CHP duty issue?

[desertmedic]

Wasnt CHP the first law LE agency to go with the .40 for all its patrolmen?

[Pelicandriver]

It at least was one of the first to go with the .40 S&W.

The current 4006 TSW has a decocker only. The previous model had a combo decocker and manual safety. It was carried with the safety off.

The magazine disconnect has proven useful in at least one fight so far. Although I'm not a big fan of it either.

[WWDHD?]

If the 4006 is the best choice or not I don't know, but I do know I wish I could get one of those 4006TSW's. I think they are cool guns. Been looking for used but they are always sold out.
Last time I saw a San Mateo county deputy they were carrying the 4006 too.

[tbhracing]

True- No safety on the current issue, decocker only.

As for the magazine disconnect, look for the photos of the Placer County Sheriff/CHP fight on I-80 freeway. The CHP Officer punched out his magazine if I remember correctly. The photos are out there some where.

[FLIGHT762]

Correct. CHP may arguably be S&W largest customer still on 3rd generation guns.

San Mateo Co. Sheriff's Office uses the S&W 4006.

Ya, I sort of question why they would go with s&w over sig's cheaper bid...

The reason The SMCSO stayed with the 4006 was the cost in overtime to retrain the troops to another platform. The overtime costs were prohibitive. Go figure, but these are issues that agencies have to deal with. Not every Deputy/ Officer is gun savvy. Some can change over easily, some not. It's easier to some large agencies to just stick to what they have been trained on than to change.

[Snoopy47]

Never understand why officer who bet his/her life on the line of duty can't choose his/her own weapon for defending his/her own life.

[1911_sfca]

True- No safety on the current issue, decocker only.

As for the magazine disconnect, look for the photos of the Placer County Sheriff/CHP fight on I-80 freeway. The CHP Officer punched out his magazine if I remember correctly. The photos are out there some where.

http://www.apbweb.com/featured-articles/255-suspect-tries-and-fails-to-kill-officer.html

http://www.auburnjournal.com/detail/...=50897&print=1 (includes picture of the fight)

http://www.auburnjournal.com/detail/...source=archive (suspect released from jail; apparently his reaction was caused by tuberculosis medication)

I didn't see any mention of the CHP officer dropping his mag in the articles.

Same Chippie was previously given a medal of valor for jumping after a suicidal girl when she let go of a bridge. http://www.theunion.com/article/2005.../-1/ARCHIVES03

[osxgp]

My brother-in-law is a CHP officer and carries that. Needless to say, it has had problems. I don't know why they didn't go with the M&P 40. I let him check out mine and he loved it.

[tbhracing]

My brother-in-law is a CHP officer and carries that. Needless to say, it has had problems. I don't know why they didn't go with the M&P 40. I let him check out mine and he loved it.

The MP 40 wont meet the CHP's firearm standards. Only the Sig P229 did at time of bid.

Note- From what I understand, now the purchase of major items (vehicles, firearms, etc) will be out of the CHP's hands (or any other agency) and done by the Department of General Services (DGS). So some bean counter who has no education of experience might be making the critical purchases for an agency.

[haole_50]

A friend of mine works for DMV Investigations and he carries a Glock. Why can't "UNIFORM" be what it means, one gun, easier budget and less BS. I've always wonder about the military "UNIFORM" not being just that; Army has one style, Navy another, Marines another, then there's the AF with their sissy outfits (sorry, just sarcasm after 20 years in the AF, and did 3 A/D in the Army).

[tbhracing]

A friend of mine works for DMV Investigations and he carries a Glock. Why can't "UNIFORM" be what it means, one gun, easier budget and less BS. I've always wonder about the military "UNIFORM" not being just that; Army has one style, Navy another, Marines another, then there's the AF with their sissy outfits (sorry, just sarcasm after 20 years in the AF, and did 3 A/D in the Army).

Funny you mention that as the State of California agencies purchase so many different brands and calibers of handguns-

CHP- S&W 40
Cal Fire LE- Sig P226 40
CDCR- COs carry S&W 38s and the Probation Officers carry Beretta 9mm
Fish and Game- Glock 40
CA Parks and Rec- S&W M&P 40
CA Dept. of Military- Beretta 9mm
DMV- Glock
DoJ Security- Glock 40
CA Lottery Agents- Glock 40

Atleast get the ammo uniform and purchase in mass bulk to save money.

[Swift Justice]

Note- From what I understand, now the purchase of major items (vehicles, firearms, etc) will be out of the CHP's hands (or any other agency) and done by the Department of General Services (DGS). So some bean counter who has no education of experience might be making the critical purchases for an agency.

Speaking from someone who actually did some work on the CHP pistol bid for DGS, (an actual "Bean counter" who knows what he's talking about, at least in this instance), the purchase of major items has always been done by DGS. Various state agencies like CHP, Caltrans, etc. can set "limitation to brand" on equipment that they want, but must justify the limitation and it must be approved by DGS.

In this particular case, CHP cited as a limit to brand the reasons that they already had S&W pistols issued so their existing magazines would be interchangable, existing holsters and mag carriers could be re-used, their armorers were already familiar with working on the weapons and would not need to be re-trained, same with the instructors and officers. Based on this justification, the limit to brand was approved (not by me personally).

It was not an open bid per se for a new type of pistol because CHP was not ready to dump the S&W platform, but a bid only to provide S&W pistols. If the CHP had dumped their S&W's and gone with Sig, they would have to have also bought new mags, holsters, mag carriers, etc., so Sig's protest about a cost savings if they changed is not as true as it sounds.

Its not as nefarious as the press or Sig have made it sound.

[tbhracing]

^^^ Some good information above. Some thoughts-

My best buddy is a CHP Officer and per him- He and others WANTED TO GO WITH THE SIGs. And there was some internal connections that pulled the contract over to S&W. I dont have all the details, but their was some back scratching going on there.

Also- If I recall correctly, the CHP had to go out and buy all new holsters anyways for the new models? Please correct me on this if I am wrong. Per a posting on the CHPForums-

At the Academy, the range masters were saying the TSW frame is more square than the current pistol so we will need new holsters.

Lastly- Going this the S&W platform is like picking a GM vehicle over a BMW for about the same price. Why go with a brand known for having quality problems when one of the best wanted to outfit you?

Thats just me. I will take a used SIG and Mercedes Benz over a new S&W and GM any day.

June 14, 2006

SigArms Questions California Highway Patrol’s Purchase of New Guns

By Andrew McIntosh
Sacramento Bee

The California Highway Patrol restricted bids on a $5.3 million gun contract to a single Smith & Wesson pistol, even though a rival manufacturer offered almost identical weapons for $2.2 million less.

SigArms Inc. alleged in April 10 letters to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and CHP Commissioner Mike Brown that the state's decision to favor Smith & Wesson was improper and contrary to state contract regulations, which require competitive bidding for big government purchases.

"Historically, when governments or companies have not used the competitive bidding process, waste and corruption have often been the result," SigArms general counsel Eric Cook wrote.

The CHP confirms it restricted bids to a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson semiautomatic pistol, but it denies that it breached state rules.

In a letter to SigArms, Brown said the decision favoring Smith & Wesson was made to save taxpayers' money and prevent CHP officers from being hurt while learning to use new pistols. His letter was obtained by The Bee under the state Public Records Act.

Last month, Smith & Wesson announced the CHP had ordered 9,736 semiautomatic pistols, known as the 4006TSW. The guns will replace 7,718 older Smith & Wesson 4006 pistols that the CHP bought in the 1990s, ensuring a large stock for new recruits.

The contract was signed after what state officials described as a round of competitive bidding overseen by the Department of General Services. Yet there was nothing competitive about the bidding, according to memos and bid documents obtained under the state Public Records Act.

A rush to quickly fill the holsters of new recruits may have been the reason why the CHP wanted Smith & Wesson.

Assistant CHP Commissioner Kevin Green said his agency was running out of older 4006 duty pistols. The Highway Patrol had fewer than 200 in stock, with more recruits ready to graduate from the academy, Green said.

CHP administrators said they believed they didn't have time to run a formal evaluation process involving several competing guns.

"If we had done a study, it would have taken several months to complete," Green said.

The Department of General Services issued invitations to bid for the CHP gun deal in late March.

General Services invited potential suppliers to deliver 9,736 new pistols over three years, but included a condition: All bids must offer only the Smith & Wesson 4006TSW semiautomatic pistol.

When SigArms, a seller of rival semiautomatic pistols based in Exeter, N.J., learned of the brand and model restrictions, it denounced the process as a sham.

In his letters to Brown and Schwarzenegger, SigArms' Cook said his firm sells two pistols that meet all CHP specifications, except those involving the Smith & Wesson brand and model.

Cook urged Schwarzenegger and Brown to drop the restrictions and hold an open competition.

SigArm pistols are used by the Nevada Highway Patrol, the U.S. Secret Service, federal air marshals and 17 major state police agencies. Police agencies in Sacramento city and county use SigArms Sauer pistols.

Rita Hamilton, a General Services deputy director, answered Cook's letter on April 26 -- after the bid deadline expired. She said the brand and model restrictions did not breach state regulations.

"The CHP has determined that this weapon has unique performance factors that warrant limiting this purchase," wrote Hamilton, without elaborating. Despite picking a sole brand, Hamilton said General Services had established that its gun purchase could be made using competitive bidding.

DGS identified four companies "capable of bidding" to supply Smith & Wesson 4006TSW pistols, in addition to manufacturer Smith & Wesson itself, she said.

Paul F. Dauer, a Sacramento attorney who specializes in government procurement cases, said state law prohibits bureaucrats from drafting restrictive requirements to limit contract competitions.

The SigArms offer quoted guns at $599 each, while Smith & Wesson's quoted $683 each.

SigArms also offered a $349 per gun trade-in for the old CHP Smith & Wesson 4006 pistols -- a total credit of $2.7 million. Smith & Wesson offered a trade-in credit of $170 per gun.

In an April 6 letter responding to SigArms' offer to sell the CHP guns, Commissioner Brown said that his agency had 15 years of training invested in the Smith & Wesson 4006 pistol and that the CHP was unwilling to change its weapon, even though the newer 4006TSW is not identical.

"The dependability and performance of the currently issued pistol has been proven in the field, allows for the use of existing training magazines and magazine pouches, and does not require additional training for personnel," Brown wrote. "Converting to a different weapons system will require a learning curve that could jeopardize officer safety."

Distributed by Scripps-McClatchy Western Service, www.scrippsnews.com.

[ZX-10R]

Ya, I sort of question why they would go with s&w over sig's cheaper bid...

That is what the Japanese did to American car makers...So I'm happy they went S&W.

[ZX-10R]

The MP 40 wont meet the CHP's firearm standards. Only the Sig P229 did at time of bid.

Note- From what I understand, now the purchase of major items (vehicles, firearms, etc) will be out of the CHP's hands (or any other agency) and done by the Department of General Services (DGS). So some bean counter who has no education of experience might be making the critical purchases for an agency.

That means it will go low bid...