agree with you... its an "advancement" (when it works right).. that is used to accomplish the same task that the old chemical process accomplished..
a better way to put it would be.. "dont consider bullets where the core and the jacket are not reliably locked together"..
the reason they were likely making an issue with your friends department is "political"... police agencies are incredibly liability (criminal, civil, moral, etc) conscious.. they are super resistant to change..
If they have a "policy" that states they will use a bonded bullet.. or its pretty much the standard across the region that bonded bullets are used, etc.. no one wants to be "the first" to change, for fear of liability.. even if all of the test show that changing actually has the potential to improve things..
us (my old department) changing from using MP5's as our primary entry weapon to M4's in the early 2000's almost took an act of God.. and almost a year to get approval on.. just because it was a "change"... it took a whole lot of "selling" the concept to the senior staff, doing a good bit of research and providing metrics and stats proving what we were trying to "sell"..
you dont want to know the struggle we went through to get approval to start wearing plates in addition to the soft armor in our vests (something that should have be an obvious change for good).. or how painful it was to get approval to change OC Aerosol weapons to a product that was a huge improvement over what we had been carrying since the 80's (that had almost 20 years of proven history of lackluster performance)...
a better way to put it would be.. "dont consider bullets where the core and the jacket are not reliably locked together"..
the reason they were likely making an issue with your friends department is "political"... police agencies are incredibly liability (criminal, civil, moral, etc) conscious.. they are super resistant to change..
If they have a "policy" that states they will use a bonded bullet.. or its pretty much the standard across the region that bonded bullets are used, etc.. no one wants to be "the first" to change, for fear of liability.. even if all of the test show that changing actually has the potential to improve things..
us (my old department) changing from using MP5's as our primary entry weapon to M4's in the early 2000's almost took an act of God.. and almost a year to get approval on.. just because it was a "change"... it took a whole lot of "selling" the concept to the senior staff, doing a good bit of research and providing metrics and stats proving what we were trying to "sell"..
you dont want to know the struggle we went through to get approval to start wearing plates in addition to the soft armor in our vests (something that should have be an obvious change for good).. or how painful it was to get approval to change OC Aerosol weapons to a product that was a huge improvement over what we had been carrying since the 80's (that had almost 20 years of proven history of lackluster performance)...