TexasCHLforum.com

Just curious, is there a rationale behind Sigs only? I mean, I like Sigs and all, but there is something to be said for the simplicity, reliability and ruggedness of the venerable Glock.

Long story short - we tested Berettas, Sigs and Glocks when we transitioned from revolvers to SA. Beretta didn't fair well at all and we had a few problems with a couple of G17s. Bottom line is that when our armorers asked Glock to replace a couple of defective weapons they refused - said there was nothing wrong with them (this was sight unseen - just their rep on the phone from Smyrna). Our evaluators said fine, no problem - we're going with Sig.

Glock went nuts when they saw an order for 3,000+ firearms going down the toilet and said wait a second. There must have been a misunderstanding. We'll be glad to replace those defective weapons. Too late, you had your chance - hello Sig. Any officers that had purchased their own Glock during this test was allowed to keep it and carry it as their duty weapon. That's why some of our officers (very few remaining - maybe 50?) are allowed to carry Glocks as their primary duty weapon. Since Glock was an approved weapon (just not issued) for our department all other officers were allowed to carry them as back up or off-duty weapons.

Whatever weapon an officer carries (whether primary or secondary) our department's armorers are required to service and maintain it at no charge to that officer. It doesn't matter whether it's a department issued weapon or you've purchased your own. Not only do they have to be certified as armorers by that manufacturer, they must also carry a supply of parts that might be needed. A few years back they came to a realization that it would be much easier to only have Sig certified armorers and carry only Sig parts in stock. That's how were getting to the point where one day there won't be any Glock or Beretta certified officers on the department anymore so they only have to focus on Sigs. They keep tightening up the rules and excluding more and more officers from having access to Glocks and Birettas. I believe that once all of the officers are gone who are currently allowed to carry a Glock as a primary weapon, the department will say that no one can carry one in any capacity anymore.

Dragonfighter wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote: It's a crazy rule but one we have to live by. It doesn't make any sense that I must carry a Sig on my duty belt while at the same time carrying a Glock in another holster as a backup weapon - only in Dallas. The department realized how stupid it was but instead of fixing it they banned officers hired after a certain date from being able to carry anything but Sigs.

Just curious, is there a rationale behind Sigs only? I mean, I like Sigs and all, but there is something to be said for the simplicity, reliability and ruggedness of the venerable Glock.

$

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know how widespread this feeling is among LEOs, but I've had a number of LEO friends tell me they got a CHL to show their support of the CHL law and/or to encourage friends and family to do so. This is a unique opportunity for those officers to have a positive impact fellow officers who may be opposed to CHL. It's one thing to say "I think it's a good idea," but I believe it carries more weight when an officer can add "and I have one myself."

Chas.

I applaud those officers for that stance and attitude.
JL

I had a life changing experience that put alot of things into perspective. I have been a Federal LEO for 17yrs when one of my fellow agents was raided at home by ATF, IG, FBI, and Local LEO for selling sensative and stolen govt. equipment on the internet and NFA viloations. During the investigation I was wrongly accused of participating, put on admin leave for over a year and fired(removed from govt service). The day I was put on admin leave they walked me to my car and took my credentials. If it wasn't for the fact that I continued to renew my CT pistol permit I would have been screwed for about 4 months(current wait in Texas). I was blessed that Texas had just begun to honor CT licenses. 2yrs later I was exonerated by a Federal Judge and the agency was ordered to reinstate me with full pay and benefits. It was a long hard road but I'm back and trying to build back my rep. This whole incident re-enforced my opinion that all LEOs should take advantage of the CCW laws and support the program, God forbid one day it happens to you. Just as a note the Judge put all the blame of this gross injustice on a misguided a Lead Inspector General Investigator(he still has his job).

coltm4223 wrote:I had a life changing experience that put alot of things into perspective. I have been a Federal LEO for 17yrs when one of my fellow agents was raided at home by ATF, IG, FBI, and Local LEO for selling sensative and stolen govt. equipment on the internet and NFA viloations. During the investigation I was wrongly accused of participating, put on admin leave for over a year and fired(removed from govt service). The day I was put on admin leave they walked me to my car and took my credentials. If it wasn't for the fact that I continued to renew my CT pistol permit I would have been screwed for about 4 months(current wait in Texas). I was blessed that Texas had just begun to honor CT licenses. 2yrs later I was exonerated by a Federal Judge and the agency was ordered to reinstate me with full pay and benefits. It was a long hard road but I'm back and trying to build back my rep. This whole incident re-enforced my opinion that all LEOs should take advantage of the CCW laws and support the program, God forbid one day it happens to you. Just as a note the Judge put all the blame of this gross injustice on a misguided a Lead Inspector General Investigator(he still has his job).

Knock - knock - we're from the federal government and we're here to help.

Good for you and I'm glad that you got your job back. Too bad you can't sue the IG that messed up your life.

coltm4223 wrote:I had a life changing experience that put alot of things into perspective. I have been a Federal LEO for 17yrs when one of my fellow agents was raided at home by ATF, IG, FBI, and Local LEO for selling sensative and stolen govt. equipment on the internet and NFA viloations. During the investigation I was wrongly accused of participating, put on admin leave for over a year and fired(removed from govt service). The day I was put on admin leave they walked me to my car and took my credentials. If it wasn't for the fact that I continued to renew my CT pistol permit I would have been screwed for about 4 months(current wait in Texas). I was blessed that Texas had just begun to honor CT licenses. 2yrs later I was exonerated by a Federal Judge and the agency was ordered to reinstate me with full pay and benefits. It was a long hard road but I'm back and trying to build back my rep. This whole incident re-enforced my opinion that all LEOs should take advantage of the CCW laws and support the program, God forbid one day it happens to you. Just as a note the Judge put all the blame of this gross injustice on a misguided a Lead Inspector General Investigator(he still has his job).

Thanks for sharing that with us.

Chas.

Good for you and I'm glad that you got your job back. Too bad you can't sue the IG that messed up your life.[/quote]

Thats one agency that is really above the law, no oversight and no one required any proof from them on the accusations they maintained before they issued their report and commenced to trying to ruining my life. Infact they were not required to produce any evidence until the hearing (and they never did).

I second that!
Thanks for sharing your story. I am sorry that you had to go through it, but thankful that you came out on top.

-geo

CHL/LEO wrote:

Just curious, is there a rationale behind Sigs only? I mean, I like Sigs and all, but there is something to be said for the simplicity, reliability and ruggedness of the venerable Glock.

Long story short - we tested Berettas, Sigs and Glocks when we transitioned from revolvers to SA. Beretta didn't fair well ...

Thank you. That answered my question completely. Actually makes sense. Not the first time a company has taken a huge hit based on the attitude of one rep. M&M-Mars comes to mind when they said no to Steven Spielberg when he asked to show M&M's in a little movie we like to call ET. That guy was summarily fired as Reese's Pieces enjoyed a huge leap in sales.

For Houston LEO's they cannot carry there weapon unless on duty. I have a friend who has a CHL for that purpose...