Is the .45 someone’s compensation for......you know?

[Unregistered]

"While the PSCO may require corrections deputies to qualify with a handgun every year, this is not required by the state. Only corrections officers, who use a firearm regularly, must be qualified every two years. LEOs, on the other hand MUST qualify every two years to maintain their certification, while employed in that capacity."

This is straight from training and FDLE - annual training and firearms qualification is mandatory to maintain D&C certification.

"While possible, in 1993, Beretta was solidly in the US military market. So, I have a little trouble accepting that they would lowball a contract for a very small contract at that time. It is more likely that, as GLOCK was breaking into the LE market at the time [undercutting just about all the other manufacturers], that someone involved in procurement, at the agency, chose the Beretta because it was the serving US military sidearm at the time."

By 1993 the military contract had been long filled so Beretta had a lot of extra capacity to build handguns, that's why it aggressively marketed the B92 to LEO agencies. They were offering the G92 at cost or below cost in some instances just to get the publicity and undercut Glock.

God I swear these people are testing me. Listen dufus, the military M9 was the
Beretta 92FS. We carried the Beretta 92D Centurion. It was a double action only short barrel 92. Basically the barrel did not extend beyond the slide like normal 92’s. You don’t know crap and you’re clearly talking out your ass.

[Unregistered]

God I swear these people are testing me. Listen dufus, the military M9 was the
Beretta 92FS. We carried the Beretta 92D Centurion. It was a double action only short barrel 92. Basically the barrel did not extend beyond the slide like normal 92’s. You don’t know crap and you’re clearly talking out your ass.

Your point being? I don't deal with the minutiae of the various Beretta models. I carried it, disliked it, that's what I know. And so did most to whom it was issued. The DAO trigger was terrible.

The various B92 models and derivatives were built on the same production line in the same factory, FYI. The capacity was there, the military order was filled and Beretta wanted to continue production to sell to LEO agencies. Is that too hard for you to understand?

[Unregistered]

Hey Retard. Name one deputy who was ever taken off the road or fired because they couldn’t qualify. I’ll wait. And you should read up on employment law. You seriously sound retarded. Go beat off in the bedroom you have at your mom’s house now.

Obviously you never worked in training. It is the trainers' job to make sure everyone certified qualifies. If they miss too many there is a .45 caliber pen or marker handy to get the shot count right. Got it champ?

[Unregistered]

The first article/study is worthless. In the first place it included head shots. Virtually all head shots result in immediate incapacitation, regardless of the round employed. Second, it included multiple hits per target. Third, there is NO incapacitation time cited for the individual cases or for the rounds studied, only he fact that the person shot did not get off another blow. This leaves us with the question of how many people, who were shot, were excluded from the study because they DID get off another blow or shot after being shot themselves. Yet, even as flawed as the study is, it shows the .45ACP tp have superior stopping power over the 9mm. It is strange that the study showed that both the .32 caliber rounds and the .308acp were a superior one shot man stopper to the .45acp [even the author acknowledges that].

The second link is the FBI "justification to going to a round woth inferior fight stopping performaance. When boiled down to the essential reasoning, it becomes limited to reducing costs and the fact that FBI personnel are terrible shots and should probably not be allowed to carry firearms in public.

But, you still haven't answered the question I posed. How can the 9x19mm, with a smaller frontal cross section and less energy by as effective a fight stopper as the .45ACP, with its larger FCS and greater energy?

It's quite simple, the 9mm round is traveling almost 40% faster than the 45ACP. As any decent traffic cop knows, speed kills. It's why getting t-boned by a 3000lb sports car traveling at 100MPH will most likely kill you while getting hit by a 30,000lb bus at 10MPH won't.

Since we are talking specifically about PCSO, let's compare the ammunition approved and issued by the agency. Speer
Gold Dot 230 grain standard pressure 45ACP and 124 grain +P 9mm. The agency doesn't approve, nor issue, +P ammo in 45ACP, but does issue +P 9mm. The ammo specs according to Speer are:


45ACP ------------------------------------ 9MM
Muzzle Velocity - 890 fps -------------1220 fps
Muzzle Energy - 404 ft lbs ------------410 ft lbs

So tell me how a 45ACP round with LESS energy and traveling at a slower velocity is a more effective fight stopper than the 9MM with its higher energy and higher velocity?

You seem to be infatuated with Frontal Cross Section, but if it is so crucial to ballistic performance, please explain how a 55gr 5.556 round which weighs just 25% of a 230gr 45ACP round, and has a significantly smaller "Frontal Cross Section" is a far superior man-stopper than the 45? That's right...........Velocity!

[Unregistered]

Obviously you never worked in training. It is the trainers' job to make sure everyone certified qualifies. If they miss too many there is a .45 caliber pen or marker handy to get the shot count right. Got it champ?

That’s BS. They don’t do that and never have.

[Unregistered]

God I swear these people are testing me. Listen dufus, the military M9 was the
Beretta 92FS. We carried the Beretta 92D Centurion. It was a double action only short barrel 92. Basically the barrel did not extend beyond the slide like normal 92’s. You don’t know crap and you’re clearly talking out your ass.

Thank you for clearly specifying which model Beretta 92 the agency was carrying 26 years ago, in 1993. As you note the 92D was approximately 1" shorter than the 92FS. It is therefor possible that Beretta did low ball the contract in order to generate sales of the smaller pistol, especially if it was a DA only weapon.

[Unregistered]

Hey Retard. Name one deputy who was ever taken off the road or fired because they couldn’t qualify. I’ll wait. And you should read up on employment law. You seriously sound retarded. Go beat off in the bedroom you have at your mom’s house now.

There are 387 LEAs in Florida. And, many LEOs have been reassigned because they could not qualify. The STATE requires that they qualify every two years and if they can;t they can not carry a gun. If an employee can not meet the performance qualifications for a position, that employee can be reassigned or terminated. I suggest that YOU brush up on employment law. And you think that NO LEO has ever been reassigned or terminated for failure to qualify? Please, the world does not revolve around PCSO. It is not the only LEA in the state, and certainly not in the country.

By the way, I always enjoy your seriously infantile humor.

[Unregistered]

"While the PSCO may require corrections deputies to qualify with a handgun every year, this is not required by the state. Only corrections officers, who use a firearm regularly, must be qualified every two years. LEOs, on the other hand MUST qualify every two years to maintain their certification, while employed in that capacity."

This is straight from training and FDLE - annual training and firearms qualification is mandatory to maintain D&C certification.

"While possible, in 1993, Beretta was solidly in the US military market. So, I have a little trouble accepting that they would lowball a contract for a very small contract at that time. It is more likely that, as GLOCK was breaking into the LE market at the time [undercutting just about all the other manufacturers], that someone involved in procurement, at the agency, chose the Beretta because it was the serving US military sidearm at the time."

By 1993 the military contract had been long filled so Beretta had a lot of extra capacity to build handguns, that's why it aggressively marketed the B92 to LEO agencies. They were offering the G92 at cost or below cost in some instances just to get the publicity and undercut Glock.

Now, this makes good sense. Thank you for sharing it with us.

[Unregistered]

Obviously you never worked in training. It is the trainers' job to make sure everyone certified qualifies. If they miss too many there is a .45 caliber pen or marker handy to get the shot count right. Got it champ?

Wrong. In the first place, the number of LEOs, who fail to qualify, is minuscule. The Florida State police qualification course is so easy that almost everyone passes. Most agencies give the employee two chances to qualify, on the same day, to allow for malfunctions and other problems. Even if the employees fail to qualify, they usually attend a remedial training session, after which they are usually able to qualify. Also, whiile some agencies will not allow their employees to carry a gun if they fail a qualification session, it is not a state requirement and the employee is still covered by his last qualifying event, unless two years have elapsed.

While this myth of range officers punching holes in targets in order to qualify someone has been around for decades, today, a state certified qualifications officer is not going to risk that position or his job to qualify someone who is so inept that he can't place 40 rounds in a silhouette from 15 yards and closer.

[Unregistered]

Wrong. In the first place, the number of LEOs, who fail to qualify, is minuscule. The Florida State police qualification course is so easy that almost everyone passes. Most agencies give the employee two chances to qualify, on the same day, to allow for malfunctions and other problems. Even if the employees fail to qualify, they usually attend a remedial training session, after which they are usually able to qualify. Also, whiile some agencies will not allow their employees to carry a gun if they fail a qualification session, it is not a state requirement and the employee is still covered by his last qualifying event, unless two years have elapsed.

While this myth of range officers punching holes in targets in order to qualify someone has been around for decades, today, a state certified qualifications officer is not going to risk that position or his job to qualify someone who is so inept that he can't place 40 rounds in a silhouette from 15 yards and closer.

The only reason I mentioned it is because I have seen instructors punch holes in the target to qualify people, especially some of the brass who can't shoot. That was the reason they went from 25 yards to 15 yards. But even so, some people still can't qualify. All depends on the instructor's honesty and the shooter's rank.

Works the same way with the PAT. Some of the brass get to run the course privately and always pass. It's a joke.