Score another boondoggle for the Calif Highway Patrol

rhgunguy

Moderator
Got a link that doesn't require me to sign up?

1000 rounds doesn't realy strike me as excessive. Most people put at least 500 through an automatic to let it "wear-in" before trusting it with their life. Doubling that amount seems like a reasonable idea.
 

BigO01

New member
No what they are hiring is a bunch of kids right out of college who have never fired a gun before yet have spent their entire lives being "sensitive" to other cultures , been doing it for a couple of dacades now , and they wonder why they have so many totally useless cops on the streets today .
 

DonR101395

New member
I don't feel retarded and I typically run 800-1000 rounds through a new gun before I carry it. I ran 1500 through my Beretta last week and it's not new.
 

Blackwater OPS

New member
Can't read the story, maybe you can post the text?

Honestly I think it's bad they are ONLY letting them shoot 1k rounds. Then again, in the army I think I have only shot about <500 gov issue rounds in training during my whole career with m16 and m9 combined:eek:
 

Lavan

New member
They are stating 1000 rounds just to cover "familiarization" with a new pistol. Could be "reasonable." However, it's hard to believe that the concept of safety, mag release, aim, squeeze, grip, etc. needs anything more than just HOLDING the gun right out of the box. How many of you need 1000
rounds just to figure out where the safety or mag release is on a new pistol?

They could be referring to actual practice and "break-in" but I read it as just for familiarization to prevent their HURTING themselves.

I....KNOW.... the arms procurement procedure for police agencies is and always has been a real ...PLUM.... for both the administrators and the providers, but it still galls me to see millions wasted on wrong bids and cops that are ...THAT.... inept.

And SIG is offering TWICE the trade in for the old ones.
 

Lavan

New member
Text of article:

Watchdog report: Bidding for CHP pistols faulted
Gunmaker claims procurement process favored rival firm.
By Andrew McIntosh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Sunday, June 11, 2006
Story appeared on Page A23 of The Bee



CHP Range Officer J. Tomlinson fires a 4600TSW at the agency's West Sacramento range. The state's contract with Smith & Wesson is under fire because another gunmaker offered new pistols for $2.2 million less.
Sacramento Bee/Randall Benton

See additional images


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, Commissioner 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.

The General Services' rules for the gun contract required that all bidders be factory-authorized distributors or the manufacturer.

Smith & Wesson, based in Springfield, Mass., almost never directly bids for state deals to avoid angering its distributors, said the company's marketing director, Paul Pluff. Smith & Wesson's Web site lists just one distributor for law enforcement weapons in California -- All State Police Equipment of Pomona. All State was the only bidder to meet CHP terms.

The remaining three firms on the state's list of "capable bidders" could not and did not bid.

The first was Pro Force Law Enforcement in Orange County. President Bryan Tucker said he's a dealer, not a distributor, and cannot bid on deals involving more than 25 guns in California.

The second, Adamson Police Products of Hayward, was not a factory-authorized distributor in April. The third was American Shooters Supply of Las Vegas. It is a Smith & Wesson distributor, but only for Nevada.

SigArms submitted a $3.1 million bid offering its semiautomatic pistols despite the CHP restrictions, but it was disqualified.

All State general manager Anthony Taylor denied his firm was guaranteed to win the CHP contract.

"There's other people who could have bid on this," Taylor said. When pressed, he could not name them.

Department of General Services spokesman Bill Branch said the state is not required to do an "an exhaustive pre-bid investigation" to identify which companies meet requirements. "That would be putting the cart before the horse," he 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."

Brown's letter suggested it would also be "very costly" to switch weapons, but didn't estimate the extra costs.

Branch said General Services officials never asked for details or challenged the CHP's cost claims.

Assistant CHP Commissioner Green said he made "a business decision" favoring the S&W 4006TSW.

Green said training employees on a different pistol would cost $780,000, requiring more than 7 million rounds of ammunition or 1,000 rounds per officer.

He said it would cost an additional $200,000 to buy holster pouches for magazines, which hold cartridges for extra bullets.

CHP weapons inspection officers would need training to disassemble and inspect the new guns, Green said.

Steve Griffin, a director of the California Highway Patrolmen's Association, a labor group that represents nonmanagement CHP officers, disagreed that a different gun would risk safety and boost costs.

"My concern is that members get the best weapon. Different semiautomatics are familiar enough so that safety really wouldn't be an issue if you switch," he said. "As for concerns about retraining, I'm unfamiliar with that line of thinking."

The new Smith & Wesson pistols don't fit the old holsters, so more money will be spent buying new holsters, boosting costs, Griffin said.

CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader confirmed the new holsters have been ordered for an extra $380,518.59.

John Martin, a gunsmith instructor at Lassen Community College in Susanville, said he understands why the CHP wants to stay with a familiar weapon. "It's a very functional, proven firearm," Martin said. "But I would give the Sig a little higher marks on the reliability front."

In Nevada, neither cost nor safety concerns deterred officials from considering six pistols when shopping for guns for the Nevada Highway Patrol in 2005.

California and Nevada decided to replace their existing Smith & Wesson 4006s because of age-related problems and malfunctions. Green and Griffin said CHP gun barrels had some hairline fractures.

The Nevada selection process for a new pistol stands in sharp contrast to the CHP's approach.

Nevada issued a formal request for proposals and invited a half-dozen manufacturers to pitch their products, said Kimberly Evans, a Nevada Department of Public Safety spokeswoman.

An NHP committee tested and evaluated the pistols. In late 2005, the NHP picked and bought 455 SigArms Sigauer 229 pistols. Officers retrained on the new gun using between 300 and 400 rounds of ammunition, Evans said.

"Our evaluation was thorough and complete," Evans said. "You can't be arbitrary about important decisions."
 

Lavan

New member
It appears that NEVADA cops only need 300-400 rounds for the purpose.

Course, we ALL know how AWFUL ...SIG.... pistols are.

;)
 

FMB42

New member
The more training the better IMO. CHP officers work in one of the most populated states in the country and need all the help and training they can get. This will be a benefit for both them and the public at large. I'll bet that spending 400-500 dollars on a 1000 rounds for training purposes is much cheaper than a trip to the hospital.
 

Harley Quinn

Moderator
Training in using the weapon and firing

Are both part of the big picture.

Highest paid group of Law Officers in the State of CA at this time I believe.

1000 rounds is squat. They are in training for almost 6 months. If I was in training (hmmm I am) I will be shooting more then that in the next two weeks.
I have probably shot 100 times that much already. AS in 100X1000=:eek:

You guys are tyro's.:rolleyes: It cost about $16.00 for one hundred rounds of 40 cal at Walmart, that would be $160.00. THE STATE BUYS IT BY THE MILLIONS. so how much do you think it cost's them:rolleyes:


HQ:D
 

Lavan

New member
Harley, the article states that the 1000 rounds is just to FAMILIARIZE the officers with a new gun. I got no beef against TRAINING. Hell, "training" is what they NEED. It's that I believe ANY cop can tell the difference between two pistols with WAAAAAYYYYY less than 1000 rounds.

"Okay men, this is the safety. Now I want you to fire 100 rounds, one at a time and practice putting the safety on. Please, gentlemen, only load ONE round. Go."

"Now, let's actually FILL our magazines. Ok, now don't just practice changing the mags.....I want you to shoot em EMPTY first. Don't hafta hit anything now....just empty and change the mag. Go."

"Whoops, break time. Everybody fire another 300 rounds so the lunch truck can find us."

"Okay, now we are going to see if we can find our holsters with a different gun than we used yesterday. Does everybody have a holster? Good. Now fire 6 magazines and see if you can put that newfangled different gun in the holster. Futzwiller, that's your POCKET! Try again. Need more ammo?"

:D
 

Lavan

New member
Oh jeez. I said "okay.....MEN" That alone would probably use up 200 rounds from the offended FEMALE officers.

;)
 

Wildalaska

Moderator
Seems to me that 1000 rounds is a minimum for folks who are charged with a duty to defend and go in harms way

WildsomecopsdontshootenoughAlaska
 

Don H

New member
I think you guys are putting too much reliance on the words a reporter chose to use, which may or may not accurately reflect what was actually said. The same reporter also wrote:
He said it would cost an additional $200,000 to buy holster pouches for magazines, which hold cartridges for extra bullets.
Cartridges for extra bullets?????????? Just what is that supposed to mean?
 

Harley Quinn

Moderator
Lavan

Since you have no profile and have as any post's you do. I would say that it is pointless to discuss this particular article or any thing else.

We need to be able to talk apples and apples on these threads.

New Sigs, new holsters new ammo pouch's. We are talking dough.
They seem to be happy with the S&W and the safety items that they were looking for. The buy back just means they like the s&w and are willing to pay more for it.:D

As far as what the CHP were giving out, an extension of a contract that they had with S&W and wanted the S&W dealers to give them the best they could.

Sig has a gripe? Well you could say that about any of the big makers. If they wanted to compete. But they seem to be able to read what the state was looking for and it was not a whole new gun, holster, pouchs and instruction's on how to read.

I guess they are happy with the S&W product. I am surprised Wolf is not crying about the fact they don't use there ammo.

HQ;)
 
"Cartridges for extra bullets?????????? Just what is that supposed to mean?"

It means that someone is a frigging retard, but I'm just not sure who. My best guess? All of them.
 

ISP2605

Moderator
For a couch potato commando I'm sure 100 rds would be plenty. TV or paper targets aren't going to put much stress on you during your extensive transition. However, when you're out there in the real world taking incoming rds you don't have time to think which way does the safety go, is it in the right direction, what's the trigger pull for this gun, rd didn't go off now what, clearing double feeds, clearing rds failing to eject, getting the weapon back in operation, etc. Those things have to be ingrained to the point where they are second nature, done without thinking, and that can only be accomplished by training.
It's obvious you've never been involved in weapon transition training, or any other kind of real world tactical weapons training. As others have said 1000 rds isn't much. Just making sure the weapon is broken in and operational will take several hundred rds. It involves a lot more than putting a loaded mag in a weapon and seeing if it will fire. Hours will be spent doing immediate action (malfunction) drills. Hours will be spent doing off hand, low/no light. Hours will be spent doing reloads in all kinds of conditions.
The difference is when you're playing with your super demon killer while sitting on your couch or flinging rds downrange and something doesn't work right, you have the luxury of saying golly gee, fumble around with mags and slide, look at the problem, and if need be have daddy come fix it for you. Real world gunfights don't have that luxury. You have to be able to clear the problem, get back in the fight, all the while still taking incoming rds, keeping your eye on your adversary(ies), making sure you're behind cover, and watching for what ever else is going on around you. If you think you're cool enough to do all that with a new gun that you've just run 10 mags of ammo thru then you're just fooling yourself.
But I'm sure you can accomplish the same thing sitting in front of your XBox or reading all the latest commando magazines. Life is so much simpler when you have no frame of reference to what really happens out there. :rolleyes:
 

UniversalFrost

New member
It would sure be nice to have 1000 rounds for training. We only got 200 rounds per range session and when downrange we had to beg borrow or steal 9mm rounds for our m9's. At one point I didn't even carry it as a backup. It was easier getting grenades. My main weapon was an m24 and my spotter had a m4 with acog mounted. we both shot 1000's of rounds through those before going into combat, but when it came to pistols we were hard pressed to locate enough ammo to properly train with.

Once again the REMF's had all the 9mm ammo. I actually traded abunch of old Iraqi money to my frickken CO so that he would give us all his 9mm ammo.


1000 rounds is nothing when your life depends on the training time. As for the bid process it would not fly at the national level. It looks like sig has a valid arguement. Let the courts decide. My vote is for SIG.
 
Top