View Full Version : Win Ranger Bonded 9 mm and .40
http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ballistics-and-projectile-performance
http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/07/07/ju3u5ybu.jpg
BuckskinJoe
02-17-09, 04:53
http://www.lightfighter.net/forum/ballistics-and-projectile-performance
http://pistol-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?19-Ammunition
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/07/07/ju3u5ybu.jpg
The inconsistent performance of the Q4355 (lot# WCC07-1) through four layers of denim was highly unexpected. The first 2 shots through denim failed to expand, then the next three opened up; as a result of the inconsistent performance, we elected to shoot an additional 5 shots, resulting in 2 more failures, 2 good shots, then another failure. The bizarre performance made averaging the 4LD results difficult. Additional testing with a new lot is warranted...[/QUOTE]
The testing results, above, certainly begs the question: "Why did the FBI choose the Q4355/RA40B (exact same ammo per Paul Novak of Winchester)?
I had conjectured it might be because of more consistent performance through barriers (plywood, sheet rock, sheet metal, and auto glass), which is somewhat irrelevant to civilian personal defense.
I located some RA40B ammo simply because it might help a bit in a court should I ever--God forbid--be forced to deploy my "personal defense appliance." The denim results, above, have me considering going back to RA40T ammo.
Any thoughts, Doc?
The testing results, above, certainly begs the question: "Why did the FBI choose the Q4355/RA40B (exact same ammo per Paul Novak of Winchester)?
I have to question this a bit because the Q4364 (9mm 147-gr) is very different from the RA9B. In comparing the samples I have of each, the projectiles are completely different between the two and the Q4364 is effectively a +P, although the cases aren't stamped as such.
RA40B was changed across the board to Q4355, the latter being developed specifically for the FBI test.
And unless you can provide some pressure data showing otherwise, it's highly unlikely that Winchester is producing +p pressure ammo and putting it in a non-+p case. This would violate SAAMI, and the FBI ammo procurement specifically required that all submissions conform to SAAMI specifications.
BuckskinJoe
02-17-09, 09:48
I have to question this a bit because the Q4364 (9mm 147-gr) is very different from the RA9B. In comparing the samples I have of each, the projectiles are completely different between the two and the Q4364 is effectively a +P, although the cases aren't stamped as such.
I spoke with Paul Novak, Sr. Tech. Spc. at the Winchester plant in East Alton, IL, via telephone, right after he returned from the Shot Show. He told me, very specifically, that Q4355 and current RA40B are exactly the same ammunition, with the Q4355 designation being used for Winchester's Federal Government contracts. If that is not correct, then Mr. Novak misinformed me.
I did not ask, and he did not speak to Q4364 vs. RA9B.
Stupid question: Is the HST the right-most bullet in the pic? I assume it's used as a control?
HST on the right--it is the current duty load and was used as a reference and comparison load during this round of testing.
And unless you can provide some pressure data showing otherwise, it's highly unlikely that Winchester is producing +p pressure ammo and putting it in a non-+p case.
I don't have pressure data but, I did call Winchester on it because the boxes are labeled as +P but, the cases are not stamped +P. I was told that the boxes were indeed labeled by Winchester, that the +P rating is correct even though the cases weren't stamped as such. Mixed signals from Winchester? Maybe. I did the Google and discovered that there seems to be a bit of a dust-up over some "ZQ4364" that was let into the wild by Winchester. Some talk about it being "contract" ammo that is made to a different spec.
Doc, have you had a chance to run any .45 ACP of the Winchester Ranger Bonded through any tests?
I don't have pressure data but, I did call Winchester on it because the boxes are labeled as +P but, the cases are not stamped +P.
I stand corrected, then! Depending on whom you ask, some manufacturers always use +p brass it just might not always be marked +p, so I wouldn't immediately be concerned that there is a problem with the ammo in question. And if it's marked and marketed as +p, that's a clue. Again, my bad ... thanks for the info!
The more tests I see, the more I'm thinking about going back to standard Ranger Talons and Federal HST.
So what is this new PDX1 ammo. Is it as good as the best LE ammo? Same bullet? Same speed? Sealed primers?
Jim from Houston
05-16-09, 12:33
According to Winchester, PDX1 is the same round that you see tested on this page. In other words, the same as the "revised" Ranger Bonded that was adopted by the FBI. I would want to see more testing before using it, given the troubling performance that the .40 shows in Doc's denim test posted above.
Which is better overall from a Glock 19 - their 124 grain +P or their 147 grain? I am hoping the 147 as it has the additional benefit of being subsonic for sound suppressors.
Glock17JHP
05-20-09, 10:58
I spoke with Paul Novak, Sr. Tech. Spc. at the Winchester plant in East Alton, IL, via telephone, right after he returned from the Shot Show. He told me, very specifically, that Q4355 and current RA40B are exactly the same ammunition, with the Q4355 designation being used for Winchester's Federal Government contracts. If that is not correct, then Mr. Novak misinformed me.
I did not ask, and he did not speak to Q4364 vs. RA9B.
It's Paul Nowak... not Novak... (Novak makes sights)...
It's Paul Nowak... not Novak... (Novak makes sights)...
Thank you for the correction! I read that and thought there was something fishy going on. :)
Joe Mamma
Glock17JHP
05-20-09, 13:22
Which is better overall from a Glock 19 - their 124 grain +P or their 147 grain? I am hoping the 147 as it has the additional benefit of being subsonic for sound suppressors.
I would go with the 147 grain... and would choose the Ranger 'T' RA9T load...
After that, I would choose the Speer Gold Dot or Federal HST, also in 147 grain...
Glock17JHP
05-20-09, 13:23
The more tests I see, the more I'm thinking about going back to standard Ranger Talons and Federal HST.
Agree, Marcus!!! I never left them...
Jim from Houston
05-20-09, 15:09
I would go with the 147 grain... and would choose the Ranger 'T' RA9T load...
After that, I would choose the Speer Gold Dot or Federal HST, also in 147 grain...
Huge +1 on the NON-bonded 147gr Ranger T (RA9T)...and there's less to worry about with that one than the other T-series since it's design has not been modified like the rest of the T-series line-up.
I've seen multiple tests of the RA9T, different lots, tested by different people, over a course of years and the results have always been nearly identical (and impressive). That's the sort of consistency I want in a defensive round...
Glock17JHP
05-20-09, 15:15
Agree 100%, Jim... consistency over the years!!!
I was told by a Winchester LE rep that the RA9T was the ONLY Ranger load left alone in the recent re-design...
The reason given for leaving it 'as is' was that it was considered optimal already... :D
Beat Trash
05-22-09, 10:52
I would go with the 147 grain... and would choose the Ranger 'T' RA9T load...
After that, I would choose the Speer Gold Dot or Federal HST, also in 147 grain...
I agree...
I have shot alot of the RA9T through my personal guns, to include my G19. This was done to ensure reliability and accuracy. This cost me a bit of $ at the time, would cost more so now, due to price increases.
IF I can't get teh Winchester RA9T when I run out of the ammo I have stored away, I'd feel ok with the Federal HST. Though I'd want to shoot some through my guns to ensure they are reliable. While it most likely wouldn't be necessary to test the HST for reliability, I'd feel better knowing vs. assuming...
I use the Winchester RA9T in all of my off duty guns/personal guns. My issued load, well it's a 147 gr JHP, and it goes "bang"... (WW Box loading)
Our department uses the Winchester 147 FMJ round as training ammunition. The Ranger RA9T shoots to the exact point of aim as the training round. Recoil is the same. No surprise, as it is the same weight bullet going at the same velocity.
I mention this only because I am old enough to remember when people trained with 38 spc wad cutters, then loaded either 38 +p, 38 +p+, or 357 mag loadings. This caused some issues...
I want to know where my gun shoots ref. point of aim vs. point of impact. I want to train with the same type of ammunition so that recoil, shot to shot recovery, ect will be the same. I can see where this might be an issue for those practicing with one load, such as a 115 gr loading, yet carrying a 127 +p+. Maybe not as extreme as the old revolver days, but could still be an issue.
Glock17JHP
05-22-09, 13:43
I agree, also...
BTW, SCGunGuy is expecting some RA9T in soon... have you ever bought from him?
His pricing is great, along with great service, too...
BTW, I use the Winchester USA 147 grain JHP for practice...
The HST's are also working very well in OIS incidents...
Beat Trash
05-22-09, 14:51
I agree, also...
BTW, SCGunGuy is expecting some RA9T in soon... have you ever bought from him?
His pricing is great, along with great service, too...
BTW, I use the Winchester USA 147 grain JHP for practice...
No, the last I bought was from OMB Express. Still have 450 or so stored away in a cool dry place, next to the wine.
As I rotate my ammo out, If the RA9T is still hard to come by, or too expensive, I might go with the Fed HST loading.
Glock17JHP
05-22-09, 21:01
The HST's are also working very well in OIS incidents...
Doc,
Is there enough data to show if the penetration depth overall is about the same as Ranger RA9T typically would be? That was where I was concerned... I liked the expansion characteristics and consistency of the 147 grain Federal HST a lot, but the shallower penetration in gelatin as comared to the 147 grain Winchester Ranger had me a bit concerned (I admit to preferring more than 12 inches of penetration, I prefer 13-15 inches personally... like I typically see in the Ranger RA9T)...
9mm Fed 147 gr HST JHP; ave vel=997 fps (G19)
BG: pen=14.6", RD=0.61", RL=0.39", RW=147.1gr
4LD: pen=15.6", RD=0.56", RL=0.53", RW=145.5gr
HST seems to penetrate just fine...
Glock17JHP
05-23-09, 23:46
Doc,
I would really like to see someone do a 'side-by-side' comparison with the Federal HST and Winchester Ranger 'T' (both in 147 grain 9mm) in a Glock 17 and 19...
The data I saw in the past with a Glock 17 seemed to have the HST expanding considerably more (above 65 caliber), while penetrating just past 12 inches (less than 13, in fact) in bare gelatin...
This has me a bit curious... I wouldn't normally expect a lot of performance variation between a Glock 17 and 19... anyone else see this variation except me? Was the load 'tweaked' recently???
You can stop worrying--there is virtually no difference in performance of 147 gr HST fired from G19 and G17.
Glock17JHP
05-25-09, 13:52
My concern was because the numbers you just posted seemed like better performance (from my view) than earlier numbers I had (not from you)...
Federal HST 9mm 147 grain JHP (Glock 17)
Bare Gelatin: 12 inches Penetration (.85 inches Expanded Diameter)
Heavy Clothing: 12.5 inches Penetration (.69 inches Expanded Diameter)
This was data from almost exactly 1 year ago... :confused:
dirksterg30
05-26-09, 18:54
Doc Roberts,
has there been a change to the Ranger Bonded bullet? A google search for the Ranger Bonded produces this:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/dirksterg30/ammunition/WinchesterRanger.jpg
This is what I received from OMB Express:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/dirksterg30/ammunition/P5260301.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/dirksterg30/ammunition/P5260302.jpg
It looks to me like the nose of the bullet has been cut off. Any info on this?
Jim from Houston
05-26-09, 19:45
Doc Roberts,
has there been a change to the Ranger Bonded bullet? A google search for the Ranger Bonded produces this:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/dirksterg30/ammunition/WinchesterRanger.jpg
This is what I received from OMB Express:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/dirksterg30/ammunition/P5260301.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/dirksterg30/ammunition/P5260302.jpg
It looks to me like the nose of the bullet has been cut off. Any info on this?
The rounds in the first picture appear to be Ranger T-Series, NOT Ranger Bonded.
Notice that in the expanded projectiles shown, the jacket is peeled back from the lead core, forming the famous Winchester "Talons". If the jacket is peeled back from the core, that's not a bonded bullet.
dirksterg30
05-26-09, 21:20
The rounds in the first picture appear to be Ranger T-Series, NOT Ranger Bonded.
Notice that in the expanded projectiles shown, the jacket is peeled back from the lead core, forming the famous Winchester "Talons". If the jacket is peeled back from the core, that's not a bonded bullet.
Jim, you're right. I guess I grabbed the first pic I could find of the Ranger cartridge without looking it over. Does anyone know if the bonded bullet looks the same unfired as the first pic I posted?
Jim from Houston
05-26-09, 22:03
Jim, you're right. I guess I grabbed the first pic I could find of the Ranger cartridge without looking it over. Does anyone know if the bonded bullet looks the same unfired as the first pic I posted?
Here's a Winchester flyer for the Ranger Bonded...looks the same as the ones you bought, to me...and no, the T-series and Bonded do not look the same either unfired, or recovered from gelatin.
http://www.winchester.com/lawenforcement/catalog/newproductview.aspx?lawnewproductid=3&name=Ranger%20Bonded
OK, I'm confused by all the cross posting. (don't worry, I'm easily confused... :D )
are you saying that the Win 9MM 147gr. RA9B is substandard ammo?
is this also designated as Q4364?
The ammo in the pic looks like the old style Bonded. The new 124gr +P Bonded I have looks exaclty like the Ranger-T in the same weight, unfired of course.
Doctor Roberts, back in Feb. you stated that there were inconsistent results in the 4 layer denim tests with the .40 load and additional testing of new lots was warranted. Have you done any additional testing?
...are you saying that the Win 9MM 147gr. RA9B is substandard ammo?
is this also designated as Q4364?
I have to question this a bit because the Q4364 (9mm 147-gr) is very different from the RA9B. In comparing the samples I have of each, the projectiles are completely different between the two and the Q4364 is effectively a +P, although the cases aren't stamped as such. I have been researching this a lot and have read everything I could find but still know nothing. I still have some questions that may be best asked here.
Question 1. Is Q4364 identical to RA9B, a RA9B+p load, or something different all together?
Question 2: Are Q4364 and ZQ4364 the same thing or something different?
The reason I ask is because Q4364 is on Doc's list (as what appears to be RA9B) but ZQ4364 is not. RWK's post above does not agree with Doc's list since Doc has them listed together, however, from all the pictures I can find the projectiles do appear to be different. Is there anyone who can make heads or tails of this?
I suppose the thing I am most curious about is if the Q4364 loading is the same as ZQ4364, and if different, does ZQ4364 meet the standards for an adequate self defense load?
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n498/jamesguilliams/Shooting/photo.png
Is there anyone who can make heads or tails of this?
I grew tired of Winchester's Byzantine labeling system and gave up on it. My unsolicited advice: if it's causing you to lose sleep over it, pass on Winchester and buy Federal HST or Speer Gold Dot.
Once again,thanks DocGKR. Sticking with the 147 HST and RA9T myself. I have an order due in Monday.There's a run on the good ammo right now,due to the election I'm sure.
It appears that lots of folks are heeding Doc's advice.;)
I grew tired of Winchester's Byzantine labeling system and gave up on it. My unsolicited advice: if it's causing you to lose sleep over it, pass on Winchester and buy Federal HST or Speer Gold Dot.
I think you may be on to something there. I've been carrying RA9T for a long time but since there are other good options out there I might as well go ahead and make the switch. It'll be easier in the long run. Out of pure curiosity, if somebody knows, I would still like to know what ZQ4364 is. Thanks for the reply.
Out of pure curiosity, if somebody knows, I would still like to know what ZQ4364 is.
Federal government agency contract overrun of Q4364.
The standard original full power Win 180 gr bonded is great ammo; the more recent downloaded version for a large contract is not so desirable...
The standard original full power Win 180 gr bonded is great ammo; the more recent downloaded version for a large contract is not so desirable...
I think the recent discussion was in regards to 147 grain bonded ammo from Winchester. Specifically, Q4364/RA9B/ZQ4364.
I think the recent discussion was in regards to 147 grain bonded ammo from Winchester. Specifically, Q4364/RA9B/ZQ4364.
Yes sir is was.
Federal government agency contract overrun of Q4364.
I was under the impression that Q4364 was overrun agency ammo. Hence my confusion with the addition of the "Z".
Winchester seems do add a "Z" prefix to its government contract products released for sale to the consumer market.
Wether or not that ammo is released because it did not meet the original contract specs or if it is just overun production, I do not know.
Thanks for all the replies. I really appreciate it.
The standard original full power Win 180 gr bonded is great ammo; the more recent downloaded version for a large contract is not so desirable...
Please tell me that the FBI has done some barrier testing of this ammo before issuing it. I seem to remember the FBI moving away from a downloaded 165 grain Gold Dot some time ago. Well, the problem is now recreated with this Winchester ammo. If the issue is qualification scores, agents would be better served going back to a 9mm load that will actually perform.
I'm also interested to see how this downloaded ammo performs in the issued G22 when Gen 4 guns are finally issued at Quantico. Something tells me that the 2-piece recoil guide rod may have issues with weak ammo.
"If the issue is qualification scores, agents would be better served going back to a 9mm load that will actually perform."
Hmmm....that would make perfect sense.
Regarding the downloaded 180 bonded round, how can one tell the difference (model number, packaging, etc.) between the "downloaded" version and the regular or "full power" 180 grain Winchester Ranger Bonded load?
Thanks!
Please tell me that the FBI has done some barrier testing of this ammo before issuing it. I seem to remember the FBI moving away from a downloaded 165 grain Gold Dot some time ago. Well, the problem is now recreated with this Winchester ammo. If the issue is qualification scores, agents would be better served going back to a 9mm load that will actually perform.
I'm also interested to see how this downloaded ammo performs in the issued G22 when Gen 4 guns are finally issued at Quantico. Something tells me that the 2-piece recoil guide rod may have issues with weak ammo.
Gen 4 guns have been on the street for a while now. FWIW, I know the 180gr issued (downloaded) ammo impressed everyone at the Redback 1 Vehicle Operations course earlier this year, where all LE personnel present shot their duty loads into and out of vehicles.
And I know many people agree with your 9mm comments.
The downloaded Win bonded 180 gr does not work as well as the standard power, very well tested version...
At a certain point, one is better off going with a quality 9 mm, than a downloaded .40 S&W...
S. Galbraith
10-25-12, 20:38
The downloaded Win bonded 180 gr does not work as well as the standard power, very well tested version...
At a certain point, one is better off going with a quality 9 mm, than a downloaded .40 S&W...
Interesting......
Would you draw a similar comparison between the standard/reduced .40 180gr load and the standard/+P version of the 9mm Gold Dot?
If the FBI are having trouble handling the .40S&W, what is holding them back from reverting back to the 9mm?
FWIW, I know the 180gr issued (downloaded) ammo impressed everyone at the Redback 1 Vehicle Operations course earlier this year, where all LE personnel present shot their duty loads into and out of vehicles.
Are you sure that their duty ammo was the same that is being used for the FBI/DEA contract? My understand is that Winchester is making 2 versions of the same ammo, and the downloaded version is slated for the federal contract while the original 180 grain bonded is for the rest of the LE masses.
Interesting......
Would you draw a similar comparison between the standard/reduced .40 180gr load and the standard/+P version of the 9mm Gold Dot?
I don't know about Dr. Robert's, but I would not draw that conclusion. The standard pressure and +P versions use different bullets designed to expand at their respective velocities. Both versions of the 124 grain Gold Dot load have done well in testing with the +P version doing a little better.
On the other hand, it appears the Winchester simply took some powder off their 180 grain load without changing the bullet design or construction (assuming that I've got my facts straight). Thus, the bullet is operating below its performance envelope and not expanding.
Sadly, it does not appear that anyone at Quantico had the forethought to test this downloaded ammo before issuing it to agents. Hopefully this mistake gets realized by the right people...
FWIW, I know the 180gr issued (downloaded) ammo impressed everyone at the Redback 1 Vehicle Operations course earlier this year, where all LE personnel present shot their duty loads into and out of vehicles.
Can you comment any more on the ammo's performance at this shoot? What were your observations, what was seen that impressed everyone? This is my carry round and I'm curious, especially now that I'm reading that it's downloaded...
On the other hand, it appears the Winchester simply took some powder off their 180 grain load without changing the bullet design or construction (assuming that I've got my facts straight). Thus, the bullet is operating below its performance envelope and not expanding.
Sadly, it does not appear that anyone at Quantico had the forethought to test this downloaded ammo before issuing it to agents. Hopefully this mistake gets realized by the right people...
In statements made by Buford Boone, he talked about the terminal performance of the downloaded 40 being identical to the 9mm duty ammo. Thus his advice to carry a 9 as you have a gun that's easier to shoot and every mag has 2 more rounds than the 40. He wouldn't know that if they hadn't tested the neutered 40.
Can you comment any more on the ammo's performance at this shoot? What were your observations, what was seen that impressed everyone? This is my carry round and I'm curious, especially now that I'm reading that it's downloaded...
My understanding is that it's only downloaded if you got it from a federal LE purchase contract. If you buy it in stores it's not. Correct me if I'm wrong Doc.
As for the RB1 course, I wasn't there. My good friend was there and it his 40 was the only handgun to completely pas through the driver's door and exit the passenger door. That of course only speaks to penetration. It says nothing about expansion and they didn't do testing for that. If you need more data I'd suggest PM'ing Falla so you get it from the source directly.
Are you sure that their duty ammo was the same that is being used for the FBI/DEA contract? My understand is that Winchester is making 2 versions of the same ammo, and the downloaded version is slated for the federal contract while the original 180 grain bonded is for the rest of the LE masses.
Yes. My friend is with that agency. But as I mentioned above... The testing that impressed everyone was for penetration. They were shooting in/out of vehicles. The FBI rifle ammo also had the least deflection and held together when shot through windshields - don't recall what he said about pistol deflection.
S. Galbraith
10-26-12, 12:07
I don't know about Dr. Robert's, but I would not draw that conclusion. The standard pressure and +P versions use different bullets designed to expand at their respective velocities. Both versions of the 124 grain Gold Dot load have done well in testing with the +P version doing a little better....
The 124gr Gold Dot bullet is the exact same part number used in the standard pressure and +P version. So, exact same bullet.
Same 124 gr Gold Dot bullet. I generally recommend the +P version, as it works a bit better.
"If the FBI are having trouble handling the .40S&W, what is holding them back from reverting back to the 9mm?"Based purely on logic, test results, shooting scores, weapon durability, and fiscal outlay, they clearly should switch; however bureaucratic inertia and individual perceptions are hard to overcome by those individuals and organizations who choose to willfully ignore science...
"In statements made by Buford Boone, he talked about the terminal performance of the downloaded 40 being identical to the 9mm duty ammo. Thus his advice to carry a 9 as you have a gun that's easier to shoot and every mag has 2 more rounds than the 40. He wouldn't know that if they hadn't tested the neutered 40."That is gold you can take to the bank!
"My understanding is that it's only downloaded if you got it from a federal LE purchase contract. If you buy it in stores it's not."Correct, unless you are buying rejected lots from the contract...
Maybe instead of downgrading their ammo they need to concentrate on upgrading the operators behind the trigger.
KiloSierra
10-26-12, 21:31
Based purely on logic, test results, shooting scores, weapon durability, and fiscal outlay, they clearly should switch; however bureaucratic inertia and individual perceptions are hard to overcome by those individuals and organizations who choose to willfully ignore science...
Sounds like the reasoning behind my departments switch to .45 ACP from .40 S&W. Never mind the fact it's not unusual to use our entire ammo budget for the year to get enough ball and duty ammo to qualify and replace the last years duty ammo at our one state mandated yearly qualification with .40 S&W, you can literally shoot someone in the leg and he will drop down DRT. Why do I know this? The assistant chief who made the decision said so.
The 124gr Gold Dot bullet is the exact same part number used in the standard pressure and +P version. So, exact same bullet.
Thanks for the correction. I was initially under the impression that the cavity was different between the two loads. After closer inspection, I see at they are the same size.
Maybe instead of downgrading their ammo they need to concentrate on upgrading the operators behind the trigger.
The FBI academy is now 19.5 weeks and includes about 850 total hrs of classroom education. NAT's spend about 200-300 hours on firearms training with most of that dedicated to the G22. Typically, a NAT will fire 2500-3000 rounds in their training. There is additional intensive training for problem shooters who fail a qual stage. Thus, the FBI does a fairly good job at bringing former accountants, lawyers, scientists, etc. up to speed on firearms. Unfortunately, when you recruit based largely off non-combat skills, you tend to get a lot of shooters with 2 left hands.
S. Galbraith
10-29-12, 22:24
The FBI academy is now 19.5 weeks and includes about 850 total hrs of classroom education. NAT's spend about 200-300 hours on firearms training with most of that dedicated to the G22. Typically, a NAT will fire 2500-3000 rounds in their training. There is additional intensive training for problem shooters who fail a qual stage. Thus, the FBI does a fairly good job at bringing former accountants, lawyers, scientists, etc. up to speed on firearms. Unfortunately, when you recruit based largely off non-combat skills, you tend to get a lot of shooters with 2 left hands.
If people think that cops are not gun people, the stereotype goes even further with FBI agents. A much better model of harder use service weapons would be agencies like ATF or DEA. The 10mm and .40S&W are definitely sound choices for penetration improvements over the 9mm, but as we've all touched on if you aren't willing to put the training time in, then you need to carry the softer recoiling caliber.
Another issue with us Feds is that we almost exclusively train with green frangible ammo now days. You know, the whole fear of lead thing..... Heck, I cast lead bullets and my blood tests are normal. Anyhow, back to green ammo. The recoil levels on green frangible ammo are extremely light. A .40 feels like a 9mm basically. So, unless our officers take it upon themselves to train with full power lead ammo they ruin their muscle memory. When they start shooting the full power duty stuff, they have slower follow-ups and decrease accuracy. I would not be surprised if the reduce power Fed loads were ordered to bridge the training gap between green ammo and full power .40 loads.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.