I happen to know the armorer who was involved in that situation. I will get the details, but it as I recall it was simply that they were "approved" for duty use.
Printable View
the authors parting quip actually sumerizes hs feeling well, I think.
Seems like a very practical policy to me. Wish more depts wer that gracious.
I wrote that as a joke for your comment. But yes details are always nice to read.
Let's not be too cocky. Our DPS issues Bushys.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=12511
......
As far as an agency issuing Bushy's or whatever, don't read too much into that. Procurement people are funny. They look at price above all most of the time, unless someone with more knowledge points them in the right direction. Just because an agency adopts Brand X shouldn't reflect on Brand X's suitability.
When I was in law enforcement they were all over Bushmaster until I pointed out that there are real differences and that they ought to write the specs so that a top tier maker like Colt would get the bid. At that time they were buying into the hype that Shrubmaster is "just as good" and at a lower price, so it was quite a selling job.
"...old-timey triangle front sight".
You mean, the front sight that is current military issue on the M4 Carbine and M16A4? o.O
I guess I'm obsolete, I don't own an AR that doesn't have a triangle front sight tower.
And, the guys who don't give a crap and will just use anything that is issued, as long as they don't have to spend a dime of their own money.Quote:
markm has a very valid point regarding police officers and equipment though. they generally fall into three categories - switched on guys, guys who ask those guys for advice, and the guys who buy what looks cool.