LAPD adopts FN509 as new duty pistol

[Robert1234]

You are saying the same thing the bean counters said of those other firearms I mentioned. "I see no need for an organization to spend taxpayer money to replace perfectly serviceable tools that are nowhere near the end if their service life"


Democrats are also pushing defund the police, they would love to have our police with lesser arms, then send in state or federal police to keep us all in line.

No I'm not. Nowhere in my rants have I ever said I disapprove of upgrades based on technological improvements. Or replacing stuff at the end of its life, or stuff made obsolete by evolutionary improvements in technology.

What I disapprove of is agencies spending my money (tax dollars) to replace perfectly serviceable, technologically current tools that are neither obsolete or near the end of their service life. As a taxpayer, I'm not sure why you resist this so vehemently.

I also want any laws enacted by the corrupt, degenerate, reprobate, politicians running the state to be across the board, with no exemptions. If this were the case, they'd think twice before enacting these garbage laws that they absolutely know do nothing but punish law abiding citizens.

[TMB 1]

No I'm not. Nowhere in my rants have I ever said I disapprove of upgrades based on technological improvements. Or replacing stuff at the end of its life, or stuff made obsolete by evolutionary improvements in technology.

What I disapprove of is agencies spending my money (tax dollars) to replace perfectly serviceable, technologically current tools that are neither obsolete or near the end of their service life. As a taxpayer, I'm not sure why you resist this so vehemently.

I also want any laws enacted by the corrupt, degenerate, reprobate, politicians running the state to be across the board, with no exemptions. If this were the case, they'd think twice before enacting these garbage laws that they absolutely know do nothing but punish law abiding citizens.

Robert1234 your "I see no need for an organization to spend taxpayer money to replace perfectly serviceable tools that are nowhere near the end if their service life" is why police were still carrying revolvers when everyone else including criminals was using semi autos, but also you are saying pistols like the S&W 59 should have never been replaced, or you would not be so upset about the Glock getting replaced, kind of like 1911 guys being upset that it was replaced with the M9.


They will never enact laws that include themselves, but if they did they will have special police to protect them that are better armed than regular police or do they already have them?

[Robert1234]

Robert1234 your "I see no need for an organization to spend taxpayer money to replace perfectly serviceable tools that are nowhere near the end if their service life" is why police were still carrying revolvers when everyone else including criminals was using semi autos, but also you are saying pistols like the S&W 59 should have never been replaced, or you would not be so upset about the Glock getting replaced, kind of like 1911 guys being upset that it was replaced with the M9.

They will never enact laws that include themselves, but if they did they will have special police to protect them that are better armed than regular police or do they already have them?

To your first point, show me where I said that equipment shouldn't be replaced when there are better, proven technologies out there. Red dots on guns is a technological improvement, but not one I'm convinced is any better than iron sights for 90% of the people using them (as tempting as it may be, don't stop reading here and comment, keep reading). And they require training and maintenance; battery checks, check dot status, check mounting bolts haven't loosened, etc. They're not foolproof, and don't make one a better shooter. You still have to pull the trigger. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen cats come to the line in USPSA matches, and after "Make Ready", they say "crap, my dot is dead, I need to change my battery". These are gun guys, who generally take care of their equipment better than most cops do. But still, I'll concede that RDOs are a technological improvement. And if that's the reason LAPD is replacing their guns, ok. But it won't make them better shooters without practice. And as a "bean counter", though I prefer the term "concerned tax payer", I have to ask, couldn't they have gotten Glock to supply them RDO capable guns for those officers who wanted to utilize the technology without the expense of a whole procurement process, and now having an additional product to support and maintain/pay for armorers to be certified to maintain? Cause they're my tax dollars being spent, or "beans being counted" if you prefer (yours too, but you don't seem to mind).

And if I can't legally purchase a RDO capable gun, with 17 round or more magazines, why should they (roster exempt agencies and individuals) be able to? Are they "better" than me? No. Are they better trained than me (with regard to gun handling)? No. What makes them deserving of an exemption to a law the rest of us are required to abide by? This is a serious question nobody wants to answer. It applies to the ridiculous assault weapons laws too.

To your second point, whether or not "they" will ever do it wasn't part of my assertion. We don't need "them" to get a an initiative on the ballot. That was the whole purpose of the ballot initiative process in the first place. Hell, we can amend the state constitution if want to.

[TMB 1]

To your first point, show me where I said that equipment shouldn't be replaced when there are better, proven technologies out there. Red dots on guns is a technological improvement, but not one I'm convinced is any better than iron sights for 90% of the people using them (as tempting as it may be, don't stop reading here and comment, keep reading). And they require training and maintenance; battery checks, check dot status, check mounting bolts haven't loosened, etc. They're not foolproof, and don't make one a better shooter. You still have to pull the trigger. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen cats come to the line in USPSA matches, and after "Make Ready", they say "crap, my dot is dead, I need to change my battery". These are gun guys, who generally take care of their equipment better than most cops do. But still, I'll concede that RDOs are a technological improvement. And if that's the reason LAPD is replacing their guns, ok. But it won't make them better shooters without practice. And as a "bean counter", though I prefer the term "concerned tax payer", I have to ask, couldn't they have gotten Glock to supply them RDO capable guns for those officers who wanted to utilize the technology without the expense of a whole procurement process, and now having an additional product to support and maintain/pay for armorers to be certified to maintain? Cause they're my tax dollars being spent, or "beans being counted" if you prefer (yours too, but you don't seem to mind).

And if I can't legally purchase a RDO capable gun, with 17 round or more magazines, why should they (roster exempt agencies and individuals) be able to? Are they "better" than me? No. Are they better trained than me (with regard to gun handling)? No. What makes them deserving of an exemption to a law the rest of us are required to abide by? This is a serious question nobody wants to answer. It applies to the ridiculous assault weapons laws too.

To your second point, whether or not "they" will ever do it wasn't part of my assertion. We don't need "them" to get a an initiative on the ballot. That was the whole purpose of the ballot initiative process in the first place. Hell, we can amend the state constitution if want to.

Same can be said for S&W 59 series as you are saying about he Glock, but it all came down to lowest bidder.

I'm not sure anything changes at the ballot box unless they want it to, there is a reason they push mail in ballots, same day registration and ballot harvesting.

[Robert1234]

Same can be said for S&W 59 series as you are saying about he Glock, but it all came down to lowest bidder.

I'm not sure anything changes at the ballot box unless they want it to, there is a reason they push mail in ballots, same day registration and ballot harvesting.

There is no lowest bidder until a procurement process has been initiated. Glock doesn't just come into LAPD and say "we know you're using these S&W 59 series guns, but we have these cool plastic guns in Tupperware containers, and we'll give you a sweet deal to replace those boat-anchors".

LAPD comes up with a specification for what they want, and manufacturers who can meet this specification submit their product for evaluation.

And what's wrong with the S&W 59 series? Serious question, I've never owned one, so I have no idea of its limitations/features, other than there are more than a few people who seem to like them on these forums.

If they're not reliable, then great, replaced by something more reliable.

If they're too low capacity, great, replaced by something with a higher capacity (assuming they were replaced after mag capacity limits were a thing).

If they're not accurate, then great, replaced by something more accurate.

If they're difficult to maintain/repair, then great, replaced by something easier to maintain and repair.

If they were DA/SA, and difficult to master without practice, and it's too much to expect cops to practice on the equipment they're tasked with using, which is can end human life, then great, replaced with something easier to use without expecting cops to practice.

If they just weren't the coolest thing in a holster, then that's where I as a taxpayer (or bean counter if you prefer) have an issue. I know very little about the S&W 59 series guns other than they were a bit of a chore to maintain, and had DA/SA triggers and slide mounted safety/decocker levers. Not a fan of slide mounted safety levers, so if that's why they changed, then great, move on to a more ergonomic gun. But didn't they switch to Berettas after that? or at some point? I'm not an authority on what LAPD has historically carried so it's a serious question. If they switched to Berettas, what was the reason it was any better than the S&W 59 series? I like the Beretta, but I'll agree that the DA/SA trigger takes practice to master where a striker fired gun has a single trigger pull.

And they get away with the ballot box shenanigans because California voters have little interest in stopping them. I doubt it's going to change anytime soon, if at all, which is why I left the state.

[TMB 1]

There is no lowest bidder until a procurement process has been initiated. Glock doesn't just come into LAPD and say "we know you're using these S&W 59 series guns, but we have these cool plastic guns in Tupperware containers, and we'll give you a sweet deal to replace those boat-anchors".

LAPD comes up with a specification for what they want, and manufacturers who can meet this specification submit their product for evaluation.

And what's wrong with the S&W 59 series? Serious question, I've never owned one, so I have no idea of its limitations/features, other than there are more than a few people who seem to like them on these forums.

If they're not reliable, then great, replaced by something more reliable.

If they're too low capacity, great, replaced by something with a higher capacity (assuming they were replaced after mag capacity limits were a thing).

If they're not accurate, then great, replaced by something more accurate.

If they're difficult to maintain/repair, then great, replaced by something easier to maintain and repair.

If they were DA/SA, and difficult to master without practice, and it's too much to expect cops to practice on the equipment they're tasked with using, which is can end human life, then great, replaced with something easier to use without expecting cops to practice.

If they just weren't the coolest thing in a holster, then that's where I as a taxpayer (or bean counter if you prefer) have an issue. I know very little about the S&W 59 series guns other than they were a bit of a chore to maintain, and had DA/SA triggers and slide mounted safety/decocker levers. Not a fan of slide mounted safety levers, so if that's why they changed, then great, move on to a more ergonomic gun. But didn't they switch to Berettas after that? or at some point? I'm not an authority on what LAPD has historically carried so it's a serious question. If they switched to Berettas, what was the reason it was any better than the S&W 59 series? I like the Beretta, but I'll agree that the DA/SA trigger takes practice to master where a striker fired gun has a single trigger pull.

And they get away with the ballot box shenanigans because California voters have little interest in stopping them. I doubt it's going to change anytime soon, if at all, which is why I left the state.

See that goes back to what you are saying about Glock with them asking Glock can you do this or that to it, they could have went to S&W and said can you make DA only or whatever, but in the end they are still going to go with lowest bidder that will make it the way they want it.

How is California voters going to stop the ballot box shenanigans? Will it be the same way they stop the roster?

[Robert1234]

See that goes back to what you are saying about Glock with them asking Glock can you do this or that to it, they could have went to S&W and said can you make DA only or whatever, but in the end they are still going to go with lowest bidder that will make it the way they want it.

How is California voters going to stop the ballot box shenanigans? Will it be the same way they stop the roster?

Come on man, now you're just practicing sophistry. Based on this debate I'm currently having with you, it's apparent you know completely redesigning a gun, and providing a next generation version of the current issue weapon for those wanting RDO options aren't the same thing. Upgrading current equipment in inventory is a concept used by the military with the M4 version of the M16, M16A1, A2, etc., M1911A1 version of the M11911, and various other weapons in their inventory.

You also know a 13 lb., long stroke DAO trigger isn't the same as a striker fired trigger, so making all existing S&W 59 series gun operate on the more difficult part of the trigger pull isn't exactly making anyone's learning easier, especially if they won't practice. And there were probably other factors; maintenance/repair, ease of cleaning, decocker/safety lever location, etc. that went into the decision to move away from S&W 59 series guns.

And again, there is no low bidder until there is a procurement process initiated. And once you've procured the new hotness, if you don't replace all weapons, you're stuck with two maintenance regimens, two spare parts inventories, two support equipment (holsters, magazines) inventories, and two training requirements. Adding cost after the also costly procurement contract.

Again, low bidder means it's the lowest bidder that meets the specifications set forth by the purchasing agency. The actual contract isn't saving any money over status quo, quite the opposite, it's spending money to replace/upgrade stuff, where status quo is staying with what you have. Nothing wrong with status quo as long as what you currently have meets your needs. Staying with what you have costs you only continuing maintenance/repair/training/support costs. Upgrading still costs all of these, plus the cost of the contract to replace the guns. In other words, for a (arbitrary number for the sake of this argument) $20 million dollar contract, it will cost you what you're not paying for your current inventory, plus the $20,000,000.00 for the cool, new stuff.

And you're not going to stop the ballot box shenanigans, your state is irreversibly ruined by the leftists in charge. It's going to have to fail before it has any hope of being fixed. That makes me sad, because when I moved there in 1985, I never thought I'd leave.

[TMB 1]

Come on man, now you're just practicing sophistry. Based on this debate I'm currently having with you, it's apparent you know completely redesigning a gun, and providing a next generation version of the current issue weapon for those wanting RDO options aren't the same thing. Upgrading current equipment in inventory is a concept used by the military with the M4 version of the M16, M16A1, A2, etc., M1911A1 version of the M11911, and various other weapons in their inventory.

You also know a 13 lb., long stroke DAO trigger isn't the same as a striker fired trigger, so making all existing S&W 59 series gun operate on the more difficult part of the trigger pull isn't exactly making anyone's learning easier, especially if they won't practice. And there were probably other factors; maintenance/repair, ease of cleaning, decocker/safety lever location, etc. that went into the decision to move away from S&W 59 series guns.

And again, there is no low bidder until there is a procurement process initiated. And once you've procured the new hotness, if you don't replace all weapons, you're stuck with two maintenance regimens, two spare parts inventories, two support equipment (holsters, magazines) inventories, and two training requirements. Adding cost after the also costly procurement contract.

Again, low bidder means it's the lowest bidder that meets the specifications set forth by the purchasing agency. The actual contract isn't saving any money over status quo, quite the opposite, it's spending money to replace/upgrade stuff, where status quo is staying with what you have. Nothing wrong with status quo as long as what you currently have meets your needs. Staying with what you have costs you only continuing maintenance/repair/training/support costs. Upgrading still costs all of these, plus the cost of the contract to replace the guns. In other words, for a (arbitrary number for the sake of this argument) $20 million dollar contract, it will cost you what you're not paying for your current inventory, plus the $20,000,000.00 for the cool, new stuff.

And you're not going to stop the ballot box shenanigans, your state is irreversibly ruined by the leftists in charge. It's going to have to fail before it has any hope of being fixed. That makes me sad, because when I moved there in 1985, I never thought I'd leave.

You do know they went from DA/SA revolver to the DA/SA 59? I think you are just stuck on Glock same way some were stuck on revolvers, because I don't think trigger is issue with this new pistol.

You can argue Glock is easy to get good with because trigger stays the same, but you can go the other way with the 59 and be SA all the time, but if they are not going to practice with a DA/SA why do they with Glock?

Any way I'm just using the 59 and revolvers as an argument because you are so against them moving away from Glock when those two were working fine for a really long time. This new pistol LAPD is getting may end up being the new perfection, and if all the other LE across the country start using it and all the rest of the people across the country start using it, it may do more to get rid of roster than CA's rigged ballot box.

[Robert1234]

You do know they went from DA/SA revolver to the DA/SA 59? I think you are just stuck on Glock same way some were stuck on revolvers, because I don't think trigger is issue with this new pistol.

You can argue Glock is easy to get good with because trigger stays the same, but you can go the other way with the 59 and be SA all the time, but if they are not going to practice with a DA/SA why do they with Glock?

Any way I'm just using the 59 and revolvers as an argument because you are so against them moving away from Glock when those two were working fine for a really long time. This new pistol LAPD is getting may end up being the new perfection, and if all the other LE across the country start using it and all the rest of the people across the country start using it, it may do more to get rid of roster than CA's rigged ballot box.

I assume they went from DA revolver to DA/SA semi-auto because at the time that's all there was (other than a Browning High Power and 1911). You know this. And the primary reason was capacity, you also know this.

I'm no fan of Glock, and I'm not arguing that Glocks are "easy to get good with". I understand how difficult it is to become proficient with a handgun. I also understand that it's going to be easier to teach a neophyte, especially one that won't practice much beyond what is required by their agency, to be proficient when the trigger pull is constant and relatively light. I'm not trendsetting in this belief, it's accepted as true by just about anyone who trains anybody in anything. Doesn't have to be a Glock, the FN meets this requirement. So does the S&W M&P, Springfield XD (and its variants), Ruger, Steyr, and any other (generally speaking) plastic framed, striker fired handgun.

And here's one for you to chew on, whenever a handgun that hasn't been adopted by a major government agency finally gets the coveted selection, the widespread use by neophytes bring all the flaws to the surface. Not a bad thing, just a thing. Look at the M17 the US military just started using. Various trigger and drop safety issues show up. Not necessarily a bad thing, I think the military needed to get with the striker fired, modular handgun just based on who is carrying the things. But there will be growing pains, Hopefully LAPD was smart enough to build into their contract protections for these issues (narrator: LAPD was not smart enough to build protections for these issue, no large government agency ever is. It's only public reaction to the issue that makes the manufacturer fix them without charging the agency).

Here's what I am a fan of; not spending other people's money frivolously. And I never said a Glock was going to make cops practice, it's just the gun they currently carry. The one they're replacing (if not immediately, that is the long-term plan). And you know this too, it's easier to train someone to shoot a gun where the trigger pull is relatively (compared to a DA/SA semi-auto or DA revolver) shorter and lighter. And the same every time.

It's cute that you think cops using a gun will do anything to make the CA roster go away. Wrong, but cute. Any state that cares what California is doing vis-a-vis gun control is doing so to emulate what California has done. Other states are laughing at California.

Now I know you know all of this, but you can't seem to get off your "cops should be able to spend other people's money on whatever they want" soapbox, so if you're not a cop, I have to assume you're related to one in some way. There's no other reason you would allow your tax dollars to be spent for no significant upgrade in capability.

[Robert1234]

You do know they went from DA/SA revolver to the DA/SA 59? I think you are just stuck on Glock same way some were stuck on revolvers, because I don't think trigger is issue with this new pistol.

You can argue Glock is easy to get good with because trigger stays the same, but you can go the other way with the 59 and be SA all the time, but if they are not going to practice with a DA/SA why do they with Glock?

Any way I'm just using the 59 and revolvers as an argument because you are so against them moving away from Glock when those two were working fine for a really long time. This new pistol LAPD is getting may end up being the new perfection, and if all the other LE across the country start using it and all the rest of the people across the country start using it, it may do more to get rid of roster than CA's rigged ballot box.

Just noticed the State of Jefferson flag in your signature, shame on you for not caring how California's Praetorian Guard spends your money.

[TMB 1]

I assume they went from DA revolver to DA/SA semi-auto because at the time that's all there was (other than a Browning High Power and 1911). You know this. And the primary reason was capacity, you also know this.

I'm no fan of Glock, and I'm not arguing that Glocks are "easy to get good with". I understand how difficult it is to become proficient with a handgun. I also understand that it's going to be easier to teach a neophyte, especially one that won't practice much beyond what is required by their agency, to be proficient when the trigger pull is constant and relatively light. I'm not trendsetting in this belief, it's accepted as true by just about anyone who trains anybody in anything. Doesn't have to be a Glock, the FN meets this requirement. So does the S&W M&P, Springfield XD (and its variants), Ruger, Steyr, and any other (generally speaking) plastic framed, striker fired handgun.

And here's one for you to chew on, whenever a handgun that hasn't been adopted by a major government agency finally gets the coveted selection, the widespread use by neophytes bring all the flaws to the surface. Not a bad thing, just a thing. Look at the M17 the US military just started using. Various trigger and drop safety issues show up. Not necessarily a bad thing, I think the military needed to get with the striker fired, modular handgun just based on who is carrying the things. But there will be growing pains, Hopefully LAPD was smart enough to build into their contract protections for these issues (narrator: LAPD was not smart enough to build protections for these issue, no large government agency ever is. It's only public reaction to the issue that makes the manufacturer fix them without charging the agency).

Here's what I am a fan of; not spending other people's money frivolously. And I never said a Glock was going to make cops practice, it's just the gun they currently carry. The one they're replacing (if not immediately, that is the long-term plan). And you know this too, it's easier to train someone to shoot a gun where the trigger pull is relatively (compared to a DA/SA semi-auto or DA revolver) shorter and lighter. And the same every time.

It's cute that you think cops using a gun will do anything to make the CA roster go away. Wrong, but cute. Any state that cares what California is doing vis-a-vis gun control is doing so to emulate what California has done. Other states are laughing at California.

Now I know you know all of this, but you can't seem to get off your "cops should be able to spend other people's money on whatever they want" soapbox, so if you're not a cop, I have to assume you're related to one in some way. There's no other reason you would allow your tax dollars to be spent for no significant upgrade in capability.

S&W 59 holds 15 rounds?

The reason it would be good if all the other police and people across the country all used the FN is because can be used as argument in court.

The reason I care is because it is the people who are using it to defend themselves decision to make what they want to use not you not me. You don't like the state making a roster of firearm for you but you want to tell the police what they have to use, LOL

[TMB 1]

Just noticed the State of Jefferson flag in your signature, shame on you for not caring how California's Praetorian Guard spends your money.

It LAPD so I assume it is LA peoples money, but I don't want the State telling my Sheriff what he can or can not use anymore than I want them telling me what I can or can not use.

[Robert1234]

S&W 59 holds 15 rounds?

The reason it would be good if all the other police and people across the country all used the FN is because can be used as argument in court.

The reason I care is because it is the people who are using it to defend themselves decision to make what they want to use not you not me. You don't like the state making a roster of firearm for you but you want to tell the police what they have to use, LOL

Guessing S&W 59 holds more than 6 rounds. Nowhere in my ravings did I suggest LAPD should currently be using S&W 59

[TMB 1]

Guessing S&W 59 holds more than 6 rounds. Nowhere in my ravings did I suggest LAPD should currently be using S&W 59

So does High Power, but you come off as Glock is some super upgrade to justify the switch but now is a bad to switch. It 's not like they'll have to adapt to a new type trigger is it?

[Robert1234]

So does High Power, but you come off as Glock is some super upgrade to justify the switch but now is a bad to switch. It 's not like they'll have to adapt to a new type trigger is it?

Not sure what you're reading, but it isn't what I'm writing.

A High Power is a SA gun with a manual safety. I get why public safety agencies don't want their people, generally not gun people, who aren't going to practice much, carrying anything with a light, single action trigger.

Show me where I said Glock was anything other than what LAPD currently has in their holsters. If they had FN 509s in their holster, and were trying to replace them with Glocks, for no specific reason, I'd have the same reaction.

I've owned a bunch of Glocks, currently own one. I shoot them ok, but have no affinity for them. Looking in my safe, amid the rows of handguns, there's a single G17 bought in 2007 or so, so it's a stretch calling me a Glock Fanboi. I like them for what they are, utilitarian guns that work well, and don't cost a ton of money.

Just cause you think LAPD should be spending other people's money any way they want doesn't mean you have to disagree with everything I post. Two things can be true at the same time.