The NPP I quoted was from Feb 2022. There is no 3.1.4 in Annex C any longer.Thanks for your response. I'll take it that there is no discussion of adopting a new calibre.
I was looking at Annex C, s. 3.1.4: "Calibre Conversion Kits must be available to permit changing the calibre of the C22 FF pistol from 9 x 19 mm to .40 calibre without having to replace the trigger mechanism." (From the 1 Feb 2021 version. It may have been a draft published with the NPP.)
Plagiarism is the most common form of staff work. If anyone thinks that every parade instruction I wrote as RSM or every Op O/Ex Instr I later wrote as an Ops O was an original composition, they are deluded. I copied over the shoulders of giants.Still leaves me wondering how it made through to the final draft, but I'm guessing it snuck its way into the first draft because someone cribbed from the US Army procurement docs.
Look at a GlockRFPs etc aside- what does the experience here see as the “bring” for an army pistol? Is it performance? Durability? Simplicity?
Like what’s the unique thing that a military pistol has to have?
Far better to have .22 sub cal kits for the pistolThanks for your response. I'll take it that there is no discussion of adopting a new calibre.
I was looking at Annex C, s. 3.1.4: "Calibre Conversion Kits must be available to permit changing the calibre of the C22 FF pistol from 9 x 19 mm to .40 calibre without having to replace the trigger mechanism." (From the 1 Feb 2021 version. It may have been a draft published with the NPP.)
I have no issue with requirements which eliminate potential contenders. The issue arises when there is no reasonable explanation for the requirement, or for the importance accorded to it (e.g., the 'must haves' vs. the really nice to haves" vs. "nice, if I don't have to pay extra for it"). If s. 3.1.4 was deleted from the actual RFP, or turned into a scored requirement (if there was some potential for adoption), that would seem appropriate. Still leaves me wondering how it made through to the final draft, but I'm guessing it snuck its way into the first draft because someone cribbed from the US Army procurement docs.
You've come to the right place. This forum is far more civilized than most gun forums, which are populated by folks who, while enthusiastic, don't do this for a living.You’ve sent me down a reading rabbit hole with the striker fired preference. Did you put the external hammer in parenthesis because you see an advantage to not having that?
I’m going to say that it’s a simplicity and form thing? Like in kit and gloves an external hammer is an extra thing that can make an issue?
I’ve used both. I’m very much laid back on some of this stuff. You hand me a browning I’ll just sort out myself on the firearm. Rather than wish it was something else. Then I meet a minutiae guy and I learn some fascinating stuff.
Striker guns usually do better in environmental conditions (sand/dust, snow/ice etc) than external hammer guns.You’ve sent me down a reading rabbit hole with the striker fired preference. Did you put the external hammer in parenthesis because you see an advantage to not having that?
I’m going to say that it’s a simplicity and form thing? Like in kit and gloves an external hammer is an extra thing that can make an issue?
I’ve used both. I’m very much laid back on some of this stuff. You hand me a browning I’ll just sort out myself on the firearm. Rather than wish it was something else. Then I meet a minutiae guy and I learn some fascinating stuff.
Most don't work worth a crap - 9mm ball is relatively dirt cheap - and I honestly don't see the training value of a .22LR pistol for a duty gun as the recoil is significantly different - plus any range that will allow .22LR will allow 9mm (and honestly more will allow 9mm with EFMJ - as there is no exposed lead).Far better to have .22 sub cal kits for the pistol
That ship sailed 25 odd years ago when we binned the vast inventory of indoor ranges that were only rated for 22.* With the move to the great outdoors, there’s no particular reason to shoot 22. And 9mm ammo is something we are actually capable of procuring.Far better to have .22 sub cal kits for the pistol
That is simply incompetence at the SO level.Ask the sheriffs in BC that, apparently 50 rds every 18 months was enough. During the ammo shortage everyone was scrambling for 9mm. I find the Sig kit works quite well and allows me to teach basic hand gun skills to newbies with less issues and costs.
That’s a for sure across lots of agencies- quals are 18 rounds, 1 practice, move everyone through the qual, extra rounds for retraining- too many failures make it easier,Ask the sheriffs in BC that, apparently 50 rds every 18 months was enough. During the ammo shortage everyone was scrambling for 9mm. I find the Sig kit works quite well and allows me to teach basic hand gun skills to newbies with less issues and costs.
My agency's qualification is 50 rounds for recruits and 32 for officers in the field. I'd heard Brihard's agency had dropped their round count significantly for one year as a result of COVID just to try keeping everyone current.Last year our qual was 18? Something very close. I didn’t do the math while I was LOing but it was just over a mag
Brihard may know better I’m curious now. And if he had the update this year he may know this years as well
Three years ago it was 8 rounds? Something in that area
“modernization”
2018 I built a program while
On loan to a rail police agency, it was two mags.
I don’t doubt your number - I’m sure your correct. I just see a trend towards the lighter side
- it was part of the modernization where they were theoretically moving towards having three blocks of pistol skills that added on each other and culminated, but it never actually materialized,My agency's qualification is 50 rounds for recruits and 32 for officers in the field. I'd heard Brihard's agency had dropped their round count significantly for one year as a result of COVID just to try keeping everyone current.
This is awesome thanks. I may run the boys through this on some downtime I have coming up. We re running a massive combined units scenario.Geez I thought my old departments 48 rd qual x2 a year was light...
30 rds day time (50yd max, to contact min) , 18 a night (25 yd max to contact min) - with lights from car and handheld or WML)
We have State Minimums - and departments are free to exceed the state min.
I think there should be portion of something like the old FAMS TPS for close range shooting - with uniformed personnel not needing to draw from concealment -- having shot the TPS from concealment it isn't an easy CoF, it's even tougher if you are wearing casual civilian clothes not a business suit.
and the FBI 2019 CoFAn Official Journal Of The NRA | Federal Air Marshal Qualification: Test Your CCW Skills
Created for the Federal Air Marshal Service, the Tactical Pistol Course is an excellent source of training for the armed citizen.www.shootingillustrated.com
The New FBI Qualification Course
Written by: Greg Ellifritz In 2014, the FBI made a historic change in their qualification course by making the qualification stages more similar to the types of threats that agents face. I detailed thewww.activeresponsetraining.net
For a CAF member (or ERT LEO's) I am partial to the RedBackOne Operator Readiness Test - it combines pistol and carbine.
I've shot it with Jason, both day in gas mask, and at night under NOD's and it is no joke.
OPERATOR READINESS TEST - ORT
Guidelines for the conduct of the Operator Readiness Test This document provides a detailed description of the ORT, the equipment requirements including weapons configuration, ammunition and magazine requirements, authorized targets as well as procedures for conducting the ORT at night and an...redbackone.com