This is why they should all be issued MP5's

If Smith & Wesson does not replace the guns, the department might file a lawsuit or turn to taxpayers for help. Replacing the guns, which cost about $320 each, would come to more than $1.5 million. The department also would have to replace ammunition, holsters and other accessories, and retrain its officers to use the replacement weapons.

That's a load of crap. If your replaceing the guns with the same model why would you need NEW ammo and accessories. Also just how hard would it be to use a new gun that they would have to retrain everyone. It sounds like the state wants to spend some of our tax money again.

Edit-Language-u352

I'm NOT buying this.  Sounds like quite the concocted story.  If anything, the new owners of S&W might have inherited a massive quality control problem.  I doubt it.  Problems like barrels breaking off while S&W employees shoot the gun... I'm going to raise the proverbial BS flag.  I did read this story earlier and it sounds like a clever scheme to extort money out of a Gun Company and get free new guns.

But, how do you have a 25% malfunction rate in a K frame revolver?  These things are, what, 100 years old?  You'd think the design would be down by now.  Beyond that, what the heck are they ordering a discontinued revolver for in the 21st century?  Hey, dummy... buy a Glock.

 glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=509474&highlight=carolina
Check out the pics.
GLOCK-23

Ok. As a victim of this, I can speak from first-hand knowledge (sort of)

Until quite recently I worked for the NC Dept of Corrections, Division of Community Corrections (Probation/Parole) and was issued a 3" model 65.  We were issued .38 spl ammo and only allowed to shoot .38 spl ammo.  

Some officers chose to carry the model 60 and were issued the same ammo.  Both guns were capapble of chambering .357 ammo but I guess the people in charge (Theodis Beck and Franklin Freeman) were afraid we might hurt someone if we shot them!

So, anyway, these guns have some age on them.  The 3" 65 was dropped from production by S&W  except in the Ladysmith version.  So the guns were gathered up and replaced with current production 64's which chamber only .38 spl.  Fine I guess since we were only isseud .38 ammo.  There were some murmurs of Glocks being issued but, the State of NC really insn't ready to join the 1980's yet!

Well, new guns required requalification.  Every officer was required to complete the state mandated 50 round qual course for daytime and night.  3yds out to 25 yds for day and 3 yds to 15 yds at night/reduced illumination.

As a division firearms instructor, I went to ranges across the state and ran these qualifications along with the other trainers from all four division.  This is what I witnessed:

Never saw a barrel fall off, but I did see that internal lock activate during strings of fire!  It occurred in almost 37 PERCENT OF THE ISSUED MODEL 64'S!!!   I think it averaged out to approximately %36.245 of the weapons.   I saw it on EVERY range we went to!  

While I'll be first in line to tell you how great S&W revlvers are (not so sure I care for their autos), I will NEVER own another one with an internal lock.  My own personal 625-8 would activate even during dry fire but I assumed it was a condition unique to that weapon and sold it quickly.

I was in line to purchase several of the retired 65's and one model 60 at good prices.  These have been re-issued and the 64's, to my understanding, have been collected and taken out of use.  Not sure where the issue stands now.

I did not qualify any Division of Prisons officers with the sidearm.  I only did shotgun and the Mini 14 courses so I can't say for certin if their revolver barrels fell off or not.

Hope this sheds some light.

And to address BadgerArms question of "why not buy a glock?":  My division, Community Corrections, is supervised by people who were never cops, corrections officers or even probation/parole officers.  They are politicians and persons with backgrounds in social work.  Over 1/2 of the officers are required to do their jobs unarmed!  This includes arresting high-risk felons.  

I purchased my own body armor three years before it was ever issued by the state.  My Judicial District Manager, also a social worker, asked me why I had armor when I wasn't then issued a gun (I was issued a gun two years later).  I explained that an unarmed person could get shot dealing with felons in the hood just as easily as an armed person.  Her reply was "oh".  She had/has no clue.  If someone wanted to be a good samaritan, they would call OSHA and have them inspect the expiration dates on the issued armor.  I bet they wouild find almost every piece of Second Chance armor to have expired over three years ago!!

A funny point:  before the "High-risk Officer position was created, the only officers who were armed, other than the few Intensive Probation Officers, were those serving on the Electronic House Arrest (EHA) response teams.  Each member was on call for a week at a time to respond to EHA violations.  The funny part is that the team was issued one model 65!  We had to share a gun!

The problems are exacerbated by the fact that no one in the chain of command above unit chief, which is a first line supervisor, are sworn.  None of the decision-makers are sworn officers!  In a unit the heirarchy is:  Officer then Unit Chief, followed by Asst. Judicial District Manager, JDM and Division Chief.  No one above Unit Chief is sworn!

I am a police officer now and EVERYONE in my chain of command, all the way up to the chief of police is sworn.  Go figure.

Until I was issued a weapon by the state, I carried a Sig 229 in a duty rig and a S&W 442 (pre-lock) on my ankle.  The worst they could do is fire me but at least I could protect myself.

I knew the internal 'safety' locks were a dumb idea the moment I first set eyes on them in a gun rag. How exactly do these locks work? Could they be spot welded open or ripped out without any damage to the action? One of these days somebody who relies on a gun with an internal lock is going to experience a failure and be left defenseless against a homocidal maniac- I hope they sue the maker's arse off when this happens.

Galland

Quoted: Never saw a barrel fall off, but I did see that internal lock activate during strings of fire!  It occurred in almost 37 PERCENT OF THE ISSUED MODEL 64'S!!!   I think it averaged out to approximately %36.245 of the weapons.   I saw it on EVERY range we went to!

Of course it did.  Haven't met an internal lock that I liked yet.  Unfortunately, many of these locks are showing up on guns where there is no alternative.  I wonder if lock-tite can be used to prevent their inadvertant engagement?

And to address BadgerArms question of "why not buy a glock?":  My division, Community Corrections, is supervised by people who were never cops, corrections officers or even probation/parole officers.  They are politicians and persons with backgrounds in social work.  Over 1/2 of the officers are required to do their jobs unarmed!  This includes arresting high-risk felons.

I truly feel for you, brother.  It's these bleeding hearts that are getting more honest people killed as the years drag on.  That type of dim-witted softness will be the death of our society as it's killed such soft societies in the past.

I ran into one of my former co-wprkers a few minutes ago at the daycare our children attend and said they were told today that they will be issued the new S&W M&P .40 autos.  

We'll see hoe that goes.  On theup side.  It will free up all those 3" 65's so I can buy a few!

Someone told me about that article this morning, actually. My first thought when he said the barrel fell off was "what, did they try them after running them over with a few trucks first?!"

Now, when I was working for my first armored company I was issued a Ruger GP-100 that someone messed with so bad before bulk selling it that the thing just didn't fire. But nothing ever fell off... and that WAS run over by a truck. So I am having a tough time buying it, too. (BTW, that Ruger made me a gun owner real fast. I bought my first handgun without waiting at all)

only problem with that is many of the makers added the locks to prevent lawsuits or further lawsuits.
say a big thanks to all the trial lawyers - like John Edwards who still thinks he's a senator and will be a perpetual presidential candidate.
deactivating the lock may be the way to go - but don't have a negligent discharge with it and hurt someone.  

then, Mr. Edwards will be prosecuting you!

thats why i follow the voting on 2nd ammendment issues as a litmus test for candidates - i'm not a single issue voter, but its a good test to see where they stand constitutionally.

problem is now, no one has the balls to challenge the stupid laws - can't run afoul of the media or stand the storm of whining and predictions of mass carnage, i guess.

Quoted: only problem with that is many of the makers added the locks to prevent lawsuits or further lawsuits. say a big thanks to all the trial lawyers - like John Edwards who still thinks he's a senator and will be a perpetual presidential candidate. deactivating the lock may be the way to go - but don't have a negligent discharge with it and hurt someone.   then, Mr. Edwards will be prosecuting you! thats why i follow the voting on 2nd ammendment issues as a litmus test for candidates - i'm not a single issue voter, but its a good test to see where they stand constitutionally. problem is now, no one has the balls to challenge the stupid laws - can't run afoul of the media or stand the storm of whining and predictions of mass carnage, i guess.

This is why I belong to Gun Owners of America Goa they send updates of all the anti gun legislation and has pre written letters to you reps .




McCain Still Trying To Gag Gun Owners From Criticizing
His Anti-gun Record

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, February 28, 2006


A few weeks ago, we alerted you to legislation -- introduced by
anti-gun Senator John McCain (R-AZ) -- which is aimed at squelching
the First Amendment rights of grassroots groups like Gun Owners of
America.

That bill, S. 2128, is ostensibly aimed at dealing with some of the
congressional controversies that have hit the media in recent weeks.
A true reform bill would focus the spotlight on members like John
McCain, who was one of the original Keating Five senators who were
deeply implicated in the savings and loan scandal.

Instead, McCain began his war on real transparency in 2002 when he
teamed up with anti-gun Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to push the
Incumbent Protection Act into law -- an act that stifles the ability
of organizations like GOA to criticize elected officials before an
election.

Now with the Gag Act (S. 2128), McCain wants to target his wrath on
groups like GOA -- requiring them to register their "grassroots"
communications and to file twice as many frivolous reports.

If McCain succeeds in pushing an expansive interpretation of his bill
(as he did when he convinced the courts to regulate the Internet
under McCain-Feingold), then we could see a host of draconian
restrictions affecting both GOA and you.

For example, if we wanted to alert you to gun ban that is moving in
our nation's capital, we could first have to tell McCain (and all his
other buddies in Congress) about what we're planning to do, who we're
planning to alert (that is, grassroots folks like yourself), how much
money we plan to spend, etc.

Because of Section 105 in this bill, everyone with whom GOA contracts
to get the word out (advertisers, printers, etc.) could be required
to tell Congress twenty days in advance about GOA's public
information campaign.

In effect, we would end up alerting Sarah Brady every time we plan to
wage a grassroots campaign in opposition to gun control.

This is ridiculous!

No doubt, the Gag Act is further proof that grassroots lobbying
works. It works so well, that John McCain wants to muzzle it.

S. 2128 -- or a bill that is similar to it -- is now likely to come
to the floor of the Senate in early March, according to Majority
Leader Bill Frist. It is imperative that we contact our Senators
today.

ACTION:

1. Please urge your Senators to oppose the Gag Act (S. 2128). And,
if your Senator has cosponsored the bill, then he or she especially
needs to hear from you. Senators who have cosponsored this bill are:

Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a
pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.

2. Take action and then please forward this alert to your pro-gun
friends and family!


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Now that the Senate is looking to pass so-called lobbying reform
legislation, I hope you will NOT support any bill that would gag
grassroots lobbying organizations.

To be sure, John McCain's bill (S. 2128) would do just that!

In 2002, Senators McCain and Feingold teamed up to pass the Incumbent
Protection Act, a bill that infringes upon the First Amendment rights
of gun owners and other Americans by squelching their ability to
criticize elected officials before an election.

Now, Senator McCain wants to pass the Gag Act (S. 2128). In this
latest version, McCain targets his wrath on grassroots organizations
-- requiring them to register their "grassroots"
communications with
their members and to file twice as many frivolous reports.

Please oppose S. 2128 or any other "reform" bill that would
scapegoat
outside groups, through which American citizens are better able to
petition their government and which serve as government watchdogs.

Sincerely,