Duty Guns of Generations

[ma6907]

It strikes me that human nature is to reject change, and in the case of weapons--this is clearly evident.  I am old enough to remember Vietnam Vets hating m-16's (AND the 5.56)  active duty military absolutely despising Beretta M9 9mm 92's (AND the 9mm in general), cops FURIOUS about the change from wheelguns to Glocks, etc etc.  But when we look back, those become the MOST popular weapons of a generation.   I had a conversation with a NYC cop who told me that his usual "MO" was to carry a Glock 17 as his sidearm, and his old S&W duty revolver on his ankle.  When in a confrontation, he said he would draw his revolver, if necessary empty it, THEN draw his Glock, tossing his revolver on the ground.  He referred to it as a "New York Reload".  He said he never trusted his Glock and still does not.  Fast forward one Generation and the Glock is considered (arguably) by many as one of the most reliable weapons ever invented.  I am saying all this to refer to the change to the Sig 320 as announced by the US Military.  I can recall VERY few that were happy about going to the Baretta M9 (92).  Now people are upset about the change to Sig with MANY MANY ex-Military guys exalting the Beretta (and curiously several versions of the Beretta selling for CRAZY prices).  I predict that in a Generation, the Sig 320 will be considered "up there" with the 1911, the Barettta 92, and the Glock 17 as an all time favorite.  Any input?  (this is intended to be a post about "human nature" and rejection to change--not saying that one is "better" or trying to get into a senseless caliber war)

[JAB]

I see where you are going with that and your point makes sense - people like what they are used to and familiar with.  I also think that 'peers' play a role in our acceptance or rejections of certain things, especially among those with limited experience.  In other words, a person new to the military right after the adoption of the Beretta might form the opinion that the .45 was better because that is what many of the more experienced guys around him are saying.  Once those 'old timers' rotate out and are replaced by folks who have always been issued the Beretta, however, then the Beretta might be thought of as 'better'.  That said, I believe there are more factors involved than simply a resistance to change.  I will use myself as an example.  I guess I am a bit of an anachronism.  I was born in 1971 and I am 45.  I still don't like Glocks and fully intend to never own one (not saying they aren't good guns for those who do like them.)  I also have pretty much no interest in owning an AR15 type rifle and would personally trust a good revolver any day over a semiauto of equal quality.  Ammo capacity is about the only thing I see as being a check in the 'advantage' column for a semiauto and, for the lifestyle I currently lead, I don't see that as an overwhelming factor (stay with me - I am going somewhere relevant with this.)

I am not, as you said, saying that one is better than the other just because that is what I like.  What I am saying is that, along with the simple resistance to change that is often part of human nature as well as the nature of organizations of just about any type, I believe personal preferences and confidence levels in Firearm A vs. Firearm B that are based on an individual's experiences still play a role.  In fact, those personal preferences and experiences may play a much greater role in the resistance to change, especially among those who carry firearms as part of their job, than we realize and it might not simply be a case of 'that is what we have always done'.  Instead, it could be a case of some folks saying, "Firearm A is proven reliable and effective.  This is my life we are talking about, here, so why would I want to experiment with an unknown factor such as Firearm B when I know, from experience, that Firearm A will play its role if I need to call upon it to defend my life?"

Then there are people like myself who just like what we like.  I mentioned that I plan never to own a Glock.  I have fired Glocks.  They worked fine and I hit what I was aiming at - and I still don't like them.  There are other semiautos that I do like (although generally not better than revolvers) so it isn't just being 'set in my ways' or determined not to like them.  I have also found that - although they can be 'dressed up' to be some of the coolest looking handguns ever - I am not that crazy about 1911s, either and prefer newer semiauto designs so it isn't just 'traditional' vs. 'more modern' for me.

There is also another factor in resistance to change.  One of the biggest mistakes many organizations make, whether talking about a large police force or a manufacturing company, is that they simply make decisions without getting stakeholder buy in.  Another is that higher ups often either don't realize that organizations often have their own, somewhat unique culture or they don't really understand the culture among the rank and file of their, particular organization and that preference for one thing over another can often be due to aspects of that culture.  The only way to find these things out is to actually ask the rank and file.  If the bosses/brass of an organization - people who don't even use the equipment in question on any kind of regular basis, just say, "We are changing from Firearm A to Firearm B (or machine A to Machine B or process A to process B, even) because Firearm B is better," then there will often be a lot of resistance to change.  For one thing, the people who never actually use the equipment really might not know what the hell they are talking about and Firearm B really might not be better as those in supervisory roles could well be making the decision based solely on the 'on paper' advantages rather than 'experienced' advantages.  The change often goes more smoothly if focus groups comprised of the people who will actually be using the equipment and whose opinions are trusted by the impacted group as a whole are brought in - even before the decision to change is made - to find out what they and others do and don't like about the current equipment and what improvements they would like to see in the new equipment or even if new equipment is really needed, at all.  That input can then be used not only to narrow down options but also to get most of the actual end users to agree that a change really would be a good idea.  At that point, once the supervisors have chosen something that not only makes sense from an organizational and 'bottom line' standpoint but also makes sense to the people who will actually utilize the equipment then generally resistance to change is greatly reduced because the people using said equipment on a daily basis feel like they, themselves, helped to drive and implement the change.

Am I making any sense?  I guess I am saying that, while I do believe resistance to change, in some cases, boils down to it being human nature to not like change and the tendency for one era's 'new thing we are skeptical about' to become the next era's 'tried and true' I believe that it is a bit more complicated and there are more factors involved in the case of firearms, especially firearms that are carried for the purpose of defending one's life.  There is also sometimes an opposite impulse, on the part of some, to change simply for the sake of change without really considering if the planned change is really an improvement or simply a case of 'trying something different.'

Edited January 24, 2017 by JAB

[TNman207]

People do not, generally speaking, want change because they loose their comfort zone and are required to develop a new skill set.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[DWARREN123]

I do not like change but eventually I come around if the change is a improvement.

[graycrait]

Organizations need to figure in replacement, maintenance and training costs with respect to those firearms. Even though I have owned and can completely disassemble any S&W, Dan Wesson or Ruger revolver I think they are overly complicated and comparatively difficult to maintain.  If a reload is needed under extreme pressure they take a lot of training to master completely. I knew plenty of aviators who used to carry S&Ws and never knew one who could do reload and don't remember them carrying speed strips or other quick load devices.  

I like 1911s and can just about do a "Major Payne" disassemble/reassemble but having carried them  in the military am not overly fond of them as a save your butt gun unless it is one I have invested time in maintaining and even then would prefer an out of the box Glock over a Beretta or 1911.  I like non-arms rooms Berettas, but they are overly complicated and given the choice would prefer a 1911 over the M9, not because of caliber but because of how it disassembles and reassembles.  Sometimes even a 1911 part needs a bit of fitting.

I would trust an arms room Glock over the revolver, 1911 or M9.  Plus parts are cheap, the gun is easy to completely disassemble and no fitting of parts is needed.  However...

Not having even handled a Sig 320 I think the modularity is a big plus for an organization.  Watch a 5'1" female grab a M9 and then watch her grab a 1911.  My next handgun will probably be the 320 "just to see."  The reviews seem positive and if I had to pay for, maintain, train to use and fit to a wide user group the 320 seems to make sense.

But I have been wrong about  many things, even my wife likes to remind me, so am likely wrong about this too - but maybe not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by graycrait

[DaveTN]

I don’t think for most of us it has anything to do with fighting change or what someone told us. Its application driven based on our experience.

I have all types of guns. For example, most of my carry guns are Tupperware guns, my bedside gun is a revolver; application driven.

[ma6907]

On 1/24/2017 at 6:18 PM, DaveTN said:

I don’t think for most of us it has anything to do with fighting change or what someone told us. Its application driven based on our experience.

I have all types of guns. For example, most of my carry guns are Tupperware guns, my bedside gun is a revolver; application driven.

When I was talking to my NYC cop buddy, I asked about his duty weapon choices.  He said he had 2 choices.  A Sig 226 and a Glock 17 and he never trusted either one, and still does not.  Of course I pointed out that ARGUABLY those are the 2 most reliable weapons of all time (proven OVER and OVER) including several reports of people shooting each one over a MILLION times?  He said that for him, he just never trusted them.  A BIT more skepticism than most of us, but to each his own.  I have no problem with preferring a revolver.

He also pointed out something I have never really considered for myself, which was the concept of how long a weapon would be comfortable on his side.  He said the Sig was a great "8 hour gun" for duty use, meaning that he could comfortably wear it for 8 hours.  But that the Glock was a much better 12 hour gun--for after work overtime and off duty work that required more than a typical day.  I had never really considered rating a weapon by number of hours that I would be wearing it.  That is why I enjoy talking (and chatting) about guns.

[btq96r]

While I'll not say the M9 (Beretta 92F) failed to do its job, I think its high time for a change given recent innovations in firearms.  The SIG 320 seems like a good pick, but like any other weapon carried into combat, it will come down to the user maintaining the gun as much as anything else.

Training will play a big part, but the military never really gives good handgun training to conventional units, only Special Operations.

[mikegideon]

On 1/24/2017 at 6:18 PM, DaveTN said:

 my bedside gun is a revolver; application driven.

Is it just because of better available calibers? I'm much more comfy with a Glock these days than even a service size revolver.