Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by Gordo-L, Feb 25, 2020.
U.S. Marshal = Marshal
Man’s name = Marshall
A lot of flights have armed Feds traveling. I used to travel all the time carrying an H&K P2000 and 2 extra mags. The only time it got awkward was when the travel agency screwed up and put me in a middle seat. I am a big guy so coach is tight.
HA...... I would do that too. Had a FAM come up to me in GW Airport in Houston busting my chops about the knife. But like I said I am a big guy with a buzz cut. I told the FAM, "look dude, I am am not fooling anyone anyway, look at me.... I LOOK like a cop". He went away.....
Glocks are way easier to shoot good than the 1st gen H&K LEM I used to carry.
Yes, in 2012 I worked a detail after Superstorm Sandy with a group of Federal Air Marshals, this detail included two female officers, professionals all, I swear on any flight you may not have noticed the ladies.
Make no mistake, I would not have messed with either.
I miss those guys, and had a great two months with them.
I am not suggesting they choose what I think is comfy (they have a job to do), but as someone who flies a LOT, a long flight with a gun anywhere other than a shoulder holster under a sport coat is going to be uncomfortable, and a smaller firearm would be far easier to conceal and easier to avoid discomfort.
We don't have Air Marshals on all the flights, but I have not picked one out.
As for capacity, for some situations capacity is critical, but if they find themselves on a plane with several bad guys who are armed with guns or weapons, there are FAR bigger issues than what gun the Air Marshal is carrying. I would think that just a few rounds would suffice for such a small area and a group that one can virtually guarantee has something approaching zero (1-4 max?) bad guys. If the bad guys are well-armed, TSA security failed. If they are not well armed, a few shots and 50 passengers to help restrain unarmed/poorly armed bad guys seems plausible.
I hope they are happy with what they have, but I do wonder if a well-trained Air Marshall with a G43x or G48 could be similarly effective. If they need aimed shots to an eyeball at 75 feet, the G19 isn't the answer, either... if they need COM shots at 30 feet, the difference between a G19 and G43 is not huge.
They get to choose, and I have to trust they chose what is best for them. All good. Seeing the flip between 357SIG and 9mm does suggest that opinions held by a small number of people in command ebbs and flows as leadership changes, and a switch to a new gun and caliber probably isn't critical, just something someone somewhere desires.
How many times has an Air Marshal (or international equivalent) had to draw a firearm and either fire it or hold someone at gunpoint on a plane?
I didn't use a Glock sissy gun on my aircraft.
I'm thinking that a lot of federal agencies will piggyback on that big ole CBP contract that includes the G47, G19, and G26.
Is this based on FACT or Personal opinion? If Fact, can you provide a source? Everything I’ve been shown in my 40 yr LE career, shows a longer sight plane is more conducive to accuracy.
That said, one must also note, a firearm, any firearm, is only as good as the person behind it, pulling the trigger.
My GSSF scores shooting my 26 are usually better than my scores with my 19. Many other people have stated the same thing on these forums. I think it's something to do with the location of the hump on the 26 grip.
Mas Ayoob wrote an article on the accuracy of the G26 in GSSF verses the larger guns a while back. Someone posted the link here recently. It was an interesting read. I previously Found that I can shoot smaller groups with my G27 than I can with my G22. I have a gun on the way from Glock from a GSSF cert and it will be a G26.5 that will test the theory in GSSF competition.
Ive got to ask, WHY? Why, do FAM’s or any Federal agency for that matter, feel the need to change the agency’s firearms, two or more times in a 20 year period? When it appears the change is just for the sake of change. I understand a change, like in the late 80’s to 90’s, going from revolvers to semi autos or if the agency or department has a known or perceived issue (very rare) with their chosen firearms. I’ll also give slack for caliber changes...
But, firearms just don’t go bad at once requiring my and your tax dollars to fund the change. FED’s don’t pay for their service firearms, unless they choose and are authorized to. You don’t see it happen often with most local law enforcement, although it does, but nowhere near as often. In most cases an officer will carry the same firearm for their twenty plus career and properly maintained, will be as reliable as when new.
In the end, I guess it’s a nice touch, to get a new toy now and then, but at whose expense. If it breaks fix it or replace it one for one. Just my 2 cents opinion.
Totally agree. Unless there is a clear reason, it is just switching (with all the switching costs...).
I wonder how many times an Air Marshal has had to shoot or hold a gun on a person. It may well be zero. If not zero, it is certainly a tiny number. If TSA did their job screening, what guns the Marshal's carry is almost a non-factor (almost... I want them to have a good tool for the job, and am not denying that!).
This is parallel to the costs for the new military sidearm for the Army. We spent a lot of money, for an item rarely used, for a negligible and debatable gain.
I hope the Air Marshal's (the ones on the street and sitting with the guns riding on planes) are happy. As far as I can see, some minor savings in ammo cost (9mm vs 357SIG) is the most significant change. While many may see the Glock as an upgrade, some would disagree, so some of the gain is subjective. How much difference is there in real-world failures, function, and accuracy? For a highly trained group, I would expect that difference to be VERY small. A professional can shoot a variety of guns proficiently, with only a minor variation due to the weapon platform.
As long as the folks carrying them are happier, all is good. As you noted, the switching costs are real (and the accessories and training add to that), for minor gains. The taxpayers pay (even if the agents buy holsters out of their own pocket, many will deduct this cost, so the taxpayers are STILL absorbing these costs!).
They should go to the Glock 44. It’s easier to shoot and doesn’t have any recoil. A 4’5” lady that weighs 70 pounds can easily manage it.
They would not use a G32 simply because Glock does not offer a gen5 in the 357sig
I thinking the main reason is liability.
The Federal agency I retired from qualifies quarterly and each qual requires 72 rounds. An agent quals every quarter, or has his gun pulled. Since qualification is a full training day and with other handgun and rifle or shotgun live fire, often many more rounds are fired. Not to mention that 150 rounds per quarter are normally issued to agents for practice and many individuals shoot much more. The bare bones minimum number of rounds fired annually is probably well north of 1000 per agent. Trainees at the academy fire thousands of rounds and then head to the field with the same gun they fired at the academy.
Do the math. Guns wear out and break, often. I don’t think I ever carried an individual pistol for longer than eight years straight in 27 years of service. I’m a shooter, but some aren’t. If there ever was a reliability question, another gun was issued immediately, spares were on hand. The suspect gun was sent to the agency armorer for testing, evaluation, repair or taken completely out of service.
In most (maybe all?) federal agencies, officers/agents are not allowed to carry a personally owned sidearm on duty, so obviously they don’t have to buy them. In addition, they cannot buy them upon retirement. Thank you, and eff you, Bill Clinton.
Compare this to a lot of local agencies that qualify only once per year and some have limited courses of fire and minimal firearm training opportunities.
they selected the G19 because everyone knows that those plastic Glocks cannot be detected in airport x-rays...
This is the rumor I hear about why my department is looking to change pistols after about 5 years with the current one. From an admin perspective If you have to start replacing internals on a fleet of a couple thousand pistols, taking them all off the road for servicing, maybe you just get a nice police contract deal on new ones, and make up your costs a bit with officers buying back their current pistols. Sell the rest to the FFL to be sold to the public.
That, and every time there's a new guy in charge he has new ideas.
I think law enforcement - to include air marshals - should be given a reasonable choice. Whatever you are most confident with - provided you can qualify with it. I’m not a gun shrink but I know that many of us shoot certain calibers and certain brands better than others. I shoot .40s better than 9s. And I am comfy with Sigs. I’m not a marshal; I’m a teacher. If I get asked to conceal carry and have a choice, it’s a .40 P229.
In 1980 I picked a S&W Model 10 for my service pistol. Carried it until 1990, when NYPD went to semi autos. Issued the Glock and carried until retirement 20 years later. Qualified minimum of twice a year and shot it way more on my own. Only saw a barrel change and a mod to the slide, done by department gunsmiths at the range. When I retired, I took out the NY Trigger spring and put back in the stock 5 lb spring.
I don’t buy the need to replace service pistols, at the rate the FEDs do, without a valid reason. They need to take an example from the military. Buy parts and replace parts as necessary.
It’s just a waste of tax dollars, like the $5k toilet seats.