As most of you know, the FBI put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for four types of new 9mm ammunition. The four types are: (1) Service; (2) Training; (3) Reduced Lead Training; and, (4) Frangible. See RFP-OSCU-DSU1301.

The contracts have been awarded to three manufacturers, and not all manufacturers got all four types of ammunition.

Federal got all four types, Olin-Winchester got all but frangible, and Hornady got only frangible.

Here are the contract award numbers and the companies. The product numbers for each type of ammo are in parentheses.

Federal Cartridge Contract Number J-FBI-13-126

Service (54227),

Training (53685),

Reduced Lead Training (53690),

Frangible (ZBC9P1FBI)

Olin-Winchester Contract Number J-FBI-13-127

Service (Q4392),

Training (Q4395),

Reduced Lead Training (Q4396)

Hornady Manufacturing Contract Number J-FBI-13-128

Frangible (90229)

UPDATE: PER TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH WINCHESTER, Q4392 is a 147 grain Bonded Hollow Point, sold to other LE as the RA9B; Q4395 is a 147 grain Encapsulated, sold to other LE as RA9147FMJ; and Q4396 is a 124 grain FMJ Encapsulated with lead free primer.

Looks like the Federal ammo has Speer product codes (Gold Dots?)

This is speculation, but I think the Winchester will be as follows

Q4392 147 gr JHP PDX1 (Ranger RA9B)
Q4395 147 gr FMJ (Ranger RA9147FMJ)
Q4396 147 gr FMJ enclosed base (Ranger Q4358)

I have been so far unable to match up the product numbers, so I am not sure of the details of bullet weight, velocity, etc. of each type of ammo.

If they were smart (which they are not) they would simply issue Speer 124 gr. +p Gold Dots and pray that a Rosie O'Donnell type agent would not have her nose ring fall out under recoil and sue.

As the catalog numbers in question are not in any catalog or on any web site that I can find, I suppose we will have to wait until Olin-Winchester and Federal ATK reopen after the holidays. Then, we will have to see if either company is willing to disclose the information. I cannot imagine why they would not, but stranger things have happened.

Perhaps a forum member will come along who either works for Winchester or Federal or who knows someone who does.

I am interested to see exactly what service ammo the FBI has selected under this new RFP. And, if it is the NYPD Speer Gold Dot load, I will be most interested to see if the FBI starts having the Phase 3 malfunctions that have been a problem with NYPD. That type of malfunction seems only to rear its ugly head with the Speer Gold Dot load you mentioned.

Only with the NYPD, the same PD that just banned the Kahr 9mm for off duty carry as they had a dozen or so "accidental" discharges with a 9 lbs. DAO trigger I hear. No wonder Hillary Clinton got elected there.

FYI, I always remove my nose ring prior to going to the line. I get a better sight picture that way.
Eliza

__________________
Eliza:)

Interesting thread.

However, since my Beretta M9, Colt 1911 9mm, 940, 3913, 6906, and 6946 all seem to eat the 124 grain Gold Dot (Standard and +P) like candy, I don't see myself changing to whatever the FBI changes to.

The Gold Dot's and Cor Bon DPX's have a good enough record. Marksmanship is what we should be concerned with.

Definitely. With marksmanship, the .357 Magnum revolver is still king. Witness: nearby large city; some street cops STILL carrying revolvers by choice. Response as to why: various versions of "I can hit with it every time and it works first time, every time". Interesting. This is not intended to be in anyway critical of 9mm users. I love my sixguns but will never part with my Browning Hi-power!

*
If your nose ring is in the way, it's WAY too big, or you need help with your stance.

FWIW, if one is shooting enough, a 10 year service life is at best marginal with a lot of pistols. The Glocks in .40, like a lot of other platforms in that caliber, take a beating. They are also known for intermittent feeding issues and have had a long history of weird problems. Some people issued them have had great success, but some agencies have had really awful experiences. I'm not a fan of the caliber for a lot of reasons, but from what I have seen, the winning platform in .40 is the S&W M&P. If I were to go back into a uniformed LE setting for some reason, that pistol with a good RDS and a Surefire X300U would be my only real choice in .40.

Caliber wars are pretty silly - the best information available makes it pretty clear that any of the common service calibers (9/40/45ACP/357Sig) with good ammo perform about the same. Since 9mm is a lot cheaper in bulk for both ball and service ammo, and the platforms work better across a broader spectrum of shooters, more and more really savvy people are recommending it. I hear somewhat regularly reports from agencies that shoot a significant # of offenders, and those that use good 9mm ammo and train appropriately are very satisfied with it.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

The whole "9mm/40/45/357 Sig" are equal phrase is not entirely true. If one cherry picks the data, perhaps, choosing the best loads for the smaller rounds, and picking inferior rounds for the more powerful cartridges, and most importantly, throwing penetration out of the window and focusing purely on expansion.

Probably the greatest misinterpretation of the IWBA protocol is that 12 inches of test gel is just as good as anything up to and including 18 inches. The tests preferred 18 to 12, not the other way around, with many people worrying about the non existent over penetration potential at 18 inches, and cartridges failing to hit 12 desperately wanting to believe their load still qualified by the standards. Far to many pocket pistol shooters want to believe that .380, .32, .25. even .22 hollow points, and that "magic" over expanding super bullets that only punch around 11 or 10 1/2 inches are still great rounds. If you really want to look at the iWBA protocol, realize that if you were to grade penetration gel tests, 18 inches would be A+, and that 12 inches is D-. 12 inches isn't good penetration, it barely qualifies at all for official test purposes. Your 90 grain HP .380 that only dug in 11 inches didn't "penetrate well" it failed the test completely. It was the dunce that failed the class and got sent home.

Digging through ballistics tests, from various sources, official and independent alike, the problem plaguing 9mm and .38 special rounds still exists, in the fact that improved bullets still have a potential to under penetrate, and often times when they do qualify, it is at the very base low end spectrum of the scale, often times barely crawling over the 12 inch mark. Many of the vaunted "super bullets" that many shooters talk greatly about, namely those that expand violently and up to .80+ inch, and indeed work in perfect conditions and very shallow shots, often times fail in angle shots and through limbs and fail to penetrate deep enough. The people who brag about 9mm 115 grainers that expand up to .90 inch in gel tests are the same people who fail to mention the bullet was pulled 10 inches out of the block, and has serious liabilities in the real world.

When one compares bullets and loads that expand to around the same diameter, you will find discrepancy, mostly on weight. The 9mm 115 or 124 that expands out to .67 will often barely manage to tip over the 12 to 13 inch mark, whereas a controlled expansion .45 230 grain will often end up 15 to 18 inches in the block. Rough estimates, but take the time to do your own research, and let me hear. The base point is, yes, you may get a smaller caliber to expand just as broadly as a larger caliber, but no, the lighter bullets will punch no wear as deep, and will perform far, far, far worse against bones and skin, considering both momentum and sectional densities.

The .40, 45, and .357 Sig all can do more than the 9mm can, and to claim parity is dangerous. The 9mm was ditched because it will fail in extreme real life angle shots, and has failed in real life angle shots. Pistol rounds have been dug out of bodies mere inches away from internal organs, sometimes fractions of an inch away from killing effectiveness. To discard the difference of 3-4 inches of penetration could very well cause a failure to stop in many instances. The heavier round will punch deeper, and break bones and spines, instead of simply curling up to take a nap against them like a lighter bullet will.

Certainly this thread, which I'm surprised was resurrected from the dead, is filled with people who hate the FBI because they buried their beloved caliber back the late 80's. But 9mm's extreme proponents are as bad as any other calibers, and recite the same myths, and over exaggerate the effectiveness and advantages of their beloved caliber. "Its just as good, with less recoil", is not nearly true at all, completely ignoring that there are very real advantages to the heavier recoils of the larger rounds, also making grand assumptions that .40, .45, and .357 Sig are somehow impossible to control, compared to the easy shooting 9mm.

What seems to be a big idea here, and elsewhere, is that because a 115 9mm +p+ can do 1350 fps, it is automatically just as good as a 125 grain .357 magnum or Sig doing the same velocity, completely ignoring the 115's reputation to fragment and under penetrate, compared to the heavier 125, with better sectional density and sheer energy.

The truth is, the full power 147 grain is every bit superior to lighter 9mm bullets, as the 158 grain .38 specials were before, to lighter bullets, for pistol rounds need every bit of mass and sectional density to work correctly. But to do so would be to lose the super expansion, the higher velocity, and the hollow ideas that make the 9mm seem as good as the other calibers. Proponents of the lighter bullets still hold onto, and repeat passionately, the debunked junk science of the 20% 1970's style gel tests, temporary cavitation, and the pistol theory of light and fast.

Just as .45 ACP's worst proponents desperately wish to believe their caliber is an automatic one stop shot, so to the 9mm's truest believers wish to believe their caliber is just as effective as rounds far more capable than their own, refusing to accept that their advantage lies in lower recoil and capacity, at a cost.

Every person who can be called a caliber fanboy shares the same personality defect of having no problem with ignoring shortcomings and exaggerating or even inventing strengths, instead of simply accepting there are advantages and disadvantages to every caliber and many loads. The fanboyism in this thread enraged me enough to write all this giant post.

I'm sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. A quick glance at the product posters for Speer Gold Dot and Federal HST reveals otherwise.

Remember, we're comparing apples to apples within product lines, using the same bullet technology. Using the HST line as an example, the 230 gr.,.45 ACP HST penetrates only an additional inch of bare 10% gel compared to the 147 gr. 9mm, and probably only by virtue of its sectional density compared to the latter. Diffences in expansion are only ~.10

I find the two above statements the most interesting in your post. And since I'm much more of a photographer than a shooter let me relate the first statement to photography.

Saying the .40, 45 and .357 Sig all can do more than the 9mm can is like saying the Canon DSLR can do more than the Nikon DSLR. Neither can do anything at all by themselves. The end result comes from the person behind the lens just like the person pulling the trigger. In other words there are no magic bullets just like there are no magic cameras. I shoot Nikon, not because it is better but because I am much more comfortable with it.

If I'm in dangers way I'd prefer the 9, simply because I can put more rounds on target faster and more accurately than the other calibers you mention.

Finally:

You were enraged by fanboyism?

Mr. CoMF, your ability to use irrelevant statistics and rationalize is astounding, and I am quite impressed. You have forgotten that caliber multiplications are absolutely useless and irrelevant, only the final expansion diameter, meaning the long winded percentages you listed and calculated are of no value whatsoever. You took the time to figure out a method to create irrelevant data to ignore the real and relevant data. It doesn't matter if a .22 expands to .66 of an inch and punches a 12 inch path, its still not as damaging as .50 bullet that expands to .75 inch and punches 14. A 9mm expands more by percentage of its original size than a 12 gauge shotgun slug; are you inferring that the 9mm hollow points are as effective, nay, far more effective in expansion and effect than a 1 oz. shotgun slug?

And yes, expansion counts, otherwise, why would we have expanding rounds int he first place? With FMJ's superior feeding characteristics, why would anyone use hollow points or soft points? Because, if a bullet hits a blood vessel or organ, you want to create the maximum amount of damage possible.

If you say so.

You've stated that the .45 ACP "expands better." One way of determining how "well" a bullet expands is by calculating the expansion to caliber ratio, or "X" times caliber. I simply put your assertion to the test and did the math. If you're unhappy that the results don't support your claims, that's not my problem. The numbers don't lie.

I'm sure you feel that way.

Again, do you have any scientific evidence that a "bigger hole" causes a faster physiological stop than a smaller one? If you've ever read SA Urey Patrick's "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness," you would know that the "problem" was not that the holes were "too small," it's that they weren't penetrating deeply enough to reach vital organs deep within the body!

Who's to say? The human body is unpredictable. I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you'd find accounts of OIS's where the perp took a solid, center mass hit from a 1 oz. slug and kept on fighting.

No, it's to be considered a bonus, IF and when it happens.

Nice straw man you've got there.

Phase 3 malfunction ??? Could you explain?

The poster actually meant a "Type (class) 3 Malfunction".

Commonly known as a "Double Feed".

It occurs when the original casing is not ejected properly and the weapon tries to load another cartridge from the magazine, attempting to have the two cartridges occupy the same space.

The drill to clear it is quite involved and is usually handled by going to your BUG.

Currently the FBI is testing the S&W M&P 9mms, several Instructors made a trip out here and spent some time with us since we dropped Glocks in favor of the M&P.

And as I recall, only in G19s. Google it and you will find a lot of discussion on other forums.

FWIW, I know of a couple agencies that issue the Gold Dot 124 grain +P round and have had great success with it as long as the round hits the right areas. A really savvy Lt. at one of those agencies has provided some good info in another setting. I would not be hesitant to carry it.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Fan into a local Senior Agent at a local shot I frequent, he said they were going back to the 9mm and showed us his G26. The load he said was a "147gr. bonded JHP" but didn't say make.
Personally I'm hoping its the HST or Gold Dot. Ranger T of late has been spotty performance wise.
Dale

__________________
"Long live the S&W 3rd. Gen.!"

UPDATE: Per telephone conversation with Winchester today, January 3, 2013, the descriptions of each Winchester round are as follows:

Service Ammo: Q4392 is a 147 grain Bonded Hollow Point, sold to other LE as the RA9B;

Training Ammo: Q4395 is a 147 grain Encapsulated, sold to other LE as RA9147FMJ; and

Reduced Lead Training: Q4396 is a 124 grain FMJ Encapsulated with lead free primer. This is not a typo - I was told, and confirmed, that this is 124 grain ammo.

It seems that the FBI has come full circle. I remember in the early 1990's they carried the Winchester subsonic 9mm. It was a 147 grain JHP at 950 FPS. Most agencies, including mine, went with this round, but over a few years most dropped it due to poor performance. Most agencies went with lighter and faster 9mm ammo. We went with the RA9TA the 127 +P+ Ranger SXT and we are very happy with it.

Many agencies got suckered into believing that the 147JHP subsonic was great just because the FBI chose to go with load. Most people didn't (and still don't) realize that this round was designed for suppressed SMG's (MP5) and was never designed as a defensive handgun load.

True. The weight was increased for better functioning and the hollow point made the round more accurate. It was never intended to expand. They needed head shot accuracy for sentry removal.

The Q load was on the light side and some guns would not work with it. Had a first generation G17 that worked perfectly with this issued load. Was like shooting a 22lr. Later switched to 115 gr CorBon and still using it.

No lie! The ubiquitous Win 147 that was intended for suppressed weapons & not a primary duty round. My agency was issuing 147g GDHP's in the late 90's. We had some very bad performance from them in OIS's especially from the Glock 26's. So we went to the 124g GDHP & never looked back. More than a few felons have been planted by that round.

I really don't understand the logic used by the FBI? The 147gr 9x19 is a very 'disproven' street round by SO many agencies. Why pray tell makes them think it's so great now?

When you way that you "had some very bad performance" do you mean that the bullets failed or the bad guy didn't go down?

The logic is that bullet construction is variable within each weight class and therefore it's not possible to disprove a bullet weight. Only particular loads can be proven or disproven.

I respectfully disagree. Just citing one example, my understanding is that the Ranger-T 147 gr. JHP has had a rather commendable "street record" from all of the agencies using it. Not surprisingly, you'll find it on DocGKR's "list," as well.

These new 147 gr. loads aren't your father's Olin Super Match. Bullet technology has come a long way since the Miami shootout.

I was pretty close

Recently I went to a ballistics demo with reps from Hornady and Federal. Federal rep made mention of a new ammo from Speer that the FBI just tested and claims is the best performing round they have ever tested. Didn't know if that was marketing BS or not but our agency also received info from the FBI Firearms Testing Facility and it included the test results of this new round in 9mm. I can not disclose that info but I will say I am anxiously awaiting the availability of this new round from Speer!

I know this is an older thread but has there been any more information released about this new round? Is the FBI going to be using Glock 19's instead of 23's ?

We had the Win 147 subsonic and it was ****.

Here's a novel idea let them use what they have. With all of the government ammunition purchasing over the past few years they need to use a 40 until the ammo is expended. Does anyone remember agent Dove and the 9mm 115 silvertip? If they need new ammo that means that they need new weapons. What a waste of tax dollars

Someone needs to tell them "shot placement is king."

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

I missed this earlier. Just flabbergasted to see the Feds being so frugal with our tax dollars that they actually buy a different type (actually several different types) of ammunition for other than duty use. Hard times must be upon them...

That guy who asked about a Phase 3 failure never got an answer.

I use 124 grain Plus P Gold Dots if I don't have Federal's 124 grain HST. If either has caused functioning failures, I need to know, but I can't see why they would.

Is this something specific to Glock 19's, and only in NYPD use?

Which 9mm did the FBI adopt? G-19's? Why was the .40 dropped? Were female or other small agents having trouble cycling .40 slides? Was recoil a factor?

Can special agents still buy their own guns, or must they now use issued pieces? If private purchase. what's allowed?

Y'all can have my share of 147 grain 9mm.
I'm still happy with 115 grain and 124 grain Gold Dot and 115 grain Cor Bon.

If I want .38 Special velocities, I'll carry one of my .38s and stoke it with 110 grain Cor Bon, or some Gold Dot or 158 grain Buffalo Bore LSWCHP+P.

__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?

I worked with quite a few FBI agents looking for a couple of robbery suspects and one incident that sticks in my mind was an agent that only had 3 rounds of oo buck for his 870 because the rest of his ammo was buried under his softball equipment in the trunk of his government vehicle. Most agents working at the FBI have no need for sidearms because they sit behind a desk and never leave the office. Everytime I was in their office no one that I saw was armed. I'll bet that all of the FBI agents combined fired less than 100 rounds last year in firefights.

20 years ago I went through the FBI's firearms instructors course that lasted a week. We were watching the so called expert show us how to shoot slugs at a full size b-27 target at 50's with an older 870 which had a 20" plain barrel with the bead on the barrel. After 5 shots, all of which missed the target, he looked dumbfounded as to why he missed. I suggetsed that he aim at the belt buckle and he hit the target all 5 times. Anyone that had used one of the older guns knew to shoot at the belt buckle because they shot high which is why Remington added a small ramp. This guy was their expert and he was a boob.

The agent teaching the class told us that the FBI used to let them have as much ammo as they wanted until someone he worked with was caught selling ammo and was given some jail time.

I am sure that somewhere in the FBI there are units that need to be armed but most don't for their everyday tasks.

DESK BOUND COMMANDOS:
Every Agency has them. They usually have the newest equipment and vehicles while the "Street Troops" make do with what comes down from Headquarters when the "Administrators" receive new issue.

Your ignorance.. or more likely fabrication… is breathtaking. I have worked with dozens of FBI agents over the years, including their firearms instructors. They are all armed, all the the time (they have rules concerning displaying firearms inside their offices). They train more frequently than most law enforcement agencies, and their qualification standards are higher. As an agency they devote resources to selecting and testing ammunition and firearms that few if any can match. All the agents I worked with handled firearms professionally and effectively during the arrests and searches I assisted with. You are talking out of your posterior.

The FBI does not have a lock on the office commandos. My former PD had a few who spent their career doing anything to stay off the street & go home by 4 PM.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

The .40 ammo order was not for DOJ, but DHS. While in a rifle class with an FBI FI, we discussed their sidearms a bit. I did not get the impression that he was impressed with their gear and training, but he had been a real cop before and so he had a clue.

He generally recommended the authorized option (personal weapon, approved) of a G21. (Dunno if the 30 is approved; didn't think to ask.) The .45ACP is a lot easier to shoot. He had a Glock in .40, and it was not adequately reliable IMHO. It malfed a few times, as their reputation has been (a friend's agency is dealing with that now; several have been hit with crummy performance from their .40s). I suspect Glock will give them one heck of a deal, probably trading one for one on pistols and mags. The gear would not change, of course.

Remember that the purported ammo problems of the Miami shootout are almost 30 years ago, and we have gone through a lot of performance improvement in the generations of ammo since.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Gear? As in holster's, mag carriers, etc.?

I'm not doubting what you have relayed as second hand knowledge. Maybe you and/or the source of information do not have experience with Glock pistols? The 22 and 21 are actually very different pistols beyond caliber, dimensions and capacity. Quality holsters and mag carriers can't be shared between the two models. They share very few parts between them.

Overall, I'd have to say the 22 and 21 have equal reliability reports with LEA's and there are probably at least five times the numbers of .40 Glocks used by them as .45 ACP Glocks - within the last 30 years.

*
I meant the gear for the 9s (17/19) and 40s (22/23). I am well aware that the 21 is a significantly different platform.

The serious problems with the 22/23 platform and malfunctions that cannot be resolved or even diagnosed as to cause (various combinations of mag springs and followers, recoil springs, etc seem to either work, or not work, with no consistency or logic) have been well known for years. This is even more true with mounted lights, which are less and less optional as we learn more. There was a string on the old 10-8 forums from late 2007 or so that went heavily into the issues. It has been discussed in some detail on lightfighter, along with the problems created in the 9s by trying to make the 40s work. I actually saw that FBI agent running a .40, and it was not adequately reliable. If I was going to carry a .40, I have little doubt that the first choice would be the M&P.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Hi:
In 1962 when I entered Law Enforcement three Agencies that was held in high esteem was the FBI, U.S. Border Patrol, and LAPD. Most Agencies accepted their opinions of weapons, equipment, and training. In that era the FBI had training school for Police Department in different regions. I was sent to one such school in my region. I showed up with a Colt .38 Revolver and a cross draw holster. WOW, I received instant schooling in cross draw holsters are a "NO, NO" and Smith and Wesson Revolvers are a better choice as a sidearm. After the school I went to a Smith and Wesson Revolver in a Jordan style border Patrol holster.

Actually, Mike, my recollection is that what NYPD called a "phase 3" is not the same as a "type 3" (double feed). I won't swear to it. It's kind of odd, in that the only place this seems to have been a documented problem with G19 was with NYPD, and they had a hell of a time with it. Glock had to bring a mobile facility to the range to work on the pistols and they went through several efforts at repairing it. My old Gen 2 17, and my 19L worked up by Don Ellis have never done such as I recall.

Pat Rogers has described the experience and the events around it a few times. He's a member here but I almost never see him show up.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

"accidental" discharges with a 9 lbs. DAO trigger ...."

Now, how in the world does that happen?
Maybe someone needs a desk job?

Maybe alcohol induced

By staffing the rank and file using Affirmative Action standards?

This, plus the "cost saving" measure of sending cops to qualify twice a year, and the range instructors stabbing the targets with their pens as they score them to make more "bullet holes" and pass the officer.

If they don't pass them, they can't go back to patrol and that means less cops on the street. Right before 12/31/99, the word went out that EVERYBODY passes to insure full manpower at Times Square and throughout the city.

The job liked to brag that every officer is entitled to one free box of ammo a month to practice on his own, but the practice had to be done at one of the department ranges. There were 4 of them throughout the city. And try to find parking at any one of them. So I took advantage of that MAYBE twice. Driving 2 hours to shoot 50 free rounds just wasn't worth it.

In the Glock, the Phase / Type / Class 3 Malfunction, is still a double feed.
The spent casing, without enough "power" to eject fully, stays in the weapon as the new round is stripped from the magazine.
The casing, still stuck in the extractor, rides forward over the new round and lodges firmly on the bbl hood.
As you've stated, I too have never seen it repeated. Oh well.

Attached Images

download.jpg (2.7 KB, 7496 views)

Bingo. Of course, NYPD supposedly would have none of the "it's the Indian & not the arrow" pep talk and threw a hissy fit according to industry insiders at the time as well as threatened to drop Glock like an ugly blind date. Obviously, Glock was not wanting to lose a huge contract like that with lots of PR factor, so they "powdered" the baby's bottom. It was in the Gen 2 G19's which came out in '88.


I've owned a couple of the Gen 2 G19's and had a similar problem with one using weak Win. WB ammo back in the day. Solution: changed to better (hotter) ammo and the issue was resolved. Many fail to remember that when Glock first hit the U.S. shore in early '86 the Gen 1 G17 had an 18 or 19 lbs. RSA that was made for European NATO spec ammo and not watered down U.S. range fodder. As well, the first lots had a really tight spec chamber and some Fed. American Eagle I had wouldn't chamber. Again, tight Teutonic specs vs. sloppy U.S. specs. They opened the chamber specs as a result. The RSA nowadays is rated 17 lbs. for the G17.

Not even close. The NYPD issues 3 guns. The G19, Sig 226, and he S&w 5946. The job was using 115 grain fmj ammo when the problem appeared. The empty casing was getting jammed under the extractor and causing a phase 3 malfunction. It only happen with the glock.

The Job contacted glock and glock told us to go to hotter ammo. Funny how the sig and smith were fine with the older ammo. Several street shootings happened with the malfunction. The job called glock again and told them to fix it or they were recalling all the glocks and replacing them with ruger p90 series guns. Now glock got off their *** and sent an armorer to the range to recut the ejection port of all glocks. Bottom line is they let cops walk the beat with a defective gun for over a year. They'll never get another dime from me

As for the "nypd glocks". All they are is a glock 19 with a NY trigger installed. And there were over 6000 glocks in service at the time so if course the odds are higher the problem would be seen more often.

As for the drinking comment, I guess we can characterize all gun owners as redneck tea party members, too, right?