Originally Posted by DNW:
Originally Posted by HGT75:

I doubt that DHS based law enforcement agencies would switch right away considering the massive amount of .40SW they've contracted to buy over a number of years.

They have contracts to purchase at a fixed price, up to a certain amount.  This does not mean it has actually been purchased yet.  in general, federal appropriations are for current year only, so it makes it hard to buy 5 years worth of ammo.  

It's called an IDIQ contract (Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity).  Lack of understanding is often fuel for lots of Internet debate, and as in the case of the DHS contract, conspiracy theories.

First FBI reports push everyone away from 9mm, now they drag them back...I can solve this problem for the FBI on what to issue their agents...a laptop. That and whenever they are let out of the building and into the field, they draw a street cop from the pool...the street cop should do the driving as well.

 

 

As always my $.02 and YMMV.

Stay Safe bros, Dennis

Originally Posted by ocmsrzr:

First FBI reports push everyone away from 9mm, now they drag them back...I can solve this problem for the FBI on what to issue their agents...a laptop. That and whenever they are let out of the building and into the field, they draw a street cop from the pool...the street cop should do the driving as well.

Okay, that was good!

"If I had a Grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton"

Let those who love the LORD hate evil. The one who guards the lives of his godly ones will rescue them from the power of wicked people. Psalms 97:10 Trooper Troy Duncan-EOW 5-19-84 Deputy Erik Jon Telen-EOW 8-21-2001

One local agency had 40 Sigs until a OIS where the perp (shockingly) wasn't vaporized when he was hit in the abdomen.  The perp even managed to continue fighting the officer after being shot. Double shock!  So of course, the folks in charge decided they needed 45s so they adopted HK USPs.  They recently decided to replace the USPs after a decade.  I told a person on the selection committee that they should consider the Glock 9mms and repeated the reasons stated by wise people here.  I also said if they are dead set on a 40 they should strongly consider the M&P, again just repeating SME opinions I read here.  So what did they select?  Glock 40s.  Could have been worse I suppose I heard someone suggested XDs.

I think this is "working smarter, not harder". Formerly, way way back, a .30 caliber rifle was a joke! You needed a .68 caliber lump of lead. Then came advancements in smokeless powder, etc. and smaller and smaller rifle calibers became common place and were quite lethal. On the Dark Continent, big-bore rifles, even smokeless, and big belted magnums still ruled until quite recently. Now, with the advent of Barnes monolithic copper bullets, many are going to the .30-06 and .308 for a lot of game over there, and dropping them hard. The .223 is a viable 2-300 yard deer cartridge using 70gr TSX/SOCOM loadings. We are and have been seeing the same with handgun ammunition. Technology is allowing us to do more with less KE and physical mass. The trend continues, then hits a wall, then picks up again as new advancements occur. Many kick and scream and "wish for the old days when real calibers began with a *whatever*...", but the facts remain.

Sounds like this has stalled out for a little while.

 

I can't imagine there will be any conversion until an entire academy class has been issued Gen 4 17s, and that is many months away. Supposedly there were going to be a few selected for 9mm T&E, but that hasn't happened yet as far as I know.

 

I think the technology arguments are bullshit. It isn't like 9mm advances in a bubble. Any improvements in .355 projectiles are also concurrently made in .40 projectiles. If we can get 22 mag to penetrate to 18", are we going to declare that due to "higher capacity" and "less recoil" and "the overriding importance of shot placement" that 9mm and higher are obsolete?

 

I don't mind 9mm. I've got quite a bit of time carrying one around in DOD. But knowing that the first shot matters, the first shot for any caliber IS THE EXACT SAME, I don't mind .40 as a duty round. If anything the result of all this should be the choice among LE professionals to choose the caliber that is right for them, be it 9mm, 40, 45 or (if you like spending $1+ a round, .357 sig).

Originally Posted by Middlelength:

Sounds like this has stalled out for a little while.

 

I can't imagine there will be any conversion until an entire academy class has been issued Gen 4 17s, and that is many months away. Supposedly there were going to be a few selected for 9mm T&E, but that hasn't happened yet as far as I know.

 

I think the technology arguments are bullshit. It isn't like 9mm advances in a bubble. Any improvements in .355 projectiles are also concurrently made in .40 projectiles. If we can get 22 mag to penetrate to 18", are we going to declare that due to "higher capacity" and "less recoil" and "the overriding importance of shot placement" that 9mm and higher are obsolete?

 

I don't mind 9mm. I've got quite a bit of time carrying one around in DOD. But knowing that the first shot matters, the first shot for any caliber IS THE EXACT SAME, I don't mind .40 as a duty round. If anything the result of all this should be the choice among LE professionals to choose the caliber that is right for them, be it 9mm, 40, 45 or (if you like spending $1+ a round, .357 sig).

Quite right, but there are diminishing returns. For example, there still exists .50 caliber rifles...yet are they needed on the battlefield for 100 meter engagements against unarmored personnel? No.

 

We can step down to a smaller caliber like the 5.56 and .30 caliber.

 

Yes. The .45 ACP is still going to destroy more tissue...but will it really matter? No. If you make a poor hit with a 9mm, a .45 won't likely salvage it.

 

If indeed the .22 rimfire were to expand to 0.5", penetrate 14-18", and ignite as reliably as the 5.56, and have a trajectory similar to the 5.56, then yes, I bet we would transition over to it. However, we aren't there yet. I doubt we will be. But never say never.

 

quote:
"I think the technology arguments are bullshit. It isn't like 9mm advances in a bubble. Any improvements in .355 projectiles are also concurrently made in .40 projectiles."

Not necessarily.  Almost all .40 projectiles were designed after the advent of modern wound ballistic parameters and intermediate barrier testing; on the other hand, many 9 mm projectiles were older designs.  As newer 9 mm projectiles have come to market engineered to the same intermediate barrier specifications as most .40's have had since their genesis, 9 mm has demonstrated a bigger leap in performance than .40's.

I think the technology arguments are bullshit.

 

You can think that all you want.  People used to think the earth was flat.  That didn't make it flat.  Note Doc's comment, which explains stuff like this;

 

Check these out;
Win 230 gr Ranger Talon JHP (RA45T) fired from
1911 at ave vel of 911 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 12.3", Ave
RD = 0.70", Ave RL = 0.44", Ave RW = 227.2gr
4LD: Pen
= 25.1", Ave RD = 0.45"
, Ave RL = 0.60", Ave RW = 228.8 gr
AG:
Pen = 16.1", Ave RD = 0.54", Ave RL = 0.48", Ave RW = 189.6 gr

Fed HST 230 gr JHP (P45HST2) fired from 1911 at ave vel of 879 f/s; 5
shot ave below::
BG: Pen = 12.6", Ave RD = 0.80", Ave RL = 0.44",
Ave RW = 231.5 gr
4LD: Pen = 13.4", Ave RD =
0.55",
Ave RL = 0.71", Ave RW = 231.2 gr
AG: Pen = 16.3", Ave
RD = 0.54", Ave RL = 0.58", Ave RW = 230.6 gr

vs

9mm Fed 147 gr HST JHP; ave vel=997 fps (G19)
BG: pen=14.6", RD=0.61", RL=0.39", RW=147.1gr
4LD: pen=15.6", RD=0.56", RL=0.53", RW=145.5gr

Win 124 gr +P Ranger Talon (RA124TP) fired from G17 at ave vel of 1238 f/s; 5 shot ave below:
BG: Pen = 13.0”, RD = 0.62”, RL= 0.35", RW =
114.7gr
4LD: Pen = 13.0”, RD = 0.59”, RL= 0.40", RW = 116.8gr
AG: Pen = 18.9”, RD = 0.50”, RL= 0.52", RW =
117.5gr

vs

.40 S&W Fed
180 gr HST JHP; ave vel=959 fps (S&W 4006)
BG: pen=14.0",
RD=0.70", RL=0.43", RW=181.2gr
4LD: pen=15.0",
RD=0.56"
, RL=0.52", RW=180.7gr

Note in my cherry
picked tests, bolding the four layer denim test to illustrate (Which BTW is a
very street realistic test in my observation of bullets recovered from real
bodies), the 147gr 9mm beats both the .40 and .45 by either more expansion or
more penetration, or both.

Even through auto glass,
the event where the bigger bullets are supposed to have some sort of huge edge,
the 124gr non-bonded +P Ranger-T gives better penetration in the noted
testing.

The truth is, on average, they all work
about the same, and they all work well if the shooter has all their crap in one
bag, if not then none of them work.

I got lazy and quoted myself from elsewhere.  I put the above info into the "too close to call on any given day" category.

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."

Diary of Brother Epp, Capuchin monastery Munjor, Kansas 1902 ___________________________

если не я тогда, кто?

___________________________

"Suppressive fire is best achieved by ploughing bullets into the dirtbag's skull. That is really suppressive." 'Headhunter' quote from TPI forum.

 

I am the owner of Agile Training and Consulting

Originally Posted by tpd223:

You can think that all you want.  People used to think the earth was flat.   

 


 Yup, but the "science" and the "proof" they presented at the time was excepted...to my way of thinking, that comment can cut both ways, and just as easily dismiss the 9mm.

 

 Heres where I start to wonder...every argument for the 9mm starts with "the best ammo", well, what if I don't have the best ammo..for whatever reason?

 I'm a bit of a mouth breather, so when people continuously post all those numbers, I start to tune out. But, to my mind, "cherry picking" loads, tests and data, doesn't mean much.

 

 I know at one time, Doc commented for certain situations, he would carry a M&P40, Mr. Boone had words to the effect of .."all things being equal, the 40 has a slight advantage", he also stated the 40 did not run at higher pressure then the 9mm.

Good enough for me.

 

 Much like Glocks & 1911's, I don't have an issue with the 9mm, "9mm guys" on the other hand I can do with out.

 

 Bob

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

If I primarily was in rural/wilderness areas or worked principally around vehicles, I think a .40 would be a great option and I'd likely carry an M&P40, especially if I got free ammunition to practice with.  In urban or suburban environments, then 9 mm makes a lot of sense, particularly if I have to purchase my own ammo.

Bob, the "best ammo" is highly available.  One can pick Ranger-T, Gold Dot or HST in any of those calibers and drive on.

 

If I had to use WWB JHPs then I'd want the 180gr .40 since it's one of the few that works well in all of the FBI tests (heavy clothing and auto glass being the two that seem to be the most important in my estimation).

 

Last time I talked to Bufford he told me that the .40 in full power mode with the right bullets was normally measurably better than most other service pistols in a shot-for-shot basis.  The issue is folks who can't handle the snap and guns that can't run with said ammo.  This, in my mind, makes it similar to arguing that the 10mm is the best pistol round you can buy.  In theory yes, in practice it gets more complicated.

 

If I had to carry ball ammo for whatever reason I'd go with the 9mm because everything in pistols sucks when shooting ball ammo, so lots of bullets faster seems like the best bet to me.

______________________________________________________________________

"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."

Diary of Brother Epp, Capuchin monastery Munjor, Kansas 1902 ___________________________

если не я тогда, кто?

___________________________

"Suppressive fire is best achieved by ploughing bullets into the dirtbag's skull. That is really suppressive." 'Headhunter' quote from TPI forum.

 

I am the owner of Agile Training and Consulting

Considering that the hit ratio across the country by police appears to be on the 20% and under level, and that fact that pistol shooting pretty much sucks across the board, regardless of caliber, configuration, MV or advertising-maybe we should be spending more time ensuring that we can actually hit with what is ever in that chamber and magazine right fucking now.

And this is where I see an advantage to the 9mm for most places.  When I was running our program, and just before then, we had a string of nine OISs in a row with 100% hits.  I think that's pretty profound considering the national averages.

 

That we could shoot about 30% more for the same money using 9mm over .40, and about twice as much as using .45s, is an advantage we made good use of.  Everyone I know has a finite ammo budget.

______________________________________________________________________

"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."

Diary of Brother Epp, Capuchin monastery Munjor, Kansas 1902 ___________________________

если не я тогда, кто?

___________________________

"Suppressive fire is best achieved by ploughing bullets into the dirtbag's skull. That is really suppressive." 'Headhunter' quote from TPI forum.

 

I am the owner of Agile Training and Consulting

What I worry about with the training argument (i.e. 9mm is easy to train to), having witnessed a steady slide in standards already in only 3 years of law enforcement, is that much of the "9mm effect" in my agency comes from shooters who were initially trained on .40, in a POI that allowed almost 0 rounds for shooters to self diagnosed. A lot of words to say that, of course shooters who transition from 40 to 9mm see increased scores. Their body still remembers .40. If went from 10mm to .40 I would expect to see similar improvements. But would this all hold true if they started on 9mm? We used 9mm NATO in the military and most shooters struggled, and this from a big heavy Beretta 92. 

 

At least in my agency, in 5 months of firearms training, nearly every round is shot is previously accounted for and shot at a specific yard line, in a specific manner, within a specific timeline. So I came in a pretty accomplished shooter and left with some pretty gaping deficiencies that took a few months to address, despite a pretty rigorous (self imposed) dry fire regimen. 

 

Our qual course now has shooters so close for so many of the rounds, with any hit within a human torso area counting that you wonder how anyone could fail to qual (80% hits on target). But they do, and you have to be a poor, poor shooter to do so.

 

Is 9mm the answer to this? In the short term, maybe. But we may just enable people to miss faster, and with more rounds.

 

 As I always say in these calibre wars..

 I am not a 9mm hater, and generally dislike people who talk about guns being set on stun, they don't make a 46, and what not.

 I am much more concerned with how my gun is set up, then I am about calibre, or bullet for that matter...I'd gladly carry 9mm ball, and have carried .40 ball, if the gun can be set up how I prefer.

 I regularly recommend 9mm to friends and coworkers.

 What I do take issue with, is the idea that everyone that chooses a .40, is completely ignorant, and made that choice based on penis size, or what not.

 

 I know high quality ammo is available right now, .22LR used to be also...what if all i can find is WWB or hydra -shok? (I've been issued more hydra-shok over the years then anything else)

 What if I decide that little extra penetration is important to me? What if I don't find the recoil objectionable, or worship at the alter of split times?

 I've seen an awful lot of smaller statured shooters(I might be considered one) & new shooters, shoot .40's just fine.

 I'll give up 2 rounds of 9mm for that.

 

 

 My issues witht this subject, right now, are much more then 9mm vs 40...

 

Bob

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

This isn't that hard to grasp. 

 

1) The terminal performance of 9mm has come a long way since the 80's and 90's where it didn't fare so well. 

2) For all intents and purposes, all handguns are weak and not our first choice to stop a threat.  All handgun calibers essentially perform the same. 

3) If they perform the same, then you get some HUGE advantages from the mass issue of 9mm handguns.

    a) More ammo per gun/magazine

    b) Easier caliber to master/shoot well

    c) Less expensive for agency and individual purchases

    d) Less damage/wear on the weapons (saving money on maintenance and replacements)

    e) More universally available (think worldwide).  Anyone want to guess what agents are issued when they deploy OCONUS?  That's right, they leave the G22 at home and take a G17 with them. 

    f) Faster follow-up shots (since we all know handguns suck at putting down 2 legged predators)

 

An interesting fact many may not know about is that the FBI issued 40S&W duty ammo is downloaded by approximately 100fps.  The current 180gr Ranger, and the previous 165gr Gold Dots that are bought by the agency are slower than the same ammo when purchases at Bass Pro or Wal-Mart.  This was to make it easier to shoot.  Not the best idea IMHO, but then they don't care what I think. 

 

Also, remember we are discussing an agency with 13,000 or so sworn.  That's a lot of guns, ammo, and time to get agents ready for the street.  Using 9mm is a win for that scenario. 

 

The bottom line is that the difference is not worth the debate that will always ensue when people get their feelings hurt because agency XYZ doesn't use their favorite ABC bullet/caliber... This is in no way a step backwards in time as some have suggested.  If we should be surprised by anything, it's that they are doing something that actually makes perfect sense. 

Here are some random thoughts.

 

Doc says he would find the .40 a plus working primarily around vehicles.  It seems to me that 90% of shootings I see reported (LEO or not) are around vehicles (carjackings, ends of LEO chases, road rage, crime related/drug dealing).  There seems to me that there s a disconnect here.

 

I currently carry a Glock 23.  I shoot 180 grain ammo.  Yes, it kicks more than 9mm, but to me it is softer shooting than a full size .357 mag revolver (with full power loads) that was itself once the be all end all of LEO weapons.  Having said this, I am ready to go back to 9mm for logistics reasons.  Unfortunately, I can't find 9mm ammo (locally) so it doesn't make much since to change right now.

 

 

Originally Posted by Calhoun123:

Here are some random thoughts.

 

Doc says he would find the .40 a plus working primarily around vehicles.  It seems to me that 90% of shootings I see reported (LEO or not) are around vehicles (carjackings, ends of LEO chases, road rage, crime related/drug dealing).  There seems to me that there s a disconnect here.

  

I work for an agency that currently has a staffing of around 950 officers (Down from 1,150, but that's another topic).

 

I don't have the stats in front of me currently, but the majority of our shootings are not around cars. If we were a State Patrol agency, then of course I'm sure that stat would be much different. 

 

The FBI has had to "download" their 40 duty rounds, twice, as I have been told. This was to assist with the ability of their weaker shooters with recoil management and qualification scores. I can't help but to think this would have a negative effect on the reliability of the gun with this ammunition. 

 

As an agency, one must look to the weaker shooters, not the stronger shooters. One's goal should be to ensure the best chance of officer survival for all officers within the agency. 

 

From this point of view, I think the 9mm makes sense as an agency issued round. The cost savings of training ammunition is also a huge factor in these lean economic times of ever tightening budgets. 

 

Not only have I read the test results of the various rounds, but I attended a couple of ballistic workshops we hosted. "Seeing is believing" as they say. And I say with my own eyes the "difference" in performance with the same design of bullet in the different calibers. 

 

I have nothing against the 40 cal round. If I were issued 40 cal training ammunition, I would own a few of the guns. But I do get tired of the uneducated who want to argue how inadequate the 9mm round is.  And how superior the 40 cal round would be due to the huge increase in bullet diameter. I deal with this on occasion when talking people first interested in personal protection and CCW.  My first counter to those lost souls is to ask if they are aware what the metric diameter is of the 40 cal round? That would be 10mm. The extra 1mm increase in diameter is so huge...

 

Over the years, I have seen people shot with every caliber of pistol that an individual could possibly steal. I have no delusions of a miraculous "One Shot Stop". I have seen it happen at times. If a handgun round does stop the aggressive actions when I need it to, well good!  But I train and plan for things to not go so well. My faith in a one shot stop from a handgun is about as strong as my faith in humanity... 

 

Fortunately those types don't visit this site much.  And when they do, their time spent trolling is limited before they get spanked and sent home.

 

This topic has seemed to have drifted to a 9mm vs. 40 cal debate. Color me shocked.

 

I feel if you are an individual who carries a 40 cal pistol, using ammunition that is not downloaded like the FBI currently does, and you are satisfied with it, great! It is a very good round.

 

But for an agency of around 13,000 agents with a verity of body sizes, builds, and skill levels, then I feel the 9mm round makes more sense. Especially for those agents who are weaker shooters.  

 

 

 

 

 

Joined: 4-23-04                                          Location: SW Ohio

 

 Just to clarify..

 I do not think or am I arguing that the 9mm is inadequate.

 Only that not everyone that carry's a .40 does so in complete ignorance.

 Add to that, with the FBI and other agencies switching calibres and guns, left and right, I gave up trying to keep up.

 Some very well thought of individuals said the M&P was IT, then it wsn't and the Walther was, then back to the Glock...whatfuckingever..

 

 There is a growing trend of reverse/elitism on the net, including LFer, if you don't have the right gun, calibre, scope mount, RDS, lube, etc etc..you are wrong. While I agree there is whole lot of crap out there, I refuse to believe there is only one acceptable choice of any thing.

 A few years back, on a certain 1911 centric forum, the overwhelming insinuation was if you had a beavertail, & Novak sights, you were duped by slick marketing and were an idiot....neverming the huge numbers of real deal guys that used those things.

 

The whole thing is very tiring..

 

Bob

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

Bob,

My last post was not directed towards you. I do not feel that you have been argumentative against the 9mm or in general with your responses.  Quite the opposite actually. You present sound judgement and logic in your choice.

I agree with you that there are various options out there. There does exist a certain amount of elitism on the internet. There also exists a certain amount of ego and personal preference being interjected into decisions that should be based off of logic and factual data. Unfortunately this ego and personal bias transcends the internet and appears its ugly head within agencies.  Especially by individuals with no qualifications other than the fact of their rank within the organization.

 

 

 

Joined: 4-23-04                                          Location: SW Ohio

If we spent 1/10th of 1% of the time and emotion we put towards various caliber / kit discussions on improving mindset and fundamental gun fighting skills, we would be better off by a factor of billions.

 

I've carried 9mm, .40, .45, and .357 sig calibers over the years on various jobs, both CONUS and OCONUS.  I'm perfectly fine with any of them.  At the end of the day, they are all just handgun calibers, and will perform as such.

 

There are a lot of piece of shit pistols out there that I would not be comfortable carrying.  There are also a lot high quality, highly reliable pistols that I would have no problem trusting my life to.

 

There are a lot of high quality, well made plate carriers, holsters, helmets, lights, belts, gloves, etc., etc., etc., on the market.  Many of them will work great for a lot of people.

 

There are also a lot of piece of shit Condor and Blackhawk pieces of kit out there.  

 

Figure out the weapons and kit that work for you.  Educate yourself.  Do not be cheap in this process.

 

After making intelligent choices, get to work on what really matters.

 

I'll take 4 switched on guys with .38 revolvers and minimal gear any day of the week over 4 guys who look like they are walking a tactical runway.

 

Sorry fellas - I know I'm largely preaching to the choir here.  This shit just drives me nuts sometimes.

 

John

 

 

"Whose car we gonna take?"

Originally Posted by El Cid:

3) If they perform the same, then you get some HUGE advantages from the mass issue of 9mm handguns.

    a) More ammo per gun/magazine

    b) Easier caliber to master/shoot well

    c) Less expensive for agency and individual purchases

    d) Less damage/wear on the weapons (saving money on maintenance and replacements)

    e) More universally available (think worldwide).  Anyone want to guess what agents are issued when they deploy OCONUS?  That's right, they leave the G22 at home and take a G17 with them. 

    f) Faster follow-up shots (since we all know handguns suck at putting down 2 legged predators)

 

We all end up prone to exaggeration when it comes to firearms. I'm guilty of it myself. I think I can phrase this in a way we can mostly agree on (because other than your point about OCONUS availability, none of the above is HUGE).

 

9mm gets you a ~15% improvement in ammo capacity, shot splits, ammo costs, and weapon wear and tear, at a cost of ~15% decrease in terminal effects, bore diameter, and projectile weight.  

 

Thats what all this teeth gnashing comes down to. As someone who would actually be affected by this shift, I welcome the option to have the choice of an issued 9mm.

 

But notice I said CHOICE. I don't know what round will be selected, at what grain weight, and in what quantity it will be issued. I don't know if they will retain the inane policy whereby I can carry a 26, 27, 22, or 21, but not a 19 or 23, which would actually make sense. 

 

The FBI FTU section is (in my opinion) a few smart guys led and managed by functional retards. The overall instruction (excepting a few locked on contractors and the practical applications/defensive tactics units) is piss poor. I've seen better shooters come out of a four day Front Sight course than some that come out of 5 months at the FBI. And guess what? That is probably most LE agencies as well. So we talk about reduced shot splits, recoil, better hits on target, and I worry we'll still have the same problem, just with a slightly smaller round.

Originally Posted by John A Brown:

If we spent 1/10th of 1% of the time and emotion we put towards various caliber / kit discussions on improving mindset and fundamental gun fighting skills, we would be better off by a factor of billions.

 

...

 

Figure out the weapons and kit that work for you.  Educate yourself.  Do not be cheap in this process.

 

After making intelligent choices, get to work on what really matters.

 

I'll take 4 switched on guys with .38 revolvers and minimal gear any day of the week over 4 guys who look like they are walking a tactical runway.

 

... 

JAB,

While I largely agree with the sentiment, writing from much less experience then yourself; these comments seem misplaced in this thread, if not anti-intellectual to minor detriment. 

Your solution describes individual choices, when it seems organizational issue - the baseline from which many's individual choices stem from - is what's at hand. As well, it's certainly been had out here on LF that overprioritizing software to the detriment of hardware is unacceptable; each needs to be represented with excellence to maximize the individual's ability. 

In your opening line, you castigate the process of evaluating calibers and whatnot; and then later say we should "Figure out..." That reads like dumping empiricism and quantification with a non-specific warm and fuzzy sort of rubric. I'm a bit confused about what you were replying to.

Jules

Re the FBI's 10mm and .40s&w loads. They never "down loaded" anything. Their "ideal" round was spec'd as a .40 180 grain JHP pushed at approximately 1000 fps, just under, actually, and that's what they got. Their loads were and remain basically the same loads, 180 grains pushed at approximately 1000 fps. If anything, their loads have evolved to be marginally faster.

 

DHS' largest agency, ICE, is apparently considering a change of pistols and possibly caliber. And as with the FBI, as they go others will follow. They conducted an agency wide survey that can apparently be summed up as "we want Glock 19s or 23s." They currently issue Sig 229s in .40s&w but allow personally owned pistols to include Glock 17s and 26s; the G26s are apparently very popular. They are .40s&w cheerleaders, though, so it will be interesting to see what they choose and how the decision is spun.

 

I settled on 9mm for my duty pistols myself as soon as it was an option for all the reason stated throughout the thread. I get the distinct idea that many of my peers think that I might as well be throwing rocks. The flack I get...

God, country, family

Thanks Doc.  I knew you or Buford would have my back.  I know FTU instructors who ran to sign out as many boxes of 165gr Gold Dots as they were able when the announcement was made that the future purchases would be neutered. 

Middlelength, it's my understanding the G19 is at the top of the list to be added as an authorized POW. Probably because it's the gun all the instructors want to carry.  Those with grandfathered G19's seem to be the envy of many. 

Yes, I said "HUGE" because we are talking about an agency wide adoption.  That 15% difference may not be such a big deal when looking at individual shooters, but when the totality of mass issue weapons and ammo is a factor, dropping the high pressure 40 for a 9mm is significant in my opinion. 

If it were up to me (and of course it isn't), agents would be issued a 9mm (G17 or 19) and have the option to purchase other 9mm and 45 ACP pistols upon getting to the field.  I wouldn't leave 40 on the table. I don't see the added value.  Regardless of how talented and skilled a shooter, I believe that your abilities with a G17 will outperform your use of the G22.  Why tolerate increased muzzle flip and more wear on the gun when the terminal performance is so close?

El Cid's comments are accurate--both of the last two issued .40 loads were neutered mid-contract.

 

quote:

"9mm gets you a ~15% improvement in ammo capacity, shot splits, ammo costs, and weapon wear and tear, at a cost of ~15% decrease in terminal effects, bore diameter, and projectile weight.

 

The above is not accurate in my experience.  9 mm pistols tend to have more like double to triple the service life of an equivalent pistol in .40 S&W.  If using a neutered .40 load, there may be no decrease in terminal effects when shifting to 9 mm.

Originally Posted by El Cid:
If it were up to me (and of course it isn't), agents would be issued a 9mm (G17 or 19) and have the option to purchase other 9mm and 45 ACP pistols upon getting to the field.  I wouldn't leave 40 on the table.

 

 IMO, thats no better then any other Chief/RO/FTU whathaveyou guy choosing .45/.357sig/whathaveyou

 

Bob

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

I totally get what you are saying Bob, and I think it's two sides of the same coin.

 

Guys who have an articulable reason for a bigger caliber?  Sure. 

 

I have a friend who carries a .45, he shoots it very well.  He reloads his own ammo and shoots in bulk.  He maxes the qual every single time he hits the range, trains on the side at name brand classes, etc.   He makes a lot of car stops and also lives where he might have to put down stuff like an injured moose, the bigger bullets make him more happier about stuff like that.

 

I'd tell a guy like that to carry on.

 

 

 

Guys bagging on the 9mm as a "girl's gun" "because .45!!!!!" or .40?  Retards.

 

 

 

Oh, on the other thing, I have personally crono'd the standard and the FBI 165gr Gold Dot, the over the counter stuff was running 1185 that day, the FBI ammo was in the mid 900s.  There was a big difference in felt recoil from a gen 3 G22.

 

This ammo did make a couple of choking G22s run just fine though due to decreasing the slide velocity to reasonable levels.

______________________________________________________________________

"...because without beer, things do not seem to go as well."

Diary of Brother Epp, Capuchin monastery Munjor, Kansas 1902 ___________________________

если не я тогда, кто?

___________________________

"Suppressive fire is best achieved by ploughing bullets into the dirtbag's skull. That is really suppressive." 'Headhunter' quote from TPI forum.

 

I am the owner of Agile Training and Consulting

Originally Posted by R.Moran:
Originally Posted by El Cid:
If it were up to me (and of course it isn't), agents would be issued a 9mm (G17 or 19) and have the option to purchase other 9mm and 45 ACP pistols upon getting to the field.  I wouldn't leave 40 on the table.

 

 IMO, thats no better then any other Chief/RO/FTU whathaveyou guy choosing .45/.357sig/whathaveyou

 

Bob


In a perfect world, we could all carry whatever caliber and make/model of pistol fits us best, and with which we are most confident (within reason of course - major calibers/brands).  For some smaller agencies that may work well, but my statement was predicated upon a worldwide agency with 13,000+ armed personnel. 

 

I think agents should be able to choose between 9mm and 45ACP.  If they want a small, easy to conceal, and easy to master weapon, get a 9mm.  If they want/need larger bullets, then get the 45.  I personally carry both on and off duty.  I really see no reason to have 40 as an option with the increase in wear on the guns, and the increase in muzzle flip.  If those cons bring significantly better terminal performance, then I'm all for sucking it up and carrying a 40.  For my entire life I've had handguns in 9mm/45ACP.  When I got into LE, I was issued a G22 and I embraced it and shot it almost exclusively for several years. 

 

As I've gotten more experienced, and more educated, I realized that for me the 40 does nothing better than 9/45, and IMHO comes with more drawbacks.  My agency is limited on what we can carry, but I'm carrying a G21 on my belt, and a G26 as a BUG.  We aren't approved for G30's, so nothing I could carry would have magazine compatibility with the G21. 

 

Back to my comments about being "king for a day", I would certainly allow a wider variety of handguns (more Glocks, M&P's, HK's).  But with the agency being responsible for ammo, and the previously mentioned performance issue, why should they buy 3 types of ammo when 2 choices (9/45) will cover what most LEO's need/want.  This is even more true in my view because the 40 is not even true 40S&W (i.e. They have it downloaded). 

 

The other thing I have to remind myself of from time to time... we are talking about general issue weapons to agencies where 99% of the LEO's are not gun enthusiasts.  They only shoot on the days when they are forced to go to the range, and then usually whine the entire time.  If we were talking about a gun/ammo policy for those of us who post on LF... that would be a different story. 

There is nothing here that I have not posted before about why I went back to 9mm.

 

Logistically for any large entity the idea of supplying multiple pistol calibers is rather asinine.   If an agency wants to give agents, or officers/whatever latitude to carry different weapons, then I feel that the support aspect is borne by the individual -- the agency may supply a list of approved "do it yourself" items, but bearing the cost is to me unreasonable.

 

I'm not a big fan of .40 but if someone feels they need it, or .45 or .357SIG, or .44AUTOMAG, then those costs and the support of the platform should be an individual responsibility.

 

I'd much rather see agencies spend money on more carbine for their forces than try to supply multiple pistol calibers.

 

 

 

 

______________________________

Kevin S. Boland

Director of R&D

Law Tactical LLC

 

Mobile: 407-451-4544 

www.lawtactical.com

 

Joined: 10/8/03  

Originally Posted by tpd223:

Guys bagging on the 9mm as a "girl's gun" "because .45!!!!!" or .40?  Retards.

 

 Agreed!! 100%

 

 ElCId,

 If the 9mm is GTG..why authorize the .45 at all? Why not issue one calibre that splits the difference?

 What I meant by my comment, was..a lot of guys(not just in these threads, but life in general) bitch about admin types making decisions based on what they feel/think/like, whatever, but if they were "King for a day", they'd turn around and do the same thing, or if they happen to like the decision, no matter how it was arrived at, then it's OK, also.

 

 I also agree with Kevin, more long guns, but that most likely won't happen, and 9mm is probably the most logical choice for a large agency...but..

 

 -Down loaded .40? I am old enough to remember all the 9mm v .45 article of the 80/90's(see, some body was asking the question)..and I distincly remember the the intro of the .40 being a 180grn JHP at 950fps so it mirrored the popular .45 loads of the day...185's at similiar velocity.

 

 -Wear and tear and gun issues, like G22's...I think thats just it...a gun issue.

 

 -Training..as I've stated, I've been issued a G22 at three facilities now, and everyone of them has had multiple females, with...uh..less then SRT training, and one or two with..the vast majority of them shot it wwell enough to qual, and thats on the older DOE qual.

 Most of the poor shooters I see, going to 9mm is not going to help them, nor is going to a 1911 and it's magic trigger either.

 Next training day, I am going to ask the training staff guy's what they see. Most just shoot shrug and shoot what's issued. One is an IPSC Grandmaster, he might have a bit of insight on the training thing.

 If your .org is going to spend the saved ammo money, on more ammo and training, good for them. It's been my experience that money saved on the training and op's side is rarely spent there..but moved over to some other BS.

 

 If I went to work tomorrow and got a G17 with ball ammo, I'd be fine...I'd be fucking estatic if it had a light, 5.5 connector, and vickers controls...I might actually smile if it was an M&P40 though..

 

 Why do people who advocate the 9mm, say they would go to a .45 if they had a capacity limit of 7-10rds?

 

Bob

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

The down loaded FBI ammo information is helping me to make sense of something now. A friend of mine visited home and had some training ammo with him. I remember shooting a Glock 22 and thinking, "Hey this isn't too bad actually." Guess I was being lulled with falsehoods now! In the past, the only reason I haven't liked 40 has been because platform wasn't great. I shot a Beretta once that seemed appropriate for the caliber but I have since learned they don't last long either. These days I stick to 9mm and 45 to keep it simple. 9mm  for training / work / carry and 45 to satisfy my reloading en devours for fun. If I had to use a different caliber for a job I wouldn't cry about it or care that much knowing what I know now.

My blog on tactical health, fitness, and rehabilitation 

It is because men understand the concept of fear. The beast does not. Men take into consideration they may get hurt. The beast does not. The beast only knows attack what is in front of him and does not stop until it stops moving. He only knows that distinctive law of the jungle: eat or be eaten. -Shankle-

I may have missed it somewhere, but is it known yet what platform the FBI is looking to use when/if they go to a 9mm? At first I would assume that they would stay with the Glock, but I would think that S&W would do whatever they could to get the M&P as the FBI issued weapon. 

 

 

 

Joined: 4-23-04                                          Location: SW Ohio

Originally Posted by R.Moran:

ElCId,
If the 9mm is GTG..why authorize the .45 at all? Why not issue one calibre that splits the difference?

Because people come in different shapes and sizes.  If a shooter has larger meat-hooks (such as myself), then the larger frame weapon may be a better choice.  This allows them the option of a G21, M&P45, HK45, etc.  It also allows them to choose a 1911, P220, or similar system if that is a better fit.  I’m not advocating for the agency offering all those choices, but as KevinB suggested – user purchased weapons.  If it were up to me, they would issue a G17 or G19 at the academy.  I include the G19 because they are almost always in street clothes, and I’ve seen smaller stature agents with a G22/17, and they look like they are trying to smuggle a coffee maker in their back pocket. 
I don’t see a logical reason to add a third primary caliber when it doesn’t improve terminal ballistic results, and it comes with a price (muzzle flip, wear & tear).  Anyone who wants a gun that size can choose the same weapon in 9mm.  Easier to shoot (no matter their skill level), more longevity (whether a private purchase or agency weapon), and more rounds in each magazine.  Also, for agencies where LEO’s have to, or choose to buy their own ammo, 9mm is less expensive.


Originally Posted by R.Moran:
What I meant by my comment, was..a lot of guys(not just in these threads, but life in general) bitch about admin types making decisions based on what they feel/think/like, whatever, but if they were "King for a day", they'd turn around and do the same thing, or if they happen to like the decision, no matter how it was arrived at, then it's OK, also.

While I would make changes, and expand the program if I was in charge… I can appreciate the complications of how those decisions affect such a large agency.  There are things that can be done to help them, which include delegating routine weapon maintenance to the field instead of having a logistical choke point at Quantico.  I’d allow agents to purchase a wider variety of weapons for better fit/comfort, but they’d be restricted to 9 or 45.   Sticking with quality manufacturers would still provide a dramatic increase in choices for end users.  Currently they can keep the issued G22 (or G23 depending on when they cycled through the academy), or they can purchase one or two of the following:  G26, G27, G21.  Agents who are, or have been HRT/SWAT can purchase a Springfield 1911 for use on duty (even after leaving the team).  So that’s it.  The typical street agent can buy one of those 3 firearms to use on duty.  And the decision by Glock to stop making the non-SF G21 3rd Gen guns will have consequences.  Only a small unit within the FBI gets to use the G21SF.  Agents cannot buy a 21SF or Gen 4 21 to use on duty.  So with no more regular 3rd gen 21’s in the pipeline, they will have to either expand the program to include SF and/or Gen 4 models, or there will only be two purchase options left for agents (the 26 and 27). 

Originally Posted by R.Moran:
I also agree with Kevin, more long guns, but that most likely won't happen, and 9mm is probably the most logical choice for a large agency...but..

Completely agree!  If I were “king for a day” there would be privately purchased long guns added to the list for agents.  Currently there are none authorized, though some agents have grandfathered weapons.  You can usually tell who they are because the AR’s are 20” or 16” guns with no muzzle device and a fixed stock.  The currently issued RRA guns are junk, but there is no option for an agent to buy a quality rifle for use on duty.


Originally Posted by R.Moran:
-Down loaded .40? I am old enough to remember all the 9mm v .45 article of the 80/90's(see, some body was asking the question)..and I distincly remember the the intro of the .40 being a 180grn JHP at 950fps so it mirrored the popular .45 loads of the day...185's at similiar velocity.

-Wear and tear and gun issues, like G22's...I think thats just it...a gun issue.

-Training..as I've stated, I've been issued a G22 at three facilities now, and everyone of them has had multiple females, with...uh..less then SRT training, and one or two with..the vast majority of them shot it wwell enough to qual, and thats on the older DOE qual.
Most of the poor shooters I see, going to 9mm is not going to help them, nor is going to a 1911 and it's magic trigger either.
Next training day, I am going to ask the training staff guy's what they see. Most just shoot shrug and shoot what's issued. One is an IPSC Grandmaster, he might have a bit of insight on the training thing.

I won’t pretend to have any magic fixes for poor shooters, and I’m not suggesting that a switch to 9mm will improve scores.  I suspect it would help shooters who have trouble with the 40, but I can tell you that’s what they do currently.  A trainee who doesn’t qualify with the G22 is given a G17 and 2 weeks of intensive firearms training. 



Originally Posted by R.Moran:
If your .org is going to spend the saved ammo money, on more ammo and training, good for them. It's been my experience that money saved on the training and op's side is rarely spent there..but moved over to some other BS.

I concur – and I have no illusions that money saved would be put back into the firearms program.  Though as KFAD, I certainly would do so.

Originally Posted by R.Moran:
If I went to work tomorrow and got a G17 with ball ammo, I'd be fine...I'd be fucking estatic if it had a light, 5.5 connector, and vickers controls...I might actually smile if it was an M&P40 though..

I’d be more than fine with a G17.  But if they gave me FMJ ammo, I’d buy my own service ammo to carry.  And back to the KFAD… I’d support use of Vickers mag/slide catches, Grip Force Adapters, custom stippling, Robar grip reductions, etc.

Originally Posted by R.Moran:
Why do people who advocate the 9mm, say they would go to a .45 if they had a capacity limit of 7-10rds?


I’m not advocating for 9mm so much as I am advocating for the disuse of 40S&W.  With regard to capacity, my 45 carries 13+1 with flush fitting magazines.  When I carry a G17/19 I don’t feel any less equipped for the day…  but a few tactically minded coworkers and I have discussed this a few times over the last few years – I don’t think I’d personally be comfortable with an 8 or 9 shot gun as my primary weapon.  In the world of active shooters, and multiple bad guys, I wouldn’t carry a 1911 if it was an option for me.  If a fellow LEO wants to, then I’m okay with that.  But I can’t promise I won’t occasionally pick on him.
Originally Posted by Beat Trash:

 

The FBI has had to "download" their 40 duty rounds, twice, as I have been told. This was to assist with the ability of their weaker shooters with recoil management and qualification scores. I can't help but to think this would have a negative effect on the reliability of the gun with this ammunition. 


 

 

They did that to reduce slide velocity on the Glock 22 so it would function, and function with a light. There may have also been concerns about felt recoil but that is what it took to make the guns work.

I'm not a ballistics expert, weapons expert, bullet expert, LE expert or anything like that.  Nor did I stay at the holiday inn last night.  I do know a little bit about the public admin/MIL decision making process.  A key part of the proccess is identifying and prioritizing evaluation criteria.  This changes project to project and leader to leader.  Guy A might say Factor A is most important, Guy B might say factor Z is.  That will affect the outcome.  GuyA might be right for his situation and guy B might be right for his.  Your situation could be completely different.  Think and act accordingly.
 
PAT, DR ROBERTS and many other people have already given us the answers and we just need to stop the squabbling and listen.  DR ROBERTS has said the Shot Placement is the key factor, and PAT has continuous hit the TRAINING piece.  IMHO use what you have, train hard and put the Bullet in the lethal areas faster than he can do it to you, and if you get shot along the way, DO NOT QUIT, CONTINUE TO KILL THE BAD GUY UNTIL EITHER HE IS DEAD OR YOU ARE. 
 
Feel free to call me an A-hole.  This particular discussion dosen't affect me much as I am stuck with USGI FMJ in 9MM,5.56MM,7.62MM,ETC.  All of which can be down right lethal when used properly. 

 

___________________________________________________________________

I'm either dead right, or horribly wrong. Either way the results should be entertaining.

 

"Shoot the MOTHERF$%^ER until he changes shape or catches fire"  the PAT ROGERS

Add Reply

Post
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2019
×
×
×
×
×