Law enforcement going back to 9mm

Guess I didn't need to post; Walkalong summed up my experience and feeling about the matter exactly, thanks.

Getting a little weary of all the extreme statements and generalizations this type of thread incurs.

I'm curious to know what state this was that "decided" the officers had to do this -- and WHEN --, and would like to see some documentation of entire departments and counties failing their qualifications. And really, you personally observed all of the LEOs in your neck of the woods, they all shoot IDPA, you know 90% of them don't know the niches of each caliber, and you've seen "generally" they can't shoot well at all? How many LEOs in your neck of the woods? 4? 6?

 

My experience as an LEO and training LEOs has been that the more training they get, the better shots they are. Shocking, I know. I worked for one department that trained regularly with practical shooting in addition to qualification. Almost everyone could shoot well whether they liked guns as a hobby or not. While I was there we transitioned from the Beretta 92 to the HK USP40 Compact. Average qualification scores actually went up. I suspect that was due to the gun being more forgiving of various hand sizes and the shorter trigger reach.

That said, I believe most cops, and most people for that matter, are better served with a 9x19mm pistol. They are easier to control in rapid fire, everything else being equal. They are also cheaper for most departments to run, and perhaps marginally more reliable due to the cartridge shape as compared to the.40 S&W.

If I was choosing a pistol to arm a police department today I would select a mid-size 9x19mm like the Glock 19, HK VP9, Walther PPQ, etc. I would also allow officers to carry personally owned pistols they were more comfortable with in any of the "major calibers." Of course I would have given the same answer in 2003 during the height of the .40 S&W craze.

 

On a side note there is NO WAY IN HELL I'd carry my own handgun if an issue weapon is available.

 

In a large part I feel the same. Much of it would depend on what the issue firearm would be. If I got hired on with a department and the only issue firearm was something say a 4" .38 (unlikely I know) I would probably foot the bill for a PPQ 9mm or similar firearm. I would have to strongly not like the issued choice in order to provide my own service weapon. A friend of mine, who works for a major metro PD, was given a firearm allowance. Really it was a cash advance on his first paycheck, to get something he could shoot comfortably with. Department issue is M&P 9mm 4" and he got himself a Glock 21 for a duty firearm with the advance. Picked up a Glock 30S later as an off duty weapon/on-duty backup.

 

As usual, when you call someone out on their hyperbole, they have no answer.

I'd noted in a previous post in this thread that member Zerodefect said: ↑
"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 responded:
"Getting a little weary of all the extreme statements and generalizations this type of thread incurs.

I'm curious to know what state this was that "decided" the officers had to do this -- and WHEN --, and would like to see some documentation of entire departments and counties failing their qualifications. And really, you personally observed all of the LEOs in your neck of the woods, they all shoot IDPA, you know 90% of them don't know the niches of each caliber, and you've seen "generally" they can't shoot well at all? How many LEOs in your neck of the woods? 4? 6?"

As I expected, the person who posted this cannot provide documentation in support of his statements. Yeah, I know ... it's only the internet, after all. I'm not here to defend the shooting abilities of my brothers and sisters in my community (as an instructor, I'm pretty realistic, actually), but if one expects persons exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to do so responsibly, so should those exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Just sayin' ...

 

Objective look at "terminal performance"
I've got a Glock 19, 23, and 30SF they are similar size (length & height) if using 10 round magazine in 30SF
Lucky Gunner tests is a good comparison resource: http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
HST, heavy for caliber in each:
9mm HST 147 gr. 15.2'' / .61 (15 rounds)
40 S&W HST 180 gr. 18.5'' / .72 (13 rounds) - +15% bigger expanded diameter than 9mm, cost 13% capacity
45 acp HST 230 gr. 14'' / .85 (10 rounds) - +28% bigger expanded diameter than 9mm, cost 33% capacity

Which is "best" gets subjective.
I can place the bullets equally well (accuracy) at 7 yards, but my 2nd shot time with 40 is four hundredths (.04) slower is that important.
Is having a larger hole worth the loss of capacity? 15 vs 13 vs 10
Want to carry 10 rounds rather than 15 in exchange for 28% bigger hole? For those not living where magazine capacity is restricted.
In a state where civilians are restricted to an arbitrary 10 round limit, 45 acp is a easy choice - IMO.

 

I love overthinking and practice it often. LOL

M

 

I really don't have a desire to reload ammo in the common calibers, I am getting it pretty cheap. My brother is a big reloader and I have all the stuff to reload my .44 Magnum as it is a HUGE costs savings.

 

It's interesting that the cost of 9mm and some other calibers of ammo is decreasing, but the cost of reloading components is not.

 

Supply and demand I suppose. I enjoy reloading nearly as much as shooting, and enjoy paying half price for my ammo more.

 

Most "average" LE shooters can shoot, control and run 9mm weapons faster, more easily and more accurately. That can matter, especially when lives are at stake.

Look at the calibers chosen by many IDPA shooters. Recoil management and controllability can be factors when time and accuracy matters for scoring, too.

 

Lucky Gunner tests is a good comparison resource: http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/
HST, heavy for caliber in each:
9mm HST 147 gr. 15.2'' / .61 (15 rounds)
40 S&W HST 180 gr. 18.5'' / .72 (13 rounds) - +15% bigger expanded diameter than 9mm, cost 13% capacity
45 acp HST 230 gr. 14'' / .85 (10 rounds) - +28% bigger expanded diameter than 9mm, cost 33% capacity




According to this test 40S&W is the greatest compromise between diameter and capacity just as intended. 18.5" of penetration is fantastic and it expands pretty much on par with the .45acp. It wouldn't seem smart for them to swap back to 9mm with it performing exactly as intended.

The problem imho, chambered in small 9mm framed pistols it is generally very snappy. No, its not outrageous by no means, but it seems snappy to me for lack of a better word. Full size pistols in 40S&W are alot easier to manage quick follow up shots with but then LEO's have to carry a full size bulky weapon all day, everyday.

Hard to justify when you can chamber a light framed compact pistol in 9mm and it still be a pussycat to shoot, have it hold 15+1, be way more affordable for an agency or department to feed, and have really good penetration itself.(15.2" in this test) Its just the fact that cheaper ammo and ease of shooting =more practice at the range=better shots and familiarity with the weapon=a LEO whose better equipped to do that aspect of their job with confidence.

 

It doesn't, but since short people and fat people are about the only ones left the bigots can openly discriminate against without experiencing sure, swift, societal sanction, they persist in trying to perpetuate baseless stereotypes.

 

I have a good friend who's a very experienced ER nurse and a gun nut, and I've talked with her and her doctors. I've also talked with our forensics guys and folks at the ME's office. They need calipers and a ruler to have even a clue if it's a 9mm, .40, or .45. Basically you can tell it was a small bullet (smaller then a 9mm), or not a small bullet (bigger then a small bullet). Other then that it's a complete crapshoot on what the round was without using measuring tools.

-Jenrick

 

Yes, 40 is a good compromise and does kick (recoil) more than 9mm. (How much more is tricky)
I have a Glock 19 and 23, using defensive ammo and a shot timer my 2nd shot time is about .04 (four hundredths) slower with 40.
Objectively a small difference, but my perception of that difference is that shooting 40 about as quick takes more focus / effort on my part.
The shot timer is a valid measure, but I probably shoot more frequently than the average cop which could impact split times.
I think there is more to it, below **

A calculation of recoil energy provides objective measurement, removing the human factor.
Tool: http://www.shooterscalculator.com/recoil-calculator.php
Using my actual chrono data and maximum powder charges of #7 from AA load manual, assigned firearm weight 1.5 lb (Glock 19/23)
Glock 19: Federal HST 147 +P @ 1,044 fps = recoil impulse .83 - recoil energy 7.4
Glock 23: Federal HST 180 @ 1003 fps = recoil impulse .99 - recoil energy 10.5
Independent of the shooter using defensive ammo, 40 has 16% greater recoil impulse, 30% more recoil energy than 9mm +P
Using self defense is an accurate comparison, "range ammo" not so much.

** Do most people (cops included) compare recoil with defensive ammo or range ammo? (I'm guessing range ammo)
Important difference: 40 S&W 180 FMJ "range ammo" is loaded to about the same power as 180 gr. 40 HP so felt recoil is similar.
9mm 115 FMJ is typical for "range ammo" and it does not produce the same felt recoil as +P defensive ammo.
Glock 19: Winchester 115 FMJ @ 1,135 fps = recoil impulse .75 - recoil energy 6.1
Basing their opinion of recoil on "range ammo" inaccurately increases felt difference between 40 & 9mm to 24% and 42%
I say it is inaccurate because most people carrying 9mm are not carrying ammo that recoils like 115 FMJ, but that may be the ammo used to form their opinion of recoil between 9mm and 40.

 

At what ranges? The reason I ask is I get similar results, but when I shoot multiple shot strings past 7 yards (mostly 10-12) I tended to spread a little far (I usually just use a 8" plate to simulate "good" hits) with the .40.

Anything under 7 yards I can just point shoot 9, 40, 45 fine.

So with the .40, vs the 9mm I found I was both a hair slower and had more misses at longer defensive range. Both of those vs an only slight increase in performance led me to stick with 9mm. Works best for me.

 

Valid points CDW4ME, most shooters probably base recoil between the two shooting fmj's.

I run both, fmj and jhp, from my SD pistols and although i run my FNX40 pretty good actually(for me), i run mult 9mm's that i own better and faster. I dont own a 40s&w and a 9 in the same platform but I can clear leather and fire a controlled pair pretty equal @7yds with the FNX and say my CZ75B or G19 but anything more than that im noticeably quicker and more accurate with the 9mm.

Im pretty equal with my Glock43 and FNX on plates but thats not a fair comparison pairing a full size duty gun vs a pocket pistol imho.

 

As a retired LEO, back when we carried S&W model 19's and then 66's we were issued .357 125 grain JHP for duty carry, but always qualified with 158 grain RN .38 special. I always questioned why qualify without using full .357 carry loads. The answer was,"to expensive and the recoil and blast makes it hard on some shooters." No matter if POI was somewhat different between the two rounds or few tried to do a rapid fire qualification with full house loads. Like any Gov't agency, it was reduced to the lowest denominator, just get them qualified.

I've carried everything from .38, .357, 9mm, .40 and .45ACP. I have seen first hand every round work against a threat, and I have seen every round mentioned fail against a threat.

 

When I do double taps with a timer, it is at 6-7 yards and both shots must hit a 6 inch circle on a larger silhouette to be counted for average.
If a hit is half inch away from the circle, not getting counted - has to touch circle. (My accuracy stipulation is a factor in average split time)
With a little practice (warm up) my average for 4 or 5 "qualifying" pairs around .25 second for Glock 19 and .29 second for the 23
That is using +P ammo in the 19, same as I would carry in it.

I've not used the timer in awhile, if I let a timer and 6 inch circles decide I'd be carrying Glock 19C which dominates my "test" at about .20 second.
The Glock 19 would be next, every time.
Glock 21 and 22 were comparable to the 23 for split time, its about as quick as I can get the front sight back on target and pull trigger.
According to the timer my split times with 357 Sig and 40 were near identical (Glock 32/23)
Subjectively the blast of 357 Sig makes it seem worse/slower than 40 when its not, its just different.

If clothing allows I am most inclined to carry Glock 22 or 21 - subjectively "soft shooting" with 15 or 13 rounds of "bigger" bullets.
If wearing lighter clothing, (summer) the choice between Glock 19/23/32 is circular, in other words I've gone all around.
I tend to go for the 23 or 32 because I think 357 Sig and 40 better at stopping an attacker ASAP than 9mm - equal shot placement.
Whether the higher KE of 357 is better than larger diameter of 40 is intangible, a quandary to my mind.

One thing I've decided is the Glock 30SF is going to be a safe queen as long as I don't have 10 round mag limits. (Good thing HRC didn't win)
I like 45 acp in the Glock 21 with 13 round capacity.
Glock 30SF is about the same size as Glock 19/23/32 - I don't like 45 well enough to give up 3 rounds to 357 Sig/40 or 5 rounds to 9mm.
If I was stuck with 10 round mag limits, Glock 30SF would be easily my 1st pick for carry.

 

Thanks for the detailed reply!

 

And this factor can probably be moderated by a big soft shooting pistol like the full size HK USP. With smaller lighter pistols the disparity between a 9 and a 40 in this regard become even more magnified. With smaller lighter pistols even a 9 can be difficult for some people to master, especially one handed - and weak one handed.

 

In order for that to happen, the USP9 would have to become a much more significant presence in LE, and HK would have to adjust pricing to become competitive.

As it is, even the "relatively" mild recoiling plastic .40's like the Gen4G22 and the M&P 40 still produce reactions among "average" shooters (like LE who aren't particularly "gun enthusiasts") commenting upon the difference in felt recoil between them and the corresponding 9mm models. The P320 in both 9 & .40 will likely be little different when it comes to "average" shooters being able to notice a difference in felt recoil, too.

Even the heavier all-metal guns could evoke pretty consistent comments regarding the difference in felt recoil forces between the 9/.40 models, including the SIG Classic series, and even the discontinued S&W 3rd gen guns, such as the all-steel 5906/4006's (standard and TSW's, although the delayed unlocking of the TSW's offered some help mitigating a little felt recoil, due to the pressure dropping more before unlocking started).

And yep, as the pistol platform/models shrinks, even the relatively "milder" 9mmP can produce increased felt recoil and may become more problematic for many shooters.

Just like when many revolver shooters often complained about the "heavier recoil" they felt trying to shoot a M36 snub nose .38 Spl, compared to their issued 4"-6" .38 Spl service revolvers.