Law enforcement going back to 9mm

The changing of calibers seems to be cyclical with law enforcement. In the 70s and early 80s the 357 magnum was common in law enforcement. Then the 9mm came along, had less recoil and more capacity, so it seemed like a good switch. Then reports came out of 9mm not performing well, and the switch to 40 was made. Now they have decided 40 recoils too much, and many want to go back to 9mm. It will be interesting to see if they decide 9mm is too weak and want to move up to something else. The new generation of high performance JHPs may keep that from happening. Time will tell. But periodically, government agencies want new toys, and they will find some other reason they need something else. Its not much different from what happens to me with guns, except I spend my own money and they spend taxpayer money.

The paint isn't even dry on the last thread about halfway down the page:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/is-the-40-s-w-headed-for-obsolescence.823672/

Yes, because I suspect most of it revolves around the cost of ammo. The .40S&W costs more. It's a bottom line world.

Most L.E.Os in my neck of the woods can pick and choose the caliber they want on duty. They have to buy their own gun, so they're free to decide which caliber they want.

I just don't see it being a cycle. It was .38 for about 60 years, then 9mm, then .40 and now its going back to 9mm. Where is the cycle? I see it as more of a correction of a mistake.

CNobbe said:

Most L.E.Os in my neck of the woods can pick and choose the caliber they want on duty. They have to buy their own gun, so they're free to decide which caliber they want.

Click to expand...

OK, but what do they choose?

I wouldn't doubt they are changing guns again. It's time to waste more tax player's money you know! They would be much better off spending the money on more training which will make everyone safer. More mandatory range time with agency supplied ammo.

They are going back to the 9mm because after more fresh research at point blank range 9,40 and 45 all compare pretty closely for effectiveness. Yes that will mean more spending on fresh guns. But it's not likely to be an across the board overnight experience. Sometimes I wonder if it's to effect cost of ammo.

Cost of ammo is a factor. But, the fact that officers have better qualification scores when shooting 9mm is also a major factor. The push for more women and diversity also means that fewer have issues with qualification.
I think a hit with a 9mm is superior to a miss with a .357SIG or 10mm.

Merle1 said:

OK, but what do they choose?

Click to expand...

9mm and 45 auto are the most popular.

Every state, department, PD, sheriffs, statey, highway patrol and agency are different. It's logistics, policy and politics. My counties deputies use the glock 21, and swat uses 1911s still.
The FBI, who had a big role in the development of the .40 sw stopped using their own design and went back to 9mm in heavy grain +p. 40s have too much penetration, not enough energy transfer and hydrostatic shock. Can't really beat a old fashion .45 acp, but if you have a fancy for 9mm, heavy grain is always better.

Slightly increased capacity + lower recoil + lower cost = 9mm
Best terminal performance is not a priority or part of that equation because then 40 or 357 Sig has more appeal.
Not only are many cops "small stature" they are also not firearms enthusiast.
They don't like to shoot as a hobby, for fun in their spare time, like my wife....shooting practice is a "chore" - like mowing yard for me.
Like my wife, they are better served with lower recoil and acceptable terminal performance, than better performance and more recoil. (Cost aside)

They aren't tossing good guns into a barrel and giving them away. Taxpayers at the local level will bring heat on PD's for just buying new guns over and over. What we are seeing are those departments which have had a fleet of guns in service for over 10-15 years needing to replace them, same as their cruisers. Nobody expects the PD to keep vehicles for 450,000 miles, they break down and become uneconomic to keep using. You replace them wholesale at a time when engines are approaching failure, transmissions are worn and slipping, etc. Guns are no different.

They know because of internal parts needing replacement, like extractors and ejectors, the average number of rounds fired (our advantage as it's usually low,) the amount of wear externally (wrestling on pavement with perps bangs them up,) and also for known advantages with a change in caliber. You put up a contract bid, companies respond, and you make the change.

No different than the computers in the offices. Those are likely obsolete faster, and just as expensive. Nobody is using one that dates back ten years, the programming is no longer supported and new ones won't operate under them.

Guns actually don't change that much. My last purchase was an LEO trade-in, a 4566TSW from Texas, about 20 years old. In some jurisdictions the contract would go right back to S&W, the plant in Houlton would make some more, done.

There's not so much flipping and switching. Consider when the Illinois State Police changed from revolvers to the Model 39. Lots of talk, took decades to get some jurisdictions to change to auto pistols. They had just bought new revolvers and couldn't afford to change until they were worn out. Money doesn't grow on trees despite the taxpayers paying for it.

If it wasn't for tornado money being dumped onto the city, my local metro couldn't afford to fix the curbs and guttering just outside the impact zone. Drove thru it yesterday and it was a maze of closed streets and construction everywhere. Nothing would have happened aside from the typical seal coating every five years.

Changes are being made but I wouldn't count on millions of officers getting new guns in the next year. Hardly. Most will still be carrying the same .40 they did last year, and the year before, and we will see trade ins for a long long time.

If you like cheap guns made from plastic in .40 you will be in high hay. I'm just glad I snatched up one of the last iconic all metal service pistols when they were still cheap.

In .45ACP. A man's caliber, ya know. : )

My son in law is a Lieutenant in the local police force, They just switched back to 9 mm from .45 glocks. He told me alot of officers had problems with recoil in the .45's

Stubert said:

My son in law is a Lieutenant in the local police force, They just switched back to 9 mm from .45 glocks. He told me alot of officers had problems with recoil in the .45's

Click to expand...

Thats saying something since the Glock 21 is a real kitten of a .45, recoil wise.

Small hands gripping it I would have thought to be the major complaint as it is quite beefy in the grip.

CNobbe said:

9mm and 45 auto are the most popular.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

It is ALL about the cost of ammo. There is no other salient reason why, as anyone who can shoot a 9MM Glock 17 can easily shoot a .40 cal G22. The recoil is not that much different, but 9mm ammo is definitely a significant amount cheaper. When you are talking literally billions of rounds .15-25 cents a round adds up to serious money.

This is also why the Govt. bought Sig P320's for the Army. They were cheaper than the Glock 17M's that were offered.

Sig sold those guns for $207 ea! versus $270 ea. for the Glocks. Sig plans on making up the difference by selling the spare parts and accessories. ("give them the razor, and then sell them the blades..". Gillette's ground breaking marketing strategy) and it worked.

I personally think they made a mistake as the P320 is only 3 years old and has not been proven in any conflict. The Glocks have been around for close to 30 years and have seen every single conflict on the planet since then.

People can tout the efficacy of new 9MM ammo but I would point out that that same type efficacy is available in .40S&W ammo as well, and it is more effective because the bullets are bigger ! The recoil argument is complete BS too, as I have seen way too many women in Front Sight Classes outshooting their husbands while using .40's and even .45's.

It may take a little longer to train someone up using the larger caliber and thus it will cost more to train them,,, so once again the main factor is money.

Guys,,, it's all about the money.

Randy

Recoil is subjective. Cops aren't super skilled trained, and the average person even less. I'm saying not everyone is jerry miculak. Although I have found that most people might hold a gun tight, a lot of people don't know to hold a handgun with an isometric grip for recoil mitigation and there in lies the problem.

Many departments that I work with in the area are very lenient on what they allow officers to carry. The department provides the ammo, regardless of caliber. For the most part it is Federal HST rounds. Officers have the personal choice to carry 1911s in 45, Sig 220, Glocks, and I even saw one officer carry a PPQ M1. For those who do not want or cannot foot their own firearms for duty, most departments issue Glock 9mm in some flavor. Either the G17 or 19. Last I checked the major city to our west issued M&P 9mm with 4 or 5 inch barrel as a duty weapon if you didn't buy your own.

With a full size duty pistol I personally don't notice much if any difference in recoil between 9, 40 and 45.

I suspect certain agencies that are JUST NOW (many have been using 9's for quite a while) switching back to 9's is more budget oriented.

My Dept switched to the Glock 17/19 from the Ruger Service Six approximately 17 years ago. Reason was to modernize, the revolvers were wearing out, and Glock offered a KILLER deal. If you knew what we ACTUALLY pay for new guns...you'd buy four at that price. As said above, the money leads the charge. Now that the Glocks are wearing out, (Yes, they are. Our range guns get an average of 200-400 rounds through them every week, and they are wearing out), we only get replacements in dribs and drabs. When it comes to range ammo for training, consider that a SINGLE range training day, (twice a week for this complex), we will go through about 2,000 or so rounds of 9mm. 10 complexes. Do that math - we have to save money, give the taxpayers the best bang for the buck, so 9mm looks pretty darn good, comparatively priced. On the other hand, I always liked watching ammo delivery - 9mm, 5.56mm and 12 ga by the pallet load.

CNobbe said:

Most L.E.Os in my neck of the woods can pick and choose the caliber they want on duty. They have to buy their own gun, so they're free to decide which caliber they want.

Click to expand...

90% of the LEO's in my neck of the woods don't know anything about the niches of each caliber, and can't make it through a single IDPA stage without getting DQ'd. Generally, they can't shoot well at all. The remaining 10% are excellent because they love to shoot, just like we do. When the state decided that officers had to "qualify" with the weapons they chose many years ago, we had entire departments, even entire counties, completely fail.

It might not be the best idea to continue copying what the LEO's, FBI, or the military does. They have their own agenda and needs. I suspect the switch back is because 9mm is easy, and cheap, while still effective.

Tirod wrote:
In .45ACP. A man's caliber, ya know. : )

Click to expand...

Then how come my grandmother could out-shoot my grandfather with HIS 1911?

Zerodefect wrote:
90% of the LEO's in my neck of the woods don't know anything about the niches of each caliber,

Click to expand...

Of course if we go by your avatar, out along the Lena Highway, I don't guess LEOs in your "neck of the woods" would have occasion to know much about any handgun caliber other than 9mm.