapon will not always provide the stopping power required to end the confrontation, thus making a shoulder fired weapon the better choice in many situations.
Well and truly said, SARGE. Well and truly said…
Frank,
When I started working at my current PD we had issued handguns. The choice was not well thought out and the administration went with the “gun guru’s” pick. Our chief changed and we had an opportunity to talk to him and subsequently formed a committee. We proposed a policy change that allowed officers to purchase a privately owned gun from an approved list. We also expanded the caliber choices from 9mm only to 9, 40 & 45. We require officers to purchase all their own gear and turn in their issued handgun. Needless to say we have had many officers choose to purchase their own duty gun. I believe that there are many benefits to this change in policy. A few are as follows: Officers preference, larger caliber, officers maintain their own gun better than department issued, one size does not fit all, more officers practice more with a gun they like to carry, savings for the department for the purchase and upkeep of department owned guns, etc.
We are lucky to have an administration that listened and acted on a policy that was outdated. We have had several OIS. We have never needed to “toss a mag” to another officer. If you blew through your ammo and we are still in the fight I would be hard pressed to toss you one of my mags. Get behind me.
Stay safe
Regarding what Ron said above, LAPD issues handguns. Has for decades.
If you go far enough back in our history, used to be you could carry anything that would fit in a holster. This included sawed-off shotguns. I think it was sometime around the 1940’s or 1950’s that we standardized and went to all revolvers (I think like S&W model 10’s, something like those). I think you could probably carry your own even back then, but by probably the 1960’s we were getting issued weapons.
Personally, I carried a revolver through the reserve academy years ago, and purchased a Glock to carry on-duty when I was working as a reserve for another smaller PD.
When I went to LA, we were issued 9mm Berettas. Never was my favorite gun, but I could usually shoot and qualify as a Sharpshooter with it. Still got to get around to practicing more to getting that gold Expert badge. One of these days.
Anyway, LAPD went to the Berettas and started actually issuing them around ‘89. I think prior you could purchase your own. We flirted with letting people purchase and carry their own S&W .45’s for a little bit in the ’90’s. From what I remember, the models we had available were all single stack, so you were downgrading in the number of rounds, but hey, at least you could carry a .45…
SWAT and I think SIS have been able to carry .45’s for some years. I remember a partner from SWAT once carried a Colt, and I think they were the only ones authorized to use those. They have a trick new gun now (at least SIS does). Can’t remember the manufacturer right now, but we’re just talking about rank and file weapons here anyway, not the exotic stuff.
After we got our current Chief, he allowed us to carry Glocks. We started issuing the Glock .40’s in the Academy a couple years ago. You can also carry the Glock .45 or 9mm if you want to purchase one at your own expense. Regarding the argument about officers having like ammo. I remember that came up when we went to differing cartridges (today you can carry .38, .45, .40 or 9mm depending on when you came on the job and what you were issued/ personal preference). We did a study and could not find a single documented incident where an officer had to give another officer ammo and it didn’t work, so that arguement went out the window…
Off-duty is pretty much all the same guns you can carry on-duty, except that we can also carry the compact Glocks, which are nice, because you can carry a Glock with like 100 rounds of .45 ammo that’ll fit in your sock (okay, maybe I exaggerated a little, but it still beats the crap out of my old Chief’s special that carried a whopping five .38’s!).
Let me add to my post. Regarding holsters, we have more variety of these than guns. If you get in a shooting, they’ll take a look at your holster also. I’ve heard stories of guys getting fanged for good shootings but unauthorized holsters.
That being said, with the exception of a few that were outlawed over the years (like the Clamshell with the spring-loaded action that would usually pop open at the worst moments and your gun would drop on to the ground), we’ve usually had a wide variety. Everything from the Level III, which requires dual access keys and passwords to get the gun out (I use one of those and am pretty fast), all the way to the “catch-me-f***-me” swivel holsters and almost everything in between.
For protection, the Level III’s are the best. Remember though that no holster design will ever replace tactics, retention techniques and awareness. I had an FTO that almost lost his gun from a Level III to a parolee years back. The only thing that stopped the parolee was when my FTO put his back-up to the suspect’s head. FYI.
I think we also started allowing the raptor types with the swivel retaining strap at the top, since I’ve seen some of our newer officers wearing those recently.
This message is for Frank Borelli:
I really don’t know the answer for the question of whether we should wait to allow a new patrol officer to pick out a new gun. I think that in almost any training academy, the guns used in training will all be the same. Thus, in this respect a new officer will only be exposed to one type of side arm if he/she is lucky. No, I do not believe that a new officer will really know what gun is best for him/her until they have matured on the job. I myself have only been in law enforcement since 2003 and before that I worked as a prison guard and at that time I used a Smith & Wesson .357 revolver. I am still trying to figure out what type of guns I like.
This message is for Troy:
I respectfully disagree with you about the firearms “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification.” I believe that we should not throw away a great police applicant due to their stature. Hey if we hire a fantastic female applicant that has three advanced degrees (for example, military could be just as good), good moral character, advanced decision making skills; why would you want to throw away the said applicant just because they are having trouble firing a cannon that you yourself may be able to fire. Why not assist this cadet to growing to her full potential even if we have to let her use a smaller gun?
I don’t know how much you know about the history of law enforcement but if you will allow me I will give you a brief lesson. Yes, this debate has been going on for a while….
During the earlier days of law enforcement, police departments bought everything in bulk. This meant cars, uniforms, guns, ammo, radios, and so on. Due to this fact police agencies had very strict height, weight, and proportional requirements. Most police cars would only accommodate a certain size of person. Most uniforms were bought for a select size of officer. Does the size of a person have any effect on how good of a cop they could be? No, of course not. Are there large people (or fluffy if you prefer) who may look out of shape but are actually in extremely good health? Are their smaller people that could be great cops? Of course!
Here is one example of an entire nation that would have failed your “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification” test:
In the nation of Israel most of the people that live there are much smaller than most Americans. The Israeli’s security forces had difficulty using the same weapons that Americans were using in the military and police forces because those weapons were so large in comparison to the stature of your average Israeli. So what did they do you might ask? They created new weapons that were more friendly to a person of their stature. Now, do you think Israel has a weak army? Of course not! They are one of the most feared military forces on the planet! What if the Israeli’s were brought to the standard of your “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?”
Again, this not intended to cause offense, it is just food for thought.
God Bless.
Matt,
No offense taken. I enjoy debating issues I care about with intelligent people that think like I do.
I am aware of law enforcement’s history of height and weight requirements. I think that probably is a whole other issue for another day and another blog.
But my point is exactly this: Is someone who can’t handle the weapon a qualified candidate? I don’t care how many degrees hang on the wall or how much experience is behind someone, being able to properly shoot is a crucial part of being a cop. And once you begin to erode that standard, where does it stop?
Take this Scenario:
For a while, Texas DPS issued the Sig P220. This is a huge weapon (even for me, and if I had to carry a .45, it wouldn’t be my first choice) to drag around for 40 hours a week. What if you had a recruit come in and sue for the ability to carry a .40 because they could not get through the academy shooting that gun? Say they win the lawsuit, which may be a just outcome. What happens when the next recruit can’t get through unless they are allowed to shoot a .22 target pistol?
The difference between Israel and America is litigation.
Take Care and Stay Safe
Troy
Everyone:
I had a question for the Level III holster users. Are you able to draw your weapon when you are seat belted in your patrol car? They did a state DPS study in Texas and most Troopers found it difficult and time consuming. I could be persuaded to the notion that this may have had something to do with the brand of the holster. So Troopers in Texas still use a Level I holster which is mandatory. I myself being a footloose and carefree Deputy Sheriff carry a Level II holster and we are allowed to carry whatever holster suits us best individually (I wish that were the case with our guns! I miss my Sig P220!).
When I was the rangemaster at my old dept I had a very large argument with an incoming chief regarding weapons. He wanted everyone to carry the same weapon to be able exchange magazines. He also tried to outlaw back-up weapons because that would cause the officer to “fight more” for the weapon. The new Chief was a very large individual so I took him to a patrol car and moved the seat all the way up and told him to get in. He couldn’t. I told how do you expect smaller officers to carry and handle a weapon when their trigger finger won’t even reach? I also argued that what good would it do to have an officer carry a .45 or .40 that can barely shoot it when they are a tack driver with a 9mm. If a shooting did happen with that officer they would sure be alot more comfortable with a firearm they enjoy shooting and are confident in. This could result in less (or none) stray rounds creating liability in a shooting. He slowly granted the point. We ended up issuing the standard weapon and allowing certain firearms in 9mm .40 &
.45. All none issued weapons had to be approved by me and they had to meet my standards on the range (minimum 95%). We then had a big arguement about patrol rifles and shotguns in the cab of the vehicle vs the trunk. I later won that one also but that is another story.
Good points from all the other posts so far. I am just going to tell my dept’s policy and leave that up for discussion. I work for a sworn dept. of about 1,500.
Uniform officers and Sergeants are issued Glock 22’s (.40S&W). Detectives are issued Glock 22’s also but are given the option to trade in that up to a dept. issued Glock 23 or in the future, Glock 27 due to the plain clothes assignment’s. All officers must use the dept. issued holster that they were trained with, in the academy. This is due to improvement of holsters thought time (i.e. leather snap closures to the high tech plastic hood holsters of today). All are level II holsters but while training you want to keep it the same. Our dept has their own academy and full time range instructors and armors. So you learn from start what holster you will carry and are issued a brand new Glock, so you know exactly how it will respond and how to fire it. Detectives and Lieutenants and higher are given flexibility with what holsters they can use on duty. Detectives once again due to plain clothes assignments and Lieutenants and higher due to them working in the office they must have their duty weapon on their person. But have their duty belt secured and available should they need to respond to the streets. Most Lieutenants and higher use some type of holster that clips on to the waistband, instead of one that slips through belt loops so they can remove it and don their duty belt.
Off duty our policy is vague but strict at the same time. It states that you can carry any firearm that meets all these requirements in design. But the brass wrote it so the only firearms that meet these requirements are Glock’s. However the caliber is up to you. You must qualify with your off duty if you want to carry that one off duty(liability reasons), otherwise you can carry your duty weapon, off duty. To qualify you must use Speer Gold Dot Hollow Point ammo, the same that we use on duty. You must use this ammo off duty also. If you want to qualify with a Glock .40S&W the dept will provide you with the ammo to qualify with and the ammo to carry off duty. Any other caliber of the Gold Dot you must purchase. So most people on out dept carry some time of .40 Glock off duty. But some due carry .45Auto’s, .45 G.A.P.’s and 10mm, some even carry the .380 or .357’s. Holsters you can carry any type of any level, as long as it is secured. Level 3, level 1, waist, cross draw, shoulder, ankle, back, etc.
Plus on you off duty Glock if you ask the range staff real nice they can order the parts at cost and will put them on your gun for free.
This is my depts. policy. This is due to the fact that we are a decent sized dept and want to keep everything the same for the potential liability reasons. This is what our departments is. It will not work for all departments of different sizes and may not even work for other departments of the same size.
I am one of my department’s firearms instructors and the only issue I would have with different weapons for everyone is the commonality of training. If I’m at the range with a half-dozen officers carrying a half-dozen different makes and models of sidearm, it is going to make it difficult to run consistent courses of fire.
I think the trade-off would be worth it if (and that’s a big “if”) the shooting performance of the officers improved because they could now carry “their” gun as opposed to one the department “made” them carry.
Troy:
I like your litigation comment (LMAO) but I still believe that almost everyone that can see well and has both hands can be taught to shoot well. It just takes practice and good training. However some guns are just too big for some people and they need to use smaller ones. The lowest I would go in standard for an on-duty weapon would be a .38 or a 9 millimeter. You are right, there does have to be a bottom and a top in the size of the weapon that should be authorized. However I don’t think that we should rule out candidates because they can’t shoot well with a large handgun. By the way, I love the Sig Sauer P220. I still own one but I am forced by departmental regulations to carry a Sig Sauer P226. I am able to qualify with the P226 but I am an excellent shot with the P220. I also agree that college or advanced degrees do not make a good cop necessarily, but they can be an asset if the individual does become a good cop. For instance if a cop has a degree in finance they may be able to assist their agency in anti-trust or white collar investigations perhaps a bit better than a person without that degree. Or even a person with military experience (perhaps they were a mechanic) can assist with investigations in regards to vehicle mechanics fraud. I do not think their stature should be a bar to employment is what I am saying.
Matt:
I agree
(1) Someone should not be excluded from police work based on physical stature alone;
(2) Anyone can be taught to shoot well if they are willing to work at it.
Take Care
Troy