[StanTheMan]

^ Keep in mind much of that was a knee-jerk reaction to a bad shootout where afterward they felt every suited agent needed a bad-ass handgun to fight off potential assault-rifle toting suspects when that doesn't really happen much today, and certainly was nonexistent 30 years ago. That said, they are essentially an agency that has to think about having a standard gun for a wide array of agents with varying physiques and sizes, and have to do so under a budget, same as any police department (especially bigger ones).

Anyway, I do believe there is something to the point perhaps not so many feds actually need sidearms, otherwise I think fcm has said it on pretty much all the other points. Perhaps a rechambering could be cheaper, but as fcm said, by this stage, especially if a fair portion of their pistols are pretty worn out, indeed why not just get new ones? And if so, they'll have to do competitive bidding - Gov't agencies are pretty much forced to in most cases, for a number of reasons.

In many cases competitive procurement has many times resulted in getting better product for the money (and in a few rare cases we DID spend less money than we would have, in some form or other). If anything we oughta be stronger on it. Super-badass 'gee-whiz' hardware like the F-35 is hardly a good example. Frankly most of the 'bloat' I think is in our defense spending as a whole, but that's another thing. In the event, I don't think you can compare multi-billion-dollar deals for massive defense hardware that requires R&D and initial engineering/building costs to a simple handgun procurement where there are many models already existing out there that can just be bought; The FBI doesn't need to have a pistol built for them from the ground up to meet their requirements.