.40 and Law Enforcement


PDA






tackleberry45
July 2, 2007, 10:45 PM
Here is a good on I am hoping THR folks can help out with. Does anyone really know what drove over 60% (at least this is the figure I heard) of LE to go to the 40 cal? Why the Glock 23/22/27 seems to be the platform of choice? I see a lot of Sig 229s thrown into mix also. Ease of maintenance/ availability of parts? Effectiveness on the street as a potent caliber? Purely a cost issue of the mentioned pistols?

If you enjoyed reading about ".40 and Law Enforcement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
piranha45
July 2, 2007, 10:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

FBI investigation placed blame for the deaths of their agents on a perceived lack of stopping power exhibited by their 9mm service pistols. They soon began the search to adopt a more powerful caliber. Noting the difficulties of reloading a revolver while under fire, they specified that agents should be armed with semiautomatic handguns. The Smith & Wesson 1076, chambered for the powerful 10mm Auto round, was chosen as a direct result of the Miami shootout. It later proved to be too powerful, and was replaced by the .40 S&W, a reduced-power version of the 10mm Auto.

trueblue1776
July 2, 2007, 10:58 PM
it's a good compromise between 9mm and .45? It's a modern cartridge? The price was right?

FieroCDSP
July 2, 2007, 11:01 PM
Read the description header for the 40S&W in "Metallic Cartridge Reloading." Basicly, the 9mm was found to be insufficient in power (at teh time) but had quantity of ammo. The 10mm had the power and penetration, but too much recoil. The 45ACP had penty of power, good recoil, but not enough rounds in a mag (they say only 1 in 3 shots hit in a defensive shooting? That's only 2 hits in a 7-round mag). The 40S&W (some 10mm people call it short and weak) was an FBI-S&W-Winchester joint venture back in 1990 to make a round that had the pressure and velocities of a 9mm, the larger capacity capability, and almost as much stopping power as the 45ACP. They decided to shorten a 10mm case to make for a smaller grip frame and chamber, thus the 40S&W was born.

And it has so far been exactly what they wanted. That is why the FBI, police, and many carry permit holders use it.

Everyone has their own preference, though.

10-Ring
July 3, 2007, 12:53 PM
The advent of the 40 came from the FBI going to the 10mm round after the Miami shootout & then finding some it its agents not being able to handle the larger platform or the increase in perceived recoil. Why Glock? It's pretty well documented that Glock has made a big push into the LE world and it seems as tho they are succeeding on that front.

DMK
July 3, 2007, 01:05 PM
I'd think the long time LEO relationship with Smith and Wesson helped the wide adoption of 40S&W along.

Regardless of the reasons, it seems to have been a good choice. In the right gun and right ammunition choice, it's not any harder to shoot than 9mm, has almost the same capacity, fits in smaller guns and it appears to work well in the field.

Scorpiusdeus
July 3, 2007, 01:18 PM
Glocks always get serious consideration as they are usually the cheapest bid and are reliable. It's the nature of government.

.40 S&W because that's what the FBI went to and Local LE loves to follow the FBI despite all the trash they talk about them.

FBI, LAPD, and NYPD are the large trend setters in LE nationwide.

That's it in a nutshell.

michiganfan
July 3, 2007, 01:35 PM
I thought it was because I carry a G23.

Coronach
July 3, 2007, 01:45 PM
1. It is a good compromise between capacity (9mm) and stopping power (.45 ACP) while maintaining controlability. yes, I know we can all debate that until the cows come home (search for "9mm vs .45"), but that is how it is billed to the brass, and is in many ways true.

2. It got a good leg up from S&W pushing it hard, and being the functional equivalent of the 10mm FBI load.

3. Glock hopped on the bandwagon and pushed very hard. Glocks are good, solid duty pistols, Glock bends over backwards to accommodate departments, both in price and service, and this all happened about the time that S&W was either refusing to innovate, or doing it ineptly (read: "Sigma").

All of this combined to make .40 and Glock a dominant player in the market.

Mike

Outlaws
July 3, 2007, 05:50 PM
My friend just got a Glock 22 on Sunday for $500. LE discount though would put it at $350 with 3 15 round mags instead of the standard 2 mags.

At $350, there is no better value in firearms.

CountGlockula
July 3, 2007, 06:30 PM
If it's good for the boys in blue, then it's good for you know who...me.

Sorry, just trying to sound corny.

Koblenz
July 4, 2007, 11:11 AM
Another reason police prefer the .40 over 9mm is because it has better penetration against intermediate barriers, such as auto windsheilds.

svtruth
July 4, 2007, 11:29 AM
that one consideration was more women on the forces, their (generally) smaller hands had problems with large grips.

Quiet
July 4, 2007, 03:01 PM
that one consideration was more women on the forces, their (generally) smaller hands had problems with large grips.
This is also one of the reasons why some of the LE departments wanting to go to a .45 chose the .45GAP over the .45ACP.

wally
July 4, 2007, 05:09 PM
that one consideration was more women on the forces, their (generally) smaller hands had problems with large gripsThis is also one of the reasons why some of the LE departments wanting to go to a .45 chose the .45GAP over the .45ACP.

I call marketing BS. Pick up a .45GAP Glock and compare it to the Springfield XD in .45ACP and the Springfield XD in .45GAP (if you can find one!). The difference is close to nil and in no way justifies a new caliber that barely can duplicate one of the most popular rounds' performance.

Unless someone can make a .45GAP gun smaller and lighter than the Kahr P45 I see no use for it, besides in sub .4" barrels I think .40S&W is generally a better choice than .45ACP due to velocity loss.

--wally.

Outlaws
July 4, 2007, 05:21 PM
I call marketing BS. Pick up a .45GAP Glock and compare it to the Springfield XD in .45ACP and the Springfield XD in .45GAP (if you can find one!). The difference is close to nil and in no way justifies a new caliber that barely can duplicate one of the most popular rounds' performance.

Unless someone can make a .45GAP gun smaller and lighter than the Kahr P45 I see no use for it, besides in sub .4" barrels I think .40S&W is generally a better choice than .45ACP due to velocity loss.

That isn't quite fair to say that. Glock developed the .45GAP so a .45 could be fired from their standard sized receiver. Any other firearm that uses .45GAP doesn't matter because it is apples and oranges.

Glock had a demand to fill, so they filled it. Just because someone else can build a smaller .45ACP doesn't mean the GAP doesn't serve a real purpose. That purpose is people who like the full sized Glock feel but wanted a larger caliber. I am still reluctant to accept the the GAP as a valid cartridge for the most part, but it wasn't a gimmick.

Edmond
July 4, 2007, 08:05 PM
My friend just got a Glock 22 on Sunday for $500. LE discount though would put it at $350 with 3 15 round mags instead of the standard 2 mags.

At $350, there is no better value in firearms.

That is a big factor. For the departments that have a large number of officers, such as NYPD, it becomes a big budget issue. For the departments where officers purchase their own firearms, it's another issue. Some officers I've known see their firearm as merely another one of their tools. They don't care what brand it is, what caliber it is or whatever. They just want it to work (which the Glock does) when they need it to and for it to be reasonably priced (which the Glock is).

A lot of decisions come down to money. I mean, could you imagine how much moaning and crying would go on if a department spend $700 on Sigs for officers and the department had a couple hundred officers or more? Compare that with Glocks, which would be a little more than half the cost and that's a big difference.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the .40. A lot of people I know who carry buy into the .40 but a lot of them also do it because they believe a bigger bullet should do a better job.:rolleyes:

mbott
July 4, 2007, 09:32 PM
My friend just got a Glock 22 on Sunday for $500. LE discount though would put it at $350 with 3 15 round mags instead of the standard 2 mags.

Anything priced close to $350 would be the Agency price for a Glock 22 with three mags. On the other hand, Individual Officer price would be very close to $400.

--
Mike

trueblue1776
July 4, 2007, 09:37 PM
Anything priced close to $350 would be the Agency price for a Glock 22 with three mags. On the other hand, Individual Officer price would be very close to $400.

Really? There is a shop down here that sells almost the whole line up for less than $400 each, to civilians. Does that mean I get the agency price?

mbott
July 4, 2007, 09:45 PM
Really. Care to name the shop?

--
Mike

trueblue1776
July 4, 2007, 09:49 PM
Gold Mine Pawn in Daphne, Alabama.

Alphazulu6
July 4, 2007, 09:55 PM
Back on subject... The .40 cal replaced the 9mm because it has 35% more stopping power ("Angel Dust" and Crack superhuman shooting cases were dominating the headlines in the late 1980s). The 10mm was being implemented into most LEO agencies when the FBI dropped it from the list because of ammunition cost and the need for underpowered 10mm casings...which did not make any sense to anyone as to why they went with a BIG underpowered casing. So they ditched it and went with the .40 and all of the LEO departments did as well. Most LEO's got to buy their 10mm GLocks outright so I guess indirectly they benefited as well.

As far as the Glock platform.. #1 its a superb firearm and #2 Glock (as well as Sig) cater directly to them. More so than any other manufacturer which is a big reason why many departments carry either or.

Good Luck.

Outlaws
July 4, 2007, 10:35 PM
Anything priced close to $350 would be the Agency price for a Glock 22 with three mags. On the other hand, Individual Officer price would be very close to $400.

As much as I hat Scottsdale Gun Club, $350 is what they sell them to first responders for. Glock sells them to the store for $150 less than the those destine for civilians.

Now as to what a city police force buy would cost, I don't know. Cheaper or the same price, its a good deal.

Really? There is a shop down here that sells almost the whole line up for less than $400 each, to civilians. Does that mean I get the agency price?
That I would like to see. The cheapest I have found locally is $485 + tax.

Wayne G.
July 4, 2007, 10:42 PM
Compromise. Capacity less than 9 but more than 45. Penetration/Expansion more than 9 but less than 45.

Sounds to me like a middle-of-the-road solution.

isp2605
July 5, 2007, 10:16 AM
A lot of decisions come down to money. I mean, could you imagine how much moaning and crying would go on if a department spend $700 on Sigs for officers and the department had a couple hundred officers or more? Compare that with Glocks, which would be a little more than half the cost and that's a big difference.
Actually the price difference is about 4 times as much for Sigs.
I was commanding our R&D when we went to Glocks. We tested 15 different makes and models over a period of about 1 yr. When we finished Sig came out #1 followed closely by S&W and Glock. We asked for bids from the top 3. We were buying 2500 guns and turning in our 3rd gen S&W. We also asked to be included in the bid new holsters, 750 rds training ammo for every sworn officer, and 1 yrs worth of duty ammo which would also be used for quarterly training, qualifications, and carry. Glock came in at just over $1/4 mil. S&W came in at double Glock's price. SIG came in at over $1 mil. With over $750,000 price difference between SIG and Glock it's easy to see which gun got the bid.

sojournerhome
July 5, 2007, 10:32 AM
In Fort Worth a little while back they swtched to Sigs in .40.
They also gave the officers the option to buy their old psitols.

RustyShackelford
July 5, 2007, 11:51 AM
I would say the .40s&w started back in 1990 when the CHP(CA Highway Patrol) issued the new S&W 4006 model pistols as duty weapons. ;)
When more major LE agencies started to use the .40 pistols in the early/mid 1990s, the trend spread over to the civilian market.
As the .357sig became more popular in the late 1990s-early 2000s, it started to shift the LE/protection use of the .40s&w away. I like the .357sig more than the .40s&w. If I had to choose a new LE duty weapon or issue a weapon to a large dept I would use the HK P-2000 LEM or the SIGarms DAK model P-229. :D

Outlaws
July 5, 2007, 05:42 PM
Actually the price difference is about 4 times as much for Sigs.
I was commanding our R&D when we went to Glocks. We tested 15 different makes and models over a period of about 1 yr. When we finished Sig came out #1 followed closely by S&W and Glock. We asked for bids from the top 3. We were buying 2500 guns and turning in our 3rd gen S&W. We also asked to be included in the bid new holsters, 750 rds training ammo for every sworn officer, and 1 yrs worth of duty ammo which would also be used for quarterly training, qualifications, and carry. Glock came in at just over $1/4 mil. S&W came in at double Glock's price. SIG came in at over $1 mil. With over $750,000 price difference between SIG and Glock it's easy to see which gun got the bid.

Your math doesn't really add up.

$250,000 for 2500 pistols would = $100 each. Then all the ammunition and holsters would have to be free. Even at $500,000 ($200/ea) it would seem way too cheap for everything you are getting.

isp2605
July 5, 2007, 06:06 PM
Your math doesn't really add up.

$250,000 for 2500 pistols would = $100 each. Then all the ammunition and holsters would have to be free. Even at $500,000 ($200/ea) it would seem way too cheap for everything you are getting.
I know exactly what the cost was. And your figuring is correct on the costs however you neglected to figure in the costs associated with our S&Ws in exchange.
Also, if you don't understand the reason for such prices then you don't understanding marketing. Companies will make some real deals to get a particular market. Glock isn't the only one who does it. S&W did it for many years. Chevy, Dodge and Ford all did it. It's called marketing.
Sig did it too not long after they came out with the 357 rd. A local PD was carrying S&W 6906s for several years and they were looking to swap for newer. In exchange for their 12+ yr old 6904s Sig gave them new SIgs in 357, transition and qualification training ammo (I forget now how much per officer but transition training was 1 week long, 2 yrs of duty and qualification ammo, and new holsters and mag carriers. Sig also said if the 357 rd didn't catch on in 2 yrs then Sig would give the PD new barrels to convert their guns over to .40. Total deal was a few over 300 guns. Even exchange. Didn't cost the PD a dime.

kellyj00
July 5, 2007, 06:23 PM
don't our boys in Iraq get issued a Baretta 92 sidearm?
I know it's a 9mm, not sure if it's a baretta 92 or a H&K, i've heard both sides.

isp2605
July 5, 2007, 06:24 PM
M9 = Beretta 92.
Not everyone in uniform is issued a sidearm. Actually few are.

Edmond
July 5, 2007, 06:41 PM
Not everyone in uniform is issued a sidearm. Actually few are.

Isn't it pretty much officers, MP's and SF's?

Edmond
July 5, 2007, 06:43 PM
Actually the price difference is about 4 times as much for Sigs.

Wow, that's much higher than I could've imagined. Personally, I think the Sig is a finer firearm. But when it'd be very difficult to justify a price difference that big to the tax payers. If the firearms were bought personally, it'd be a different story.

isp2605
July 5, 2007, 06:43 PM
Isn't it pretty much officers, MP's and SF's?
As a general statement that's pretty close. There will be others depending on their MOS and duties at the time but the usual man/woman in uniform may never fire a handgun while in the service.

isp2605
July 5, 2007, 07:19 PM
Personally, I think the Sig is a finer firearm. But when it'd be very difficult to justify a price difference that big to the tax payers.
That's so true. If you can show 1 is as suitable as another but the cost is over $3/4 mil more then you're not going to convince the legislature to fund it only on a 'but we want it' reason. As a taxpayer I wouldn't want an agency spending $3/4 mil for something when they could adequately use something cheaper. Additionally as a dept manager I could use that $3/4 mil for other toys that my agency needs.

jkomp316
July 5, 2007, 08:39 PM
the .40 is a good round. despite certain opinions. its a good balance of velocity, size, capacity, and cost. the .45 is a great round, but its a bit of a resource pig, 230 grains of lead can really add up when your producing millions of rounds. there's a reason our military round is a .223. its cheaper to make, and our soldiers can carry more. ever pick up 100rds of .223 and 100rds of .45? what would you rather have stuffed in your backpack?

Coronach
July 5, 2007, 10:31 PM
Your math doesn't really add up.

$250,000 for 2500 pistols would = $100 each. Then all the ammunition and holsters would have to be free. Even at $500,000 ($200/ea) it would seem way too cheap for everything you are getting.As was explained, yes it does. ;)

Everyone needs to read what isp2605 wrote again. This is exactly what gun makers and departments do. It is not at all unusual for a deal to be brokered like this:

You give us all of your old guns, and for each one you give us we give you a new Sig-Glockenwesson & Koch. Which holster will you be using? We'll supply that, too. You need ammo? OK, how many rounds per gun for your orientation and first qualification? Done. City of Anytown, it has been a pleasure doing business with you, and we look forward to the decade or decade and a half that you will be locked in as customers of Sig-Glockenwesson & Koch, buying a new gun for every new officer you hire.

Mike

Alphazulu6
July 5, 2007, 10:36 PM
Quote:
Not everyone in uniform is issued a sidearm. Actually few are.

Isn't it pretty much officers, MP's and SF's?


Depends on the MTOA (Modified Table of Allowances) for that particular unit. Very few get an M9 pistol as the Army is pathetically short on every type of firearm. We had units that were deployed that didnt even have a weapon (let alone an M9) for every one of its Soldiers until they got to Kuwait and were outfitted by Rock Island Armory deliveries.

Back to the M9s and issue to Soldiers, Mechanics in Forward Support Companys, Tankers, and some of the Service Support branches get pistols. The majority of the Army gets M16s, Shotguns, and M14s... I had an M9 as an XO but only carried my M16 as it was the only thing I trusted. My driver got my M9 as he was the one who really needed it because you can't really fire an M16 out the window and drive. :D

isp2605
July 5, 2007, 11:19 PM
we look forward to the decade or decade and a half that you will be locked in as customers of Sig-Glockenwesson & Koch, buying a new gun for every new officer you hire.
....and for letting us use as advertisement the fact that your agency is now carrying our SGW&K.
The year we went to Glock, after 32 yrs with S&W, the Glock Annual featured a story on our transition to Glock. Advertisement. That kind of move sells a lot of guns to the non-LEO community.
As I wrote earlier, this kind of deal is not just limited to the gun market. In the early 80s Dodge/Chrysler was hurting. They offerred real deals to LEAs which is why the big market then was for St Regis, Aspens, and Diplomats. See enough cars to the fleet operations, the public starts seeing more of them, and the public will follow the market and start buying. In 1991 Chevy redesigned the body style of the Caprice from the square body to the rounded body. As a result the public didn't like the new style and wasn't buying it. So Chevy cut some real deals to the LEA market and other fleet operations to get the new style Caprice out there in front of the public. Their plan was to get enough new Caprices out there so the public became use to seeing the new style and would start buying. It was a moderate success for them.

Edmond
July 5, 2007, 11:27 PM
For that reason, I think Glock is genius. They do spend a lot of money in almost giving the guns away. But they make it up and then some when every Tom, Dick and Harry goes out to buy a gun because a certain PD carries it.

What's the manufacturing cost on a Glock without figuring in R&D? Then again, they're all pretty much the same so R&D, I'm sure, has already been covered in terms of money. I think I read somewhere that it costs somewhere in the $180-200 range. I can't cite my source or recall where I read that from, though.

The "supervisors" in my company all went out and bought G23's because "the .40 is what LE has switched to now." Combine that with their policy of having only Glocks and that leaves them really with 1 pistol choice.

W.E.G.
July 5, 2007, 11:36 PM
I believe Glock also has a really good exchange program where a department can turn in old Glocks in exchange for new ones and only a small amount of boot. Real hard for a police department to turn down that deal.

I think Glock still sells the trade-ins after factory refurbishment. I'm not sure whether refurbishment includes a new frame, or just re-serializing an old frame.

obxned
July 6, 2007, 12:12 AM
It's 'new and improved'. Never mind that the problem of an accurate, reliable handgun cartridge was solved in 1911.

If you enjoyed reading about ".40 and Law Enforcement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!