FBI Goes GLOCK 9mm

alucard0822 said:

Thing is some 40S&W subsonic 165-180gr LEO loads like Speer's 53949 are a lot more pleasant to shoot than comparable 9+p, they run at a much lower pressure and are more efficient in short barrels, so even though raw recoil may calculate about the same, they feel LIGHTER than 9, but have more momentum to enhance penetration, and a larger diameter, only thing you really give up is a round or two in capacity. The FBI doesn't really mention that all of the new tech that improves 9mm ballistics is also used in other calibers, and in 40's case, due to it's popularity there are some loads that are just better for many purposes. I do understand their reasons for going back to 9, and agree, it's primarily cost, and ease of training, it is not because it is a better round, merely that it is the cheapest and least powerful round that can meet their minimum ballistic criteria.

Click to expand...

that is how government procurement is supposed to operate. define the requirement, and spend the least amount to get that requirement. if we find out in a few years this doesn't work well, it is the requirement that is flawed, not which round they chose to purchase.

I thought they had Sig P320s?

finally

jawn said:

There's a reason I said premium. Most of the loads that the LuckyGunner tested are antiquated garbage or bulk pack stuff, e.g.: PMC StarFire, Prvi Partisan, Federal Hi-Shok, etc... No department would ever use this stuff as their issue ammo.

...

Click to expand...

So what if there are lower end offerings in the comparison. There were agency loads in the list as well, and (predictable) differences in expansion even among "premium" loads.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

jawn said:

There's a reason I said premium. Most of the loads that the LuckyGunner tested are antiquated garbage or bulk pack stuff, e.g.: PMC StarFire, Prvi Partisan, Federal Hi-Shok, etc... No department would ever use this stuff as their issue ammo.

Hydrostatic shock doesn't come into play until at least 1000 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. All handgun rounds are poor man-stoppers. Carry what you can shoot accurately and rapidly. So maybe the FBI has a problem with hiring "snowflakes" as you've so eloquently put it. You can't say that even for the non-snowflakes that shoot .40 well, they wouldn't shoot 9mm better.

The other aspect to this is that the FBI has way more M4 variants now. If the Miami incident were to occur today, they'd never send guys in with handguns and shotguns to pick up guys with rifles.

Click to expand...

Well there is some older stuff on there, there's plenty of new as you say "premium" rounds in those tests too. In any case I was just posting one source, there's a ton of ballistic tests out there on the web. Though some are much better and more unbiased than others.

My own experience comes from a couple of decades in law enforcement including a lot of years in forensics where I got to actually see what the recovered rounds from autopsies looked like. Followed by actually selling several million dollars worth of firearms and ammunition to police departments all over the country every year as part of my current full time job.

I don't think the 9mm is a bad round. Heck it's what I carry every day. I just realize that it is not as good a round as the .40 or .45. People have been trying to perfect and improve the 9mm round for over a century. Other than the bonded jacket bullet there really hasn't been much significant new technology since the invention of the jacketed hollow point itself. And even the bonded bullet doesn't make a huge difference. Especially in 9mm where core-jacket separation is not a big problem with decent ammo.

I've seen plenty of tests where the vaunted 9mm Gold Dot and similar offerings don't expand or penetrate much or any more than traditional JHP rounds. Looking at the data for the so-called "premium" rounds it becomes apparent that .40 caliber rounds tend to give better expansion and much better penetration than 9mm.

Some bullets also tend to work better in different calibers as well. Hydra Shok is an excellent round in 9mm, in .40, not so much.

While you are right, no handgun round (that can be practically carried) is a man-stopper, agencies should still want the most effective round they can get. The argument over shot placement and trainability for certain rounds is separate from what I am talking about here. Though as I have said, if someone can't even learn to shoot a .40 caliber pistol to the point of qualifying on a basic police course I question their career choice. But it's not correct to say that terminal ballistics from all three main calibers are virtually the same with modern premium ammo. There are significant differences.

Poor physical fitness is a problem dogging agencies all over the country and that is one of the chief reasons you're seeing the switch to 9mm. Just as Peel said 150 years ago the police represent the population they come from. And the population they come from these days is not on average very physically fit. You don't need to be an athlete to shoot a .40 caliber round but fitness does affect one's marksmanship and confidence. Especially to a population of college aged young people who have never fired a gun in their lives before entering an academy, the little bit of snappiness added by the .40 caliber round seems to be too much for some. Especially smaller framed people who are not fit. And that's not to say females can't shoot. Many shoot better than male recruits with good training, because they actually know how to listen. But no one in charge of any department has the balls to say the real reason they want to go to 9mm is too many of their recruits (or current veterans!) can't shoot the current gun satisfactorily any more.

Personally I don't see why agencies just give people the choice between three or four effective calibers and let them carry what they want. Administrators hate it because it involves relinquishing control but I think it would be better for everybody.

As for the FBI shooting, yeah, we weren't stupid in LE back in those days about guns either. Especially since probably about half the people on the job back in those days were Vietnam veterans. The FBI had people with MP5's in the area when that shooting happened. They were just "indisposed" when the incident went down and went from just another suspicious vehicle to a full blown firefight in a matter of minutes. Having patrol rifles available does not negate the need for equipping people with the best pistol round available. If that were the case then what would be the point of carrying handguns at all.

Just my .02.

^
Great post. Always admire your equanimity. Should be an example.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I think the .357 SIG and .40 will be dead to most U.S.L.E. Agencies in a few years.

IMO it makes no sense to use anything other than 9mm or .45 for an autoloading defensive handgun unless you need a 10mm.

Everyday I am asked to find evidence based best practices to support a decision already made solely on the bottom line.

In other words, the FBI has determined that the 9mm is the best cartridge they're going to buy.

zoostation said:

Amazing how the terminal ballistics of quality 9mm and .40 caliber JHP rounds haven't changed much at all in twenty years yet suddenly when a lot of recruits can't qualify with .40 anymore, the 9mm becomes just as good. Plus I read on the internet the 9mm is a better choice. It must be true.

I just wish they'd be honest. The .40 makes bigger holes in bad guys when it hits. It's just many of today's snowflakes can't land those hits. So it's a little snappier. It's not that bad. You'd think it recoiled like .500 S&W the way some of these self-anointed "experts" on the web talk. My own opinion is if you can't handle the little extra noise and recoil from a .40, then law enforcement probably isn't a good career choice for you.

Rant off.

Click to expand...

I always stay out of these caliber arguments, but I agree with this 100%.

clandestine said:

I think the .357 SIG and .40 will be dead to most U.S.L.E. Agencies in a few years.

IMO it makes no sense to use anything other than 9mm or .45 for an autoloading defensive handgun unless you need a 10mm.

Click to expand...

I've come to respect your insights, so please take this as a genuine question. When would you choose .45 ACP over the 9mm?

bitterkenny said:

I've come to respect your insights, so please take this as a genuine question. When would you choose .45 ACP over the 9mm?

Click to expand...

I would not personally choose a .45 over a 9mm. I sold all of my .45's long ago. I would never choose .45 over 9mm unless I had to pick a particular handgun. For instance of I had to own a 1911, it WILL be a .45.

IMO there is nothing the .40 does better than than either .45 or 9mm when comparing stopping power (and IMO 3 calibers suck as man stoppers), cost, capacity, and recoil.

IMO, if you want a man stopper in an autoloader handgun, get a 10mm.

If one is choosing .40 because it makes a bigger hole, and that a bigger hole is important, then the logical choice is .45. .45 not only makes a bigger hole than .40, it suppresses better than a .40 as well.

If capacity is important then a 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If cost is important then 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If recoil and fast follow up shots are inportant then 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If grip size is inportant then 9mm and .40 are equal, and .45 is out in many designs.

I look at my guns as tools. I pick calibers that are common, guns that parts and magazines are common and plentiful.

I personally think all agencies should go with the new 8x19mm Black Widow round. It only weighs 15 grains but leaves the barrel at 7,000fps and contains a small venomous spider in the nose cone. The spider then bites the bad guy who falls instantly dead, as has been proven by many James Bond films. It does not make a large wound cavity, which has the added benefit of four out five dentists preferring it for preventing cavities. A rifle version is also planned, which will fire a heavier bullet transporting a pregnant venomous spider which will lay several hundred eggs with a three days gestation period before hatching and bursting forth through the skin. This will not only have the effect of instantly killing the bad guy, it will also add great hilarity to the scene of his viewing 72 hours later.

I know it's true. I read it on the internet.

clandestine said:

I would not personally choose a .45 over a 9mm. I sold all of my .45's long ago. I would never choose .45 over 9mm unless I had to pick a particular handgun. For instance of I had to own a 1911, it WILL be a .45.

IMO there is nothing the .40 does better than than either .45 or 9mm when comparing stopping power (and IMO 3 calibers suck as man stoppers), cost, capacity, and recoil.

IMO, if you want a man stopper in an autoloader handgun, get a 10mm.

If one is choosing .40 because it makes a bigger hole, and that a bigger hole is important, then the logical choice is .45. .45 not only makes a bigger hole than .40, it suppresses better than a .40 as well.

If capacity is important then a 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If cost is important then 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If recoil and fast follow up shots are inportant then 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If grip size is inportant then 9mm and .40 are equal, and .45 is out in many designs.

I look at my guns as tools. I pick calibers that are common, guns that parts and magazines are common and plentiful.

Click to expand...

Excellent post!

zoostation said:

I personally think all agencies should go with the new 8x19mm Black Widow round. It only weighs 15 grains but leaves the barrel at 7,000fps and contains a small venomous spider in the nose cone. The spider then bites the bad guy who falls instantly dead, as has been proven by many James Bond films. It does not make a large wound cavity, which has the added benefit of four out five dentists preferring it for preventing cavities. A rifle version is also planned, which will fire a heavier bullet transporting a pregnant venomous spider which will lay several hundred eggs with a three days gestation period before hatching and bursting forth through the skin. This will not only have the effect of instantly killing the bad guy, it will also add great hilarity to the scene of his viewing 72 hours later.

I know it's true. I read it on the internet.

Click to expand...

clandestine said:

I look at my guns as tools. I pick calibers that are common, guns that parts and magazines are common and plentiful.

Click to expand...

I think this is why so many of us have standardized on AR-15's and 9mm Glock's for defensive guns.

zoostation said:

Personally I don't see why agencies just give people the choice between three or four effective calibers and let them carry what they want. Administrators hate it because it involves relinquishing control but I think it would be better for everybody.

Click to expand...

have you ever been on the .gov side of the fence when it comes to purchasing and logistics across an agency?

its a big enough problem keeping 1 item in stock where it needs to be.... never mind 3 or more. you would have a field agency saying they are out of 40 (cuz lets face it, most wouldn't change given the opportunity). but in the system you have 100k rounds of 40... its just in texas and DC and NY not SF. and, likely the agents in SF with no 40 would be shit out of luck because the wouldn't have extra firearms chambered in not 40.

the only way to allow each agent to choose would be to give each agent a yearly stipend for ammo (training requirements + EDC amount). and let them field their own firearms. this would be prohibitively expensive, and depending on the location of the agents, difficult.

I get the intent, but the labor and shipping costs of managing 1 extra caliber is astronomical.

not to mention if there is a shooting the agency is involved in...

the FBI decided that 9mm meets their requirement for performance. it is likely cost and marksmanship issues that are driving that decision. but the FBI has always stated 12 inches of penetration in ballistic gel as the standard.

what I am most curious is if they will be going with 124 gr +p gold dots, or if they will choose a different load.

clandestine said:

I would not personally choose a .45 over a 9mm. I sold all of my .45's long ago. I would never choose .45 over 9mm unless I had to pick a particular handgun. For instance of I had to own a 1911, it WILL be a .45.

IMO there is nothing the .40 does better than than either .45 or 9mm when comparing stopping power (and IMO 3 calibers suck as man stoppers), cost, capacity, and recoil.

IMO, if you want a man stopper in an autoloader handgun, get a 10mm.

If one is choosing .40 because it makes a bigger hole, and that a bigger hole is important, then the logical choice is .45. .45 not only makes a bigger hole than .40, it suppresses better than a .40 as well.

If capacity is important then a 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If cost is important then 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If recoil and fast follow up shots are inportant then 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If grip size is inportant then 9mm and .40 are equal, and .45 is out in many designs.

I look at my guns as tools. I pick calibers that are common, guns that parts and magazines are common and plentiful.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This is especially important because they're spending our money here.

zoostation said:

Amazing how the terminal ballistics of quality 9mm and .40 caliber JHP rounds haven't changed much at all in twenty years yet suddenly when a lot of recruits can't qualify with .40 anymore, the 9mm becomes just as good. Plus I read on the internet the 9mm is a better choice. It must be true.

I just wish they'd be honest. The .40 makes bigger holes in bad guys when it hits. It's just many of today's snowflakes can't land those hits. So it's a little snappier. It's not that bad. You'd think it recoiled like .500 S&W the way some of these self-anointed "experts" on the web talk. My own opinion is if you can't handle the little extra noise and recoil from a .40, then law enforcement probably isn't a good career choice for you.

Rant off.

Click to expand...

I went back to a glock 19 after shooting a glock 23 for years. It definitely was harder for me to shoot the 23 better than the 19. The 19 is such a joy to shoot... and ditto for the 43 I shot for the first time this week.

I feel comfortable shooting the 23, but I don't enjoy it. Like I don't enjoy shooting my 38 airweight but I shoot it well, even shoot well fast. But I don't enjoy it.

I practice with the 19 a heck of a lot more than the 23... love it.

clandestine said:

I would not personally choose a .45 over a 9mm. I sold all of my .45's long ago. I would never choose .45 over 9mm unless I had to pick a particular handgun. For instance of I had to own a 1911, it WILL be a .45.

IMO there is nothing the .40 does better than than either .45 or 9mm when comparing stopping power (and IMO 3 calibers suck as man stoppers), cost, capacity, and recoil.

IMO, if you want a man stopper in an autoloader handgun, get a 10mm.

If one is choosing .40 because it makes a bigger hole, and that a bigger hole is important, then the logical choice is .45. .45 not only makes a bigger hole than .40, it suppresses better than a .40 as well.

If capacity is important then a 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If cost is important then 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If recoil and fast follow up shots are inportant then 9mm wins over .40 and .45.

If grip size is inportant then 9mm and .40 are equal, and .45 is out in many designs.

I look at my guns as tools. I pick calibers that are common, guns that parts and magazines are common and plentiful.

Click to expand...

Agree, good post!! I have found a delta between what my wife feels comfortable with and what i feel comfortable with, so we each have our own in our respective bedside safes...

It may be the gun, but I've always shot better with a .40 cal XDM than a 9mm Glock.

I'm partial to the .45 however. I can put 10 rounds of 9mm into a 4" target and count 10 holes. 10 rounds of .45 make one big hole 4" in diameter.