Law enforcement going back to 9mm

[stchman]

This news will make 40 guns and ammo even cheaper.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I never got why "small stature" somehow means a person can't handle a full power weapon. It boils down to how well built the person is, how strong they are, not "stature" as in height.

 

[Merle1]

I never got why "small stature" somehow means a person can't handle a full power weapon. It boils down to how well built the person is, how strong they are, not "stature" as in height.

short arms make it tougher.....

 

[Panzerschwein]

short arms make it tougher.....

Not if those arms are strong, like Russian bear!!

 

[Rexster]

Regardless of the reason why my chief OK'ed 9mm as an alternative patrol duty cartridge, in 2015, I am glad he did so, because .40 Snap & Whip had started to really hurt my aging, formerly-stronger wrist by late 2011, about the time of my fiftieth birthday. In the Eighties, I had carried .44 Magnum duty sixgun for a year, and a .41 Magnum duty sixgun for about five years, then .357 Magnum for much of the NIneties, so being afraid of recoil* was not the problem, and at six feet tall, "stature" was not a problem, either. Being able to get away from .40 may have lengthened my LE career my 2+ years, as being unable to train realistically hard with my duty cartridge was causing a crisis of confidence in my ability to protect the public.

I think .40 made sense when it was developed, as bonded-core, controlled-expansion bullet technology was not as advanced as today, so momentum, energy, and making bigger holes were relatively more important factors. I liked .40, until it started hurting.

I still love .45 ACP. Firing reasonable quantities of .45 ACP, with all-steel, full-sized, low-bore-axis 1911 pistols, does not hurt me. In a nice follow-up to our being able to carry 9mm duty pistols, my chief later OK'ed the return of 1911 duty pistols, for those officers attending transition/certification training. I am now qual'ed with both Glock G19 and Les Baer 1911 duty pistols.

*I do believe that Magnum recoil laid the foundation for my current hand/wrist problems; I do not "blame" .40 S&W.

 

[Dave T]

Every time I hear about the punishing recoil of the 40 S&W, I think back to my probationary year at the sheriff's dept when I carried a 357 Magnum S&W M-28. And no, it wasn't loaded with +P 38 Specials. Somehow I managed to qualify (at the top of my department) with that. When I got off probation I bought and qualified with a Colt Government Model in 45 ACP, and carried those until I retired. But then I'm an old geezer who's out of touch and who doesn't understand how things are these days...or so I've been told.



Dave

 

[stchman]

OMG, people think that .40S&W is like shooting a cannon while 9mm is super soft. I have .40S&W and 9mm guns and I can barely feel the difference, .40S&W kicks a little harder, but it is no more or less comfortable to shoot than 9mm IMO. I think .45ACP guns kick way harder than .40S&W guns.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

My woman is 5'4 and 115 pounds, and she shoots better than 70 percent of Marines i've coached, and all her handguns are in .45 acp. Isometric grip, shoulders locked and wrist locked, and train. Recoil shouldnt be an issue if you arent disabled. (With calibers of .45 acp and under)

 

[TomJ]

I own or have owned the following in 40: Springfield XD Compact, Glock 27, Glock 23, FNS 40, P229, Springfield XDM Compact and Springfield XDM 3.8. The gun has much to do with the felt recoil. I sold the XD Compact, as it was "too snappy". The Glocks, due I'm guessing to the grip angle, have a little more felt recoil to me than the others. In the other Springfields, the FNS and especially the 229, recoil hasn't been an issue.

I know this in anecdotal, but I sold a gun not too long ago to a police officer who made the decisions for his department in regards to what gun/caliber their officers used. They changed from the 357 SIG to 9's. He preferred the 357 SIG, but went with the 9 because of the number of women officers they needed to have qualify. He did say that he was comfortable with the performance of the 9 based on meetings and seminars he attended, but would not have made the change if it wasn't for the qualification issue. I'm wondering how many other departments dropped the 40 for the 9 for similar reasons.

 

[RPZ]

I never got why "small stature" somehow means a person can't handle a full power weapon. It boils down to how well built the person is, how strong they are, not "stature" as in height.

I think it is more about hand size than overall stature. Glock has dominated the civilian police market for decades, and even their Gen 4s are a handfull for women - and men - with smaller hands. Even out of those who "qualify", how many of these people can really handle pistols like a Glock .40 well one handed? Not many I suspect. Pistols like the VP9/40, Walther PPQ might change this with better grip ergonomics and adjustments. But these are comparatively new, and not as price attractive as Glocks I would imagine.

 

[Jenrick]

I will say as a full time LE firearms instructor, it's not the small statured women who are usually the issue in training. Also as an almost 6' 220lb male, I'll also say I'll take a 9mm everyday of the week over a .40 S&W. Less recoil, more rounds, same ballistic effect. What's not to like?

They changed from the 357 SIG to 9's. He preferred the 357 SIG, but went with the 9 because of the number of women officers they needed to have qualify. He did say that he was comfortable with the performance of the 9 based on meetings and seminars he attended, but would not have made the change if it wasn't for the qualification issue. I'm wondering how many other departments dropped the 40 for the 9 for similar reasons.

I'll address this because it keeps popping up in all these .40 vs 9mm in LE threads. In most agencies the number of females is probably less then 10%, the odds of having more females fail the qual compared to male officers is very low. The female is often blamed for the qual failures instead of the statistically more numerous male officers failing the qual. It's just that LE is still stuck in the 80's in some regards so blaming things on females is still a good fall back. In my almost 4 years as a full time FI in an agency with over 1900 officers, the two biggest things I run into in training are: lack of previous experience with firearms at all (this is usually about even between male and females), and a bunch of bad habits the cadet refuses to stop doing (this is almost exclusively male). I can fix the first problem easily. The second is what gets males in trouble when they can barely shoot an 80% on the qual, regardless of the caliber they have. The only thing that creates more issues for women then men is grip size, however as a male who has comically small hands for my size (I wear a women's Large glove, and even a women's medium on occasion) this can be overcome as well. We had a female officer who just completed the academy, who was probably a hair under 5' tall, and maybe 100 lbs with all her gear on. She also had the grip strength of a pissed off silver back, guess what, she had no issue with a 9mm, .40, or .357 magnum. I've had 6'2" completely jacked former military guys come in, who can't run a pistol to save their lives, even with impressive grip strength.
My job as a LE firearms instructor and professional is to determine what caliber will serve the needs of my officers in terms of terminal ballistics, that they can shoot the best. If I could find a round that hit like a 40mm HEDP, recoiled like a .22 CB, and you could fit a hundred in a magazine I'd be pounding on the chiefs officer door right now. The 9mm vs .40 is basically: less recoil and muzzle blast, more rounds, and does the same thing in the human body. Pretty much a gimme.

So of the factors that are different for a big agency, cost is number one. Price savings are minimal between all service calibers as we're not shooting "Ed's Discount House of Reloads" ammo for practice. We're usually either shooting our actual service round (this is a Federal thing), or something that is very similar to our duty ammo. The price difference is very minimal with these type of rounds. Small agencies that buy 5,000-10,000 a year will see a much bigger difference in price since they are buying almost at commercial prices. The current cadet class we have in training round now will shoot about 400,000 rounds. That's not even looking at annual qualifications, inservice, etc. When you order the stuff in 250,000 round lots, you don't see much of a difference between the calibers price wise as you are already at the lowest cost tier.

Performance is the most important aspect of the bullet. The bosses will order what we recommend. Why? Liability. We're a big enough agency that if a shoot goes bad, everyone and everything get's sued or subpoenaed for the suite. "Chief you testified the training your officer received is some of the best in the country, due to the extensive experience and knowledge of your range staff. So why didn't you follow their recommendation to purchase Brand X?" When you have a couple hundred patrol cars with $5K-$10K radios, some aircraft, etc. in your budget, who cares if round X is 25 cents more then round Y. NYPD with approximately 50,000 sworn officers, is only seeing about a bit more then half a million dollars in ammo cost to go with the round cost 25 cents more (which would be a huge cost disparity between top tier defensive ammo). What does half a million pay for? A pair of Chiefs, maybe 3 lieutenants, possible 5 Sergeants. Compared to the rest of the budget, it's a minimal cost difference.

Big agencies don't make changes to firearms related issues due to cost. They make changes due to something being better. It's usually driven by very hard working staff who want a positive change for their fellow officers. Firearms related issues are so negligible in terms of cost as to be not worth worrying about in big agencies.

-Jenrick

 

[1911 guy]

There was a time, right about the time when the switch away from 9mm happened, that bullet technology wasn't what it is today. However, the playing field has leveled across the board of defensive calibers. If I were getting into the handgun game today, I'd strongly consider 9mm myself. Capacity, recoil and terminal ballistics are all there. But I'm middle aged and stuck on the .45 now.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

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

You are so right. It's all about money.

 

[TomJ]

I will say as a full time LE firearms instructor, it's not the small statured women who are usually the issue in training. Also as an almost 6' 220lb male, I'll also say I'll take a 9mm everyday of the week over a .40 S&W. Less recoil, more rounds, same ballistic effect. What's not to like?



I'll address this because it keeps popping up in all these .40 vs 9mm in LE threads. In most agencies the number of females is probably less then 10%, the odds of having more females fail the qual compared to male officers is very low. The female is often blamed for the qual failures instead of the statistically more numerous male officers failing the qual. It's just that LE is still stuck in the 80's in some regards so blaming things on females is still a good fall back. In my almost 4 years as a full time FI in an agency with over 1900 officers, the two biggest things I run into in training are: lack of previous experience with firearms at all (this is usually about even between male and females), and a bunch of bad habits the cadet refuses to stop doing (this is almost exclusively male). I can fix the first problem easily. The second is what gets males in trouble when they can barely shoot an 80% on the qual, regardless of the caliber they have. The only thing that creates more issues for women then men is grip size, however as a male who has comically small hands for my size (I wear a women's Large glove, and even a women's medium on occasion) this can be overcome as well. We had a female officer who just completed the academy, who was probably a hair under 5' tall, and maybe 100 lbs with all her gear on. She also had the grip strength of a pissed off silver back, guess what, she had no issue with a 9mm, .40, or .357 magnum. I've had 6'2" completely jacked former military guys come in, who can't run a pistol to save their lives, even with impressive grip strength.
My job as a LE firearms instructor and professional is to determine what caliber will serve the needs of my officers in terms of terminal ballistics, that they can shoot the best. If I could find a round that hit like a 40mm HEDP, recoiled like a .22 CB, and you could fit a hundred in a magazine I'd be pounding on the chiefs officer door right now. The 9mm vs .40 is basically: less recoil and muzzle blast, more rounds, and does the same thing in the human body. Pretty much a gimme.

So of the factors that are different for a big agency, cost is number one. Price savings are minimal between all service calibers as we're not shooting "Ed's Discount House of Reloads" ammo for practice. We're usually either shooting our actual service round (this is a Federal thing), or something that is very similar to our duty ammo. The price difference is very minimal with these type of rounds. Small agencies that buy 5,000-10,000 a year will see a much bigger difference in price since they are buying almost at commercial prices. The current cadet class we have in training round now will shoot about 400,000 rounds. That's not even looking at annual qualifications, inservice, etc. When you order the stuff in 250,000 round lots, you don't see much of a difference between the calibers price wise as you are already at the lowest cost tier.

Performance is the most important aspect of the bullet. The bosses will order what we recommend. Why? Liability. We're a big enough agency that if a shoot goes bad, everyone and everything get's sued or subpoenaed for the suite. "Chief you testified the training your officer received is some of the best in the country, due to the extensive experience and knowledge of your range staff. So why didn't you follow their recommendation to purchase Brand X?" When you have a couple hundred patrol cars with $5K-$10K radios, some aircraft, etc. in your budget, who cares if round X is 25 cents more then round Y. NYPD with approximately 50,000 sworn officers, is only seeing about a bit more then half a million dollars in ammo cost to go with the round cost 25 cents more (which would be a huge cost disparity between top tier defensive ammo). What does half a million pay for? A pair of Chiefs, maybe 3 lieutenants, possible 5 Sergeants. Compared to the rest of the budget, it's a minimal cost difference.

Big agencies don't make changes to firearms related issues due to cost. They make changes due to something being better. It's usually driven by very hard working staff who want a positive change for their fellow officers. Firearms related issues are so negligible in terms of cost as to be not worth worrying about in big agencies.

-Jenrick

What you've described is the way it should work. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. I was a LEO in the Chicago area from the mid 80's to the early 90's. The suburban departments were generally not large agencies and ran the gamut in regards of hiring practices from doing so by the book to being completely corrupt, where jobs were given as favors and for other reasons that had nothing to do with the officer's qualifications. Some of these departments were sued by the Feds, who then supervised the testing process. I've been out for quite a while, but would be surprised if it still doesn't go on here. That puts the departments in the position of making decisions based on officers needing to pass their qualifications as opposed to the scenario you described. To be clear, I'm a fan of the 9mm (as well as other calibers), often carry one and am admittedly confused by the contradictory advice in regards to the "best", for lack of a better word, caliber for SD. In regards to police departments switching back to the 9, for the sake of the LEO's currently serving I'm hoping that the reasons for doing so are correct. They deserve the best.

 

[Riomouse911]

Jenrick,

I, too, am a range offcer for my agency, and we have issued Glock 19's for the past 15 years for all but the admin, they get the G-26.
About three years ago we went from Gen 3 to Gen 4 G-19's. Our office hires only experienced people (minimally with 15-20+ years on the job) as investigators, and we don't do the "first responder" thing that much anymore.

We do allow folks to carry other than issued guns, and we have some who sport 1911's in .45, I know of a .357 Sig Glock, one or two .40 cal guns, and the rest are issued G-19 gun folks. Our duty round is the Win 9mm 127 SXT +P+, and the other cals will use a similar Ranger SXT round.

Personally I use a G-34, as do a few others who double with me on our protection/warrant team. After the Christopher Dorner shootouts that happend a few miles up the hill, and then the December 2 IRC incidents that happened within a mile of our main office, we on the team realized ammo/mag compatibility IS an issue with LEO's, and by using a mag that can work in any Glock 9mm, the 9mm 17-rounders are pretty much standard for the guys on the team using the G-34 or G-19.

Our local Sheriff's office has gone from issued .45 Glocks across the board to finding a Glock that better fits their deputy, be it a .45 or a 9mm. I haven't heard of any issues from either the range staff, the patrol staff, or the coroner (We have a Sheriff-Coroner's office out here) regarding a drop in "effectiveness" when the suspect is hit with a properly placed bullet.

Yes, far too many cops absolutely HATE the range. Male or female, they piss and moan like teenagers about the heft or recoil from shotguns, the grip or recoil of their handguns, the weight or noise of the rifles, etc. Literally half to two-thirds will have NO idea how to break down and clean both their duty sidearm and their issued Mini-14 no matter how many times I explain/demonstrate/walk them through, and those that do are occasionally neglectful and don't properly do so. This is because they don't care to learn about these tools, or have let complacency take root. (I only handle training for the team, the sheriff's office handles all of our tri-annual use of force and quals.) Sadly, I can only lead them to the cleaning station, I can't make them apply the Hoppes unless I am there watching them.

But getting to the root of the issue regarding the drop in .40 usage it is true; in order to maintain the diverse force that the citizenry wants (and I have no issues with), one will have to find either an effective compromise across the board, or allow a set up like we do where people can use the sidearm that best suits their abilities and stature/physique. Those agencies who prefer the standardization approach (which really is the easiest to explain to a civil jury and allows for better consistency in training) the 9mm with modern rounds fits the bill.

Stay safe!

 

[stoky]

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.

I couldn't help but notice that the ones that can shoot aren't the jerks.
coincidence?

 

[Rexster]

OMG, people think that .40S&W is like shooting a cannon while 9mm is super soft. I have .40S&W and 9mm guns and I can barely feel the difference, .40S&W kicks a little harder, but it is no more or less comfortable to shoot than 9mm IMO. I think .45ACP guns kick way harder than .40S&W guns.

.40 S&W is no cannon, but cumulatively, the effects do add-up. I had no problem with .40 S&W recoil from 2002 to 2011, and as I mentioned, above, used Magnum revolvers as far back as the mid-Eighties, so comparatively, .40 S&W was mild, for me, at first.

9mm is not" super-soft," but, again, cumulatively, the difference adds-up. Actually, a 9mm G19 is already starting to be a bit over-the-edge for my ailing right wrist, and I tend to train with a light mounted on the rail, if firing many rounds right-handed during a session.

Mathematically, .45 ACP does have more recoil, but many of us find it less "snappy" than .40 S&W. Admittedly, one factor is that many .45 ACP pistols are heavier, so to "prove" anything, one would have to find a pistol model available for both cartridges, with identical weight specifications for each version

 

[M1key]

Local PD and County Deputies now carry 9mm. Most of the city cops can't qualify with 40 because they are "afraid" of it according to a retired cop friend. State Police have also now gone from 357 Sig to 9mm due to budget constraints (or so they are told).

M

 

[Panzerschwein]

Good 'ol 9 Para! Georg (no "e") got it right back in 1902.

 

[Walkalong]

It's the rotational "torque" I didn't care for in .40 in a light gun (XD Subcompact). Just felt weird. I gave the pistol to my nephew who really liked it and shot it very well. In my Witness Elite Match at the range the recoil was barely worth noting. I just could not fall in love with the .40. I liked .45 better in every way, 9MM was more pleasant in a very light gun, and these days I don't think the .40 offers much advantage over the 9MM assuming identical bullet placement.

For the range 9MM is cheaper, .45 is about the same, and I like shooting both better. I no longer own a .40.

 

[M1key]

This news will make 40 guns and ammo even cheaper.

You must be a fan?

M

 

[stchman]

You must be a fan?

M

I am a fan of firearms. If I can get a .40S&W gun for considerably less than the 9mm model, cool. I own an SR9, SR40, and SR45. I enjoy shooting them all. I have been buying quite a bit of .40S&W from folks on Armslist for less than I can buy it in the stores or online. I am a fan of spending less money as well.

 

[JR24]

I am a fan of firearms. If I can get a .40S&W gun for considerably less than the 9mm model, cool. I own an SR9, SR40, and SR45. I enjoy shooting them all. I have been buying quite a bit of .40S&W from folks on Armslist for less than I can buy it in the stores or online. I am a fan of spending less money as well.

You should reload, best cost savings out there if ya shoot a lot

 

[tipoc]

The transition back to 9mm was already underway when the FBI choose to return to the 9mm back in 2015. That decision pushed the ball rolling downhill faster than it was going.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/news/2015/11/02/fbi-going-back-to-9mm-ammunition.aspx

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...afd1d3eb896_story.html?utm_term=.bd5a58039e9e

It was after the 1986 Miami shootout that the Bureau (at that time the nation's largest and most prestigious law enforcement agency) adopted new criteria for how a handgun round should perform (12-16" pf penetration and expansion after penetrating specific barriers) and moved away from the 9mm. At first the FBI went to the 10mm and the S&W da/sa pistols. The FBI opted as how they could meet the new bullet requirements with the 45 acp they had but they wanted more capacity. So the revival of the 10mm. They felt that the more powerful loads of this ammo were not useful for agents and that a 180 gr. bullet at just under 1,000 fps would meet their requirements. It did, so they went with that. Not long afterward S&W looked at a new round that a South African pistolsmith had sent them that was a 40 cal. that could shoot a 180 gr. bullet at just under 1,000 fps. They said "A Ha!" So the 40 S&W was born. That was in 1990.

The FBI had concerns about the weight and handling of their 10mm S&W pistols. It did not help that S&W had serious issues delivering the guns. So when the 40 showed up the FBI switched calibers again.

Glock beat S&W to the punch on chambering it in guns and within 10 years it became the dominant round in use by law enforcement in the U.S. No other round in U.S. law enforcement history rose so fast and as far as the 40 S&W. As usual it also took off commercially as well.

Meanwhile ammo companies had invested a great deal in the 9mm caliber. In 1986 the U.S. military had adopted the M92 in 9mm and the popularity of the round had grown immensely as a result. After the Miami shootout and the FBI's transitioning the 9mm took a hit.

Every ammo company went to work building a better bullet that could meet the FBI's criteria. That criteria became a norm that stands today. First the 9mm benefited and then the others followed. Today most defensive JHP rounds sold in a service caliber, intended for self defense purposes and law enforcement use, meet that criteria. It's been that way for about 15-20 years, if not more. It's due to that change that you hear folks say there is little difference in how differing calibers act to stop a threat.

Anyway, we'll see what happens.

 

[hdwhit]

W.R. Buchanan wrote:
It is ALL about the cost of ammo. There is no other salient reason why,...

I suspect it is actually determined by a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis with ammunition costs, of course, being one of the costs.