stchman
Member
This news will make 40 guns and ammo even cheaper.
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.....
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.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.
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.
Yes, because I suspect most of it revolves around the cost of ammo. The .40S&W costs more. It's a bottom line world.
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
I couldn't help but notice that the ones that can shoot aren't the jerks.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.
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.
This news will make 40 guns and ammo even cheaper.
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.
W.R. Buchanan wrote:
It is ALL about the cost of ammo. There is no other salient reason why,...