Why is the FBI's choice of gun...

[eldon519]

Seems that many people look down on the FBI for past failings. If you look at many industries, failure and the subsequent revision/adaptation that it brings are what drives progress. The FBI is good at many things, but I hear their crystal balls are no better than mine, so how should they know to make a change until some sort of failing demonstrates the need and catalyses the progress. If they just went around making changes for the heck of it, folks would say they were wishy-washy and wasteful. Seems like a can't-win standard.

Likewise people point out that the FBI once dismissed the 9mm and then moved back towards it as though one decision arrived on a Monday and the next on Tuesday. There were 30 intervening years. If anything I'd argue it is good policy to revisit old decisions and determine if those decisions are still valid in light of changing times or technological progress. "That's the way we've always done it" is usually the reasoning of a stagnant, poorly-led organization.

 

[Warp]

Seems that many people look down on the FBI for past failings. If you look at many industries, failure and the subsequent revision/adaptation that it brings are what drives progress. The FBI is good at many things, but I hear their crystal balls are no better than mine, so how should they know to make a change until some sort of failing demonstrates the need and catalyses the progress. If they just went around making changes for the heck of it, folks would say they were wishy-washy and wasteful. Seems like a can't-win standard.

Likewise people point out that the FBI once dismissed the 9mm and then moved back towards it as though one decision arrived on a Monday and the next on Tuesday. There were 30 intervening years. If anything I'd argue it is good policy to revisit old decisions and determine if those decisions are still valid in light of changing times or technological progress. "That's the way we've always done it" is usually the reasoning of a stagnant, poorly-led organization.

I like this guy

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mavracer:

In the late 80s the FBI wanted to blame the 9mm boom HWFE 12" minimum and 18" is better.

Now the FBI wants to go back to the 9mm boom a new paper where just hitting 12" minimum is good enough and the hole size doesn't really matter.

Not accurate.

The penetration of the best 9MM defensive loads, expanded, made today is measurably better than that of the ones that were available in the 1980s.

And surprisingly, at least to me, the expanded diameter of some of the premium 9MM loads sold by at least a couple of manufacturers is essentially the same as, or not meaningfully greater than, that of their top of the line .40 leads--same name, but older technology, obviously.

You can find the information yourself.

So, what becomes the important discriminator is the number of rounds on target in the same time interval.

Yes, the FBI has a paper on it. It was preceded by the published conclusions of Rob Pincus, a former .40 user and a one time .45ACP fan, who had been discussing the subject with the Winchester PDX1 developers and others and who has seen more people of different sizes and skill levels shooting different guns fast than most of us will ever see.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Why listen to the FBI?

Or anybody else, for that matter?

Because I don't see the need to "reinvent the wheel", that's why.

Look at the data, see how it was generated, evaluate it for it's meaning and usefulness, and carry on.

There is a ton of information out there on terminal ballistics and whatnot. The FBI at least approached their research using the scientific method and established a set of criteria as a result of this study, by which they could evaluate the PRACTICAL usefulness of a particular type of ammunition (or ammunition/gun combination) for their purposes.

There's a whole world of difference between what they did and what a bunch of guys shooting water jugs and whatnot typically do.

 

[Screwball]

The FBI had M16 and MP5s better suited for this that never came into play but should have.

I did a lot of research in college on that shootout, being it was the subject for my senior paper... but I do want to touch on this quote.

The agents that responded/involved in this shooting were on a stakeout looking for bank robbers that were known to have used a Mini-14 in previous robberies. All agents had a sidearm of some kind, and two had a backup gun (both were used). There were two shotguns present, but only one was brought into the fight.

With that being said, the responding agents were not the only agents involved in the stakeout. The other agents were the ones with a M16 and a MP5. Those agents that did not arrive during the shootout also had two more S&W 459s. When you add in those weapons, the FBI was better equipped to meet that threat.

It would have been preferable to have had 8 M16s pulling up to the scene, with 8 S&W 459s, and another 8 J-frames on the ankles of the agents... but it didn't go down like that. Certain agents were allowed to carry heavier weapons, but none of the agents knew they were going to meet these robbers that day. They were chasing these two for about six months.

I say that being I feel it being disrespectful to call out those agents, most of who passed away, without at least putting all the facts on the table.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

It wasn't till I read this thread that I realized how primitive bullet technology was in the 1980's.

 

[eldon519]

Keep in mind how much computing power has grown in that time for stuff like Finite Element Analysis modeling.

 

[IL Guns]

I say that being I feel it being disrespectful to call out those agents, most of who passed away, without at least putting all the facts on the table.

There were 14 men in 10 cars (Wikipedia says 11 but it's Wikipedia) looking for the Monte Carlo. Grogan and Dove saw the car. A decision was made to stop Platt and Matix. McNeil made a decision that led to the shootout and cost 2 FBI agents their lives. To this day that decision is considered by many to be a mistake including some FBI agents at the time. The point is had they waited for all of the cars in the rolling stakeout, they would have had a distinct advantage but the call was made to make a felony stop. You know how the rest all went down.

I mean NO DISRESPECT for any FBI agent involved. It turned into utter chaos and ALL of those agents were brave and honorable. Who knew that Grogan, considered the crack shot of the Miami FBI field office would have his glasses fly off making him basically blind? There are many variables that came into play that have people second guessing what happened to this day, including a FBI agent that I sat down with and talked with about this unfortunate incident.

 

[IL Guns]

It wasn't till I read this thread that I realized how primitive bullet technology was in the 1980's.

It is light-years ahead now mostly because of the FBIs ballistics testing. Compare a 80's Silvertip to a Gold Dot or Ranger T.

 

[mavracer]

Not accurate.

Oh it's accurate alright, when they wanted to move away from the 9mm more penetration and more expansion was a good thing, now that they want to move back it doesn't matter.

And surprisingly, at least to me, the expanded diameter of some of the premium 9MM loads sold by at least a couple of manufacturers is essentially the same as, or not meaningfully greater than, that of their top of the line .40 leads--same name, but older technology, obviously.

Let's pretend I live one state east and how about you show me a 9mm load that out expands AND out penetrates any of the better 40 caliber loads.

 

[Old Guy]

In doing multiple target engagements, many times, a factor emerges.

Take three targets 2m apart, IDPA cardboard ones, for instance.

From the draw, shoot each one once, then, same exercise, but shoot each one twice.

The effectiveness with the two shot groups, much better! In fact sometimes misses were recorded in the one shot strings.

We worked out why, you try.

 

[Warp]

Oh it's accurate alright, when they wanted to move away from the 9mm more penetration and more expansion was a good thing, now that they want to move back it doesn't matter.


Let's pretend I live one state east and how about you show me a 9mm load that out expands AND out penetrates any of the better 40 caliber loads.

Show me a pistol chambered in .40 that has greater capacity and quicker follow up shots and less expensive ammo (for more practice) than an otherwise identical pistol in 9x19

 

[Screwball]

I mean NO DISRESPECT for any FBI agent involved. It turned into utter chaos and ALL of those agents were brave and honorable. Who knew that Grogan, considered the crack shot of the Miami FBI field office would have his glasses fly off making him basically blind? There are many variables that came into play that have people second guessing what happened to this day, including a FBI agent that I sat down with and talked with about this unfortunate incident.

I agree and have no issue with your statements, but I do want to clarify, which wasn't as clear in my post, that I wasn't directing it towards you... just spring boarding off your statement. That kind of is a drawback with posting off Tapatalk, as it isn't as easy to proofread before posting. [emoji856]

As mentioned, I saw a lot of Monday Morning Quartbacking in other threads on that specific subject, and seeing a few posts that seemed to move in that direction, just wanted to post that info out there.

I wasn't L/E in the 1980s, but making judgements on tactics aren't simple when we live in the present. ARs are in the trunks of most squad cars today... not the case back then. As mentioned earlier, most duty weapons were six shot revolvers, opposed to metal double-stack 9mms (Glocks flooded the market a little bit past this). Communication is another thing that we all take for granted, but everyone didn't have a cellphone back then (radio technology has also improved in that time). Also, the agents involved did have other investigations pending, in a pretty bad crime period for that area (not familiar with Miami currently, so might not be that much better). With the size of the stakeout area, there wasn't enough time for all agents to respond.

When it comes down to it, the decision was made to stop the car. The pair did not drive this car around, but hid it when they were going about their normal lives. For them to be in it, they were looking to strike at a bank, so there is a little bit of urgency when the plate was confirmed. Following too close can be brought up, but what would have happened if the group pulled in front of a bank and ran in while waiting for backup (endangering the public, creating a hostage situation)? McNeil passed the car on one of the side streets, seeing Platt loading the Mini-14. That was after it was clear that they were aware of the FBI following them. Right or wrong, if I was in the same situation, I'd have made the same call... especially knowing how violent those two individuals were (the car they were driving was stolen from a guy they shot and left for dead in the everglades). Being off a main highway, if it was to go down, you rather it happen there.

Any car stop can be textbook, or it can get as ape-s*** as this did. Can also be someone in between. No real way to know until after the fact. But training and looking at past instances is what can prepare people for the future. What I took from that shootout...

-carry a backup gun (I always do when working)
-don't unholster while driving
-have spare glasses/system to retain them (I wear contacts, but have a spare set of glasses)
-keep extra ammo (I don't carry more than two magazines for my sidearm, but I do have at least one reload for my backup; in my shift bag, I usually keep three magazines and three reloads for my backup)
-be able to function one handed (one step further, weak handed)

 

[JohnBiltz]

They made a play that they expected not to work and it did. But they were hunting big game. The fact they did not have long guns in every car available to the agents was poor planning. There is no way to look at it any other way. From what I remember SWAT qualified agents were allowed the 9mms and the others had revolvers. One shotgun was used in the fight because FBI policy was if an agent lost a weapon then his career was over. So agents were reluctant to have heavier weapons in the car in case they got stolen. So after failing to prepare properly they blew the execution by not making the stop. They lost primary weapons in the pile up and had to go with back up weapons. The best shot among the agents lost his glasses. Then they failed to get fire superiority and indeed when the full auto rifle cut loose the bad guys had fire superiority and were the aggressors for the rest of the fight.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Don't think much of the FBI study. To much circular logic. No such thing as stopping power yet they then list criteria that make bullets more, uh, effective... more likely to incapacitate (fancy word for stopping the attacker.) And sure enough, once you get adequate penetration then diameter of the wound channel (permanent cavity), fragmentation, etc. And yep, shot placement helps to! Shocking! Who knew!

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by mavracer:

when they wanted to move away from the 9mm more penetration and more expansion was a good thing, ....

Yes, shot placement being equal.

...now that they want to move back it doesn't matter.

That is not what the FBI paper says at all.

However, Rob Pincus addresses the possible penetration difference. In his opinion, more penetration than may be provided by the best new premium 9MM bonded JHP loads may sometimes be important...for example, when one must shoot through barriers.

I had been thinking about the same thing. I cannot imagine justifying trying to shoot someone through plate glass.

The issue then is the trade-off between that marginally greater potential terminal performance and the reduced probability of making critical hits timely. Until someone can make the recoil the same, that cannot be taken from the equation.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Posted by jim in Anchorage: First, why would you conclude from a comment about FBI labs and equipment that they are spending 10's of millions on th subject at hand? Second, do you have a basis for believing that the difference in defectiveness between the 9MM and the .40 falls into the category of "splitting hairs"?.

Did you comprehend Post #15 at all?

Because the post I quoted implied that.
And yes they are splitting hairs. That's how they keep there jobs by saying "more research is needed."
Nothing the FBI "labs" have come up with is not known by private industry.
To read some of the posts here we would still be using .41 RF Derringers if not for the FBI.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Because the post I quoted implied that.
And yes they are splitting hairs. That's how they keep there jobs by saying "more research is needed."
Nothing the FBI "labs" have come up with is not known by private industry.
To read some of the posts here we would still be using .41 RF Derringers if not for the FBI.

I think that last comment is just a wee bit disingenuous. I seriously don't believe anybody here believes any such thing.

As to "Nothing the FBI "labs" have come up with is not known by private industry", it's worth noting that at the time of the initial FBI lab research that came out of the 1986 encounter, most "private industry" input seemed to be far more based on "hype" and "marketing" than actual research.

Heck, that's still prevalent in the ammunition private industry now. How many times have we all read about the hyped up virtues of a given ammo, with little or no actual performance results to support it? Or, like the late-night infomercials are so fond of doing, obviously heavily biased testing results that are patently unrealistic? Pure anecdotal evidence with little, if any, hard science backing it up.


"Our ammunition has unparalleled stopping power and terminal effects."

Pulled off one ammunition manufacturing website, with NOTHING that supports this statement in any real, objective fashion. Pure marketing hype.


While a lot of us may pooh-pooh the FBI's research and findings, the fact remains that in a world utterly filled with hype and tripe over ammunition performance, they stood out as an organization that actually applied scientific principles in order to attempt to understand and quantify the relevant, real-world characteristics required in an effective handgun round and then evoke performance criteria from this which could actually be used to select appropriate handgun rounds that would be far more likely to "do the job".


And people could do far worse than holding such FBI testing to heart. Historically speaking, if you'll take a look at the common popular handguns throughout different eras, you'll see a noticeable trend in people simply going with certain handguns because that's what the cops use, so it's good enough for me.

At least the FBI research had actual research[/I ]going for it to support why or why not any given round may be suitable. Far better, indeed, than simply "The FBI uses it, that's good enough for me."

 

[HexHead]

Let's not overlook that Matix and Platt were both well trained as well.
Matix was a former Marine and an Army MP, Platt a combat infantryman and Ranger that served in Vietnam.

 

[mavracer]

Show me a pistol chambered in .40 that has greater capacity and quicker follow up shots and less expensive ammo (for more practice) than an otherwise identical pistol in 9x19

Show me where I made that claim.

The issue then is the trade-off between that marginally greater potential terminal performance and the reduced probability of making critical hits timely.

Since the dawn of time there's always been a trade off. And IF (that's a real tough one to do) a person actually makes an apples to apples comparison it would be marginally greater performance vs marginally greater speed and capacity.

For one every one wants to compare time but when they do they time their 9mm with 125 power factor 115 gr practice rounds then when comparing ballistics switch to 150 power factor +P rounds. While we're at it lets look at some of the better designed 40s that add a little weight to the slide mass lie a FN FNS instead of a Glock that uses the same slide and just lets the shooter take the extra punishment.

 

[greenr18]

+1 to post #22. .40 is absolutely pointless and was a waste of money spent to develop and research a problem that didn't really exist for a caliber that is in between 9 and 45 and has more snappiness than it should for what it is when even .45 is smooth to fire. Can't handle 10mm and want more stopping power than 9? .45 works. Want something accurate and powerful? .357 revolvers have worked for police since 1935. Bad guys have body armor? Keep an AR in the car, oh wait they already do. Reinventing the wheel is always a pointless endeavor. Not the first time the government has thrown tax dollars away on weapons development though, and definitely not the last. IE: flechettes, CAWS, OICW, XM8, caseless ammo, etc.

 

[BSA1]

Time out.

So far no one has cited the actual performance of 9mm ammunition in ballistic gel calibrated to FBI test standards.

The Ammo Quest videos made by Shooting the Bull conducted a series of tests using various commercially available ammunition fired from a compact 9mm pistol with 3" barrel.

They conducted two tests. In the first one they fired 5 rounds in plain ballistic gel. They used the FBI standard of not less than 12" and not more than 18" of penetration.

If the rounds meet that standard they then conducted a second test using ballistic gel covered by 4 layers of denim material that weighs 16 oz. per square yard using the same penetration standard.

These videos are very professionally done and are on Youtube. The results are far, far superior to a lot of the videos where only one round is fired in ballistic gel and then the tester raves for the 3 or 4 minutes about how good of performer the round is based on the results of that one round fired.

According to Youtube Shooting the Bull has 39 videos posted. He also tested some other calibers and rounds. All in all I found them to be very informative and it has influenced my choice of carrying ammo in my short barrel 9mm pistols.

 

[IL Guns]

I wasn't L/E in the 1980s, but making judgements on tactics aren't simple when we live in the present. ARs are in the trunks of most squad cars today... not the case back then.

I live in Chicagoland and you are absolutely 100% right. I live in the far western suburbs but most of the squad cars (there are a lot of SUV cruisers) have ARs or actually certain LEOs who are trained also have MP5s in their trunks. I know some Chicago officers and the violence is out of hand. It was warm (70) Tuesday and there were 18 shootings and two murders in Chicago on a Tuesday. Any cop will tell you that these are not your honest citizens doing this. The criminals are as well equipped if not better equipped then the PD. The moral is: If you don't want to have a confrontation with the police don't walk around brandishing a weapon on PCP. The aftermath is a officer has been charged with murder based on a video that only shows part of the incident but the actual shooting. His family happily collected a five million dollar check from Chicago. Here's a link to the violence, don't let the URL scare you, it is a very informative site. http://heyjackass.com/

It is a totally different world then 30 years ago. You and I have no beef, there is still a lot of arm chair quarterbacking going on 30 years after the fact. The truth is most of those agents were FBI SWAT and thought lets take care of this right now. Nobody could have foreseen the eventual outcome.

 

[Screwball]

The fact they did not have long guns in every car available to the agents was poor planning. There is no way to look at it any other way.

Sorry, but that is looking at it in today's context... going forward 11 years from then brings us to North Hollywood.

One of the largest US police department was not that much better prepared than those agents in Miami. A 12 Gauge with buckshot can be devastating, but it isn't going to be useful in all circumstances. SWAT was better equipped, but still had a good time period before they arrived on scene. While squad cars had shotguns, it is pretty much the same problem as 1986; a situation arose that current tactics/loadouts could not meet. Afterwards, changes were made which sent us down the line to where we are currently.

To say shame on them for not being armed to the teeth, it is a little short sighted. Bank robbers doing what those two did was, in fact, an anomaly. Same can be said for North Hollywood in 1997. That is along the lines of saying the Earps and Holiday should have had a Gatling gun when they walked down towards the OK Corral... considering that it is the only weapon that would have given them the firepower capability that we have today.

Nobody could have foreseen the eventual outcome.

I agree... if they could, I'm sure it would have been done differently.

 

[Warp]

Sorry, but that is looking at it in today's context... going forward 11 years from then brings us to North Hollywood.

One of the largest US police department was not that much better prepared than those agents in Miami. A 12 Gauge with buckshot can be devastating, but it isn't going to be useful in all circumstances. SWAT was better equipped, but still had a good time period before they arrived on scene. While squad cars had shotguns, it is pretty much the same problem as 1986; a situation arose that current tactics/loadouts could not meet. Afterwards, changes were made which sent us down the line to where we are currently.

To say shame on them for not being armed to the teeth, it is a little short sighted. Bank robbers doing what those two did was, in fact, an anomaly. Same can be said for North Hollywood in 1997. That is along the lines of saying the Earps and Holiday should have had a Gatling gun when they walked down towards the OK Corral... considering that it is the only weapon that would have given them the firepower capability that we have today.

That's kind of the way it goes.

Look at Columbine and how that was handled/how most departments would have handled it at the time, vs changes that occurred after.

Prior to 9/11 I'm not sure that being ready to shoot down one of our commercial aircraft on short notice was something people worried about, either.

Who was it that posted early about something stimulating or spurring change as a result of a failure? Sounds about right.