The highlighted caveat goes to the heart of what I'm saying. The Glock's design could be better (and safer) in this regard.
How did S&W lose the LE market?
- Thread starter Silversmok3
- Start date
The highlighted caveat goes to the heart of what I'm saying. The Glock's design could be better (and safer) in this regard.
charlie sherrill
Member
Buff said it best. The six shooters that had been reliable for over 100 years became outdated and undergunned. Glock was there with the best deal. I carry a Glock 22 because it is issued and I have to carry it. It is butt ugly but it goes bang most of the time. I also own four S&W M&P's (.45,.40, 9 mm, and 9 mmc) and I usually have one of the larger calibers around when I'm not working. I am familiar with the Glock and can shoot it reasonably well, even with 64 year old eyes. But I like and shoot better with the M&P 45 and 40 and have had no issues with either. I'd rather be carrying the M&P 40 to work because it's high cap and I just shoot better with it.
I get very tired of hearing folks say the revolver is outdated and people having them are out gunned.
Maybe they are if the shooter plans on prolonged gun battles out in the open, they are very bad shots or have a lot of assailants.
It only takes a single shot from a proper caliber to stop an aggression. The gangbangers use the auto loaders because they miss often.
A revolver is more accurate and reliable than an auto loader. They do not jamb, they do not require a safety and they are simpler to operate.
Young people tend to own auto loaders because they have been indoctrinated by Hollywood movies. Look at what Hollywood has done for revolvers in years past. Remember Dirty Harry? Hollywood makes an impression on the attitudes of people and do so deliberately.
The high capacity guns taught people to depend more on capacity and less on accuracy.
You want to see what a revolver can do? Look at Jerry Miculet. He is past being great. How many of us need to fire as he does? Yet his revolver suits his needs and if we practiced, it would suit any of our needs. Yet we want capacity because we PLAN on missing. You can say what you want but nobody needs a box of ammo while walking the streets, be they police or citizen. We see it daily. An officer with 14 rounds in his auto loader and two 14 round mags on his belt. I see young people in this area (open carry state) wearing an auto loader and having three magazines on their side. People plan on missing.
I have been involved in three shootings since 1968. None of them required more than two shots. Each was with a revolver.
I did not plan on being involved in such but I did plan on hitting my target should I be involved in any shooting. We lost our concern for accuracy. That is also why police departments are often sued by victims of errant police fired rounds. A police shooting in this area about five yrs ago resulted in officers shooting a house, two cars and hitting the perp once in the leg. We get a subconcious mindset that we will miss a few shots so we cannot be using a revolver.
Nor do I plan on staying around if a shooting is going to be a drawn out event. I will go home and let someone call me when it is over. The more rounds fired means the more likely I am to be hit.
The revolver did not out live it's usefulness. The people became more interested in missing a lot.
Another thing: How many times have you seen a thread about a revolver not loading properly, not having the slide function as it should or magazine problems? Revolvers are pretty much trouble free.
Ok, that said, as most know, I carry a 1911 but only due to the size round. I also have a few .357 revolvers and would feel totally comfortable in being able to accurately use any of them and feel even more confident in their ability to perform flawlessly.
Maybe they are if the shooter plans on prolonged gun battles out in the open, they are very bad shots or have a lot of assailants.
It only takes a single shot from a proper caliber to stop an aggression. The gangbangers use the auto loaders because they miss often.
A revolver is more accurate and reliable than an auto loader. They do not jamb, they do not require a safety and they are simpler to operate.
Young people tend to own auto loaders because they have been indoctrinated by Hollywood movies. Look at what Hollywood has done for revolvers in years past. Remember Dirty Harry? Hollywood makes an impression on the attitudes of people and do so deliberately.
The high capacity guns taught people to depend more on capacity and less on accuracy.
You want to see what a revolver can do? Look at Jerry Miculet. He is past being great. How many of us need to fire as he does? Yet his revolver suits his needs and if we practiced, it would suit any of our needs. Yet we want capacity because we PLAN on missing. You can say what you want but nobody needs a box of ammo while walking the streets, be they police or citizen. We see it daily. An officer with 14 rounds in his auto loader and two 14 round mags on his belt. I see young people in this area (open carry state) wearing an auto loader and having three magazines on their side. People plan on missing.
I have been involved in three shootings since 1968. None of them required more than two shots. Each was with a revolver.
I did not plan on being involved in such but I did plan on hitting my target should I be involved in any shooting. We lost our concern for accuracy. That is also why police departments are often sued by victims of errant police fired rounds. A police shooting in this area about five yrs ago resulted in officers shooting a house, two cars and hitting the perp once in the leg. We get a subconcious mindset that we will miss a few shots so we cannot be using a revolver.
Nor do I plan on staying around if a shooting is going to be a drawn out event. I will go home and let someone call me when it is over. The more rounds fired means the more likely I am to be hit.
The revolver did not out live it's usefulness. The people became more interested in missing a lot.
Another thing: How many times have you seen a thread about a revolver not loading properly, not having the slide function as it should or magazine problems? Revolvers are pretty much trouble free.
Ok, that said, as most know, I carry a 1911 but only due to the size round. I also have a few .357 revolvers and would feel totally comfortable in being able to accurately use any of them and feel even more confident in their ability to perform flawlessly.
Last edited:
OP
Silversmok3
Member
Im not law enforcement, but I gather the idea that investing the money to train police who can shoot that accurately simply isn't a goal for the money minded higher ups, if it is even achievable. The 1986 FBI shootout illustrated that when two perps with more range time than the good guys shot it out , the good guys hit the scumbags 4 times each out of 70 rounds fired between all of them.
What did the FBI do in the aftermath?Blame the "equipment";it wasn't bad shooting that got the FBI agents killed it was the puny 9mm round!
Psst-just ignore the .38 special headshots Agent Mirreles fired from his revolver to end the matter
Jerry Mickulet and Rob Leatham, to pick two examples, are as good as they are because they WANT to be and paid for the practice and ammo out of their own pocket long before they got a 'sponsorship'. Not because a public agency forced them to achieve that level of shooting skill.If an agency like the LASD or US military paid for that kind of skill for every officer the cost would be in the thousands of dollars per person.
The public agencies thus have made a Faustian Bargain with the bean counters. Rather than spend $2000 per officer to ensure no matter what that they can deliver the rounds downrange , some police agencies pay for a box of 100 every six months and hope that combined with the statistical unlikelihood of being in a firefight that its enough skill to take care of business .Personally, I would consider it money well spent to keep one of my officers alive were I in a position of authority, but these days that is not a popular attitude.
For what it is worth when the ISP used single stack S&W 9mms the hit percentages were the highest in years.Glock coming out with 17 round magazines merely gave criminal and cop alike a better ability to send ammunition into uninvolved parties' homes.
You may have field stripped it but you didn't do it the way you wrote when you said "ah lock the slide, pull down on the takedown leavers, pull down on the slide lock and pull the trigger,"
Don't know where you came up with that procedure but read the take down instructions provided by Glock. Pull the trigger first, then you pull the slide back only about 1/4", not lock it to the rear. Then pull down the levers and the slide will come off. It's a very simple procedure. If you couldn't get it apart then you weren't doing it right.
While true there's more to the story. When the ISP went to the 9s the training regiment also changed. People point to going to the 9 and increased hits as being the reason. One also has to look at the training end which probably had more to do with increased hits than just changing the platform.
With all due respect to the previous posters...The Sigma killed S&Ws hold on the LEO market & here is how it happened...
Glock perfected their polymer framed semi-auto handguns and started marketing them to the LEO market. S&W saw that they were behind Glock and rushed the Sigma to market before R&D wanted to release it. The marketing dept won the battle but lost the war. The Sigma had major flaws that should have been corrected before thousands were sent to different LEO depts that were transitioning from revolvers. When these depts. couldn't keep the Sigma in service they switched to Glocks and never looked back.
If S&W had waited until the Sigma had been perfected before thrusting them on the LEO market they would have a far greater presence in the LEO market. These are documented facts that I couldn't make up. S&W dropped the ball because they panicked and didn't listen to their R&D department & instead allowed their marketing dept to kill their LEO sales.
By the time the Sigma had been fixed it was too late. Now Glock is carried by most LEO departments instead of the hated Sigma. The Sigma would have evolved much quicker into the M&P line if it had been successful & many LEO departments would be carrying it now instead of Glock.
Glock perfected their polymer framed semi-auto handguns and started marketing them to the LEO market. S&W saw that they were behind Glock and rushed the Sigma to market before R&D wanted to release it. The marketing dept won the battle but lost the war. The Sigma had major flaws that should have been corrected before thousands were sent to different LEO depts that were transitioning from revolvers. When these depts. couldn't keep the Sigma in service they switched to Glocks and never looked back.
If S&W had waited until the Sigma had been perfected before thrusting them on the LEO market they would have a far greater presence in the LEO market. These are documented facts that I couldn't make up. S&W dropped the ball because they panicked and didn't listen to their R&D department & instead allowed their marketing dept to kill their LEO sales.
By the time the Sigma had been fixed it was too late. Now Glock is carried by most LEO departments instead of the hated Sigma. The Sigma would have evolved much quicker into the M&P line if it had been successful & many LEO departments would be carrying it now instead of Glock.
Last edited:
I disagree. Glock BOUGHT the LEA market.
The agencies are bound by money concerns. Sell the guns cheaper and pay retail for their trade-in guns. The agency will go for the gun.
The market is now shifting back. Most have already gotten rid of the 9mm and gone to the .40. Many are going to the .45. A lot have gone to Sig and several have gone to S&W.
Glock and their KaBoom has cost a ton of money. The lack of a safety has caused many injuries to officers while holstering and that cost money. Limp wristing issues have been a large concern, especially when shooting off handed. Glock is dwindling in the US. Metal guns are more solid than plastic.
While I agree with most of your posting, I disagree with the training issue.
It takes the same amount of money to train a person to shoot accurately. It takes more money to teach the problem resolutions that take place with an auto loader. Revolvers are much simpler to teach how to shoot. Less time explaining means less expense. Less moving parts means fewer repairs and better hits. It also means less time on the range and fewer shots being required.
Depts now are buying more ammo per officer than they did when revolvers were used.
Also, there are more shots fired in the streets now than when revolvers were in use. More shots means more money and more liability risks.
Then we have officers. Most, not all, are not gun people. They were not active shooters prior to being hired and they only look at their sidearm as being a tool of the profession. They shoot only when qualifying and handle their firearm seldom.
I think the Sigma debacle did far more harm to S&W than anything else. S&W failed to see the upcoming market shift, then they hurriedly brought out a badly flawed gun, then got successfully sued by Glock for patent infringement on it. The under current at the time was that they couldn't even copy somebody elses design properly. Plus the situation gave Glock all that lovely free advertising: Glocks work, S&Ws doesn't. I had one of the first Sigmas, in the then new 40 S&W caliber, and was fortunate enough to trade it off before it lost all of it's value. I do still have my Sigma shooters bag though! 
OP
Silversmok3
Member
I honestly agree with the idea of re-instating revolvers as main carry for lawmen today.
With only six shots in the sidearm it would force a beneficial shift from the attitude of "Shoot 17 rounds to slide lock and gamble on 15 being misses " to "You are only outgunned if you miss" ( quoted from Jeff Cooper)
I agree that Glock has engaged in price warfare. The fact is that the two arguments (Sigma ruined S&W with LE & Glock bought the LE market) are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion both have happened. Sigma screwed up S&W's chances with the LE market & then Glock bought the market once S&W removed themselves from serious contention. It's an "I'm right-your right" situation. Does pointing out the oldest incident make me more right?
The game has changed and the revolver's time as a duty sidearm has passed. I too share the concerns of others about "spray and pray", however, everytime this subject comes up, I see a lot of incorrect assumptions. The issue of LE marksmanship is a software issue, not a hardware issue. If you think cops are bad shots with Glocks, stick a revovler with a 8-10lb DA in their hands and see how much worse it gets.
Its a training issue. In my experience far too little time is spent on basic marksmanship. During my academy training we spent enough time on slow fire shooting to get everyone qualified. The target used was the popular "Q target" and any round kept within the silhouette counted. For those not familiar with this target...if you can keep your round on a sheet of legal sized paper out to 25 yards you'd probably be able to qualify "master". My description is a bit simplified, but you get the idea that qualifying even as a master is no feat of marksmanship.
Once everyone was qualified we quickly moved on to a multitude of high speed rapid fire drills. On many of these drills we shared targets amongst a group of 5 or 6 recruits and it was near impossible to tell where/if you're making hits. For those of us that already had a good foundation this was ok (but still not good, IMO) for those that struggled to qualify it in all likelyhood did more harm than good.
My grandfather went work work for this same agency in 1956. Back in his day they shot slow fire out to 50 yards with their 6" Colt Offical Police's. Training back then focused largely on basic marksmanship. I believe in the value of high speed training, but too many officers are being pushed into it before they have a solid grasp on the fundamentals. Thus we're seeing officers cranking off rounds down range without effect because they lack the fundamentals on put the rounds on target.
The answer is to require officers to shoot more rounds, more often. My academy class shot about 60,000 roudns of .45 ACP (throught 3rd gen S&W's I might add) for a total of a little under 2,000 rounds each. Honestly, we could have spent 2,000 rounds just on basic marksmansip and another 2,000 on other drills. The problem of course is money. How many agencies can (or will) spend the money so everyone gets 4-5,000 roudns downrange during the academy then require them to requalify every 2 or 3 months. Within the confines of what we have now, I would like to see more time on basic marksmanship, because as I see it now, a lot of training ammo is going down range with no real learning behind it.
Its a training issue. In my experience far too little time is spent on basic marksmanship. During my academy training we spent enough time on slow fire shooting to get everyone qualified. The target used was the popular "Q target" and any round kept within the silhouette counted. For those not familiar with this target...if you can keep your round on a sheet of legal sized paper out to 25 yards you'd probably be able to qualify "master". My description is a bit simplified, but you get the idea that qualifying even as a master is no feat of marksmanship.
Once everyone was qualified we quickly moved on to a multitude of high speed rapid fire drills. On many of these drills we shared targets amongst a group of 5 or 6 recruits and it was near impossible to tell where/if you're making hits. For those of us that already had a good foundation this was ok (but still not good, IMO) for those that struggled to qualify it in all likelyhood did more harm than good.
My grandfather went work work for this same agency in 1956. Back in his day they shot slow fire out to 50 yards with their 6" Colt Offical Police's. Training back then focused largely on basic marksmanship. I believe in the value of high speed training, but too many officers are being pushed into it before they have a solid grasp on the fundamentals. Thus we're seeing officers cranking off rounds down range without effect because they lack the fundamentals on put the rounds on target.
The answer is to require officers to shoot more rounds, more often. My academy class shot about 60,000 roudns of .45 ACP (throught 3rd gen S&W's I might add) for a total of a little under 2,000 rounds each. Honestly, we could have spent 2,000 rounds just on basic marksmansip and another 2,000 on other drills. The problem of course is money. How many agencies can (or will) spend the money so everyone gets 4-5,000 roudns downrange during the academy then require them to requalify every 2 or 3 months. Within the confines of what we have now, I would like to see more time on basic marksmanship, because as I see it now, a lot of training ammo is going down range with no real learning behind it.
Gentlemen,
You are all correct, but you are looking at the situation through a myopic current lens. What you are describing has a much more distant beginning. To add to the problem, you are considering "price warfare" as a negative force. Let me explain.
Think of both Sam Colt and Gaston Glock. Neither of them were firearms designers. Both of them were innovators. Their first efforts in firearm design, the Paterson Colt and the Model 17 Glock were earth shakers when taken in comparison to the handguns of their time. Both Colt and Glock were visionaries. But most of all, both of them were marketing geniuses. Sam Colt traveled the world marketing his firearms to England, Europe, and the Middle East in addition to the US. Gaston Glock sold his M17 in other markets before he brought it to the US.
Part of the marketing plan for both men was to discount or even give their products to those who could influence future sales. In the case of Colt, it might be the crown heads of countries. In Glock's case it was police departments.
Their marketing plans stood them both in good stead when the competition caught up with them technologically, but the competition had a difficult time displacing the historical preference that both men had created.
While I'm at it, I will comment on just why Glock was so successful in commandeering the police market.
At the time that law enforcement agencies were coming to realize that a pistol offered several advantages to a revolver (at this point let's just say more firepower and ease of reloading), there were few options available...M1911, P38, couple of Smiths, etc. Each of these options carried several disadvantages--they were extremely complicated relative to the M10's in most officer's holsters. Most importantly, they all had more complicated manual's of arms than the revolvers. They all required extensive training to learn the different buttons, switches, and levers on each option. (e.g. Is that a safety or a decocker? It it a double action or a single action, or both, etc.?)
Along came Gaston with what amounted to a pistol version of a revolver. It had no extra devices on the exterior, it had the same trigger pull for first shot and last, it very nearly duplicated the reliability of the revolver. And most importantly, it had the exact same simple operating rules as the revolver i.e. 1) load it. 2) point it at whatever you wish to shoot. 3) pull trigger. 4) repeat as necessary. Additionally, the M17 offered the high capacity and ease of loading desired to offset the perceived lack of firepower of the ubiquitous revolvers.
Ergo, dominance in the market!
Just one man's opinion.
Bob
You are all correct, but you are looking at the situation through a myopic current lens. What you are describing has a much more distant beginning. To add to the problem, you are considering "price warfare" as a negative force. Let me explain.
Think of both Sam Colt and Gaston Glock. Neither of them were firearms designers. Both of them were innovators. Their first efforts in firearm design, the Paterson Colt and the Model 17 Glock were earth shakers when taken in comparison to the handguns of their time. Both Colt and Glock were visionaries. But most of all, both of them were marketing geniuses. Sam Colt traveled the world marketing his firearms to England, Europe, and the Middle East in addition to the US. Gaston Glock sold his M17 in other markets before he brought it to the US.
Part of the marketing plan for both men was to discount or even give their products to those who could influence future sales. In the case of Colt, it might be the crown heads of countries. In Glock's case it was police departments.
Their marketing plans stood them both in good stead when the competition caught up with them technologically, but the competition had a difficult time displacing the historical preference that both men had created.
While I'm at it, I will comment on just why Glock was so successful in commandeering the police market.
At the time that law enforcement agencies were coming to realize that a pistol offered several advantages to a revolver (at this point let's just say more firepower and ease of reloading), there were few options available...M1911, P38, couple of Smiths, etc. Each of these options carried several disadvantages--they were extremely complicated relative to the M10's in most officer's holsters. Most importantly, they all had more complicated manual's of arms than the revolvers. They all required extensive training to learn the different buttons, switches, and levers on each option. (e.g. Is that a safety or a decocker? It it a double action or a single action, or both, etc.?)
Along came Gaston with what amounted to a pistol version of a revolver. It had no extra devices on the exterior, it had the same trigger pull for first shot and last, it very nearly duplicated the reliability of the revolver. And most importantly, it had the exact same simple operating rules as the revolver i.e. 1) load it. 2) point it at whatever you wish to shoot. 3) pull trigger. 4) repeat as necessary. Additionally, the M17 offered the high capacity and ease of loading desired to offset the perceived lack of firepower of the ubiquitous revolvers.
Ergo, dominance in the market!
Just one man's opinion.
Bob
justsumstuff
Member
I do not want to own a gun that I have to pull the trigger to take it apart.
The S&W M&P avoids this with the pin that you have to lift instead of pulling the trigger.
However: I was in a local dealer & the salesman "kid" didn't know how to field strip the M&P as directed in the manual. I asked him about the instructions from the factory, he didn't know about that. I asked him how safe it was to pull the trigger. He was only interested in the fast way to field strip, and "this is how to do a Glock take-down."
So here is a salesman instructing a customer (new gun owner) not only against Mfg. instructions, but how many other potential new gun owners to pull the trigger to field strip the gun.
I understand the "drill in the safety steps" but often those new to the market buy first, then ask questions. Too many dealers only interested in the sale, not emphasizing safety.
oldandfatonaharley
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2012
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 3
My $.02 about the Glock 22 I bought about 10 years ago: It took a long time for me to get to where I could hit anything with it. Something odd about the ergonomics, I suspect. Other people I let shoot it recently sprayed everything about the target just like I did when I first got it. Rather discouraging, when your Browning Hi Power is always putting them in the black. I also don't entirely trust the "trigger safety" and hate the lack of any other form of safety lever on the thing. I'd never attempt to carry it with a round chambered because of that. The dry-fire-to-disassemble trick is also suboptimal, although even if you've been silly enough to leave a round in the chamber when attempting this, you shouldn't be losing toes. There is that other part about safe gun handling, where you don't let the muzzle ever point at anything it might be too inconvenient to shoot.
When we first got Glock 17 pistols this was our department's first transition to semi-auto pistols from revolvers. Then, no one was authorized to carry a semi-auto pistol on or OFF-duty - we were strictly a revolver department. So, in addition to the cost, the ease of transition training was also a factor as most of the competitors at the time were DA/SA style and even the H&K squeeze cocker.
We were reduced to the least common denominator - the marginal shooter. The Administration felt that even the marginal shooter would transition better to a gun with no levers. This was a primary factor in addition to cost. I did not read all the posts, someone may have mentioned it already.
Glock continued aggressive marketing and traded us up straight even for all our used G17's when the .40 cal G22 came out.
Recently S&W came courting us with the M&P pistol with a sweet deal. Glock got wind of this and replaced all our aging G22 with the Gen4 pistols, again, straight up.
We were reduced to the least common denominator - the marginal shooter. The Administration felt that even the marginal shooter would transition better to a gun with no levers. This was a primary factor in addition to cost. I did not read all the posts, someone may have mentioned it already.
Glock continued aggressive marketing and traded us up straight even for all our used G17's when the .40 cal G22 came out.
Recently S&W came courting us with the M&P pistol with a sweet deal. Glock got wind of this and replaced all our aging G22 with the Gen4 pistols, again, straight up.
Chili Vega
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
Although it may not always be the case, the price is the driving factor in the vast majority of decisions. A few years ago every pistol Glock made cost them less than $100.00. A SIG P226 cost the factory well over $300.00. I imagine it was about the same for 3rd gen S&W's. This allowed Glock to sell them to agencies at a cost other companies could not compete with.
Low cost and a decent working product (notice I did not say "the best product") is what pushed Glock to the top.
Low cost and a decent working product (notice I did not say "the best product") is what pushed Glock to the top.
M2MikeGolf
US Veteran
[
When I was a lowly infantryman, we referred to this as a negligent discharge, not accidental. A weapon of any kind is only as safe as it's operator (or deadly, for that matter).
Currently for the US Army, dry firing is a requirment for clearing a weapon, which immediately preceeds field stripping. If you can't figure out how to unload a weapon safely before clearing and field stripping, you've got no business being behind the trigger or for that matter, carrying one in public. Training is the key, practicing is non-negotiable.
When I was a lowly infantryman, we referred to this as a negligent discharge, not accidental. A weapon of any kind is only as safe as it's operator (or deadly, for that matter).
Currently for the US Army, dry firing is a requirment for clearing a weapon, which immediately preceeds field stripping. If you can't figure out how to unload a weapon safely before clearing and field stripping, you've got no business being behind the trigger or for that matter, carrying one in public. Training is the key, practicing is non-negotiable.
kbm6893
Member
All true, but the fact is that the Glock is FAR more often the gun involved in a negligent discharge, due to it's characteristics, and MANY (if not most) firearms owners buy a gun and stick it in a sock drawer. Members of this forum are not representative of gun owners. And members of this forum HAVE had negligent discharges. The Glock ships with a 5.5 pound trigger. Sure, you can spend the money and put in a NY trigger, but how many people do that? They are FAR less tolerant of human error, and we are all human and capable of making that error. With a Glock, the odds are higher that it will end with a BANG.
And I don't care what anyone says, the number 1 reason Glock owns LE is because of the price. If you gave every officer a $600 budget and told him to go buy whatever gun (in the specified caliber) he wanted, you'd see far fewer Glocks. The NYPD does it. 3 choices, and Glock gets about 1/3 of them. And the Glock was the only gun that had negligent discharges (at least when i retired). Not ONE with the Smith or Sig.
LE and S&W
I was on the test team when MSP was changing from Smith revolvers to auto loaders in the late 80's. Of the three test guns of Sig, Glock and Beretta the winner was Sig. But Beretta got and continues to own the bid. Why? Well they did build a gun factory in Maryland. IMO Smith did not have a 9mm that could compete with those three.
I was on the test team when MSP was changing from Smith revolvers to auto loaders in the late 80's. Of the three test guns of Sig, Glock and Beretta the winner was Sig. But Beretta got and continues to own the bid. Why? Well they did build a gun factory in Maryland. IMO Smith did not have a 9mm that could compete with those three.
Similar threads
