Authors – Jay Laluz & John Weinstein, PhD
Introduction
There is a saying among pizza lovers: “The worst pizza I ever ate was still pretty good.” A similar principle applies to modern duty handguns. Nearly all current handguns produced by reputable manufacturers are well made, reliable, and safe. That does not mean, however, that they are equally suitable for adoption by a given law enforcement agency. Individual agencies have different operating conditions (e.g., urban vs rural) and mission priorities. Further, individual officers vary widely in hand size and strength, shooting experience, physical stature, and assigned mission. A handgun that works exceptionally well for one officer may be poorly suited for another. For example, officers with smaller hands may struggle to obtain a secure, controlling grip on large, double stack pistols, while undercover or plainclothes officers may require a weapon that can be effectively concealed and carried by means other than bulky, high- retention hip-worn duty holsters.
Firearms manufacturers invest enormous resources in marketing their products and highlighting specific features and performance advantages. These efforts are typically aimed at individual shooters and narrowly defined use cases. In contrast, a law enforcement agency selecting a duty handgun faces a far more set of complex problems. The chosen platform must function effectively across a diverse population of officers, skill levels, and operational roles. Selecting a handgun based on a limited set of appealing characteristics, such as trigger type, caliber, capacity, or overall size, while ignoring broader organizational, training, cultural, and operational considerations is a poor strategy and likely to result in a sub-optimal outcome.
Weapons Selection Process
The above factors should be considered when a department decides whether it needs to transition to a new weapon and, if so, what platform specifically. It is important to note that consideration of all relevant factors will come to naught if the decision process itself is flawed or incomplete. Here are several important process requirements:
- Participants in the decision process: For reasons discussed below, evaluators should not be limited to firearms instructors, and especially not a single firearms instructor. Rank-and-file officers should be allowed to test the weapon, and these officers should represent a cross-section of the agency’s officers’ experience, physical characteristics, assignments, and past performance with other weapons.
- Decision coordination: How comfortable are patrol, undercover, detective, and other commanders with the proposed decision? In short, is the weapon consistent with the requirements of the officers who will employ them?
- Associated opportunity costs attending the acquisition of the new weapon: Every dollar spent on weapons, ammunition, and training becomes unavailable to acquire other assets and resources needed by the department. In an environment of ample resources, this is not an issue, but when resources are scarce, buying weapons means delaying or foregoing other acquisitions such as CAD upgrades, new vehicles, etc. This zero-sum impact on budgeting often pits internal stakeholders against each other, with a deleterious effect on departmental unity and morale.
- The transition to the new weapon must be consistent with an agency’s mission and overall goals: If the agency operates in a relatively low crime area, new weapons, though desirable, may not be necessary. There may be other priorities that are more urgent and beneficial to improving the agency and advancing itss reputation in the community.
- Thorough documentation must be provided to the agency head: Does the decision document forward up the chain of command comprehensively address the 20 factors below? Is the information about likely benefits and costs associated with the transition decision objective and thorough?.
Weapon Selection Considerations
Many factors must be evaluated in the decision to adopt a handgun for a law enforcement (LE) agency. The following 20 factors are presented in four broad categories: cost, handgun characteristics, officer proficiency and training requirements, and other/local agency experiences and operations. Note that these factors are presented in no particular order since different agencies will assess and value them differently. Some factors carry disproportionate operational risk, even if agencies weigh them differently. For instance, an agency with deep pockets may be less concerned with cost than a smaller one of more modest means. On the other hand, this smaller agency may not worry as much about the time and expense required for officers to transition to the new platform.
Cost Considerations
- Initial acquisition cost: What is the per-unit cost of the handgun, and does the manufacturer offer law enforcement pricing or quantity discounts? While lower purchase cost is generally preferable when performance and suitability are equivalent, the acquisition price should not be viewed in isolation from opportunity costs. Agencies should also consider what accessories are included at purchase, such as the number of magazines provided with each weapon, as this directly affects additional upfront expenditures.
- Manufacturer and distributor support: How effectively do the manufacturer and distributor support the product after sale? This includes the availability of test and evaluation weapons for agency trials, performance data, responsiveness to warranty and service issues, and the ease with which replacement parts and service can be obtained. Strong manufacturer and distributor support can significantly reduce administrative burdens and downtime.
- Lifecycle and sustainment costs: What are the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the weapon over its service life? This includes the cost and availability of replacement parts, routine maintenance components, and consumable items, as well as compatibility with commonly issued accessories such as optics, weapon lights, and duty holsters. A platform that is inexpensive to purchase but costly to sustain may prove prohibitively expensive over time.
- Disposition of existing inventory: Is there a viable resale or trade-in market for the agency’s current duty weapons, and if so, what value can realistically be recovered? Proceeds from the sale or trade of existing firearms can offset a portion of the transition cost and should be factored into the overall financial analysis.
Handgun Characteristics
- Handgun weight and the existence of mitigators such as use of a thigh rig, outer vest, or shoulder holsters: Back pain among officers is a significant problem which kills morale, reduces proactivity, and costs departments in terms of workers’ comp and lost time. While a heavier weapon will absorb recoil better, it will also add to the total carried load of an officer.
- Weapon size and dimensions: Is the same weapon suitable for carry by patrol officers, undercover officers, and/or detectives? If smaller, more concealable platforms are available for UC and detectives, are they interoperable (i.e., can they use the same mags) with the larger weapons?
- Similarity between new and existing weapons: Transitioning from one Glock model to another is less expensive (e.g., requires fewer training rounds), faster and cheaper than transitioning to a weapon with different functionalities such as a 1911.
- Ease of operation: Can smaller or less physically strong officers rack the weapon reliably? How difficult is the weapon to field strip, clean, and reassemble? Officers vary widely in firearms experience, mechanical familiarity, and maintenance proficiency. The selected platform must be capable of being safely operated and maintained by all authorized users under real-world conditions, including those with limited experience, dislike of firearms, or infrequent exposure to firearms beyond required training.
- Grip circumference: Double-stack magazines, especially in the larger calibers, provide greater capacity than single-stack magazines, thereby cutting down on the need for multiple mag changes and resulting in enhanced officer safety. At the same time, however, officers with small hands may not be able to establish a proper grip on a large weapon, therefore reducing accuracy and endangering officer safety.
- Barrel length: A longer barrel will have a greater sight radius and therefore be more accurate in the case where pistol optics aren’t being used. The longer barrel will also generate higher velocities, ensuring adequate penetration in various environments (e.g., through windshields and clothing) and better performance at longer ranges, made feasible with the addition of optics. A longer barrel will, however, be bulkier in a duty holster and more difficult to conceal for detectives or plain clothes officers. Additionally, it may be more difficult to draw, fire, and operate for smaller officers.
- Single-action or double action and the weight of the trigger press: Some platforms, like Glock, have the same trigger press (~5.5 pounds) for each round fired. Other weapons have a longer and heavier first trigger press (e.g., ~10 pounds) and then subsequent rounds require only 3-4 pounds to activate the trigger. The latter necessitates more frequent officer training to become proficient with such an action. Heavier triggers help to prevent negligent discharges but also tend to be more difficult for weaker officers to shoot accurately.
- Weapon reliability and the determination of reliability estimates: Are these manufacturers’ estimates? Are they based on actual agency experiences of officers carrying their weapons in all environments and not always assuring their weapons are cleaned regularly and properly lubricated? How many rounds, for instance, can be fired before a barrel must be replaced? This is less of a consideration for patrol officers, but it is important for specialty teams such as SWAT members who shoot more frequently and more rounds per session than the average officer.
- Weapon optic-readiness: Does the weapon furnish various plates to accommodate the range of available optics. What are the costs of various optics, how long is battery life, what is the side dot (i.e., MOA), and must the optic be removed (and re-zeroed) to replace the battery?
- The type and desirability of furnished iron sights: Some iron sights are easier to pick up and facilitate more accurate shots than others.
- Ability of the proposed weapon to handle the department’s preferred ammunition: Will feed problems occur due to the configuration of some manufacturers’ ammunition running in the weapon’s machined feed ramp and chamber? Some bullet weights and configurations will be more or less accurate depending on barrel weight and rifling. An agency must ensure adequate accuracy potential as well as reliability with their preferred service ammunition.
- Weapon configuration: Does the proposed new weapon lend itself to intuitive operation and presentation, such as that associated with the 1911 platform? Is there an external safety that must be manually and consciously defeated to operate the weapon? There is nothing inherently wrong with such safeties, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with triple-retention holsters. However, officers vary widely in training frequency and experience, and under high stress conditions they are likely to default to their most ingrained level of training and familiarity. Weapon configurations that require additional deliberate actions or fine motor skills may place officers who do not practice regularly at a disadvantage when rapid, intuitive operation is required. Is the weapon configured for ambidextrous operation, including slide stops and magazine releases on both sides of the frame? Additionally, where is the magazine release located? Most platforms place the magazine release high on the frame, while some locate it at the bottom of the trigger guard. While this difference is not inherently problematic, it does require additional training, repetition, and reinforcement to ensure reliable operation, particularly under stress.
Officer Proficiency and Training Requirements
- Weapon popularity with rank and file officers: It is a mistake to allow firearms instructors, SWAT team members, or a single official to test weapons and make the final recommendation decisions regarding them. These specialists may be looking for specific applications, such as competition ability to shoot at greater distances, etc., not shared by regular officers, or have brand or type bias, which may not be helpful for the agency at large. Therefore, the rank-and-file officers on the streets should be given an opportunity to test the weapon to see if they like it.
- Ability of officers to shoot the weapon: In general, officers transitioning from a .45 ACP or .40 shoot better when they are transitioning to the 9mm round. Additionally, and absent frequent familiarization and follow-up training, officers who are not familiar with a different platform configuration will not shoot the new weapon as well and hence, not like it as much. This is not to say a new weapon cannot be learned and mastered; only that it will require more frequent training sessions and a higher number of rounds than needed with a more familiar weapon.
Other Agency Experiences/Assessments
- Existence of other agencies using the proposed weapon and their positive and negative experiences: There is no need for an agency to invent the wheel when other agencies have already done the hard work and can provide information about a weapons strengths and weaknesses. By the same token. if many agencies are using a particular platform and that platform isn’t even being considered as an option, a strong rationale for the exception should be noted and documented.
- Local and regional agency adoption: Are neighboring or frequent mutual aid partner agencies using the same or a compatible handgun platform? In addition to providing access to informal performance data and lessons learned, alignment with local agencies may allow the sharing of training resources, firearms instructors, lesson plans, and transition strategies. During multi-agency responses to critical incidents, interoperability can provide tangible operational benefits, such as the ability to share magazines or other common accessories when appropriate. Beyond operational efficiency, commonality with partner agencies may also reduce complexity and risk during joint operations. From a post-incident perspective, consistency in issued equipment and training standards across agencies can simplify after-action reviews, investigations, and litigation by reducing unnecessary variability in weapons, manual of arms, and qualification protocols. While interoperability should not be the sole driver of a selection decision, it is a legitimate consideration that can enhance operational resilience and reduce avoidable risk during mutual aid responses.
A Final Note
Transitioning to a new duty handgun is often viewed as a positive and exciting development, particularly by firearms instructors and training staff. Firearms instructors are typically familiar with the technical and operational considerations involved and may understand many of these factors implicitly. However, a weapon transition carries significant organizational, financial, and operational implications that extend well beyond the training unit. For this reason, agency leadership must be provided with clear, explicit data supporting the proposed change and demonstrating how the decision aligns with the agency’s mission, risk tolerance, training capacity, and long-term objectives.
A final decision regarding duty firearms will have effects that persist for many years. Any adopted platform will define training requirements, equipment compatibility, budget allocations, and operational capabilities for at least one budget cycle and often for several. When a poorly informed or narrowly focused decision is made, correcting the resulting deficiencies can take years and may require substantial additional expense, retraining, or policy revision. A deliberate, comprehensive evaluation process is therefore essential to ensure the selected weapon contributes positively to officer safety, operational effectiveness, and overall agency performance over its full-service life.
About the Authors: Jay Laluz and John Weinstein are veteran law enforcement officers and firearms instructors. Both have commanded the firearms training programs at their past and current agencies and both have or are currently directing a criminal justice academy’s firearms training program. Laluz and Weinstein can be reached respectively at juan.c.laluz@gmail.com and jweinstein0602@gmail.com .
