View Full Version : FBI looking at changing pistol calibers!
I have it from a very reliable source the FBI are soon to release some updated data from a recent study on effectiveness of modern day handgun rounds. The FBI is most likely switching to 9mm, bullet of choice 147g Speer Gold Dot.
I for one am happy to see them make the change, lots of great choices in 147g 9mm..Ranger T, HST, Gold Dot to name a few.
I am sure this will create a lot of debate amongst the bigger is better guys but this is a very smart move in my opinion.
xrayoneone
04-25-13, 23:03
I don't see it happening. We (.gov I'm not FBI) are in the middle of sequestration. Changing handguns for 11,000+ gun toters is an expensive proposition. There is nothing currently wrong with the Glock 40's they are packing. I've been hearing about caliber/gun changes for seven years now. I will say stranger things have happened though.
STONE-YARDER
04-25-13, 23:03
Interesting, care to share your source?
Interesting, care to share your source?
Not by name but a high level in the "know" person with the FBI...will be released soon.
I don't see it happening. We (.gov I'm not FBI) are in the middle of sequestration. Changing handguns for 11,000+ gun toters is an expensive proposition. There is nothing currently wrong with the Glock 40's they are packing. I've been hearing about caliber/gun changes for seven years now. I will say stranger things have happened though.
Currently 13,913 special agents :-). I didn't say they are doing it right now but expect to see the change over a period of time starting with new agents just as they did with the 10mm, 40S&W and Glock's. The Glock Gen 4 did not pass their test and isn't approved for use so who knows but their new study is relevant to modern bullets.
Last I checked, the current FBI 9 mm load is the Winchester 147 gr RA9B--it works very well, perhaps even better than the current FBI .40 loading.
The 10mm was too much for them to handle.
Now that they can't handle the .40 maybe they should just go to a. 380 and call it a day.
Lack of funds has never stopped a Federal agency from spending money they don't have. I am anxious to hear the reasons for changing calibers.
Rattlehead
04-26-13, 01:40
Lack of funds has never stopped a Federal agency from spending money they don't have. I am anxious to hear the reasons for changing calibers.
No normal person actually likes 40.
:D
Last I checked, the current FBI 9 mm load is the Winchester 147 gr RA9B--it works very well, perhaps even better than the current FBI .40 loading.
I just shot with the local FBI office last week. They were carrying a mix of 9, .40 and .45.
The 9 was 147gr Gold Dot, the .40 & .45 were Ranger T. This is the ammo they were shooting on the range. The only range ammo I saw was American Eagle FMJ for the few agents that still had 10MM MP5's, and 62gr American Eagle FMJ for the rest using AR carbines.
That is interesting. When they last carried the 9mm's IIRC they used Sig P228's?
You mention the Gen 4 Glocks didn't pass their tests. We know they just passed British military tests. What problems did they find specifically?
Reconsideration of 9mm as a preferred LE service cartridge is widespread amongst those who think about things, and it gains momentum daily as more come to the table and data is shared.
Bulldog7972
04-26-13, 08:44
Not by name but a high level in the "know" person with the FBI...will be released soon.
Is this high level in the "know" person the same guy that posted this on the S&W forum a few weeks ago?
S. Galbraith
04-26-13, 09:19
I'm a little skeptical. At least on the Federal LE side, we are going more and more .40S&W and less 9mm. For DOI we are running approximately 50% .40s, 40% 9mms, and 10% .45s in Sigs. We went to 9mm in 1992 after we picked up FBI's offloaded P228s. We will no longer be purchasing 9mm Sigs, and will gradually phase them out entirely to be .40/.45 like most of our sister agencies.
i was speaking with a friend from the NY office who is also on the swat team he was telling me that the current duty .40 was or is beatting the guns up pretty good (things like bending trigger pins,braking locking and such). he also stated that new hires were going to be issued 4th.gen 22's and 23's..
Is this high level in the "know" person the same guy that posted this on the S&W forum a few weeks ago?
Nope, haven't seen that post/forum but I know he doesn't get involved in anything online
That is interesting. When they last carried the 9mm's IIRC they used Sig P228's?
You mention the Gen 4 Glocks didn't pass their tests. We know they just passed British military tests. What problems did they find specifically?
No he said it wasn't something the agency would discuss...I sure would like to know :)
i was speaking with a friend w/ from the NY office who is also on the swat team he was telling me that the current duty .40 was or is beatting the guns up pretty good (things like bending trigger pins,braking locking and such). he also stated that new hires were going to be issued 4th.gen 22's and 23's..
As it stands now, there has been only 1 NAT class at Quantico this FY and it began in Febuary. I've not heard about any changes for that class. The Bureau no longer issues Glock 23s and it has been that way for a couple of years.
In addition, the Bureau has suspended all hiring effective mid-March pending "clarifications" on the budget. Although this is not an announced hiring freeze, most of us do not expect to see any more NAT classes this FY. To put things in perspective, Holder just announced that DOJ was barely able to avoid furloughs with some fancy budgetary maneuvers. So, any rollout of new weapons is not likely to happen soon.
Javelin -- Your comments are neither accurate nor helpful.
Take a look at the current huge 9 mm and .40 contracts that they FBI has in place. The Bureau has indeed used Ranger-T as training ammo and Ranger Bonded as Duty ammo; prior to the current contract with Winchester, they had some Speer Gold Dot. Many field offices seem to have a mix of ammo from different contracts.
As a regular guy, I would like to ask a question about this.
Why are they using Ranger-T series as range ammo? Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to use, like Federal American Eagle or something for training?
They, along with all federal agencies, are supposed to be using lead free frangible ammunition, which is terribly cost ineffective. That's to be environmentally friendly. Considering that, it is cost effective, sort of.
xrayoneone
04-27-13, 19:15
As a regular guy, I would like to ask a question about this.
Why are they using Ranger-T series as range ammo? Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to use, like Federal American Eagle or something for training?
There were instances in the past where training ammo did not have the same point of impact as duty ammo. Todays quality ammo has little if any POI shift at hand gun ranges. There is still an aversion to qualifying with anything but duty ammunition for real or perceived liability reasons.
A good example is the Blair House shoot out.
As a regular guy, I would like to ask a question about this. Why are they using Ranger-T series as range ammo? Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to use, like Federal American Eagle or something for training?
Economy of scale. Buy enough, and you'll pay little to no more for duty rounds as you would for training ammo.
Simplified logistics. One sku to bid, buy, distribute, stock, resupply.
Ensures proper POI, function, and QC.
As a regular guy, I would like to ask a question about this.
Why are they using Ranger-T series as range ammo? Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to use, like Federal American Eagle or something for training?
No, it is not "more cost effective" at the quantities purchased by the FBI. Training with duty ammunition is beneficial, as training loads do not perform exactly like duty loads, worrying about pistol POI shift in a gunfight is a non-starter, maintaining two different inventories at the individual training office is a nightmare to balance, and the potential for introducing training ammo into the field environment carries liability issues.
They, along with all federal agencies, are supposed to be using lead free frangible ammunition, which is terribly cost ineffective. That's to be environmentally friendly. Considering that, it is cost effective, sort of.
Just where did that info come from?
S. Galbraith
04-27-13, 21:41
Both FLETC training facilities, along with Quantico use almost entirely lead free Sinterfire frangible type ammo now days. There are a couple of lead ranges still at each location, but lead cleanup is a big issue with the Feds. Our SOPs specify that we are to train with green ammo all of the time, except once a year to cycle out our duty carry lead ammo. We are given a lead allowance each year, of 100lbs in our burms. Ranges that exceed 100lbs per year must do lead cleanup, along with the God aweful environmental studies and paperwork.
Most purchase SOPs do not specify cost as a primary consideration with the Feds. Primary considerations are eco friendly, followed by preferred suppliers such as standard contract holders or workers rights compliant companies. Cost is obviously a consideration since each local works within a budget. This is all directly out of our purchasing SOPs.
Both FLETC training facilities, along with Quantico use almost entirely lead free Sinterfire frangible type ammo now days. There are a couple of lead ranges still at each location, but lead cleanup is a big issue with the Feds. Our SOPs specify that we are to train with green ammo all of the time, except once a year to cycle out our duty carry lead ammo. We are given a lead allowance each year, of 100lbs in our burms. Ranges that exceed 100lbs per year must do lead cleanup, along with the God aweful environmental studies and paperwork.
Most purchase SOPs do not specify cost as a primary consideration with the Feds. Primary considerations are eco friendly, followed by preferred suppliers such as standard contract holders or workers rights compliant companies. Cost is obviously a consideration since each local works within a budget. This is all directly out of our purchasing SOPs.
The lead-free frangible at the academies is an OSHA requirement of their respective indoor ranges. At the field Office level, however, access to Gov owned indoor ranges is a luxury that very few have access to. Out in the field, the FBI, like most other federal agencies, are forced to rent, beg, or borrow ranges from the private sector or from local agencies. Outside of the controlled academy environment the leasing of range space, the ordering of ammunition, and the development of a training plan is the responsibility of an individual, very few of which do this full-time, most of which do so as a collateral duty in addition to carrying an investigative caseload. Trying to balance an inventory of duty ammunition is hard enough, trying to maintain stores of additional training ammo becomes unmanageable.
Last I checked, the current FBI 9 mm load is the Winchester 147 gr RA9B--it works very well, perhaps even better than the current FBI .40 loading.
Do you know what the penetration and RD was for the RA9B after glass and 20 gauge steel penetration? I couldn't find that on Winchester website: http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/flash-SWFs/law_bullit.swf
Thanks.
We recently went back to the 165 g GoldDots as the Winchester Ranger 180s were causing quite a few failures. Personally had pins break twice before we switched back to the Speer load. I do shoot more than most though.
We tend to follow DEA's lead when it comes to weapon changes from what I've seen in recent years.
We do have big issues with money now though, all but mandatory training and firearms quals suspended. Been buying my own ammo for range time since this recent lunacy started.
We recently went back to the 165 g GoldDots as the Winchester Ranger 180s were causing quite a few failures.
Which 165gr GDHP? The 53949 @ 1050fps, or the the 53970 @ 1150fps?
What problems were you having with the Win 180s, weight and velocity the gun was designed around, that the 165s are expected to answer?
Which 165gr GDHP? The 53949 @ 1050fps, or the the 53970 @ 1150fps?
What problems were you having with the Win 180s, weight and velocity the gun was designed around, that the 165s are expected to answer?
Gold Dots are 53947. Not sure of the fps.
Initially we were told that the Rangers were heavier and faster than the GDs and the extra punch to make this happen was too much for the Glock to handle
We are authorized to carry either the Winchester or the Speer but they prefer us to load the Speer if possible
Just where did that info come from?
An Executive Order. I don't recall which one off of the top of my head.
http://le.atk.com/downloads/technical_bulletins/PenetrationComparison53949vs53970.pdf
http://le.atk.com/downloads/technical_bulletins/ProductGelatinPerformance53949.pdf
http://le.atk.com/downloads/technical_bulletins/ProductGelatinPerformance53970.pdf
davidjinks
04-29-13, 21:40
So can someone maybe learn me on why the Winchester ammunition was ruining the duty guns?
I'm assuming the duty ammo is (For Winchester) is the 180 grain bonded. Winchester lists the MV @ 1025 from the muzzle.
Speer lists their GDHP for the 165 grain at 1050 or 1150 depending on which load is used.
Wouldn't the 165 give a little more beat to the gun over the slower 180 grain?
S. Galbraith
04-29-13, 22:17
Gold Dots are 53947. Not sure of the fps.
Initially we were told that the Rangers were heavier and faster than the GDs and the extra punch to make this happen was too much for the Glock to handle
Rangers are some of the mildest JHP loads around. Out of our Sig P229s, I chronoed them:
Winchester Ranger Talon 180gr: 943fps
Speer Gold Dot 165gr: 1107fps
Just for comparison:
Federal HST 180gr: 998fps
The HSTs can be a handful, while the Ranger Talons feel similar to your typical 180gr training ammo.
If anything, the 165gr Gold Dots will be harder on your guns due to the faster slide cycle speed. Sometimes gun parts just happen to be close to the end of their service life, break when on you, and what ever ammo is in the gun gets blamed.
If anything, the 165gr Gold Dots will be harder on your guns due to the faster slide cycle speed.
That's a bit counterintuitive to me.... what causes that? Just hotter in general?
I've leaned toward 165g's in .40 Kahr CC & BOG for control and a bit to go easier on the gun.
Maybe I need to revisit that assumption?
That's a bit counterintuitive to me.... what causes that? Just hotter in general?
I've leaned toward 165g's in .40 Kahr CC & BOG for control and a bit to go easier on the gun.
Maybe I need to revisit that assumption?
Simply put; physics. Only one item can occupy a given amount of space at a time. A particular pistol bullet caliber is of a set length. The bullet diameter is a constant. If mass is increased/decreased then the bullet must get longer/shorter inside the case. All other factors being equal, then a 180gr bullet is longer than a 165,155, or 135gr bullet. The lighter the bullet, the more room in the case for powder. That is why the smaller/lighter bullets tend to be "harder" or hotter than the heavier bullets.
Simply put; physics. Only one item can occupy a given amount of space at a time. A particular pistol bullet caliber is of a set length. The bullet diameter is a constant. If mass is increased/decreased then the bullet must get longer/shorter inside the case. All other factors being equal, then a 180gr bullet is longer than a 165,155, or 135gr bullet. The lighter the bullet, the more room in the case for powder. That is why the smaller/lighter bullets tend to be "harder" or hotter than the heavier bullets.
That part is clear.... I'm a grendel shooter, we eat sleep and breath case capacity vs bullet length vs overall length....
I'm trying to reconcile how lighter bullets loaded at equal pressures to heavier bullets hammer the gun more. Newton was right.... and F=MA.
I'd have to run the numbers, but the impact force (and recoil) for heavier bullets is normally higher in the cartridge sweet spot. IE: Not at extremely light or heavy bullets.
And the acceleration of the slide is directly based on the Force.... so that's what counter intuitive to me.
Barrel length can also factor in, though most of what we are talking about are all relatively short. So not big differences there.
Maybe it's just that the 165g's are loaded hotter (to higher pressure)
Rangers are some of the mildest JHP loads around. Out of our Sig P229s, I chronoed them:
Winchester Ranger Talon 180gr: 943fps
Speer Gold Dot 165gr: 1107fps
Just for comparison:
Federal HST 180gr: 998fps
The HSTs can be a handful, while the Ranger Talons feel similar to your typical 180gr training ammo.
If anything, the 165gr Gold Dots will be harder on your guns due to the faster slide cycle speed. Sometimes gun parts just happen to be close to the end of their service life, break when on you, and what ever ammo is in the gun gets blamed.
If you are talking commercial 165gr Gold Dots then yes, the FBI loading??? No. The mid range FBI Gold Dot duty load is one of the mildest recoil .40 loads made.
The original 180gr Winchester Bonded was a very hot load, since the initial run of this ammo they have toned it down a bit, but it still gives more recoil than the FBI GD 165gr load.
Nephrology
04-30-13, 06:11
That part is clear.... I'm a grendel shooter, we eat sleep and breath case capacity vs bullet length vs overall length....
I'm trying to reconcile how lighter bullets loaded at equal pressures to heavier bullets hammer the gun more. Newton was right.... and F=MA.
I'd have to run the numbers, but the impact force (and recoil) for heavier bullets is normally higher in the cartridge sweet spot. IE: Not at extremely light or heavy bullets.
And the acceleration of the slide is directly based on the Force.... so that's what counter intuitive to me.
Barrel length can also factor in, though most of what we are talking about are all relatively short. So not big differences there.
Maybe it's just that the 165g's are loaded hotter (to higher pressure)
You forget that impulse = change in energy/time. Forces experienced at different intervals of time change the stress experienced by the firearm in question. A lighter bullet is accelerated over less time than a heavier bullet all else being equal.
Just my guess anyway
davidjinks
04-30-13, 10:35
Can someone clarify as to why or what caused the Generation 4 Glocks to fail?
Are the Glocks that failed 9MM or 40 S&W?
I did a bit a searching on this subject but everything that I've read (If it's credible) says that the Gen 4 Glock 22/27 passed all the FBI tests that they conducted.
If this is too much of a side track I'll gladly take a PM.
You forget that impulse = change in energy/time. Forces experienced at different intervals of time change the stress experienced by the firearm in question. A lighter bullet is accelerated over less time than a heavier bullet all else being equal.
And typically use faster powders, so it's entirely possible the initial impulse is faster/harder.
Speer Gold Dot 40SW always "feel" hotter than Win Ranger, regardless of 180 or 165. That's just my experience. I ordered a case of Blazer 165 TMJ a few years ago and it was terribly hot. The 180 are much softer. It's just the way they are loaded.
I also work for a FED LEO agency that trains with only duty ammo. Back when we still carried .38 revolvers we trained with wadcutters and carried the Treasury load.
Does anyone know if the FBI ever lifted their ban on the private purchase program (both pistol and rifle) for Agents? I heard it was suspended a few years ago and whatever you were carrying at that time is what you got stuck with unless the agency changed it.
KiloSierra
05-02-13, 23:12
Rangers are some of the mildest JHP loads around. Out of our Sig P229s, I chronoed them:
Winchester Ranger Talon 180gr: 943fps
Speer Gold Dot 165gr: 1107fps
Just for comparison:
Federal HST 180gr: 998fps
The HSTs can be a handful, while the Ranger Talons feel similar to your typical 180gr training ammo.
If anything, the 165gr Gold Dots will be harder on your guns due to the faster slide cycle speed. Sometimes gun parts just happen to be close to the end of their service life, break when on you, and what ever ammo is in the gun gets blamed.
An observation on my part from carrying a Glock for several years and shooting several thousand rounds of 165gr. Duty ammo and ball ammo and switching to 180gr. duty and training ammo was reliability was much better with 180's and scores went up to.
Back in 2006 when we had our epic issues with brand new G22s we had guns that wouldn't run with 165gr Gold Dot (standard loading) at all, even without a light mounted.
That lot/load was running 1185 through my G22
Tried 180gr GD, better but still had issues due to the ammo running almost 1100fps.
Ranger-T ran well, was only going 920fps average.
Buddy from the FBI showed up at my range, that's when I found out they were using a specially loaded 165gr GD, was running in the mid 900s through my G22.
What ammo? and what lot of ammo, has a lot to do with how a G22 runs or doesn't run, slide velocity being the real issue.
Back in 2006 when we had our epic issues with brand new G22s we had guns that wouldn't run with 165gr Gold Dot (standard loading) at all, even without a light mounted.
That lot/load was running 1185 through my G22
Tried 180gr GD, better but still had issues due to the ammo running almost 1100fps.
Ranger-T ran well, was only going 920fps average.
Buddy from the FBI showed up at my range, that's when I found out they were using a specially loaded 165gr GD, was running in the mid 900s through my G22.
What ammo? and what lot of ammo, has a lot to do with how a G22 runs or doesn't run, slide velocity being the real issue.
Wow! that is certainly a case of "too much of a good thing". You cannot expect a load with 10% more recoil impulse to give perfect reliability in a gun like the G22 that is already close to the limit with normal loads.
The_War_Wagon
05-05-13, 06:44
FBI looking at changing pistol calibers!
To 10mm?! :p
The Gen 4 Glocks have been approved and they have been issued to agents since at least sometime last year. It may have been around the time they switched back to the G22 and stopped issuing the G23.
All FBI 40 caliber duty ammo is downloaded by about 100fps (the old Gold Dot 165 and the current Winchester 180) to make it easier to qualify. This reduces the terminal effectiveness and is one factor in the proposed/desired switch to 9mm. The 9mm is also easier to master, less costly, less abusive to the guns, and holds more ammunition in each magazine. Today's 9mm is more than adequate for duty use. There is no reason IMO to put up with the muzzle flip of the 40 since you get no benefit from it.
Yes, the switch to 9mm is being efforted and will benefit all IMO. For as long as I can remember they have issued G17's to agent trainees at the academy when they had trouble qualifying with the G22.
Anyone using Gold Dots in either 9 or 40 for duty ammo is using old ammo they still have left over. They switched to the bonded Ranger in both calibers a few years ago. The 45 is still Golden Saber and the 10mm is still the 190gr Federal.
For a while the cost of FMJ ammo exceeded the cost of the duty ammo and so duty ammo was used in training. I believe this only affected the 40 caliber. FMJ has been back in use for over a year in all pistol calibers.
Does anyone know if the FBI ever lifted their ban on the private purchase program (both pistol and rifle) for Agents? I heard it was suspended a few years ago and whatever you were carrying at that time is what you got stuck with unless the agency changed it.
The Personally Owned Weapon program was only suspended for about a year. While it is back, it's been drastically reduced. Former HRT/SWAT agents who went through the 1911 transition course can buy a personally owned 1911 from Springfield to carry on duty - even after leaving the team. The only other options for a personal duty weapon currently are the G26, G27, and G21. There may still be a few Sig and S&W guns (as well as G23's and 19's) in service but they are grandfathered (for now). Some folks were smart enough to get a G19 approved before it was dropped from the list and are grandfathered. That is the one gun everyone seems to want back as an option.
Anyone using Gold Dots in either 9 or 40 for duty ammo is using old ammo they still have left over. They switched to the bonded Ranger in both calibers a few years ago.
We did switch to the bonded Ranger but have had enough problems with gun failure that we (in the NY office) had a large ammo swap recently where we turned in our duty ammo, the Ranger (180g), and were re-issued the Gold Dots (165g).
We did switch to the bonded Ranger but have had enough problems with gun failure that we (in the NY office) had a large ammo swap recently where we turned in our duty ammo, the Ranger (180g), and were re-issued the Gold Dots (165g).
Didn't know that. Thanks for the update. I'm betting its still the neutered Gold Dots like before though. I've never been a fan of 40 in any iteration. I carried a G22/27 combo for years to give it an honest try but have since moved to a G21/26 combo with no regrets.
Since a neutered .40 will not outperform a high quality 9 mm, it would make more logical sense to simply issue a 9 mm.
S. Galbraith
05-05-13, 16:06
I've never been a fan of 40 in any iteration. I carried a G22/27 combo for years to give it an honest try but have since moved to a G21/26 combo with no regrets.
The Glock .40 has always been a poorly implimented design, which shows in its reliablity and durability. Glock took a 9mm pistol that utilized a 9mm tapered casing, and didn't adjust the platform correctly to fire the larger diameter .40S&W with a straight walled case. The magazine was not positioned high enough nor angled correctly for the change, and the barrel cam was not altered to tilt the barrel more. Instead, they simply cut out 6-o'clock chamber support. The gun has never been ironed out..........and it is an uncomfortable shooter in .40S&W to say the least.
I will agree, that if officers cannot handle full power .40S&W, then they should standardized on an agency issued 9mm. Frankly, I am surprised that the Bureau stuck with the Glock .40 for this long even though problems persisted with the platform. Yes, the FBI paved the way for the rest of us by adopting the .40 just about as soon as it was available.......but they should have more actively reassessed their situation for the last 2 decades. Granted, the .40S&W selections of the early 1990s was extremely lacking.........but a post 2001 inquiry would have been warranted. Even more so in 2011 with the available 9mm and .40S&W platforms.
The Gen 4 Glocks have been approved and they have been issued to agents since at least sometime last year. It may have been around the time they switched back to the G22 and stopped issuing the G23.
All FBI 40 caliber duty ammo is downloaded by about 100fps (the old Gold Dot 165 and the current Winchester 180) to make it easier to qualify.
That does not seem a strategy best for agent longevity outside qualifying no?
This reduces the terminal effectiveness and is one factor in the proposed/desired switch to 9mm. The 9mm is also easier to master, less costly, less abusive to the guns, and holds more ammunition in each magazine. Today's 9mm is more than adequate for duty use. There is no reason IMO to put up with the muzzle flip of the 40 since you get no benefit from it.
Would you not say "minimal" benefit to the trade off of recoil, cost, capacity? Or, has benefit in particular applications, such as intermediate barriers? I recall Doc GR mentioning in some applications, such as LE likely to be dealing with intermediate barriers (such as a State Trooper on the highway for example) the .40 may be a better choice.
Paraphrasing from recall, so correct as needed.
Personally, never been a fan of the .40 and only owned one gun in the caliber, but I'm far from a BTDT type. I could shoot well (for me) with a .45 and a 9, never felt comfortable with the .40.
El Cid,
Thank you very much for updating what I know of FBI firearms. I still don't understand why a primarily plain clothes organization insists on issuing full size over compact pistols, other than being perceived easier to shoot. I think given your current options I'd have made the same 21/26 choice you have.
Btw…what choices do you have in personal rifles now? I had read you could buy your own Colt ARs at one time. What models and changes are authorized?
S. Galbraith
05-05-13, 17:30
I recall Doc GR mentioning in some applications, such as LE likely to be dealing with intermediate barriers (such as a State Trooper on the highway for example) the .40 may be a better choice.
I won't speak for the Doc, but he did say that in his Service Caliber Recommendations thread.
I'll try not to bring up old demons and caliber grudges, but straight from the horses mouth:
".....we are saying that it(9mm) is as good as the .38 Special, which has served us for a long time. It has severe limitations, which we are not willing to accept. It is woefully inadequate for shooting at people in cars, for example, and over half of our shootings involve vehicles."
-FBI Agent Urey Patrick, from "10mm Notes", and author of "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness"
So, if an investigatory agency has confrontations around vehicles that much, you can bet that the rest of us patrol officers are around vehicles a whole lot more. In the words of Massad Ayoob......"what is good for law enforcement, is also good for civilian defense." Yes, civilian shootings are different. Usually your attacker is interested in stealing your property or going after some other covetted item(rape). Even in the case of purposeful murder, the attacker seeks as much preservation of their lives and health as possible. Quoting recent Ayoob statistics again......90% of civilian shootings are resolved with under 7rds fired, at under 7 yards. Flight from gun fire is the most common result in civilian shootings.......or suicide by gunman when lonewolfs are engaged. That 90% success/resolution rate is much higher than the NYPD Firearms Discharge statistics for police officers. That being said, a civilian spends much of their life in automobiles, therefore the possiblity of engaging in a shooting in and around vehicles is high.
Downloading .40 ammo to decrease premature pistol breakages and increase qualification scores is insipid. If that is what is necessary to keep an agency's pistols running and sworn personnel qualified, then at that point it is far more logical to simply switch to 9 mm, as the best 9 mm loads usually offer superior terminal performance to neutered .40 loads. Let's all take a deep breath and remember that 9 mm loads from 2013 are NOT the same as 9 mm loads from 25 years ago...
Robb Jensen
05-05-13, 19:58
Downloading .40 ammo to decrease premature pistol breakages and increase qualification scores is insipid. If that is what is necessary to keep an agency's pistols running and sworn personnel qualified, then at that point it is far more logical to simply switch to 9 mm, as the best 9 mm loads usually offer superior terminal performance to neutered .40 loads. Let's all take a deep breath and remember that 9 mm loads from 2013 are NOT the same as 9 mm loads from 25 years ago...
And while saving taxpayers dollars until the FBI thinks some new pistol caliber is the next "magic pill" and they don't learn that if you're anticipating a gunfight bring a long gun.
I think if the Bureau leadership carefully listens to the wise and sage advice of their own BRF, that issue will never occur again...
We issued Glock 22 pistols and shot 180g FMJ for training ammunition. The duty load was 180g HP. Department wide we fired hundreds of thousands of rounds each year with very few issues. The problematic pistols had between 50,000 and 60,000 rounds fired through them. We started taking Glock 22 pistols out of service at 50,000 rounds and what few problems we had went away. I believe that a 180g projectile at 1,000 fps is a reliable load for the Glock 22.
We originally transitioned from 9mm to .40 S&W, because of auto glass and other intermediate barriers. With the advances in ammunition development over the past 10 years, I believe the Glock 17 would serve any agency well.
Lack of funds has never stopped a Federal agency from spending money they don't have. I am anxious to hear the reasons for changing calibers.
I was going to say the same thing. It would be just like a Federal agency to spend money we don't have on new pistols and the new ammo to shoot in them. Then destroy the old, perfectly good pistols.
That does not seem a strategy best for agent longevity outside qualifying no? .
I would say you are right on the money. But that is not exclusive to that agency. I'd submit most LE agencies focus on keeping sworn personnel qualified than making them into gunfighters. Hell, most local/state agencies only qualify once, maybe twice a year. At least the Bu does it every quarter (one being a night shoot).
The survival mentality from D.C. may not be there, but the instructors in the field do all they can to make sure their folks are ready for that day we all hope doesn't happen.
Would you not say "minimal" benefit to the trade off of recoil, cost, capacity? Or, has benefit in particular applications, such as intermediate barriers? I recall Doc GR mentioning in some applications, such as LE likely to be dealing with intermediate barriers (such as a State Trooper on the highway for example) the .40 may be a better choice.
Paraphrasing from recall, so correct as needed.
Personally, never been a fan of the .40 and only owned one gun in the caliber, but I'm far from a BTDT type. I could shoot well (for me) with a .45 and a 9, never felt comfortable with the .40.
Any platform/caliber can be mastered. The problem is that most LEO's (regardless of agency) won't spend the time to do so.
I would say any minimal benefit to having a 40 when shooting at/around vehicles is lost if the LEO is less able to get hits. Having a bullet that is better able to get through safety glass or a car door is only good if the LEO can put the rounds where they need to be. I'd rather see them have a 9mm because they are more likely to shoot it well, and their confidence will be higher because of that. Plus, when discussing handguns - they ALL suck at putting down a person. A 9mm pistol gives them more rounds to try to get through the car to the threat.
Besides... I am an avid shooter. I pay out of pocket to go to classes taught by Pat McNamara, Kyle Defoor, etc. I shoot competitively to keep my skills up (I shoot from concealment even in non-IDPA matches). All that said - I'd rather carry a G17 with good ammo than a G22 every day of the week.
We all know the focus is on the handgun because it's the weapon most likely to be instantly available in an unplanned encounter. Those of us who really want to go home at the end of the day seem to always have a long gun within reach (even to the point of finding funds for electronic gun racks). If I am shooting at a bad guy with a handgun - I'm already not happy about it because I'd rather have a shoulder weapon.
El Cid,
Thank you very much for updating what I know of FBI firearms. I still don't understand why a primarily plain clothes organization insists on issuing full size over compact pistols, other than being perceived easier to shoot. I think given your current options I'd have made the same 21/26 choice you have.
Btw…what choices do you have in personal rifles now? I had read you could buy your own Colt ARs at one time. What models and changes are authorized?
Happy to help. Can't say what the driving force is really. I know for a couple years they were issuing G23's to NATs. Perhaps they figure that if a person wants a really concealable firearm, they will buy/carry the 26 or 27, leaving a full size pistol for overt/tactical operations?
Personally owned long guns went the way of the dinosaur a long time ago.
I would say you are right on the money. But that is not exclusive to that agency. I'd submit most LE agencies focus on keeping sworn personnel qualified than making them into gunfighters. Hell, most local/state agencies only qualify once, maybe twice a year. At least the Bu does it every quarter (one being a night shoot).
A major metro PD in the NE by me went from 2x per year to 1 to save $$$ a few years back. :(
The small % of shooters I know on that PD were in awe at that poor decision, but not surprised.
The survival mentality from D.C. may not be there, but the instructors in the field do all they can to make sure their folks are ready for that day we all hope doesn't happen.
You can lead a horse to water....
Any platform/caliber can be mastered. The problem is that most LEO's (regardless of agency) won't spend the time to do so.
I would say any minimal benefit to having a 40 when shooting at/around vehicles is lost if the LEO is less able to get hits. Having a bullet that is better able to get through safety glass or a car door is only good if the LEO can put the rounds where they need to be. I'd rather see them have a 9mm because they are more likely to shoot it well, and their confidence will be higher because of that. Plus, when discussing handguns - they ALL suck at putting down a person. A 9mm pistol gives them more rounds to try to get through the car to the threat.
That makes perfect sense, thanx. I was only think in terms of the slight edge in terminal performance of .40 vs. 9, vs the obvious larger pictures you outlined above.
I went from .45 to 9 myself as CCW, course, IDPA, etc as the terminal ballistics of modern 9 seemed a fair trade for what I gained in less recoil, increase capacity, etc.
Back to the original subject. Other than unsubstantiated rumors on the web, I haven't heard anything about the FBI switching back to 9mm. There's certainly nothing in mainstream channels.
I suspect this is just 9mm fanboys/.40 haters trying to stir something up where nothing really exists. If there's anything official out there, please post it.
dwhitehorne
05-09-13, 17:10
Lots of speculation in this thread. I thought the OP was talking about the FBI going to Speer 147gr GDHP ammo. Maybe the comma did it. The FBI currently has a contract with Winchester that my agency purchases on for 9, 40 and 556. The 9mm Winchester we have gotten on the contract is Ranger 147gr bonded Q4364. We also got some 90gr+P Q4346 and 124gr+P Q4362. The contract with Winchester is only for a few years. I am certain ATK is bidding to get the next contract. David
There is no way to prove it. There are people in the right places in that agency who want to make the standard issue sidearm a 9mm. There are people in the right places in the field who support it. If you choose not to believe me, that's your right. There is no smoking gun so to speak. The contracts are already in place for buying 9mm ammo and 9mm Glocks so don't expect to see an RFP or anything.
It may not happen. But it's a push from inside. Sorry gents - there is nothing else to be provided.
I'd listen closely to El Cid...
There is no way to prove it. There are people in the right places in that agency who want to make the standard issue sidearm a 9mm. There are people in the right places in the field who support it. If you choose not to believe me, that's your right. There is no smoking gun so to speak. The contracts are already in place for buying 9mm ammo and 9mm Glocks so don't expect to see an RFP or anything.
It may not happen. But it's a push from inside. Sorry gents - there is nothing else to be provided.
He who does not listen to El Cid may live to regret it. :D
Consternation about federal LE agencies' inability to find common ground on handgun cartridges is certainly well founded. Consider the following written comments by 'highly placed' DHS bureaucrats in recent congressional testimony:
"Today, DHS has moved almost exclusively to 180gr bullets for its .40 caliber ammunition..."
Link here: Written testimony of ... Chief Procurement Officer Nick Nayak, (ICE) National Firearms and Tactical Training Unit Assistant Director Humberto Medina... (http://www.dhs.gov/news/2013/04/25/written-testimony-dhs-mgmt-and-ice-house-oversight-government-reform-subcommittees)25 Apr 2013 (All of this is worth reading.)
My former DHS agency at one time used exclusively the same 40 cal. 155 grain JHP for all training and operational missions. Then that changed to 165 grain JHP, supposedly because persons of smaller stature could not handle the 155 grain load. Now it's to be 180's, which is, of course where the FBI started with 40 cal. many years ago.
Go figure...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.