FBI Training Division Justifies 9mm Caliber Selection

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe the new hollow points being bonded means it won't fragment and thus increase the depth a round penetrates. This is in contrast to older hollow points which would fragment and lose the the energy to penetrate adequately. That's what is meant in bullet technology improvements.

fanchisimo,

Do note one of the parts of the 'study' by the manufactures, and noted by the FBI, is 'fragmentation' being part of the effectives. As long as one gets enough penetration then some fragmentation is good (just as the old military 5.56 55gr fmj fragmented.)

Nom,

Cooper wrote at a time when technology had most JHPs not expand, he also wrote when the 'best' one could get was a SWC for the .45 and a maybe JHP for the 9mm. While the 'they all fall to hard ball' was demonstrably wrong, yes even Ayoob and Marshal showed FMJ was not a good stopper, the 9mm was noticeably less effective than the .45.

What the does that really mean? Since I can carry a S&W 500 revolver, safely operate it, and hit what I am shooting at does that mean I should carry it because it is the most powerful round I can control? Just what does control of a self-defense pistol mean?

Note part of the terms I used included 'carry'. I carry the Glock 26 instead of my Glock 33 cause I can control one handed the Winchester +p+ 127gr 9mm loads adequately ONE HANDED with my 26, but can't with my 33 in .357 Sig. I also carry the 26, a subcompact, because I sit and drive a lot, and thus a larger weapon, say my Glock 31, would not work (or one of my 1911s.) Plus I have to conceal them, which a .500 S&W might be kind of hard to do.

Perhaps the ultimate definition of controlling a self-defense pistol would be the ability to fire to the limits of the pistol's mechanical accuracy hits on target at all ranges as fast as the pistol's action can mechanically cycle.

Bullstuffings, don't fall for the IPSC 'splits' fallacy where you have to make .18 splits to be adequate for repeated shots. And I say that having been in IPSC and IDPA for over 40 years worth of shooting. Class A and Expert or above in all divisions.

All you are setting yourself up is to miss a lot.

Control means getting reliable GOOD hits in a reasonable time, not by some mechanical limit of the weapon (or I'd advocate a Glock 18.) Some people can shoot a full powered .45 ACP fast and accurate enough to get doubles in very short time, others can't do that with any weapon. Don't over analyze the term control.

Deaf
 
Posted by Deaf Smith:
Control means getting reliable GOOD hits in a reasonable time,...
What ever it meant to you when you said it, for your earlier statement ("go with the most powerful round you can control and carry") to have any validity, "getting reliable GOOD hits" has to mean getting enough hits to happen to hit and damage the vital parts of the target, wherever they happen to be within the body of the attacker, and that could well require hitting the attacker's body several times; and "a reasonable time" has to mean before you are shot, stabbed, or clubbed, and that may be very quickly indeed.

Frankly, I do not think that concluding that means being able to get four or five shots into a moving target in one second is at all unreasonable.
 
Nom,

Cooper wrote at a time when technology had most JHPs not expand, he also wrote when the 'best' one could get was a SWC for the .45 and a maybe JHP for the 9mm. While the 'they all fall to hard ball' was demonstrably wrong, yes even Ayoob and Marshal showed FMJ was not a good stopper, the 9mm was noticeably less effective than the .45.

Sorry Deaf, you don’t know your Cooper as well as I do. The numbers I posted are of John “Jeff” Cooper comparing 9mm FMJ to .45 FMJ. It could have been a comparison of any bullet type in both calibers and it would still be the wildly exaggerated B.S. I said it is. BTW, I have been reading Cooper’s books, Ayoobs books, Marshall and Sanow’s trilogy, etc. since the 1970’s. They are all sitting on my bookshelf. They all have many nonsensical comments on the terminal ballistic performance comparisons between calibers.

Note part of the terms I used included 'carry'. I carry the Glock 26 instead of my Glock 33 cause I can control one handed the Winchester +p+ 127gr 9mm loads adequately ONE HANDED with my 26, but can't with my 33 in .357 Sig. I also carry the 26, a subcompact, because I sit and drive a lot, and thus a larger weapon, say my Glock 31, would not work (or one of my 1911s.) Plus I have to conceal them, which a .500 S&W might be kind of hard to do.

Carry, schmary, the point is not how big the gun is to carry. They all can be carried, the only difference being how easy it is to carry one than another. In what are considered full-sized self-defense pistols the differences in terminal ballistic performance of 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 and .45 are at best trivial in comparison to how fast accurate hits can be made. You and Kleenbore have not been dragging this thread on with a discussion of choosing caliber for what size pistol you think is optimal for carry in a particular situation.

Bullstuffings, don't fall for the IPSC 'splits' fallacy where you have to make .18 splits to be adequate for repeated shots. And I say that having been in IPSC and IDPA for over 40 years worth of shooting. Class A and Expert or above in all divisions.

All you are setting yourself up is to miss a lot.

Control means getting reliable GOOD hits in a reasonable time, not by some mechanical limit of the weapon (or I'd advocate a Glock 18.) Some people can shoot a full powered .45 ACP fast and accurate enough to get doubles in very short time, others can't do that with any weapon. Don't over analyze the term control.

Nobody is over analyzing “the term control”. You are again missing the point. I was pointing out the ultimate and humanly impossible performance level that ideally should be moved toward to the limits of human ability. That means if a pistol caliber is sufficient, there is no advantage to be gained by using another caliber that has at best such small increases in terminal ballistic performance as to be meaningless if doing so slows down how fast it is humanly possible to make accurate hits. I also started shooting in an IPSC league four decades ago. I became a Class A and Expert (then called AA Class) shooter while shooting next to the two best shooter’s in the World. The slower speed in making hits with a .45 is not more advantageous than making faster hits with a 9mm. That fact does not change if it is done in an IPSC match or a fight for your life.

Obviously you have a 1970's Jeff Cooper mindset about caliber differences and I doubt Kleenbore and I or any amount of data will ever convince you to adopt a 21st century mindset.
 
Last edited:
Posted by Deaf Smith:What ever it meant to you when you said it, for your earlier statement ("go with the most powerful round you can control and carry") to have any validity, "getting reliable GOOD hits" has to mean getting enough hits to happen to hit and damage the vital parts of the target, wherever they happen to be within the body of the attacker, and that could well require hitting the attacker's body several times; and "a reasonable time" has to mean before you are shot, stabbed, or clubbed, and that may be very quickly indeed.

Frankly, I do not think that concluding that means being able to get four or five shots into a moving target in one second is at all unreasonable.
You really think cops, or even most civilians can get "four or five shots into a moving target in one second"???


Sure buddy, with a averaging hit rate now days below 25 percent they are gonna get 4 or 5 hits in one second. Dream on.

Deaf
 
You really think cops, or even most civilians can get "four or five shots into a moving target in one second"???
Some of us have done so in training.

Sure buddy, with a averaging hit rate now days below 25 percent they are gonna get 4 or 5 hits in one second. Dream on.
Stress makes a big difference in performance; that's why people miss in the real world. Heck, even in a laser simulation facility, one well known trainer, who has indeed served as a police officer, missed a few when firing five shots in less than second.

How much time do you think you will be afforded by an attacker who is moving at five meters per second?

At what rate would you expect to fire to defend yourself?

What do you consider a "reasonable time" under such circumstances?
 
Nom de Forum said:
Obviously you have a 1970's Jeff Cooper mindset about caliber differences and I doubt Kleenbore and I or any amount of data will ever convince you to adopt a 21st century mindset.
I think this comment sums up this thread pretty well.
 
You mean hollowpoints?

Did the hollowpoints 10 years ago not expand?

Did they not make the same velocities as they make today?

Did the 125gr JHP .357 magnum load, you know, change?

Have humans changed?

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

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.

Same JHPs same idea of expanding bullets (but then a .45 IS pretty much an expanded 9mm before it, uh, expands even more (that's what makes the 'B' permanent cavity.)

Deaf
Thank you!
 
Some of us have done so in training.

Stress makes a big difference in performance; that's why people miss in the real world. Heck, even in a laser simulation facility, one well known trainer, who has indeed served as a police officer, missed a few when firing five shots in less than second.

How much time do you think you will be afforded by an attacker who is moving at five meters per second?

At what rate would you expect to fire to defend yourself?

What do you consider a "reasonable time" under such circumstances?
Kb,

I've done .15 splits in training... but we are not talking about just a few individuals who are, how shall we say, gun enthusiast?

Any LEO organization has to play to the basic common denominator. Hence the low hit rate. Hence the finding the least expensive gun/ammo combination that gives them more or less 'enough' for their goals. Hence short training sessions and rather generous qualification standards.

That is why the FBI jumped on the study and says, 'Eureka!, no such thing as stopping power but we do have a list of must-have in order to gain stopping power' (that thing does not exist in their esteemed opinion.)

Jeff Cooper? Well I'm more of a Massad Ayoob man but I did grow up with Jeff's writings, in the 70s and 80s, a time when JHP technology was just starting to come out with JHPs that more-or-less worked (and the .357 magnum ones did.)

Most of Jeff's writings on tactics and technique are still valid, but technology has changed to help bring about 'big bore' to 'small bore' handguns (which in reality is what JHPs and other expanding bullets do, turn a 9mm into a .45.)

I keep an open mind, just as I do in the martial arts, but the basic principles are still there and have not changed.

So to wit,

Pick the most powerful cartridge you can control and carry. And larger bores tend to stop better, bullet designed like JHPs tend to stop better, and good shot placement tends to stop better.

And yes, it is easier to make one or two good hits in a short time with a powerful weapon than it is to make 5 or 6 good hits in a short time with a less powerful weapon.

What is hard to do is make a whole bunch of good hits with a short time with ANY weapon, short of a shotgun or submachine gun. Especially on a moving target that is shooting back.

Deaf
 
Posted by Deaf Smith:
Pick the most powerful cartridge you can control and carry.
As has been discussed, "control" is relative and variable, and everyone can better control a lighter-recoiling firearm in faster fire than a harder recoiling firearm. That's basic physics.

...good shot placement tends to stop better.
Of course, and that is an understatement. It has been recognized for decades that hitting something vital is essential to effect a physical stop.

The problem is that in a deadly force incident, " good shot placement" means hitting something vital, and because the vital parts are internal, that's not something that one can ensure with a good sight picture. It is the result of a number of things, not the least of which is luck. Put another way, it is the outcome of a stochastic process.

One bullet that goes into the upper chest area at a particular point, from whatever angle around whatever axis, my hit something vital, or it may not. Change either the point of the entry wound slightly or the angle slightly and the situation may be different.

And yes, it is easier to make one or two good hits in a short time with a powerful weapon than it is to make 5 or 6 good hits in a short time with a less powerful weapon.
One "good hit" might suffice, and two would be better.

However, we have to define "good hits" as hits on the small, vital internal parts of the body, and we cannot know precisely where any of those parts really when they are hidden inside a three dimensional human body, and hitting them when they are moving is even more difficult. Therefore, making that one "good hit" is really something of a matter of luck, and making two requires more luck.

It is not really all that likely that one or two shots that hit the body will turn out to be "good hits." That's a matter of luck, and that luck can be improved markedly by shooting more rounds.

Of course, one has only so much time to do it.

None of that is new. The need to hit vital parts of the body to effect a physical stop was discussed at length in Urey Patrick's report in 1987. The report then analyzed the human body and presented some conclusions regarding penetration requirements, which incidentally, have not changed. They led to the widespread adoption of handguns chambered for the .40 S&W cartridge, which, in premium defensive loadings, met the penetration requirements.

What has changed in recent years is the fact that there are now several premium defensive loadings in 9MM Parabellum that also meet the penetration requirement. These came about as the result of advances in bullet technology.

The lower recoil impulse of the 9MM enable shooters--all of them, no matter how practiced--to shoot controlled stings faster. That's not new.

But combined with the new fact of better consistent penetration with reliably expanding bullets, the lower recoil impulse gives the defender--any defender--a better chance of hitting those small vital parts within the body.

And that is what constitutes "good hits."

And that, and nothing about the "basic common denominator", is the reason for the recommendation. If it were just a matter of the average skill level, we would find experts such as Rob Pincus carrying more powerful rounds--which, incidentally, he once did.

Nothing that I have said in the forgoing was not already addressed, at least to to some extent, in the link in the OP and in the two links I have provided to Rob Pincus' recommendations.

The vast majority of experts do seem to be leaning toward the nine today.
 
And yes, it is easier to make one or two good hits in a short time with a powerful weapon than it is to make 5 or 6 good hits in a short time with a less powerful weapon.
Deaf

Pistols are not powerful weapons. Pistols in 9mm caliber and larger calibers used in common self-defense pistols have no significant differences in "power" by any rational form of measurement. Making two hits is never better than making three or more hits if all are similarly placed and from weapons that have insignificant differences in "power".
 
Very knowledgeable discussion guys, it's a pleasure to be able to absorb this information from people who really understand what they are talking about. Thanks for participating.
 
Pistols are not powerful weapons. Pistols in 9mm caliber and larger calibers used in common self-defense pistols have no significant differences in "power" by any rational form of measurement. Making two hits is never better than making three or more hits if all are similarly placed and from weapons that have insignificant differences in "power".

This is the gist of it. Given: adequate penetration, let's say 8"-14" of real tissue penetration (what 12"-18" in gel roughly equates to), 3 permanent wound cavities in .38 Spc-.45 ACP beats only 2. 33% more wound volume and blood loss, 33% more chance of hitting a vital organ.

Capacity in a handgun is like gas in the tank or altitude (under the wings) to a pilot. It may, or may not, be needed, but more of it is better than less, and extra can't hurt (but not enough can be catastrophic).

I'm not professional enough for a .45 so I'll just go back to shooting a 9mm P226 like the one I was issued in Iraq by the "beginner" former DEVGRU CEO of the company I worked for...:p
 
This is the gist of it. Given: adequate penetration, let's say 8"-14" of real tissue penetration (what 12"-18" in gel roughly equates to), 3 permanent wound cavities in .38 Spc-.45 ACP beats only 2. 33% more wound volume and blood loss, 33% more chance of hitting a vital organ.

strambo,

Why would there be more permanent wound cavity volume of 3 .355/.357 diameter slugs than two .451 diameter slugs?

Say for 16 inches of penetration:

v= r * r * h * Pi

For .357 it's (.1785 * .1785 * 16 * 3.1415826) * 3 (shots)= 4.8047064

For .451 it's (.2255 * .2255 * 16 * 3.1415826) * 2 = 5.1120194

So strambo, two 45 holes, IF THEY DON'T EXPAND, have more permanent wound cavity volume than 3 .38s.

And if they both (that is .38 and .45) expand to twice their diameter then...

For .357 it's (.357 * .357 * 16 * 3.1415826) * 3 shots = 19.218855

And for .451 it's (.451 * .451 * 16 * 3.1415826) * 2 shots = 20.448098

Do the math.

Pistols are not powerful weapons. Pistols in 9mm caliber and larger calibers used in common self-defense pistols have no significant differences in "power" by any rational form of measurement. Making two hits is never better than making three or more hits if all are similarly placed and from weapons that have insignificant differences in "power".

Power is relative Nom, and do the math like strambo.

One "good hit" might suffice, and two would be better.

Fair enough... Jeff C. always said to fire twice. And as pointed above two .45s give more permanent volume destruction than three .355/.357 slugs.

Deaf
 
Posted by Deaf Smith:
... Jeff C. always said to fire twice. And as pointed above two .45s give more permanent volume destruction than three .355/.357 slugs
What Jeff C. may have "always said" dos not make it a good idea.

Firing twice cannot ensure hitting anything vital.

Two .45 hits in the same lung may have little immediate effect.

Most trainers today suggest firing three to five shots, or more if those do not do the job.

And "permanent volume destruction" can mean nothing. The human body is not homogenous.

Three .335/.357 slugs have a better chance of hitting something vital, and that's what counts. That's all that counts.

Those of us who have studied under Massad Ayoob know what.

So do many others.

I should think that you would understand those things. One can hope.
 
The 9mm is a great round, but so are many others. I carry one for many of the positive reasons stated throughout this thread. I think we need to bear in mind the constitution of the person who has been shot with regards to "stopping power". I would feel well armed with a 9, 40, 45 or any of the others which fill the gaps.
 
Power is relative Nom, and do the math like strambo.

Just what "math" would it be that supports your opinion that there is a significant difference in the "power" of the .45ACP and 9mmPara? Please, please tell me.

Fair enough... Jeff C. always said to fire twice. And as pointed above two .45s give more permanent volume destruction than three .355/.357 slugs.

No he didn't! He often advocated using the Mozambique 2 to the chest and 1 to the head drill.
 
Deaf, I didn't specify a caliber so you can do the math anyway you want to to make the numbers say what you want them to. 3 wound cavities in any caliber .38-.45 is better than 2, that is my point. 3 lung hits vs. 2. Heart, lung, liver vs. just heart, lung. Heart, lung, brain vs. just heart, lung...
 
Just what "math" would it be that supports your opinion that there is a significant difference in the "power" of the .45ACP and 9mmPara? Please, please tell me.



No he didn't! He often advocated using the Mozambique 2 to the chest and 1 to the head drill.
Do you even understand what the Mozambique was for? You fired two in the chest, ASSESSED if the two did their work, and then if need be fired for the head.

It is a Failure to Stop drill,

The Mozambique in IPSC/IDPA has been perverted into a speed drill. It was not invented for that purpose.

And Jeff Cooper brought about the “controlled pair”, later known as the 'double tap' or 'hammer' (depending on how you used your sights.)

The Mozambique was only incorporated into Gunsite curriculum from the late 1970s (Gunsite was founded in 1976.)

Jeff had been writing way way before that time period.

Deaf, I didn't specify a caliber so you can do the math anyway you want to to make the numbers say what you want them to.

Well actually strambo two .45s are better than three .38/9mms. And, like I said, which is harder to do, hit once or twice with a powerful weapon or have to hit even more with a lesser powered weapon?

See strambo, having to get GOOD hits in a gunfight is going to be difficult. But the be forced to get several good hits, to compensate for the lack of wound channel, is going to be harder.

If we go by what the FBI has for their criteria, you see a larger caliber weapon is superior.

Deaf
 
AND

I did not see this mentioned.

But I was taught [ and did teach ] that you do not stop shooting UNTIL THE THREAT STOPS.

Training to do that WITH a caliber that you can do shot placement well with ----- is the key.

In my not so humble opinion.

So I forgo the "caliber" argument and train as if my life depended on me making GREAT shots under the hardest circumstances I can muster.

Then I train to fail,and go at it harder until that is mastered.

repeat and then = repeat.
 
Do you even understand what the Mozambique was for? You fired two in the chest, ASSESSED if the two did their work, and then if need be fired for the head.

It is a Failure to Stop drill,

The Mozambique in IPSC/IDPA has been perverted into a speed drill. It was not invented for that purpose.

And Jeff Cooper brought about the “controlled pair”, later known as the 'double tap' or 'hammer' (depending on how you used your sights.)

The Mozambique was only incorporated into Gunsite curriculum from the late 1970s (Gunsite was founded in 1976.)

Now you are starting to get really insulting. You behave as if only you were around back in the 1970's to know what Cooper had in mind. :mad:

You wrote "Jeff C. always said to fire twice". Do you not even comprehend the meaning of what you write?

The original Mozambique Drill is now held in much lower regard than when Cooper promoted it because it in now well understood that reacting to observable rapid effects from two shots to the chest is not a realistic expectation. It was soon figured out that the period of time when you paused for the "Assessment" between the 2 in the chest and the 1 in the head was when you gave your opponent the time needed to kill you. I was completely enthralled by Jeff Cooper's writing during the 1970's. I read everything he had published. So I have been aware of what is and what is not a Mozambique Drill for almost 40 years.
 
Last edited:
Deaf Smith,

Still waiting on the explanation for what type of "math" you want me to do to determine "power". You can only evade the reality that no math will support that there are significant "power" differences that are more important than rate and quantity of hits. You cannot evade the consequences of the reality of your continued refusal to answer my question because you are tacitly confirming your error and undermining your credibility.
 
Last edited:
Did you hear about the new super ninja round. The 9mm ninja when fired has nine ninjas that jump out of the bullet all of them determined to decapitate the aggressor.

However the .40 ninja has 40 ninjas that jump out and therefore it's clearly a superior round to the 9mm ninja however the advantages are now unclear due to the recent release of the new 9mm super duper ninja round which has added shurikans that pepper the aggressor's body all over in addition to decapitation and dismemberment.

Ballistics can be a very tricky subject with all the new advances in ammunition.
 
I'm totally having flashbacks to all those issues of "Guns and Ammo," "Combat Handguns," and "Guns" magazines I read through circa 1990 ... Really, just when we thought there was no longer a need for the .45 ACP vs. 9mm debate, here we've indulged in six pages of the same ...

I'm old, I love 1911s, but with the advances in 9mm bullet technology and standard 15 to 18 round magazines, I'm mostly packing a 9mm pistol these days. And that's since before I found out the FBI was gonna go back ... ('course, my employer went back to a 9mm, so here I am now ...)

Hey, you know you can easily find "In the Line of Duty: The FBI Shootings" movie, starring David Soul and Michael Gross in a fabulous depiction of the infamous 1984 Miami shootout ... it's on Netflix now.

I don't think you ever heard someone saying, "Give me fewer bullets, but make 'em bigger bullets" during a gunfight ... but "I need more bullets" has probably been heard a lot.
 
Deaf Smith,

Still waiting on the explanation for what type of "math" you want me to do to determine "power". You can only evade the reality that no math will support that there are significant "power" differences that are more important than rate and quantity of hits. You cannot evade the consequences of the reality of your continued refusal to answer my question because you are tacitly confirming your error and undermining your credibility.
I just used that math. I used the FBI's own criteria above and simple measurement of volume.

They gave their criteria of importance and I showed how larger bore projectiles were superior.

But then math or not, years of research from the likes of Ayoob showed there was such a thing as stopping power and bigger bullets tend to stop better, faster bullets tend to stop better, better constructed bullets, like JHPs, also tend to stop better, and correct shot placement tends to stop better.

Deaf
 
I'm totally having flashbacks to all those issues of "Guns and Ammo," "Combat Handguns," and "Guns" magazines I read through circa 1990 ... Really, just when we thought there was no longer a need for the .45 ACP vs. 9mm debate, here we've indulged in six pages of the same ...

I'm old, I love 1911s, but with the advances in 9mm bullet technology and standard 15 to 18 round magazines, I'm mostly packing a 9mm pistol these days. And that's since before I found out the FBI was gonna go back ... ('course, my employer went back to a 9mm, so here I am now ...)

Hey, you know you can easily find "In the Line of Duty: The FBI Shootings" movie, starring David Soul and Michael Gross in a fabulous depiction of the infamous 1984 Miami shootout ... it's on Netflix now.

I don't think you ever heard someone saying, "Give me fewer bullets, but make 'em bigger bullets" during a gunfight ... but "I need more bullets" has probably been heard a lot.
Well actually no one ever wished for a smaller bullet, nor less powerful, nor less ammo.

No one ever dropped their M1 Garand for a M1 Carbine once the shooting started.

Oh, and pack a Glock 26.. Yea 9mm. But I don't kid myself thinking there is no such thing as stopping power.

Deaf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top