TexasCHLforum.com

patterson wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Apparently, the FBI is not good at remembering lessons previously learned.

The 1986 Miami Shootout: The gunfight that changed law enforcement nationwide

Yeah thats why they went to the 10mm

But the 9mm ball ammo and revolvers with wadcutters , aren't quite the same as modern 9mm ammo is today.
Aren't some of the FBI armed with 9mm today.. Although I really like the M9 it's a silly choice for the military.

Liberty wrote:

patterson wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Apparently, the FBI is not good at remembering lessons previously learned.

The 1986 Miami Shootout: The gunfight that changed law enforcement nationwide

Yeah thats why they went to the 10mm

But the 9mm ball ammo and revolvers with wadcutters , aren't quite the same as modern 9mm ammo is today.
Aren't some of the FBI armed with 9mm today.. Although I really like the M9 it's a silly choice for the military.

OK, I'll agree that 9mm ammo is better today than it was in 1986.

You'll have to agree that larger caliber ammo, such as .40 and .45 have improved by an equal amount. That makes it a wash. I still say they should be equipped with the best man-stoppers available.

While I personally carry a .45, I am a big fan of +P ammo. 9mm +P comes very close to the ballistics of .40 cal, and .38 Special +P is very close to .357 Magnum.

patterson wrote:They have gone from 10mm to .40 to 9mm

Don't forget they started with the .38 Special.

skeathley wrote:While I personally carry a .45, I am a big fan of +P ammo. 9mm +P comes very close to the ballistics of .40 cal, and .38 Special +P is very close to .357 Magnum.

So if 9mm + P compares favorably to .40 cal , how does it compare to .40 cal + P? Never ending. Improve one and improve them all. The difference in improvement stays constant.

Buffalo Bore 155gr gold dot hp moves at 582 ft/lbs and 1300 ft/sec. That's a properly loaded .40 s&w. There is no 9mm that will produce that muzzle energy, at any weight setting, much less 155 grains.

Are today's 9mm loads better then the ones from 30+ years ago? Yes.
Is 9mm as "powerful"as .40? Nope. Sorry. It just isn't so.

I like 9mm (look at my carefully misspelled handle ), but to say that FBI is switching to 9mm because of anything else except to fluff someone's feathers is ridiculous.


You want a better alternative? Get the 357 Sig, but I bet the guy on the other end of muzzle is not going to feel perplexing difference between 9,40,45 etc. in today's properly loaded ammo.

E10 wrote:

patterson wrote:They have gone from 10mm to .40 to 9mm

Don't forget they started with the .38 Special.

Yeah that was before the incident in Miami

Pawpaw wrote:Apparently, the FBI is not good at remembering lessons previously learned.

The 1986 Miami Shootout: The gunfight that changed law enforcement nationwide

Hollowpoint bullet technology has gotten a lot better in the past 31 years. 9mm then is not the same as 9mm now.

Pawpaw wrote:

Liberty wrote:

patterson wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Apparently, the FBI is not good at remembering lessons previously learned.

The 1986 Miami Shootout: The gunfight that changed law enforcement nationwide

Yeah thats why they went to the 10mm

But the 9mm ball ammo and revolvers with wadcutters , aren't quite the same as modern 9mm ammo is today.
Aren't some of the FBI armed with 9mm today.. Although I really like the M9 it's a silly choice for the military.

OK, I'll agree that 9mm ammo is better today than it was in 1986.

You'll have to agree that larger caliber ammo, such as .40 and .45 have improved by an equal amount. That makes it a wash. I still say they should be equipped with the best man-stoppers available.

Yeah i totally agree. I believe in caliber over capacity. If i was hiking or fishing in bear country and could only carry a pistol I would go for a 44 magnum rebolver over a 9mm with higher capacity

It does not matter what caliber the FBI chooses, because statistically you are going to have to shoot a bad guy multiple times with a handgun anyway, regardless of chambering. The reason for the FBI going from the 10mm to the .40 to the 9mm is probably due to rank and file agents not being able to handle the recoil and size of the handgun and ammunition costs more than "stopping power". The FBI Agents I have met over the years have been mostly Firearms Instructors and and FBI SWAT/HRT guys who loved to shoot and had no problem handling 1911 .45s or S&W 1076 10MMs. Some of the rank and file agents who did not shoot a lot had issues qualifying with anything including the P226 9mm.

If you shoot a .40 or .45 well, you will shoot a 9mm better. IME the .40 has more muzzle blast and felt recoil than a .45, especially in a Glock. The .357 Sig is a good cartridge but IME is very hard on guns due to high operating pressures resulting in things like hairline cracks around the ejection port on high round count guns.

It is easier to shoot a 9mm faster and more accurately under stress than a .45. More leak points in a shorter amount of time equals faster incapacitation.

You can shoot a 9mm cheaper than a .40 or a .45. Cheaper ammo equals more shooting which equals better proficiency. As mentioned with current JHPs there is not a lot of real world difference between 9mm, .357 Sig, .40, or .45.

Many Tier 1 type instructors like Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, and Chuck Taylor who favored the 1911 .45 now per their own published articles carry a 9mm Glock more than a 1911 .45.

These have been my observations in research and actual shooting.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

LeonCarr wrote:It does not matter what caliber the FBI chooses, because statistically you are going to have to shoot a bad guy multiple times with a handgun anyway, regardless of chambering. The reason for the FBI going from the 10mm to the .40 to the 9mm is probably due to rank and file agents not being able to handle the recoil and size of the handgun and ammunition costs more than "stopping power". The FBI Agents I have met over the years have been mostly Firearms Instructors and and FBI SWAT/HRT guys who loved to shoot and had no problem handling 1911 .45s or S&W 1076 10MMs. Some of the rank and file agents who did not shoot a lot had issues qualifying with anything including the P226 9mm.

If you shoot a .40 or .45 well, you will shoot a 9mm better. IME the .40 has more muzzle blast and felt recoil than a .45, especially in a Glock. The .357 Sig is a good cartridge but IME is very hard on guns due to high operating pressures resulting in things like hairline cracks around the ejection port on high round count guns.

It is easier to shoot a 9mm faster and more accurately under stress than a .45. More leak points in a shorter amount of time equals faster incapacitation.

You can shoot a 9mm cheaper than a .40 or a .45. Cheaper ammo equals more shooting which equals better proficiency. As mentioned with current JHPs there is not a lot of real world difference between 9mm, .357 Sig, .40, or .45.

Many Tier 1 type instructors like Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, and Chuck Taylor who favored the 1911 .45 now per their own published articles carry a 9mm Glock more than a 1911 .45.

These have been my observations in research and actual shooting.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

In the ballistics studies that led them to adopt the 10mm the 9mm was nowhere close to the 10mm and .45

I am a 9mm guy because.

1: 9mm ammo is cheap, I don't buy the cheapest range ammo available compared to the larger alternatives it's cheaper. Cheaper means I shoot more. I shoot more so my 9mm is more accurate.

2: I found that I can shoot the larger caliber just as accurately, but when I attempt to string together shots, the follow up shots are slower and less accurate.

3: Gell test have shown over and over again that good modern defensive ammo makes holes pretty simular to .40 and ,45 Cal.

4: More ammo. 7 or 8 rounds just doesn't seem to be enough.

5: Unsupported chambers is this a real danger? I don't know, but I believe a gun should be more dangerous to the front than it is the rear.

6: 9mm guns are just more reliable by design. Never needed to polish a ramp, Heck my Beretta doesn't even have a ramp.

7: 9mm is easier on the gun than .40. I believe most 9mm handguns will have a longer service life than a .40 cal.

8: There are some very kewl small 9mm handguns.

9: I only stock one caliber, some people like to shoot a variety of things. I'm just a simple man with a simple budget.

10: I just enjoy shooting a 9mm more than I have other calibers.

On a personal level, for general use against human threats, with Liberty.

Effective use of a handgun to stop a threat requires one thing over all else -- shot placement. For department-level purchases it makes sense that many organizations are coming to grips with this reality and moving to chamberings that CAN provide effective penetration to vitals against most human threats while also being easier to shoot for more people (and the added capacity of similar sized magazines is an added bonus). That said, while these are all factors to consider, for department level purchases unit cost weighs as heavily in the decision as any, or perhaps all, of the operational factors.

Liberty wrote:I am a 9mm guy because.

1: 9mm ammo is cheap, I don't buy the cheapest range ammo available compared to the larger alternatives it's cheaper. Cheaper means I shoot more. I shoot more so my 9mm is more accurate.

2: I found that I can shoot the larger caliber just as accurately, but when I attempt to string together shots, the follow up shots are slower and less accurate.

3: Gell test have shown over and over again that good modern defensive ammo makes holes pretty simular to .40 and ,45 Cal.

4: More ammo. 7 or 8 rounds just doesn't seem to be enough.

5: Unsupported chambers is this a real danger? I don't know, but I believe a gun should be more dangerous to the front than it is the rear.

6: 9mm guns are just more reliable by design. Never needed to polish a ramp, Heck my Beretta doesn't even have a ramp.

7: 9mm is easier on the gun than .40. I believe most 9mm handguns will have a longer service life than a .40 cal.

8: There are some very kewl small 9mm handguns.

9: I only stock one caliber, some people like to shoot a variety of things. I'm just a simple man with a simple budget.

10: I just enjoy shooting a 9mm more than I have other calibers.

1. The argument that 9mm is so much cheaper is not true anymore. As an example, I can get Speer gold dots in 357 Sig for $22.97 per box of 50, or $17.97 for 357 Sig lawman fmj box of 50 (ammunition depot).


2. That's a personal preference argument. Some people, myself included, are actually better shots with larger calibers.


3. Similar or not, 9mm when all things pressure wise are equal (no +p or +p+) will not have the power factor of 40, 45, 357 Sig etc. Just can't cheat physics.

4. Not necessarily true in all cases. There are small powerhouses that move a more potent projectiles then 9mm, with plenty rounds. G33,G32, P229...

5. Agree.

6. That only holds true for certain gun models and can swing both ways. Some can say 357 Sig is actually more reliable due to its bottleneck design. Some might be right, maybe. It all depends on the gun model.

7. I've heard that argument for years, without ever actually seeing any reputable tests to confirm this. All it is is forum driven hypothetical discussion based on the pressure tolerances from 40 vs 9. I have put thousands of rounds through various 40 caliber guns, Sig, Glock, H&K, Kahr... I have never been able to break one. Even with extensive shooting using Buffalo Bore 155gr 40+p (the only properly loaded .40 IMHO) round.

8. Agree. But, same is true for 45's etc.

9. Valid point.

10. Same as #2 from above.