FBI Training Division Justifies 9mm Caliber Selection

NoVA Shooter · Apr 7, 2015

Kleanbore said:
But one more time, it is completely irrelevant to the FBI's recommendation.

Hmmm. We could have avoided all this back and forth if were up front about your involvement with FBI team that made the decision.

Seriously though, neither you nor I can say what was and was not relevant to the FBI's recommendation. If you believe that all considerations were published in the official report, I've got a bridge to sell you at a great price. That does not mean it was maliciously left out, but how a person weights and prioritizes risk/factors in a decision making process are influenced by many things.

Again, I'm not claiming anything. This whole time I've been simply been saying that likelihood of incidents CAN be used in the decision process and CAN be relevant.

Nor would anyone experienced in risk management ever take that into account.

It is a true fact, but it is irrelevant.

So, why doesn't the FBI issue full automatic weapons to all its agents? Might it have something to do with the fact that the likelihood that that type of firearm will be needed is not very high? The likelihood of needing suppression fire in a shooting incident is so low that arming their agents with said weapon would be wasteful. Seems like it could be relevant.

If the decision has been made to mitigate a risk, the method of mitigation will not be influenced by the likelihood of occurrence.

Sigh. You cannot see the forest for the trees. You have made a very general and incorrect statement.

1. Mitigation is OF COURSE influenced be likelihood of occurrence. Remember that priority matrix I mentioned? If a risk is a high priority, mitigation may be more aggressive than if a risk is low priority. And what is one factor that influences priority? PROBABILITY. Let's look a a simple example.
Risk: When I go over the speed limit, I may get a speeding ticket.
Impact: (for sake of the example) Low. I pay a $100 fine.
Probability A: Low. Hundreds of cars are speeding and LEO only stop cars going more than 10 MPH over the limit.
Mitigation A: Don't go more than 10 MPH over the speed limit as long as I'm not the only car.

Probability B: High. There's a LEO every mile stopping every car that is over the limit
Mitigation B: Don't go over the speed limit

Basic example, but the mitigation changes based on the LIKELIHOOD of the risk being realized. Just ask yourself, do you slow down when there's a cop on the side of highway? What's changed? Will a ticket cost more or add more points to your licence just because he's there? Nope. It's because the likelihood of being pulled over is greater.

2. The decision itself to mitigate IS BASED on the likelihood of the risk being realized. This goes back to the viability of the risk. A person/business/agency simply cannot be burdened with planning for all possible risks. I risk being hit by lightning every time I go outside. Do I mitigate this risk? Nope, because the likelihood is so negligible that any effort spent mitigating it is wasteful.

3. Not all decision factors being looked at are independent entities. It's a common mistake to dismiss/overlook the factors that went into the decision making process because they have become nearly second nature (subconscious). When choosing your carry weapon, was price a factor? Did you buy the very best possible gun available? I don't know anyone who has. IMO, my carry gun is very good. I shoot it well, it handles well, it's very reliable and well made. However, it's not the best gun I've ever fired. The reason I didn't get one of the other guns was because the prices were 2 to 3 times higher. Cost played a role in my carry choice (like I suspect with most people). And here's the crux of my argument. That line that was drawn of how much I was willing to pay was, in some part, based on the LIKELIHOOD I would need to use the gun. The higher the likelihood of needing it, the higher (even if only a small amount) that cost line would go up. Likelihood was a secondary factor in the cost analysis decision. There are many examples like this where risks/factors become 'second nature' and the assessment is rolled up into one big decision. Experienced risk managers will recognize this enabling them to make a better decision by analyzing each factor on its own and how they interact.

4. This happens all the time. It's the basis for actuary tables. Your insurance premiums (mitigation) are based on likelihood a person is going to have a need for that service. Smoke? You health insurance will be higher due to the higher likelihood you will need to use it. Got points on your licence? Your car insurance will go up due the statistical likelihood that a person with many moving violations will have a higher rate of accidents.

Nom de Forum · Apr 7, 2015

Deaf Smith said:
Sure buddy.

Not like the 'lightning bolt' effect of the .357 Magnum has not been documented.

Deaf

U.F.O.s have also been "documented".

Seriously, over the last 40 years I have read accounts of people dropping as if struck by a lightning bolt after being hit by a .22LR bullet. Obviously the .357 Magnum (especially with the hot 125gr HP loadings) has a good reputation if for no other reason than so many cops have used it to shoot people. Then again the .357 is also famous for not stopping the fat man who was shot numerous times after he shot one .22LR bullet into the arm pit of an officer who was incapacitated in seconds and dead within minutes. Anyone in 2015 wanting to be take seriously when discussing handgun effectiveness knows to avoid comparisons such as "lightning bolt" effect. I am not questioning what you say the Texas DPS claimed for the .357 only the reality of what they claimed.

Kleanbore · Apr 8, 2015

Posted by NoVA Shooter.

Hmmm. We could have avoided all this back and forth if were up front about your involvement with FBI team that made the decision.

Seriously though, neither you nor I can say what was and was not relevant to the FBI's recommendation. If you believe that all considerations were published in the official report, I've got a bridge to sell you at a great price. That does not mean it was maliciously left out, but how a person weights and prioritizes risk/factors in a decision making process are influenced by many things.

Well, the fact that accepted, structured, and systematic risk management processes would not take into account likelihood in the design and selection of mitigation strategies should count for something.

Again, I'm not claiming anything. This whole time I've been simply been saying that likelihood of incidents CAN be used in the decision process and CAN be relevant.

It will of course always be relevant to any decision about whether to accept or to mitigate a particular risk. But no one in his right mind would consider the likelihood of events in the selection of a firearm.

So, why doesn't the FBI issue full automatic weapons to all its agents? Might it have something to do with the fact that the likelihood that that type of firearm will be needed is not very high?

]Think about it. For the purposes for which FBI agents are issued firearms, fully automatic weapons are simply not practical. That should be obvious to anyone who is knowledgable of firearms.

By the way, FBI agents, as Tom Givens has pointed out, are more like citizens who are not sworn officers than uniformed LEOs, when it ones to weapons and tactics.

Mitigation is OF COURSE influenced be likelihood of occurrence.

Well, decisions about whether to mitigate a risk or to accept the risk unmitigated will of course hinge upon the likelihood that the risk will occur and upon the potential consequences.

And, of course, upon whether there is a practical and affordable means of mitigation available.

Did you buy the very best possible gun available? I don't know anyone who has. IMO, my carry gun is very good. I shoot it well, it handles well, it's very reliable and well made. However, it's not the best gun I've ever fired. The reason I didn't get one of the other guns was because the prices were 2 to 3 times higher. Cost played a role in my carry choice (like I suspect with most people).

Yes, cost should, and usually will, be among the factors taken into account in the design and selection of a mitigation approach--and upon the decision of whether to adopt it.

Applying that to the discussion at hand, the likelihood of occurrence of violence, together with the potential consequences, together with factors having to do with possible means of mitigation, will enter into the risk management process.

It the likelihood and consequences indicate that mitigation is desirable, and if there're affordable, practical, and effective migration approach available, the next step is to design one.

In the case of the FBI agent, the answer has been decided, long ago: the agent will carry a handgun. The facts that a handgun may be needed, will be affordable, and will serve the needs of the force are known.

And the handgun that is chosen will effectively mitigate the risk, as affordably as possible. But its selection will not be based on the probability of occurrence.

Its selection will be based upon overall effectiveness, upon life cycle cost, and upon other factors. But it will not be based on the likelihood that it will ever be used in earnest. That has already been taken into account in the decision to issue a firearm.

Is that sufficiently clear?

RustyShackelford · Apr 8, 2015

NRA American Rifleman, FBI Firearms Training Unit ....

In 2011 or so, the NRA magazine American Rifleman did a in-depth article about the FBI firearms & the history of weapons used by special agents in America's war on crime. It was a interesting read. It might be online.

NoVA Shooter · Apr 8, 2015

Kleanbore said:
Well, the fact that accepted, structured, and systematic risk management processes would not take into account likelihood in the design and selection of mitigation strategies should count for something.

You keep saying this but as I have shown over and over, it does. For guns, for insurance, for everyday decisions.

It will of course always be relevant to any decision about whether to accept or to mitigate a particular risk. But no one in his right mind would consider the likelihood of events in the selection of a firearm.

People (including you) do it all the time. You just can't see it because you keep thinking that likelihood is an independent factor to be considered on its own merits and fail to realize that you are considering it (even if it's on the 'subconscious' level) when you, for example, make an assessment of how much you will pay for a gun. I have given plenty of examples of how likelihood influences selection by affecting other factors such as cost.

Think about it. For the purposes for which FBI agents are issued firearms, fully automatic weapons are simply not practical. That should be obvious to anyone who is knowledgable of firearms.

I agree with that statement but the point I'm making runs deeper than a simple roll-up. My point lies not in the entirety of the whole but in the particulars such as 'For the purposes' (how is the purpose defined? Why is it not the purpose of the FBI to use such a weapon?) and the 'not practical' part (what led the FBI to determine it was not practical?). My assertion is that likelihood of needing it played a role.

And the handgun that is chosen will effectively mitigate the risk, as affordably as possible. But its selection will not be based on the probability of occurrence.

Its selection will be based upon overall effectiveness, upon life cycle cost, and upon other factors. But it will not be based on the likelihood that it will ever be used in earnest. That has already been taken into account in the decision to issue a firearm.

Is that sufficiently clear?

Again, you need to look past the trees. You seems to be blinded by looking directly at this one factor (the tree). It is blocking your vision of the entirety of the decision process (the forest) in that likelihood is only one small piece that influences not the decision itself, but the factors themselves that lead to the decision (as you said yourself, "overall effectiveness, upon life cycle cost, and upon other factors"). If likelihood influences ANY part of the decision making process, then it has influenced the selection. One more example. What is the likelihood that your weapon will be dirty when needed (for example, your job requires you to be outside in dirt/mud for long periods of time where a good cleaning may not be doable)? If it's high, your selection of weapon will be influenced by this likelihood. You may want to get a gun that has more tolerance to being dirty. If the likelihood that your weapon will not be dirty, your selection process will be slightly different. In this example, while the likelihood is not a general "will I need to use it", but more specific "will I need to use it when it's dirty", the principle still applies that the likelihood use has influenced the selection.

Listen, we are both talking about two different aspects of what goes into making a decision. You obviously don't want to look deep into decision processing. All your counter arguments are based on 'big picture', black and white absolutes (if you decide this, then do that). I'm talking about the nuances of what goes into a decision (not just the overall decision but the how the factors that are used to make that decision are weighted, prioritized, justified, etc).

If you want to continue, I'm all for it, but for the sake of the OP, maybe it's time to come back up from the rabbit hole.

RustyShackelford · Apr 8, 2015

Who has the most "use of force" incidents?....

There's a lot of "back & forth" over who gets the most use of force incidents or risk management/mitigation re: sidearms.
Id add that a little known fact outside of federal LE is that US Park Rangers/LE park rangers have the highest documented incicent rate(s) per FY. :uhoh:

They don't run around with machine guns or carry RPGs on duty either.

0to60 · Apr 8, 2015

Man, this thread is great!

In #29, RustyShackelford gives us some interesting stats. This is a simple conditional probability problem. Multiply the odds of needing to shoot someone (very, very small) times the odds that you actually made a poor caliber choice. You end up with a tiny, tiny probability that in your lifetime, you will experience a negative affect from having made the wrong choice in caliber.

And what ARE the odds that you chose the wrong caliber? Despite all the ballistics testing, there is no consensus on which caliber is best. I'd argue that as it stands, we simply don't know that this probability is non zero. So put that back into the conditional probability problem and your result is ZERO probability that picking a 9mm instead of a .45 is going to get you hurt.

What we DO know for sure is that 9's have greater magazine capacity for a given weapon size, and the ammo is cheaper. Those are for-sures.

It seems to me that mathematically, until we can prove that some other caliber offers a quantifiable advantage over the 9mm, one should chose the 9mm for self defense.

(I'm saying 9mm here because as I understand it, below 9mm there actually is a consensus that stopping power starts to drop off)

Kleanbore · Apr 8, 2015

Posted by NoVA Shooter:

You keep saying this [( accepted, structured, and systematic risk management processes would not take into account likelihood in the design and selection of mitigation strategies)] but as I have shown over and over, it does. For guns, for insurance, for everyday decisions.

You have asserted that more than once, but you have shown nothing.

Let's use the insurance example--say, life insurance. If it is determined that, should a person expire, insurance will be needed by his or her beneficiaries, he or she will buy it. What he will buy will be based on a balance of cost and the need that would arise upon his death--but not on likelihood.

Likelihood will, of course, be taken into account in the pricing of insurance contract by the insurer.

If one were deciding on how much fire insurance to provide for in a self insured business that occupied multiple separate structures, on the other hand, one would probably consider the likelihood that more than one structure would be lost at the same time. But insurance contracts will most probably be written on a building-by-building basis.

People (including you) do it [(consider the likelihood of events in the selection of a firearm)] all the time. You just can't see it because you keep thinking that likelihood is an independent factor to be considered on its own merits and fail to realize that you are considering it (even if it's on the 'subconscious' level) when you, for example, make an assessment of how much you will pay for a gun.

Have you ever heard anyone suggest that one should decide upon the price of a gun on the basis of the likelihood that one will ever have to use it in earnest?

I haven't--not Mas Ayoob, not Tom Gvens. not Kathy Jackson, not Rob Pincus--no one. The FBI certainly has not listed that among their criteria.

It is, however, a moot point. It is highly unlikely that any handgun will ever be used in the gravest extreme.

But if it is, it had better suffice.

(To be sure, price (actually, life cycle cost, including spares and training ammunition) will be an important decision parameter for almost everyone, but it will not be balanced against the remote likelihood that the gun will ever be fired in earnest.)

Your "dirty firearm" example is not a bad one, but I would be much more apt to address that one the requirements definition process than in risk management per se.

RustyShackelford · Apr 8, 2015

Post 82....

Thanks!
I think, :uhoh:

.
Lol.
Really, my point about the NYPD & the quoted homicide detective was to display the belief/mindset that some LE administrators or public(elected) officials have about topics like "should FBI agents carry 9mm sidearms" or "why was the 9x19mm picked by the FBI".

Kleanbore · Apr 8, 2015

0to60, it is indeed a simple conditional probability problem.

And what that means is that one should asses the likelihood of success on the basis of the assumption that the risk has materialized.

What that means is that one would not start by multiplying the odds of having to shoot someone.

But your conclusion is entirely valid. Any of the rounds should suffice, and for reasons outlined in the FBI report linked in the OP, and noted in your post, the 9MM should perform better than most, for most people.

Deaf Smith · Apr 8, 2015

All NoVA Shooter has put forth is psychobabel.

He divines the intentions of the DPS but has no clue about them, nor their spokesman (I taught CHL for ten years and know some of the training staff.)

The 9mm is 'best' for those who don't shoot much, don't train much, and don't maintain their weapons much.

That's ok, most people are like that and I see their logic (and so does the DPS), but for those who can, pick the most powerful weapon you can control and carry (and if need be conceal) and I'll add to the list afford.

Some can't afford $1000 buck guns and very expensive ammo (but some can.)

I do note, one of the FBI agents I know carries a 1911 .45 (he is on the SWAT team, and prefers it to the Glock 23, or even a 9mm Glock/S&W/whatever.)

But he, and his fellow FBI agent in Big D, I know are gun savvy and shoot very often. And they know about the FBI 'studies'.

Deaf

Kleanbore · Apr 8, 2015

Posted by Deaf Smith:

The 9mm is 'best' for those who don't shoot much, don't train much, and don't maintain their weapons much.

And for Army recruits who do not know how to shoot, it is a whole lot easier to qualify with than a .45. That would also apply to entrants at police academies.

But that's not all. Let's go back to Post # 52:

At one time, Rob Pincus recommended the .45. Later, he recommended the .40. Ammunition has changed a lot, and now he recommends the 9MM. Here is part of what he has to say about it:

I don’t believe that it is likely to take only one shot to stop your next threat. With this in mind, the “data” that we collect (and sometimes obsess over) about the difference in potential terminal performance from one bullet to the next or the relatively few examples we have of single pistol hit results in human beings suggests to me that we should plan on multiple shot strings of fire. If we are planning on needing more than one shot and we know that we want to stop the bad guy as soon as possible, then it makes sense that we should seek the fastest string of fire possible. Physics dictates that the 9mm is going to be a more manageable round (lower recoil) than the .40 S&W out of any particular firearm. So, no matter how much you train and how much you practice, everyone should be able to shoot a string of Combat Accurate 9mm rounds faster than they can fire a string of .40.

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

And both contentions are consistent with the FBI recommendation.

I bought a .45 some years ago before I had studied the subject, and more importantly, before I had availed myself of any realistic defensive pistol shooting. I took it to a class. I was amazed at how many more hits the competitors there who had 9MM full size handguns could score quickly than could those with .45 pistols.

RustyShackelford · Apr 8, 2015

US shooting sports/training cadre ....

In late 2014, noted cadre and pistol smith Hilton Yam wrote a article about how he converted from the 1911a1 .45acp line to the "double stack" 9x19mm M&P full size.
He said part of the reason was medical, but he also felt his marksmanship improved too.
Retired NYPD & former(retired) USMC-R Pat Rodgers, also stated he started to use a full size M&P 9mm as a carry gun/CCW.

The 9mm will continue to gain more support as the ammunition improves.

NoVA Shooter · Apr 8, 2015

Deaf Smith said:
All NoVA Shooter has put forth is psychobabel.

He divines the intentions of the DPS but has no clue about them, nor their spokesman (I taught CHL for ten years and know some of the training staff.)

Really now? That's what you got out of my posts? I clearly remember saying (over and over again) that I was not trying to prove or refute the data in Post #29 but simply making the point that the likelihood of an event occurring CAN be and IS used and CAN be and IS relevant. Never did I claim that it WAS used by the FBI or advocated for its use. I guess all the "psychobable" interfered with your reading comprehension.

Oh, and one more thing, I taught CHL for 15 years and know many of the training staff.

...see, I can say it too.

Deaf Smith · Apr 8, 2015

Kleanbore said:
Posted by Deaf Smith: And for Army recruits who do not know how to shoot, it is a whole lot easier to qualify with than a .45. That would also apply to entrants at police academies.

And both contentions are consistent with the FBI recommendation.

I bought a .45 some years ago before I had studied the subject, and more importantly, before I had availed myself of any realistic defensive pistol shooting. I took it to a class. I was amazed at how many more hits the competitors there who had 9MM full size handguns could score quickly than could those with .45 pistols.

All true Kleanbore,

But the FBI is trying to reassure the employees (read Agents) their new 9mm is just as good as their .40s was. Kind of like the British going to the .38/200 saying it had just the same 'stopping power' as the .455.

In realty the guns last longer, the ammo is cheaper, and it's easier to train newbies to get hits and qualify, and that's that.

As Jeff Cooper opined, which is easier to do, get one solid hit with a powerful weapon or several solid hits with a less powerful weapon? Take your pick.

Now I shot IPSC and IDPA for about 35 or so years. Used .45s and 9mm mostly. Yep much easier to get multiple hits with a 9mm.

Of course, I do use a 9mm, abet with +p+ ammo. But I know my Glock 31 in .357 Sig hits much harder as does my .45s.

And if you have the money and time to train to handle more powerful handguns, I'm all for it and feel it's a wise decision.

For most of the Agents, LEOs, and civilians who pack, yea the 9mm makes sense.

But I don't say it cause I feel the 9mm has just the same ability as a .357 or .45. I don't do fairytales.

Deaf

NoVA Shooter · Apr 8, 2015

Kleanbore said:
Posted by NoVA Shooter:You have asserted that more than once, but you have shown nothing.

Touché. Shown was not the right thing to say. Should have said "...demonstrated many reasons why risk management processes would take into account likelihood in the design and selection of mitigation strategies."

Likelihood will, of course, be taken into account in the pricing of insurance contract by the insurer.

And this was my point. Premiums are the way insurance providers mitigate the risk of a claim being paid out. If the likelihood of a claim is high, the provider will have to mitigate the risk more aggressively by charging a higher premium.

Have you ever heard anyone suggest that one should decide upon the price of a gun on the basis of the likelihood that one will ever have to use it in earnest?

I haven't--not Mas Ayoob, not Tom Gvens. not Kathy Jackson, not Rob Pincus--no one. The FBI certainly has not listed that among their criteria.

Not simply/solely based on likelihood. I'm saying that likelihood plays a composite factor in setting the price (or other factors). There are probably hundreds of thing that go into deciding what you are willing to spend on a gun. Most will be resolved internally without so much as a second thought. They become instinctual.

For example: No one ever mentions health care as a deciding factor in how much to spend on a gun. But when you really sit down to think about it, it is. Health care is in flux right now and premiums are going up all the time. If I feel that I will be paying more for coverage, I may come to the conclusion that I can't spend as much on a gun as I would like because money may be more tight. Or what about you kid's travel soccer costs, or summer camps that will be coming up, or how much that next vacation will be, or if that next round of budget cuts will affect you job. Your brain is very powerful and all of these thing go through you mind in the split second it takes for you to decided on a price point. Again, I can list of a hundred thing that will influence every buying decision I have. Luckily my brain (and everyone else's) has already prioritized and valued each one so that a composite decision can be made without effort. Sometime though, some of these are worth slowing down to make a more detailed assessment.

It is, however, a moot point. It is highly unlikely that any handgun will ever be used in the gravest extreme.

Most definitely and I thank my lucky stars everyday that this is true. But if it wasn't, wouldn't it be worth exploring? Can we honestly say that if the likelihood we would need our gun was high it wouldn't change anything? Not even a little? All I can say to this is, for me, it would. And if that means I'm unique, crazy, shallow, ill-informed, I can accept that.

Kleanbore · Apr 9, 2015

Posted by Deaf Smith:

In realty the [(9MM)] guns last longer, the ammo is cheaper, and it's easier to train newbies to get hits and qualify, and that's that.

Not quite. It's not just newbies. To wit:

Now I shot IPSC and IDPA for about 35 or so years. Used .45s and 9mm mostly. Yep much easier to get multiple hits with a 9mm.

Of course, I do use a 9mm, ... But I know my ... .357 Sig hits much harder as does my .45s.

But in defending against an unarmored human target, there is only so much penetration that one can use--and within the range of handgun energy, penetration and diameter are all that count.

Deaf Smith · Apr 9, 2015

Kleanbore said:
Posted by Deaf Smith:Not quite. It's not just newbies. To wit:

But in defending against an unarmored human target, there is only so much penetration that one can use--and within the range of handgun energy, penetration and diameter are all that count.

And that is why such as the .357 magnum works so well. Violent expansion for the whole length of the wound channel. Same for the .357 Sig.

See JHPs don't expand on contact and the higher the impact velocity the more violent expansion.

Add to that the more one trains the closer one gets to using the more powerful handguns with comparable skills to the less powerful rounds like the 9mm.

Just depends on how much effort one puts in to mastering their sidearm.

Deaf

Theohazard · Apr 9, 2015

Deaf Smith said:
As Jeff Cooper opined, which is easier to do, get one solid hit with a powerful weapon or several solid hits with a less powerful weapon? Take your pick.

Comments like this continue to amaze me. I'm simply astounded that -- even with all the information we have today -- people still believe that there's a significant difference in effectiveness between the common self-defense calibers.

Deaf Smith said:
I don't do fairytales.

On the contrary, it appears that you're very much in to fairytales, at least when it comes to the ones involving handgun "stopping power".

Kleanbore · Apr 9, 2015

Posted by Theohazard:

I'm simply astounded that -- even with all the information we have today -- people still believe that there's a significant difference in effectiveness between the common self-defense calibers.

I presume that you are referring to the terminal effectiveness of individual rounds, and not to overall combat effectiveness that takes into account rapidity of hits.

There are still people who have not accepted this:

From the FBI Training Division: FBI Academy, Quantico, VA

Most of what is “common knowledge” with ammunition and its effects on the human target are rooted in myth and folklore

Handgun stopping power is simply a myth

Contemporary projectiles (since 2007) have dramatically increased the terminal effectiveness of many premium line law enforcement projectiles (emphasis on the 9mm Luger offerings)

9mm Luger now offers select projectiles which are, under identical testing conditions, I outperforming most of the premium line .40 S&W and .45 Auto projectiles tested by the FBI

There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto

Studies of “stopping power” are irrelevant because no one has ever been able to define how much power, force, or kinetic energy, in and of itself, is required to effectively stop a violent and determined adversary quickly, and even the largest of handgun calibers are not capable of delivering such force. Handgun stopping power is simply a myth.

Studies of so‐called “one shot stops” being used as a tool to define the effectiveness of one handgun cartridge, as opposed to another, are irrelevant due to the inability to account for psychological influences and due to the lack of reporting specific shot placement.

In short, extensive studies have been done over the years to “prove” a certain cartridge is better than another by using grossly flawed methodology and or bias as a precursor to manipulating statistics.

In order to have a meaningful understanding of handgun terminal ballistics, one must only deal with facts that are not in dispute within the medical community, i.e. medical realities, and those which are also generally accepted within law enforcement, i.e. tactical realities

So, why might reasonable people still believe otherwise?

Setting aside reliance on folklore, or on data based on the ammunition of old, it may be simply that the conclusions seem rather counterintuitive to observers who do not delve into the underlying science.

It is easy--and natural, I think-- to consider the violent recoil, and the boom and blast at the muzzle, and to assume that those phenomena will somehow translate into "stopping power."

The problem with that one lies in basic Newtonian physics.

It is also easy to shoot lines of plastic water jugs with each of several handguns, note how many are punctured, and look at the violence of the splash recorded on video.

Iv'e seen that one sour people on the .45 ACP, and wow other people on some of the magnums.

The problem is that the human body does not react to a shot like a water jug. The FBI report explains the basics of wounding effectiveness.

For all of those reasons, I find myself in the Rob Pincus camp on this subject:

I don’t believe that it is likely to take only one shot to stop your next threat. With this in mind, the “data” that we collect (and sometimes obsess over) about the difference in potential terminal performance from one bullet to the next or the relatively few examples we have of single pistol hit results in human beings suggests to me that we should plan on multiple shot strings of fire. If we are planning on needing more than one shot and we know that we want to stop the bad guy as soon as possible, then it makes sense that we should seek the fastest string of fire possible.

Deaf Smith · Apr 9, 2015

Theohazard said:
Comments like this continue to amaze me. I'm simply astounded that -- even with all the information we have today -- people still believe that there's a significant difference in effectiveness between the common self-defense calibers.

On the contrary, it appears that you're very much in to fairytales, at least when it comes to the ones involving handgun "stopping power".

Theo,

Can you answer Coopers question? It's a simple question.

As for 'old' ammo, they still did the research. But it's so much easier to just shoot blocks of stuff, cheaper to.

Deaf

fastbolt · Apr 9, 2015

Deaf Smith said:
...

In realty the guns last longer, the ammo is cheaper, and it's easier to train newbies to get hits and qualify, and that's that.

As Jeff Cooper opined, which is easier to do, get one solid hit with a powerful weapon or several solid hits with a less powerful weapon? Take your pick.

Now I shot IPSC and IDPA for about 35 or so years. Used .45s and 9mm mostly. Yep much easier to get multiple hits with a 9mm.
...

Pretty simply stated, and pretty much how things can go in real life.

When you see the "average, non-gun enthusiast" .45/.40 shooter get slower & less accurate hits with slightly harder recoiling calibers, but then faster & more accurate hits with a 9mm (using any pressure load), it starts to make sense that a modern 9mm defensive load isn't necessarily a bad compromise.

Weapon maintenance with the lesser recoiling 9mm isn't a bad thing, either, especially when you're talking about anywhere from a few hundred to several to several thousand weapons.

leadcounsel · Apr 9, 2015

The REAL question should be which is the best in performance versus cost effective for tax payers.

Disclosure - I typically rely on a .40 for my own self defense. I'm a single person without backup and the additional "protections" of a federal agent from being attacked. And it's my money and my life/security. I also recognize that the difference in performance, whether reality or folklore, is insignificant with proper ammo and training (shot placement and repeated hits). I would feel equally comfortable personally carrying a 9mm or a .40 or a .45 and heck, even a 9x18 (although less desirable but no less expensive and therefore least cost effective in terms of performance).

As a prudent taxpayer I'm sick of government waste. FBI shootouts occur, what, almost never and when they do they usually have overwhelming force, weapons, numbers, etc.

I'm also really sick of the waste in these research project which shed millions to regurgitate and churn the same arguments, the same data, etc. which shed no new information or light, but simply employ people ratings bullet-points and 'studies' which we see repeatedly in fraud/waste/abuse at the state and federal levels.

Let's end the studies, because we learn nothing new. We know the 9mm works so just pick it and stick to it. So if it saves even a few million dollars, and more likely hundreds of millions of dollars, to use the HP 9x19s, I'm all for it. It's perfectly effective and the budget savings for the billions of rounds the Feds use will be many hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, and we need to squeeze our federal budget spending for every penny at this point.

Kleanbore · Apr 9, 2015

Posted by leadcounsel:

As a prudent taxpayer I'm sick of government waste. FBI shootouts occur, what, almost never and when they do they usually have overwhelming force, weapons, numbers, etc.

Keep in mind that the FBI recommendations we are discussing here pertain to all law enforcement, and not just to FBI weapons and tactics.

I'm also really sick of the waste in these research project which shed millions to regurgitate and churn the same arguments, the same data, etc. which shed no new information or light, but simply employ people ratings bullet-points and 'studies' which we see repeatedly in fraud/waste/abuse at the state and federal levels.

The study costs to which you refer, and cannot quantify, are comparatively small in the perspective of law enforcement technology research and development, and they yield very important information.

And they are not limited to the same data. Things change.

Let's end the studies, because we learn nothing new.

Oh, yes we do! Not long ago, the consensus was that the 9MM did not meet law enforcement requirements. But technology has changed. And it was necessary to study the changes to evaluate the impact and conclude differently.

We know the 9mm works so just pick it and stick to it.

Well, we think we know now that the 9MM is a viable choice, but not long ago, it was widely believed, based on the data available at the time and the technology extant, that 9MM was marginal, and that the .40 or .357 SIG was what was needed.

So if it saves even a few million dollars, and more likely hundreds of millions of dollars, to use the HP 9x19s, I'm all for it. It's perfectly effective and the budget savings for the billions of rounds the Feds use will be many hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, and we need to squeeze our federal budget spending for every penny at this point.

Your numbers are all based on guesswork, and before any prudent agency head would choose an alternative solely on the basis of cost, he or she would have to consider effectiveness. And until the study had been performed, that was not known.

Again, the applicability of the studies extends far behind what "the Feds use"; and had this study not been brought up to date, there would still be reason to believe that hundreds and hundreds of Federal, state local, and territorial law enforcement agencies from Guam to the US Virgin Islands would be better served using something more powerful, and more costly, than the 9x19.

RustyShackelford · Apr 9, 2015

FBI use of force shootings?.....

Is there so many FBI lethal force shootings every FY that there is data to study or information to glean from the lethal force incidents?

To my knowledge most US law enforcement officers are killed(per FY) by traffic accidents not lethal force events,

.

FBI Training Division Justifies 9mm Caliber Selection

Member

Member

Moderator

member

Member

member

Member

Moderator

member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

member

Moderator

member

Similar threads