FBI Training Division Justifies 9mm Caliber Selection

Posted by RustyShackleford:

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?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Nor are there large sets of actual data from any other sources. One cannot evaluate ammunition effectiveness on the basis of actual use of force incidents. There are far too many variables, and far too few data.

The studies are based on (1) medical evaluations of various kinds, observations, and expert judgment pertaining thereto (which likely do not change over the years) and (2) penetration (and expansion) test data conducted by manufacturers on commercially available ammunition.

The penetration test protocols and the associated media specifications are standardized. How often changes are adopted, I do not know.

Ammunition does change over the years, and that's the whole point. The particular brand of bonded-bullet 9MM ammunition that I carry now, which meets FBI standards, was first introduced, in sample lot sizes for testing in a few loadings, in 2009.

As it happens, I selected a .45 ACP pistol for defensive carry in 2009.

I started carrying the aforementioned 9MM load last year after a well known trainer had evaluated the manufacturer's performance testing and performing his own extensive reliability testing in the same kind of handgun that I carry.

If The FBI had the money to do these 'test' on expansion...

Click to expand...

The tests are done by the manufacturers and are independently certified per ISO standards.

Reports of the number of people shot are not helpful, for reasons extensively discussed in the literature.

One would have to know, for each incident, how many of what kind of load had been fired, and how quickly; where each round entered, at what angle, and in what order; what internal damage was caused each stop, and how quickly; and some things about the condition of each person hit.

These data are not recorded (some of them simply cannot be), and even partial data sets are recorded only in cases of high profile, controversial homicides.

And, of course, homicides constitute a small minority of the incidents, and they are no more relevant than stops, and failures to stop, involving persons who survive.

If The FBI had the money to do these 'test' on expansion I don't see why they don't make a SQL database and send questionnaires by email to all the PD depts in the states. Couple of geeks could get the data that way. Using Excel, It could be done without names (to protect privacy of the victims), like age, weight, height, toxicology, distance, weapon used, make of ammo, number of hits, region of each hit, ammo type, configuration, brand, etc...

Click to expand...

Who do you suggest pays for all of this data collection? Who pays for the additional forensics and the additional investigators to gather all of this data?
Who checks it for correctness?

You would end up with a report that is not any more usable then the widely discredited Marshall and Sanow work, Handgun Stopping Power.

Then there is the one variable you will never quantify, the human will. How will you factor in that it is documented that some people have dropped dead from a hit from a .22 or .25 like they were struck by a speeding train and others have taken enough damage to their body that they should have died 15 minutes ago and stay in the fight?

Posted by Jeff White:

Then there is the one variable you will never quantify, the human will. How will you factor in that it is documented that some people have dropped dead from a hit from a .22 or .25 like they were struck by a speeding train and others have taken enough damage to their body that they should have died 15 minutes ago and stay in the fight?

Click to expand...

Excellent point!

Even if one could somehow know and record all of the data i mentioned above, and even if there were enough of said data to be statistically meaningful, one would certainly find tremendous variability in the results.

The only thing the FBI report can do for us is predict what should work best in the real world.

As the saying goes, "your mileage may vary". Noooo, it will vary.

But I'll go with the recommendation.

Massad Ayoob and others did record such things.

Click to expand...

Really? Do you assert that they reorded, for each incident, how many of what kind of load had been fired, and how quickly; where each round entered, at what angle, and in what order; what internal damage was caused each stop, and how quickly; and information about the condition of each person hit?

Where on earth did they get the information?

Deaf, I have taken MAG-20, and yes, Mas does recommend certain loads--primarily those carried by certain police departments. I am certain that his recommendations come from sources other than autopsy reports. From manufacturers, test data, perhaps?

Autopsy reports can show which hits caused what damage, and which one or ones were likely fatal or probably would have been but for the fact of other potentiially fatal hits, but they cannot reliably tell which ones hit in what sequence, much less the timing. And they most certainly cannot tell with any real certainty how long a person might have remained dangerous.

That they are only performed on the deceased cuts the potential maximum data set to only about one sixth of the total number of handgun shooting incidents.

I know that there is no comprehensive assemblage of records that show, for each incident, how many of what kind of load had been fired, and how quickly; where each round entered, at what angle, and in what order; what internal damage was caused each stop, and how quickly; and information about the condition of each person hit. Each shooting would have to be recorded on clear video from multiple angles. No one does that.

"Stopping power"? I agree with the exerts who characterize that concept as a myth.

As Jeff White points out, there is almost unlimited variability in how individuals react when they are hit. Mas relates the story of a man fatally shot in the head from the side by a bullet that, among other things, destroyed both optic nerves. And the man continued, blind, to try to replace the empty magazine in his pistol.

One of the things Mas tells students in MAG-20 is to buy a copy of Gray's Anatomy and to study it and keep it handy.

One who does that and thinks about the facts for a moment will realize that a 'solid hit" in the upper chest from an expanding bullet that has enough energy to go completely through the human body, exit the wall of a building, and go into a tree outside may stop a person quickly--or, if it hits just a few centimeters one way or the other, and/or if the body is turned a few degrees differently one way or the other in any axis, it may not.

Some people are amazed to hear that two powerful hits in the same lung may not prevent an attacker from killing his victim.

The absence of detailed, timed real-world, recorded observations, the complexity of the human body and the nuances of the psyche, the very small set of relevant incidents, and the large number of other important variables make actual data almost useless in leading one to any definitive conclusions.

The above three paragraphs should explain why the report containing the FBI's recommendation says what it does, and why Rob Pincus has concluded essentially the same thing.

So now they being up their new theory... 'no such thing as stopping power', so to sell the switch to the 9mm.

Click to expand...

There is nothing new about it. The entire subject was covered in some depth in "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", published by the FBI twenty six years ago this July.

What is new is the ammunition available today.

So I guess all they are talking about is killing power, and if so a .32 acp has plenty.

Click to expand...

You have missed the point.

Oh, and Massad put years of research Kleanbore, same with Marshal. Read their books.

Click to expand...

I have every book that Ayoob has written.

I have read Marshal's analyses and I think they are somewhere below questionable. Consider how he defines a "one shot stop."

For objective data, Ayoob has to rely upon penetration and wound channel test data, and upon the opinion of forensic medical experts, to the same extent as Pincus. The available data from real shootings lack critical detail pertinent to the question at hand, and one more time, the number of variables is far too great for the data available.

And Mas will be the first to tell you that anything he might have concluded from the best defensive ammunition available in those earlier "years of research" has been overtaken by events. The load that the FBI uses now was not available six years ago.

You mean hollowpoints?

Click to expand...

I cannot tell whether you are trying to be cute, or whether you did not read the link provided in the OP, or whether you did not read the link I provided on why Rob Pincus recommends the 9MM, or whether you have not been keeping up on recent defensive ammunition developments, or whether that rather inane question represents some combination of the foregoing.

I do not intend for that to be taken personally, but the question is frivolous and absurd on its face.

Here is part of what Rob said:
To answer your question, if it was indeed intended seriously, the answer is modern bonded hollow points.

The PDX1 line is a recent development.

The PDX1 in .40 S&W is the new FBI standard.

For various reasons they now seem to be leaning toward the 9MM. The advantages will be capacity and higher speed of hitting, both of which improve the probability of hitting something vital, which is necessary to slop a criminal attacker; the disadvantage, as I see it, might lie in issues involving the penetration of, say, plate glass, which may be important in law enforcement applications.

Did the hollowpoints 10 years ago not expand?

Click to expand...

Agent Urey Patrick's report from twenty six years ago cautioned against relying upon them to expand, but that's not the real issue.

Sure JHPs today might be more consistent in expansion, but it's still the same theory, method, and technology.

Click to expand...

Theory, yes. Technology, no. Reliability of expansion is helpful, but the real issue is holding together after expansion, retaining mass, and penetrating farther.

And since the FBI's own theory works on..

A. Penetration
B. Permanent Cavity
C. Temporary Cavity
D. Fragmentation
E. Psychological state of the adversary.

Then nothing has changed.

Click to expand...

That comment leads me to believe that you have not been keeping up with ammunition technology, and that you did not read, or chose to ignore, or elect to not believe, this from the FBI report; it's near the beginning:


Here's something on the PDX1, from the 2012 Shot Show.

Yes things have changed.

I carry the PDX1 in 9MM. I am sure there are other good choices today.

By the way, not that it matters, but while the FBI report did mention temporary cavity and fragmentation, it described both as inconsequential factors at handgun velocities.